Me neither but it's the most effective communication style. Less is more. Sometimes the more you say, the more it may look like you're trying to complicate things, talk over people's heads, obfuscate, or bloviate for the sake of arrogance and ego. Guilty on all counts, I routinely go back and chop out 2/3 of what I write. :)
It depends on examples. what do you do if you are multiethnic? Should someone half black and half white only marry black? etc
The big problem is a lot of people default to one drop rule. So half black kids ignore their white heritage. Hispanics are all part white, some even purely white, and they tend to disregard their heritage too even though european culture is responsible for most everything Latin Americans hold dear (catholicism, the food, soccer, art, music, etc)
Note that I said “inclined”, and not “exclusively”.
The foundations for my statements were both biblical (as best as I understand the verses), and observed practical experience.
Frankly, I didn’t even like the wording though, so between the downvote and this response, which is nowhere near what I was trying to get at, I’ll just denounce my comment, but it was intended to be helpful.
Human nature drives us to compete with one another, which is why
collectivism will never succeed.
You may be white, but other white people are also competing with you for resources.
In a world where competition is natural, people prioritize their own family and personal interests first.
The truth is, a random stranger who shares your ethnicity isn’t going to care about you. They don’t know you.
So what does this mean?
They’ll always look out for their own family and themselves before anyone else. When it’s a choice between you, a stranger, and their family, they’ll throw you under the bus.
Take Gavin Newsom as an example—why is he harming California? He’s a white man, yet where is his ethnic loyalty?
It doesn’t exist! He cares only about his family and himself.
The Bible teaches us about Judas, right? What did someone from Jesus’ own tribe do? He betrayed Jesus for money.
This story is significant.
Because of the competitive nature of resources, many people from your ethnic group wouldn’t hesitate to betray you if it served their interests.
So, for those who think ethnic heritage is what matters most, they’re missing the point.
In a world driven by competition, ethnic loyalty holds little weight.
As long as your world view is directed by a "scarcity of resources" you will only see and experience a scarcity in life.
The moment you choose to see Abundance in all you do will be the moment Abundance enters your life.
I highly recommend "Think and Grow Rich" by Napolean Hill for anyone feeling scarcity in life.
"Rich" isn't just about money. We can have richness in our relationships, richness in our experiences, and richness in our accomplishments. We can have richness in all we do.
This book will change the life for those open minded to learn its secrets. One must have a Desire to learn and put into practice it's secrets, but people of ALL ethnicities, backgrounds, and circumstances have used its secrets for massive success.
Some will make excuses and have "reasons" it won't work form them.
But as a mentor said to me just yesterday.
You can have excuses or results, but you can't have both.
So I understand where you're coming from with the idea of a mindset of abundance versus scarcity, and I agree that our mindset can significantly impact how we approach challenges in life. Books like Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill have inspired many people to adopt a more positive outlook and to take actionable steps toward their goals, which is undeniably valuable.
That said, it's important to recognize that while mindset plays a crucial role, it's not the only factor in achieving success. External realities, access to resources, and economic conditions, also influence outcomes. It’s not always as simple as changing one's mindset and manifesting abundance. Many people face significant obstacles—whether they be social, economic, or environmental—that require more than just positive thinking to overcome.
I think there’s value in balancing both perspectives. Yes, adopting an abundance mindset can lead to personal growth and open doors to new opportunities. But it’s also essential to acknowledge that people come from different circumstances, and those challenges can’t always be dismissed with mindset alone. It’s a matter of both: empowering individuals to think abundantly while also addressing the real-world barriers that might limit their opportunities.
As for the idea that you can’t have both excuses and results—I get the sentiment behind it. However, sometimes what looks like an excuse may be a legitimate barrier that someone needs help navigating. The key is figuring out how to overcome those barriers while staying open to the possibilities of growth and abundance.
Ultimately, it’s about finding that middle ground where mindset and reality meet, and using both to make meaningful progress.
Gavin Newsom is a tribalist of the NWO. The NWO wants complete domination of the world. Those within the NWO have given up their ethnic tribalism to NWO tribalism. A world driven by competition is a world of the NWO. Think outside the NWO box.
I get what you're saying about the NWO and the idea of domination, but competition isn't solely an invention of the NWO.
It's a natural outcome of the physical world we live in.
Our 3D existence, constrained by time and space, makes competition inevitable.
There are limited resources, and that scarcity pushes individuals and groups to compete—whether for food, land, or opportunities.
Even if the NWO exists and promotes a specific agenda, competition itself isn't something you can just "think outside of."
It's a fundamental aspect of life because of the finite nature of our world.
Sure, we can reduce destructive competition by promoting cooperation and fairness, but we can't escape the basic reality that limited resources drive competition.
In a hypothetical world where we existed outside of space and time, maybe competition wouldn't be necessary. But in the real world we inhabit, competition has always been present, long before any modern power structures like the NWO.
So, it's less about thinking "outside the NWO box" and more about understanding how competition naturally arises from the constraints we live under, and then figuring out how to balance it with collaboration and shared goals for a better society.
If you want a simple example of natural competition, just look at an expressway.
As more people get on the road, the available space becomes limited.
Since there’s only so much physical room in each lane, drivers naturally begin competing for space.
This leads to frustration and tension, which is why road rage can happen.
This is a perfect example of how natural competition arises in our 3D world.
The scarcity of physical space on the road creates competition, and it’s not something orchestrated—it happens organically due to the limitations of our environment.
People wanting to be with their own is as natural as wanting to have sex. You’re basically trying to do what feminism has done to women. Feminist’s deny that most women want to raise a family not slave for corporations.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing:
Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
I have not seen humans as a large group let go of tribal instincts. Maybe in the new world you may be correct but I have to see it to believe it.
Mass immigration as a whole has not existed in human history like it is today and it has mostly been a failure in places like the US, Canada and Europe.
The brain as software? There is no comparison, try to grasp the complexity of it please. For instance, where is our memory, our consciousness of even our soul?
I understand your hesitation with the brain-as-software analogy—it’s far from a perfect comparison. The human brain is vastly more complex than any software we’ve created. However, the analogy wasn’t meant to diminish that complexity but rather to illustrate how the brain has evolved and adapted over time, similar to how software receives updates.
When I talk about the brain like this, I’m referring to the idea that our thought patterns, instincts, and behaviors have changed over thousands of years as we’ve adapted to new environments and challenges. Just like software, which starts with a basic version and becomes more sophisticated with new features, our brain has evolved from its more primitive "version 1.0" state—focused on survival and tribalism—to something more capable of abstract thought, empathy, and global collaboration.
As for your point about memory, consciousness, and the soul, you're right—these are deeply complex phenomena that science is still working to fully understand. The software analogy doesn’t claim to explain these mysteries; it’s simply a way to discuss how our brain’s programming—the instincts and behaviors we inherit—can be updated through learning, experience, and societal evolution.
So while the brain isn’t literally software, the analogy helps convey how human behavior and thought processes can adapt and improve over time. The real magic of the brain lies in its incredible ability to process, adapt, and evolve—something even the best software can’t fully replicate.
Ethnocentrism is simply loving oneself, one’s family, community, state and country in that order. It seems to be scrubbed from the internet but one of those old Greek philosophers says “Democracy requires homogeneity, because when foreigners are introduced the society lacks the necessary phila (one of the Greek’s words for love) to function.”
Here’s a quote from Aristotle that I managed to find:
“It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition”
So where we’re at now is that the society is ruled by Jews. Jews hate the American populace because by and large they are Anglo Saxon and Christian. Jews also think that promoting diversity in the society will make the general populace focus on other problems than them, and for the most part that’s true. If the rest of your society is diverse, you have no standing to call them out for being diverse.
While ethnocentrism may not have worked in the long run for us that doesn’t mean that it can’t hold a society long enough to create great wonders like Egypt, Greece, Rome and many of the modern nations. Most of these problems are elucidated in Sir John Glubb’s life cycle of empires. Another good work on the effect of heterogeneity on humans is Robert Putnam’s E Pluribus Unum paper.
Ultimately I think humanity is growing up, and eliminating those who constantly set each other against ourselves will go a long way to creating a better world.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs. Much of philosophy is built on observations rather than scientifically proven facts, which means it often lacks empirical grounding.
Ethnocentrism, for example, is often misunderstood. It isn’t about self-love—it’s a form of collectivism. Ethnocentrism emphasizes "us" over "me," placing group identity above the individual. This type of thinking inevitably leads to conflict, and ultimately, war.
But why does ethnocentrism lead to war?
You did not choose your ethnic identity.
This is crucial because humans have an innate desire to understand why they belong to a certain ethnic group—why they were born white, black, or any other race. Once people begin searching for a reason for their ethnic identity, it often leads to the belief that their group is special or "chosen."
When people start to believe they are "the chosen ones," it fosters a dangerous mentality of superiority. It creates an “us vs. them” dynamic where one group views itself as inherently better or more deserving than others. This mentality naturally leads to conflict with other groups, who may also believe they are chosen or superior. Such competition for validation, resources, and power breeds hostility.
Ethnocentrism fuels tribalism.
When you prioritize your ethnic group, you draw hard lines between "us" and "them." This tribal mindset creates divisions that can’t be easily bridged. Tribalism is exclusionary by nature, and when groups feel threatened by others—whether economically, politically, or culturally—those divisions become battlegrounds.
History shows that these divides lead to oppression, conquest, and war. Groups will fight to defend their perceived superiority or rights, often at the expense of others.
Competing for limited resources.
Resources on this planet are limited—land, water, wealth, and political power are all finite. Ethnocentrism makes groups feel entitled to these resources, and they will fight to secure them for their own group’s survival and prosperity. This competitive drive, amplified by the belief that "our group" deserves more, inevitably leads to conflict with other groups vying for the same resources.
Ethnocentrism leads to conflict, even within ethnic groups.
While ethnocentrism promotes group loyalty, it doesn’t eliminate competition within that group. Internal power struggles, class differences, and personal ambitions still exist. Leaders often use ethnic loyalty to rally people for their own selfish goals, even when it harms the broader group. This internal friction can destabilize societies and create even more conflict.
In short, ethnocentrism promotes division, superiority, and competition—all ingredients for war. History is filled with examples of this, from genocides to colonial conquests. When group identity becomes the priority over individual humanity, conflict is not just possible—it’s inevitable.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs
I’m sorry, but do you actually have anything other than your opinion here? At least I loosely referred to history and some of the most timeless philosophers that we have. I could quote the Bible if you’d like:
43 “Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. 44 They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers.” Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV
What you seem to be missing is that you’re taking the talking points of our rulers who hate us, who on one hand will tell you ethnocentrism is wrong and with the other hand are the most ethnocentric amongst us. Don’t listen to what Jews say, watch how they act, and time after time they act in ethnocentrism while telling us that it’s the worst thing ever.
I appreciate that you're referencing history and philosophers, but it's important to remember that much of what Aristotle and other philosophers said is still based on observation and opinion rather than objective fact. Philosophy itself often poses ideas for debate rather than delivering definitive truths, which means it's open to interpretation and evolution as societies change.
Regarding the biblical quote from Deuteronomy, it highlights a fear of foreign influence and loss of power—something that can be understood in the context of its time. However, applying ancient scripture to modern political and social issues can be problematic, especially when societies have evolved significantly since then. The Bible, like philosophical texts, reflects the circumstances and worldview of its time, and while it can offer wisdom, it's not always a direct guide for contemporary issues.
As for ethnocentrism, the point I’m making isn’t simply a talking point. Ethnocentrism inherently leads to division, conflict, and, ultimately, war because it encourages a mindset of "us vs. them." We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history, regardless of who practices it. When group identity becomes the primary lens through which we view others, it limits our ability to cooperate, communicate, and grow as a society.
You mention the actions of certain groups as being ethnocentric, and it's true that many people act in self-interest. But self-interest is not inherently the same as ethnocentrism, and just because others may choose to act that way doesn't make it the best or only approach. The real question is: do we want to perpetuate a cycle of tribalism and conflict, or do we want to push ourselves toward a more cooperative and interconnected society, recognizing that survival and progress in the modern world require more than just loyalty to one’s own group?
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives. The idea that ethnocentrism is a path to long-term prosperity is shortsighted, and it often leads to more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, it's not about what any particular group says or does—it's about how we, as individuals and societies, choose to move forward in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Clinging to old divisions only limits our potential.
And here is my response to why it will never work.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
The people who defend racial tribalism as “natural” often do so without having meaningful bonds with individuals from other ethnic or cultural groups.
There’s a high probability that their perspectives are shaped by a lack of personal experience or deep relationships with people from outside their "tribe."
Without those connections, it’s easy to fall back on tribalistic thinking because it feels comfortable and familiar, reinforcing the idea that "us vs. them" is somehow an inherent truth.
But when you form real bonds with individuals from other so-called "tribes," it challenges that worldview. You start to see people as individuals, not representatives of a group, and you realize that we share more in common than these artificial divisions suggest.
The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills.
Those who hold tightly to racial tribalism may have never had the opportunity—or chosen to step outside their comfort zones—to build friendships or collaborations with people from diverse backgrounds. If they did, they might see that cooperation across so-called “tribes” can be far more enriching and productive than isolation or division.
What’s often missed in this defense of tribalism is the fact that human history shows that societies advance most when they collaborate and share knowledge across cultural lines. The more we isolate ourselves within a single group, the more we limit our potential for growth, innovation, and progress. Racial tribalism, while seemingly “natural” in a primitive sense, ignores the fact that human societies have evolved and that we thrive on connection, not division.
In essence, defending tribalism as "natural" is often the result of living in an echo chamber, disconnected from the benefits of broader human interaction. Expanding those bonds and embracing diversity—especially economic diversity—not only breaks down harmful divisions but also strengthens societies by unleashing the full range of human potential.
The people who defend racial tribalism as “natural” often do so without having meaningful bonds with individuals from other ethnic or cultural groups.
The point is: Many people DO NOT WANT those bonds.
There’s a high probability that their perspectives are shaped by a lack of personal experience or deep relationships with people from outside their "tribe."
I have known people of all races. Regarding blacks, I have worked and socialized with some. None of them have been a problem for me. Others that I don't know personally HAVE been a problem for me.
None that I have known have had any particular positive benefit to my life.
Although most are neither positive or negative, some are extremely negative, and none are extremely positive.
The same has been true for other "tribe" members I have known.
There is just no net benefit, and on the whole is a net negative.
Non-Whites have a hard time grasping this concept because for THEM, living in a society built by Whites and run on White prinicples has been a benefit ... for THEM.
I understand that perspective, but it is beside the point.
Non-Whites have a hard time grasping this concept because for THEM, living in a society built by Whites and run on White prinicples has been a benefit ... for THEM.
WHO gets credit for BUILDING SOCIETY?
ADMINS
LABORS
FINANCERS
ENTREPRENEURS
For Example: The first coders at Microsoft who built Windows 3.1.
Do they get credit for building MS?
What about the coders that came later to the company?
For example, you might come up with a groundbreaking idea, but to bring that idea to life, you need a whole network of people—administrators to manage the process, laborers to do the physical work, and financiers to provide the necessary resources.
Take Trump, for instance. His name might be on buildings, but he wasn’t out there in construction gear laying bricks or wiring the electrical systems. It took a team of people working together in different roles to make those buildings a reality.
In short, no single person or group builds a nation on their own. It’s the combined effort of all these key players that makes it possible.
But gunpowder came from China. 9th century alchemists. or for example, mayan indians gave value to the zero mathematically. And Indians (from India) defined zero philisophically
Everything is connected. Food, technology, art, religion, etc.
This response of yours is confusing. It sounds like you are speaking of the findings of tribal societies being spread throughout the world, not of people giving up their tribal heritage.
"The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills."
Tribal heritage is different perspectives, experiences, and skills. Tribal heritage is not set in stone. It changes from day to day. It seems you consider tribal heritage as a closed society. It is not.
If you believe that I am think "tribal heritage as a closed society".
You are reading into this wrong.
When I said
"The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills."
This is referring to ADAPTING one's mindset to new information.
So if someone wants a pure ethnic state.
They most likely want that because they are fearful of "others".
Yes but being ethnic centric will never work long term anyways.
the amount of downvotes this comment got is fucking disturbing. You guys really want to go back to the Old Testament, don't you? Where it's all about muh bloodlines, muh geneologies. Dumbasses need to read the New Testament before you usher us into a Nazi 2.0 situation!
Yes but being ethnic centric will never work long term anyways.
Once freedom of choice comes into play. Human beings will always seek to do what makes them personally happy.
They won’t care about the ethnic group. They will care about their family and themselves first.
Over time… the people who are the most ethnic centric will always die out.
Simply because they will always become the most authoritarian!
How else can you force millions of people to have the same passions and desires as each other.
Racial and ethnic pride will always fail. Due to what it takes to make millions of people to passionately care that much.
Most people will not care too much about their ethnicity and roots.
Most people just want to live life and experience happiness in the world.
Such as travel, camping, boating, dining, etc.
That is a very superficial take, and one that many people have been propagandized to accept.
Ethnicity and family/self is one and the same.
Not caring about your roots is not caring about yourself.
Caring more about camping and boating is a shallow life.
I need to be less verbose like this guy, nail meet head. Said it better in less than what I did myself.
"Less verbose" is not usually how I am described.
LOL.
Take the compliment and run then! Lol
Me neither but it's the most effective communication style. Less is more. Sometimes the more you say, the more it may look like you're trying to complicate things, talk over people's heads, obfuscate, or bloviate for the sake of arrogance and ego. Guilty on all counts, I routinely go back and chop out 2/3 of what I write. :)
It depends on examples. what do you do if you are multiethnic? Should someone half black and half white only marry black? etc
The big problem is a lot of people default to one drop rule. So half black kids ignore their white heritage. Hispanics are all part white, some even purely white, and they tend to disregard their heritage too even though european culture is responsible for most everything Latin Americans hold dear (catholicism, the food, soccer, art, music, etc)
Note that I said “inclined”, and not “exclusively”.
The foundations for my statements were both biblical (as best as I understand the verses), and observed practical experience.
Frankly, I didn’t even like the wording though, so between the downvote and this response, which is nowhere near what I was trying to get at, I’ll just denounce my comment, but it was intended to be helpful.
No, it’s not.
Human nature drives us to compete with one another, which is why collectivism will never succeed.
You may be white, but other white people are also competing with you for resources.
In a world where competition is natural, people prioritize their own family and personal interests first.
The truth is, a random stranger who shares your ethnicity isn’t going to care about you. They don’t know you.
So what does this mean?
They’ll always look out for their own family and themselves before anyone else. When it’s a choice between you, a stranger, and their family, they’ll throw you under the bus.
Take Gavin Newsom as an example—why is he harming California? He’s a white man, yet where is his ethnic loyalty?
It doesn’t exist! He cares only about his family and himself.
The Bible teaches us about Judas, right? What did someone from Jesus’ own tribe do? He betrayed Jesus for money.
This story is significant.
Because of the competitive nature of resources, many people from your ethnic group wouldn’t hesitate to betray you if it served their interests.
So, for those who think ethnic heritage is what matters most, they’re missing the point.
In a world driven by competition, ethnic loyalty holds little weight.
As long as your world view is directed by a "scarcity of resources" you will only see and experience a scarcity in life.
The moment you choose to see Abundance in all you do will be the moment Abundance enters your life.
I highly recommend "Think and Grow Rich" by Napolean Hill for anyone feeling scarcity in life.
"Rich" isn't just about money. We can have richness in our relationships, richness in our experiences, and richness in our accomplishments. We can have richness in all we do.
This book will change the life for those open minded to learn its secrets. One must have a Desire to learn and put into practice it's secrets, but people of ALL ethnicities, backgrounds, and circumstances have used its secrets for massive success.
Some will make excuses and have "reasons" it won't work form them.
But as a mentor said to me just yesterday.
I have read Think and Grow Rich.
So I understand where you're coming from with the idea of a mindset of abundance versus scarcity, and I agree that our mindset can significantly impact how we approach challenges in life. Books like Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill have inspired many people to adopt a more positive outlook and to take actionable steps toward their goals, which is undeniably valuable.
That said, it's important to recognize that while mindset plays a crucial role, it's not the only factor in achieving success. External realities, access to resources, and economic conditions, also influence outcomes. It’s not always as simple as changing one's mindset and manifesting abundance. Many people face significant obstacles—whether they be social, economic, or environmental—that require more than just positive thinking to overcome.
I think there’s value in balancing both perspectives. Yes, adopting an abundance mindset can lead to personal growth and open doors to new opportunities. But it’s also essential to acknowledge that people come from different circumstances, and those challenges can’t always be dismissed with mindset alone. It’s a matter of both: empowering individuals to think abundantly while also addressing the real-world barriers that might limit their opportunities.
As for the idea that you can’t have both excuses and results—I get the sentiment behind it. However, sometimes what looks like an excuse may be a legitimate barrier that someone needs help navigating. The key is figuring out how to overcome those barriers while staying open to the possibilities of growth and abundance.
Ultimately, it’s about finding that middle ground where mindset and reality meet, and using both to make meaningful progress.
Let me ask you something.
How many black people do you have real bonds with? That you spend time together doing things?
Gavin Newsom is a tribalist of the NWO. The NWO wants complete domination of the world. Those within the NWO have given up their ethnic tribalism to NWO tribalism. A world driven by competition is a world of the NWO. Think outside the NWO box.
I get what you're saying about the NWO and the idea of domination, but competition isn't solely an invention of the NWO.
It's a natural outcome of the physical world we live in. Our 3D existence, constrained by time and space, makes competition inevitable.
There are limited resources, and that scarcity pushes individuals and groups to compete—whether for food, land, or opportunities.
Even if the NWO exists and promotes a specific agenda, competition itself isn't something you can just "think outside of."
It's a fundamental aspect of life because of the finite nature of our world. Sure, we can reduce destructive competition by promoting cooperation and fairness, but we can't escape the basic reality that limited resources drive competition.
In a hypothetical world where we existed outside of space and time, maybe competition wouldn't be necessary. But in the real world we inhabit, competition has always been present, long before any modern power structures like the NWO.
So, it's less about thinking "outside the NWO box" and more about understanding how competition naturally arises from the constraints we live under, and then figuring out how to balance it with collaboration and shared goals for a better society.
If you want a simple example of natural competition, just look at an expressway.
As more people get on the road, the available space becomes limited.
Since there’s only so much physical room in each lane, drivers naturally begin competing for space.
This leads to frustration and tension, which is why road rage can happen.
This is a perfect example of how natural competition arises in our 3D world.
The scarcity of physical space on the road creates competition, and it’s not something orchestrated—it happens organically due to the limitations of our environment.
People wanting to be with their own is as natural as wanting to have sex. You’re basically trying to do what feminism has done to women. Feminist’s deny that most women want to raise a family not slave for corporations.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
I have not seen humans as a large group let go of tribal instincts. Maybe in the new world you may be correct but I have to see it to believe it.
Mass immigration as a whole has not existed in human history like it is today and it has mostly been a failure in places like the US, Canada and Europe.
The brain as software? There is no comparison, try to grasp the complexity of it please. For instance, where is our memory, our consciousness of even our soul?
What are these made of and where do they reside?
And which brain are you talking about?
I understand your hesitation with the brain-as-software analogy—it’s far from a perfect comparison. The human brain is vastly more complex than any software we’ve created. However, the analogy wasn’t meant to diminish that complexity but rather to illustrate how the brain has evolved and adapted over time, similar to how software receives updates.
When I talk about the brain like this, I’m referring to the idea that our thought patterns, instincts, and behaviors have changed over thousands of years as we’ve adapted to new environments and challenges. Just like software, which starts with a basic version and becomes more sophisticated with new features, our brain has evolved from its more primitive "version 1.0" state—focused on survival and tribalism—to something more capable of abstract thought, empathy, and global collaboration.
As for your point about memory, consciousness, and the soul, you're right—these are deeply complex phenomena that science is still working to fully understand. The software analogy doesn’t claim to explain these mysteries; it’s simply a way to discuss how our brain’s programming—the instincts and behaviors we inherit—can be updated through learning, experience, and societal evolution.
So while the brain isn’t literally software, the analogy helps convey how human behavior and thought processes can adapt and improve over time. The real magic of the brain lies in its incredible ability to process, adapt, and evolve—something even the best software can’t fully replicate.
Ethnocentrism is simply loving oneself, one’s family, community, state and country in that order. It seems to be scrubbed from the internet but one of those old Greek philosophers says “Democracy requires homogeneity, because when foreigners are introduced the society lacks the necessary phila (one of the Greek’s words for love) to function.”
Here’s a quote from Aristotle that I managed to find: “It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition”
So where we’re at now is that the society is ruled by Jews. Jews hate the American populace because by and large they are Anglo Saxon and Christian. Jews also think that promoting diversity in the society will make the general populace focus on other problems than them, and for the most part that’s true. If the rest of your society is diverse, you have no standing to call them out for being diverse.
While ethnocentrism may not have worked in the long run for us that doesn’t mean that it can’t hold a society long enough to create great wonders like Egypt, Greece, Rome and many of the modern nations. Most of these problems are elucidated in Sir John Glubb’s life cycle of empires. Another good work on the effect of heterogeneity on humans is Robert Putnam’s E Pluribus Unum paper.
Ultimately I think humanity is growing up, and eliminating those who constantly set each other against ourselves will go a long way to creating a better world.
Edit: found the first quote, Aristotle on democracy, diversity and Philia: https://www.reddit.com/r/democracy/comments/a1vp64/i_feel_aristotle_was_correct_in_his_assessment_of/
Well said.
"Muh diversity" has been promoted by jews for the purpose of destroying the White race through miscegenation (race mixing).
Muhammad Ali said it well:
"You're a hater of your people if you don't want to stay who you are."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqiWFLsgVi4
“Diversity is our strength” is the greatest lie of our modern age and such a hard frame for us to break because the programming is so strong.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs. Much of philosophy is built on observations rather than scientifically proven facts, which means it often lacks empirical grounding.
Ethnocentrism, for example, is often misunderstood. It isn’t about self-love—it’s a form of collectivism. Ethnocentrism emphasizes "us" over "me," placing group identity above the individual. This type of thinking inevitably leads to conflict, and ultimately, war.
But why does ethnocentrism lead to war?
This is crucial because humans have an innate desire to understand why they belong to a certain ethnic group—why they were born white, black, or any other race. Once people begin searching for a reason for their ethnic identity, it often leads to the belief that their group is special or "chosen."
When people start to believe they are "the chosen ones," it fosters a dangerous mentality of superiority. It creates an “us vs. them” dynamic where one group views itself as inherently better or more deserving than others. This mentality naturally leads to conflict with other groups, who may also believe they are chosen or superior. Such competition for validation, resources, and power breeds hostility.
When you prioritize your ethnic group, you draw hard lines between "us" and "them." This tribal mindset creates divisions that can’t be easily bridged. Tribalism is exclusionary by nature, and when groups feel threatened by others—whether economically, politically, or culturally—those divisions become battlegrounds.
History shows that these divides lead to oppression, conquest, and war. Groups will fight to defend their perceived superiority or rights, often at the expense of others.
Resources on this planet are limited—land, water, wealth, and political power are all finite. Ethnocentrism makes groups feel entitled to these resources, and they will fight to secure them for their own group’s survival and prosperity. This competitive drive, amplified by the belief that "our group" deserves more, inevitably leads to conflict with other groups vying for the same resources.
While ethnocentrism promotes group loyalty, it doesn’t eliminate competition within that group. Internal power struggles, class differences, and personal ambitions still exist. Leaders often use ethnic loyalty to rally people for their own selfish goals, even when it harms the broader group. This internal friction can destabilize societies and create even more conflict.
In short, ethnocentrism promotes division, superiority, and competition—all ingredients for war. History is filled with examples of this, from genocides to colonial conquests. When group identity becomes the priority over individual humanity, conflict is not just possible—it’s inevitable.
Aristotle and other philosophers are essentially sharing opinions and theories based on their personal beliefs
I’m sorry, but do you actually have anything other than your opinion here? At least I loosely referred to history and some of the most timeless philosophers that we have. I could quote the Bible if you’d like:
43 “Foreigners who live in your land will gain more and more power, while you gradually lose yours. 44 They will have money to lend you, but you will have none to lend them. In the end they will be your rulers.” Deuteronomy 28:43-44 ESV
What you seem to be missing is that you’re taking the talking points of our rulers who hate us, who on one hand will tell you ethnocentrism is wrong and with the other hand are the most ethnocentric amongst us. Don’t listen to what Jews say, watch how they act, and time after time they act in ethnocentrism while telling us that it’s the worst thing ever.
I appreciate that you're referencing history and philosophers, but it's important to remember that much of what Aristotle and other philosophers said is still based on observation and opinion rather than objective fact. Philosophy itself often poses ideas for debate rather than delivering definitive truths, which means it's open to interpretation and evolution as societies change.
Regarding the biblical quote from Deuteronomy, it highlights a fear of foreign influence and loss of power—something that can be understood in the context of its time. However, applying ancient scripture to modern political and social issues can be problematic, especially when societies have evolved significantly since then. The Bible, like philosophical texts, reflects the circumstances and worldview of its time, and while it can offer wisdom, it's not always a direct guide for contemporary issues.
As for ethnocentrism, the point I’m making isn’t simply a talking point. Ethnocentrism inherently leads to division, conflict, and, ultimately, war because it encourages a mindset of "us vs. them." We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history, regardless of who practices it. When group identity becomes the primary lens through which we view others, it limits our ability to cooperate, communicate, and grow as a society.
You mention the actions of certain groups as being ethnocentric, and it's true that many people act in self-interest. But self-interest is not inherently the same as ethnocentrism, and just because others may choose to act that way doesn't make it the best or only approach. The real question is: do we want to perpetuate a cycle of tribalism and conflict, or do we want to push ourselves toward a more cooperative and interconnected society, recognizing that survival and progress in the modern world require more than just loyalty to one’s own group?
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives. The idea that ethnocentrism is a path to long-term prosperity is shortsighted, and it often leads to more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, it's not about what any particular group says or does—it's about how we, as individuals and societies, choose to move forward in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Clinging to old divisions only limits our potential.
And here is my response to why it will never work.
You’re not fully grasping the complexity of the human brain.
Think of the brain as a software application—one that has undergone many updates over time. Just like software evolves with new features and optimizations, the human brain has adapted and changed as we’ve progressed through different eras of history.
When you say it's "natural" for people to want to stick with their own, you’re referring to the Human Brain Version 1.0—the primitive, default settings we relied on for survival in the early stages of human development.
In this version, the brain operates on instinctual programming, much of which is designed to detect threats and prioritize survival. Back then, "those others"—people from different tribes or groups—were often perceived as dangerous simply because they were unknown. Fear of the unfamiliar was a default survival mechanism, causing early humans to cling to their own group for protection.
So yes, based on those default settings, it makes sense that people would instinctively feel more comfortable with others who look and act like them. This is deeply ingrained in our brain's original programming from thousands of years ago. When you talk about the "natural" desire to stick to one’s own, this is what you’re referring to.
But here’s what you’re missing: Humans have been evolving for thousands of years, and our brains—just like software—have gone through numerous "updates" since version 1.0. We no longer live in isolated tribes, and the circumstances that shaped our early instincts have changed drastically.
Over time, human societies have gained new experiences, learned from interactions, and built complex systems of communication and cooperation. These experiences have rewired our brains in profound ways:
Cultural Interactions: Different groups of people have interacted for centuries, and in many cases, learned to coexist peacefully. The human brain has adapted to recognize that "those others" are not always a threat but can be allies, partners, and friends.
Common Language: Today, many groups speak shared languages like English, which bridges the gap between cultures. This shared communication helps dissolve the "us vs. them" mentality that was so deeply embedded in our brains in earlier stages of evolution. Now, we can understand and relate to people from different backgrounds in ways our ancestors never could.
Biological Integration: We now understand that humans across all ethnicities can intermarry and procreate, producing children that represent a blend of different cultures. This knowledge challenges the idea that we are entirely separate from one another. The biological possibility of mixing genes across ethnic groups shows that we are fundamentally interconnected.
Globalization and Shared Resources: The modern world is interconnected in ways early humans could never imagine. Today, our survival often depends on cooperation with people from different backgrounds, whether in trade, innovation, or peacekeeping efforts. The brain's capacity for understanding cooperation has evolved beyond tribal loyalty.
My final thoughts.
The idea of sticking to one's own may have been vital in Human Brain Version 1.0, where fear and survival ruled every decision. But in the modern world, with all the knowledge, experiences, and connections we've gained, we’ve moved far beyond those default settings. Our brains are now capable of much more nuanced and evolved thinking.
To cling to the outdated, instinctual fear of "those others" is to deny the growth and potential of the human brain. It’s not just about what’s "natural"; it’s about recognizing that humans are capable of adapting to new realities. We have the ability to transcend our original programming and form meaningful connections across all kinds of differences. That’s the true potential of the modern human brain.
Only on Q comment here. I can not upvote you enough
Skin color tribalism is retarded.
especially because if you go full tard, whites lose. 80% of the world is not "white"
The people who defend racial tribalism as “natural” often do so without having meaningful bonds with individuals from other ethnic or cultural groups.
There’s a high probability that their perspectives are shaped by a lack of personal experience or deep relationships with people from outside their "tribe."
Without those connections, it’s easy to fall back on tribalistic thinking because it feels comfortable and familiar, reinforcing the idea that "us vs. them" is somehow an inherent truth.
But when you form real bonds with individuals from other so-called "tribes," it challenges that worldview. You start to see people as individuals, not representatives of a group, and you realize that we share more in common than these artificial divisions suggest.
The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills.
Those who hold tightly to racial tribalism may have never had the opportunity—or chosen to step outside their comfort zones—to build friendships or collaborations with people from diverse backgrounds. If they did, they might see that cooperation across so-called “tribes” can be far more enriching and productive than isolation or division.
What’s often missed in this defense of tribalism is the fact that human history shows that societies advance most when they collaborate and share knowledge across cultural lines. The more we isolate ourselves within a single group, the more we limit our potential for growth, innovation, and progress. Racial tribalism, while seemingly “natural” in a primitive sense, ignores the fact that human societies have evolved and that we thrive on connection, not division.
In essence, defending tribalism as "natural" is often the result of living in an echo chamber, disconnected from the benefits of broader human interaction. Expanding those bonds and embracing diversity—especially economic diversity—not only breaks down harmful divisions but also strengthens societies by unleashing the full range of human potential.
The point is: Many people DO NOT WANT those bonds.
I have known people of all races. Regarding blacks, I have worked and socialized with some. None of them have been a problem for me. Others that I don't know personally HAVE been a problem for me.
None that I have known have had any particular positive benefit to my life.
Although most are neither positive or negative, some are extremely negative, and none are extremely positive.
The same has been true for other "tribe" members I have known.
There is just no net benefit, and on the whole is a net negative.
Non-Whites have a hard time grasping this concept because for THEM, living in a society built by Whites and run on White prinicples has been a benefit ... for THEM.
I understand that perspective, but it is beside the point.
Non-Whites have a hard time grasping this concept because for THEM, living in a society built by Whites and run on White prinicples has been a benefit ... for THEM.
WHO gets credit for BUILDING SOCIETY?
For Example: The first coders at Microsoft who built Windows 3.1. Do they get credit for building MS?
What about the coders that came later to the company?
So when you say it's built by whites?
How are you determining that?
And let me emphasize this once again!
Who truly gets credit for building a nation?
For example, you might come up with a groundbreaking idea, but to bring that idea to life, you need a whole network of people—administrators to manage the process, laborers to do the physical work, and financiers to provide the necessary resources.
Take Trump, for instance. His name might be on buildings, but he wasn’t out there in construction gear laying bricks or wiring the electrical systems. It took a team of people working together in different roles to make those buildings a reality.
In short, no single person or group builds a nation on their own. It’s the combined effort of all these key players that makes it possible.
And you said
"The point is: Many people DO NOT WANT those bonds."
BULLSHIT!!!
I am yelling BULLSHIT at the top of my voice.
WHY DO YOU THINK THERE IS A TRAVEL and TOURIST INDUSTRY!!!
WHY DO YOU THINK PEOPLE GO OUT TO BARS, GAMES, ETC.
They are looking to SOCIALLY INTERACT with OTHER PEOPLE!!!
Are you suggesting that people just want to stay at home in their own area forever?
When I went to the Air Show in Chicago. There were 1000s of people out there.
I was with a white buddy of mine. We met some cool people during the show.
MEETING new people is a SOCIAL EXPERIENCE that humans naturally seek.
Which is why the LOCKDOWNS were so bad for kids. Why is it important for kids to SOCIALIZE with other kids???
So they can build bonds!!
What the hell are you talking about????
Humans are SOCIAL CREATURES.
When whites saw Michael Jordan play ball. Do you not think that a lot wanted to meet him???
How are you DEFINING who has BUILD a nation?
Who is responsible for building a nation?
Precisely, basic maga/q people love 2a...
But gunpowder came from China. 9th century alchemists. or for example, mayan indians gave value to the zero mathematically. And Indians (from India) defined zero philisophically
Everything is connected. Food, technology, art, religion, etc.
Q is worldwide, no way around it.
This response of yours is confusing. It sounds like you are speaking of the findings of tribal societies being spread throughout the world, not of people giving up their tribal heritage.
THANK YOU!!
Those that disagreed with me proved my point!
One anon instantly said that "Whites invented most of everything good". See what that mindset did?
This anon automatically assumed that his ethnic group of people are SUPERIOR than everyone else.
When in reality. Patient laws weren't around 100s of years ago.
Stealing ideas and taking credit for ideas happened a ton.
"The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills."
Tribal heritage is different perspectives, experiences, and skills. Tribal heritage is not set in stone. It changes from day to day. It seems you consider tribal heritage as a closed society. It is not.
If you believe that I am think "tribal heritage as a closed society". You are reading into this wrong.
When I said
"The notion that tribalism is "natural" begins to break down when you experience firsthand the richness that comes from interacting with people who have different perspectives, experiences, and skills."
This is referring to ADAPTING one's mindset to new information.
So if someone wants a pure ethnic state. They most likely want that because they are fearful of "others".
the amount of downvotes this comment got is fucking disturbing. You guys really want to go back to the Old Testament, don't you? Where it's all about muh bloodlines, muh geneologies. Dumbasses need to read the New Testament before you usher us into a Nazi 2.0 situation!
I pray for them.
What they don't understand. The Cabal has brainwashed them to the opposite extreme.
They see themselves as "Morally Correct" to save their own race. What they don't realize. That's the Cabal playing both sides.