Maybe it's not Capitalism or Liberalism

[DrYouth]

Not sure if this is just Marty's territory but I thought I'd throw up an insight of my own.

In another thread there was a bemoaning of nursing homes, "care facilities" etc.

The right of the spectrum sees these as "liberal" institutions designed to inflict humiliation on "family values".

The left sees the problem as "exploitation" of minorities and capitalistic wage serfdom.

But maybe the problem is neither of these things.
Maybe the problem has always been the shadow side of the burocratic state and "industrialization".
Remember, however, that before the state came the tribe.

And that without the state we return to tribalism.

We can wax nostalgic about tribalism... but tribalism means the only law is that meted out between the tribes.

No centralized institutions means the strongest tribes dominate the other tribes....
Centralized institutions allow at the least some semblance of identity around something other than tribe.
The empire, The nation, "the west",

That being said "the state" has a shadow side. It can be dehumanizing and it throws up "idols" to worship.
Cults of personality, flags, documents, "charters".
We can lose the social fabric of human connection and the result is alienation and meaninglessness.

How can we strive to find these basic connections again... without returning to the tribal world that came before the state.
Ideas?
Are ethnic tribal bonds the only ones that we can really rely on?

[Speaker to Animals]

Multi-ethnic "states" are the main problem. A nation is the political aspect of an ethnic group organized under a single government. A nation state is just a modern state organized around the needs of a nation.

The United States is not really a nation state. It's a multi-ethnic empire, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That shit doesn't pan out historically. It leads to sectarian conflict.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Oh, ethno-states are your solution to e'ry damn thing.

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, ethno-states are your solution to e'ry damn thing.

However you want to frame it.

My argument here was that multi-ethnic states have, historically, blown up in everybody's faces.

[StCapps]

My argument here was that multi-ethnic states have, historically, blown up in everybody's faces.

Which is why a German or French Ethno State is more viable than a Pan-White Ethno State. More sectarian conflict in the latter, than the former.
Are you starting to see why Smitty was making the Germania or Bust argument?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Not sure if this is just Marty's territory but I thought I'd throw up an insight of my own.

In another thread there was a bemoaning of nursing homes, "care facilities" etc.

The right of the spectrum sees these as "liberal" institutions designed to inflict humiliation on "family values".

The left sees the problem as "exploitation" of minorities and capitalistic wage serfdom.

But maybe the problem is neither of these things.
Maybe the problem has always been the shadow side of the burocratic state and "industrialization".
Remember, however, that before the state came the tribe.

And that without the state we return to tribalism.

We can wax nostalgic about tribalism... but tribalism means the only law is that meted out between the tribes.

No centralized institutions means the strongest tribes dominate the other tribes....
Centralized institutions allow at the least some semblance of identity around something other than tribe.
The empire, The nation, "the west",

That being said "the state" has a shadow side. It can be dehumanizing and it throws up "idols" to worship.
Cults of personality, flags, documents, "charters".
We can lose the social fabric of human connection and the result is alienation and meaninglessness.

How can we strive to find these basic connections again... without returning to the tribal world that came before the state.
Ideas?
Are ethnic tribal bonds the only ones that we can really rely on?

The default configuration of humanity is small tribes, up to around 50 people. In order to form into any larger group, a larger purpose is required. Maybe that's why we never stop fighting. Because, in order to hold together the big pyramid scheme of State, there must be an Other to oppose it.

In America, our greatest periods of unity were during the Cold War - held under existential threat of annihilation, we had a single, (EVILE!!!) Other to fight against. The Yin to our Yang. We ignored all of the corruption and flaws in our system, in order to serve the larger purpose. Once the Soviet Menace died, we started to die as well.

But this can never be allowed by the elites at the top of the pyramid. Therefore, we must invent new enemies, new conflicts, and Infinite War must be Infinite.

And, despite the idiocy on display, it has absolutely nothing to do with skin color. It's all about culture.

[StCapps]

Therefore, we must invent new enemies, new conflicts, and Infinite War must be Infinite.

[DrYouth]

Multi-ethnic "states" are the main problem. A nation is the political aspect of an ethnic group organized under a single government. A nation state is just a modern state organized around the needs of a nation.

The United States is not really a nation state. It's a multi-ethnic empire, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That shit doesn't pan out historically. It leads to sectarian conflict.

All our modern states are essentially multi-ethnic.

Germany had Prussians, Bavarians, Schwaben all within it's borders.
Whether it was going to include Austrians was an open question for some time.

Canada has French and English Canadians.

Spain of course is still struggling with it's Catalan and Basques.

How is America really any different?

[Speaker to Animals]

Multi-ethnic "states" are the main problem. A nation is the political aspect of an ethnic group organized under a single government. A nation state is just a modern state organized around the needs of a nation.

The United States is not really a nation state. It's a multi-ethnic empire, like the Austro-Hungarian Empire. That shit doesn't pan out historically. It leads to sectarian conflict.

All our modern states are essentially multi-ethnic.

Germany had Prussians, Bavarians, Schwaben all within it's borders.
Whether it was going to include Austrians was an open question for some time.

Canada has French and English Canadians.

Spain of course is still struggling with it's Catalan and Basques.

How is America really any different?

How is all that working out?

It would be better to break the binds a little bit and let nations govern themselves, even if they coexist with other nations within some broader confederation.

Think of it as a balance between the city-state and the centralized, multi-ethnic empire. We are pegged pretty far out towards the side of the centralized empire end of the spectrum. I am just saying: let's walk this back a little.

[Speaker to Animals]

There also exists some kind of ethnic distance metric. The distance between Scots and Englishmen is not like the distance between an Englishman and some jihadi straight out of Waziristan.

Human societies are naturally tribal, and we therefore will align with like-minded groups against a more distant interloper or common threat. Mixing up French and English in Canada was a pretty big stretch, but it's not like what is happening now with shiploads of jihadis showing up every month.

What happened in the United States and Canada happened because we created a white identity in the 17th and 18th centuries that was largely not really understood back in Europe until recently with the rise of the Identitarian movement. To hang your hat on that success as some kind of proof positive that we can integrate anybody from planet Earth into our societies is not rational and certainly hasn't panned out at all.