One of the topics I write about fairly consistently is ethnicity (in the true sense of the term), ethnogenesis, and the impact these have on Western societies. Especially in the American case, ethnogenesis has been an ongoing process that has helped to differentiate Americans from their European forebearers. Indeed, as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, ethnogenesis has actually created two White ethnies occupying the territory of the United States, ethnies which are mutually and increasingly antagonistic. In this post, I’d like to go beyond merely reiterating the existence of that ethnogenesis and discuss some of the consequences of it.
One of the truisms of life that you can take to the bank is that diversity plus proximity equals trouble. This is true whether you personally like it or not. This applies to racial diversity, this applies to linguistic diversity, this applies (as it does here) to ethnic diversity. This division is, in fact, exactly what God intended when He split mankind up at Babel. Even if you don’t accept the Bible as authoritative, there are still several thousand years of human history that attests to the truth that things work best when there’s a place for everyone and everyone stays in their place.
Twitter – always a great source for material about which to gripe – provided another gem in the form of this tweet that was making the rounds. Here we see an idyllic “solarpunk” future featuring high technology interwoven with an unspoilt natural setting. I have to admit, as someone who is a localist and traditionalist while also having a positive attitude toward technology and scientific advancement, the world depicted really doesn’t look half bad. (Go to the tweet to see the video, since Substack currently doesn’t support embedding MP4s.)
The main problem with it is that it’s not realistic. Even aside from the question of just how much environmental damage would be done by all of the lithium mines needed to support a worldwide application of these technologies, this futuristic solarpunk world – at least as it’s depicted – appears to rest on social technologies and demographic wishful thinking that no amount of fancy holographic readouts could bring to fruition. In short, it suffers from Wakanda Syndrome.
Throughout the Western world, immigration (whether legal or illegal, and often approximating invasion more than true migration) is perhaps the single biggest issue facing both the people and the politicians. The Western world is finding itself facing an unprecedented mass influx of entrants from other, non-western parts of the world. While the history of the West has certainly involved mass movements of people at various times, these have always been understood to constitute either invasions or colonisations. The idea of millions of outsiders moving into a culture and it being considered “immigration” is a vastly new (and dangerous) concept in the West.
Nevertheless, there are many in our society who seem to be perfectly fine with the idea of mass immigration radically altering the cultural, religious, and genetic bases of Western societies. Indeed, the acceptability, or lack thereof, of mass immigration is one of the major points of division between so-called civic nationalists on one side and ethnonationalists (speaking generally) and especially white nationalists on the other. Civic nationalists, who are often really just straight up open borders supporters, believe that membership in a new society can be established as easily as simply taking an oath and signing some paperwork. “You can be a polygamist totem worshiper who believes albinos should be harvested for the magical elixirs in their livers and still be a good American,” and all that.
The common assumption, at least among the coastal élites, is that openness to immigration is correlated with democratic sensibilities in particular, drawing from a more generalised standard of egalitarianism. Because these élites rarely interact in any meaningful way with the immigrants who comprise the “mass” in mass immigration, they tend to assume the fungibility of the “lower classes.” This is why the political arm of the Cathedral sees immigrants as a source of political capital – one voter is as good as another, and if a new set of voters can be imported who will vote the way the Cathedral wants versus recalcitrant natives who insist upon voting for their own interests, then all the better. It wouldn’t be the firsttime in recent history that this has happened. The corporate arm of the Cathedral sees immigrants in much the same way – as replacement labourers for natives who are too expensive and have a fractious insistence upon earning a fair wage.
However, increasing democratisation and equality have not noticeably served to make either the masses or their “ethno-elites” more favourably disposed to mass immigration. Indeed, the opposite is widely occurring, as can be seen daily around us.
[Ed. Note: Quas Lacrimas has posted an excellent essay about tribalism as well which dovetails quite nicely with this post. Please take a moment to read it!]
In this post, I’d like to address the phenomenon of tribalism. There can be two general definitions of this term. The first is attitudinal – it refers to the possession by a group of people of a strong ethnic and cultural identity, one which pervades every level and facet of their society, and which serves to separate (often in a hostile sense) the group’s understanding of itself apart from its neighbours. The second definition is more technical and anthropological, referring to a group of people organised along kinship lines and possessing what would generally be referred to as a “primitive” governmental form centered around a chieftain and body of elders who are often thought to be imbued with supernatural authority and prestige (mana or some similar concept). The first definition, of course, is nearly always displayed by the second. It is this second definition which I would like to deal with, however.
Specifically, I’d like to explore the question of how tribalism relates to the collapse of widely spread cultures when they are placed under extreme stresses.
There is always the temptation to view historical and pre-historical (i.e., before written records were available) people-groups which were organised along tribal lines as “primitives” or even “stupid.” This is not necessarily the case, and in many instances is certainly not true. However, tribalism is not a truly optimal or even “natural” form of social organisation, and I believe is forced onto people-groups more out of necessity than anything else.