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?
The first immigration act was limited to White people.
The industrial revolution, which created more wealth, prosperity, and freedom than any other society in the history of the world, was built by White people.
The Rule of Law principles that made it all possible were envisioned and enacted by White people.
I don't care about a specific computer program or other similar minutiae.
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".
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?
The country was founded by White people.
The first immigration act was limited to White people.
The industrial revolution, which created more wealth, prosperity, and freedom than any other society in the history of the world, was built by White people.
The Rule of Law principles that made it all possible were envisioned and enacted by White people.
I don't care about a specific computer program or other similar minutiae.
I'm talking the BIG PICTURE OF WORLD HISTORY.
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???
Good for you, but let me tell you this:
If I am telling you what I want or what I don't want, then I don't give a fuck what YOU think I SHOULD want.
Period.
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".