Towards A Theory Of Tribal Realism

The idea that white Americans have any particular interests as a people in the United States is viewed as “racist.” More “racist” still is to claim that the existence of the United States is intrinsically linked to this population or contingent upon its presence. It is alleged that the composition of a country does not matter and that all its parts are fully interchangeable. Contrary understandings of this, then, are not merely immoral, but fly in the face of all-important efficiency and growth.

On the other hand, the various colored populations of continental Europe and overseas Europe, whether recent arrivals, long-standing, or indigenous, are granted a whole suite of special moral and political privileges, owing to their status as distinct and valid identity groups. Such peoples are said to require identity politics, to require politicized tribalism, because due to their history and social status, they need ethnic or racial collectivization, whether in Europe, the Americas, or Oceania.

Rare would be the politically tolerated voice who suggests, for example, that African Americans or Jews do not actually exist as distinct from the rest of the Western population and that their contributions to the United States are irrelevant and moreover unrelated to their identities in any way, shape, or form. Heresy runs in both directions, though, whether in minimizing minority identities or emphasizing majority ones.

There are voices, however, which argue that the system of minority identity politics should be dismantled for the greater good, in the name of a post-racial civic identity, and they try to do so from an angle of anti-racism.

The attempt to play a Get-Out-Of-Multiculturalism-Free card on the ethnic Monopoly board is probably doomed. Identity politics are such an integral part of the Cathedral’s preferred management strategy that for supposed opponents of the status quo to toss it aside is like sending sailboats to fight an aircraft carrier.

Time and proximity can destroy some identities and merge others, but tribal affiliations have always existed and seem likely to persist. Any system must acknowledge that diversity exists in the world and under the state.

The innovation in our times, however, is universal suffrage and the formal encouragement of politicized tribalism of some tribes against others for electoral gain. Those who would wish to un-invent this new weapon of the elite cannot possibly accomplish this without acquiring power themselves. And yet for the elite in much of the West, the power is in managing identity politics.

As has been stated, the tribe of whites, or Europeans, is essentially barred from practicing politicized tribalism, lest advocates be branded with the heresy of “racism.” Standing in opposition are the guardians of academia, media, multinational corporations, and finally much of the government proper. And why wouldn’t they be opposed? The hysteria and vitriol expressed at the notion that whites or Europeans are relevant to the countries they populate betrays a yawning gap in the Cathedral’s intellectual defenses. That is to say, its security relies upon the political disarmament of whites or Europeans as a class of people.

The pressing question that follows is thus: What comes next? What an opportunity it would be to remake the political order in the United States in a way that would impact the entire world for the rest of our lives and those of many generations ahead. Only the disruption and replacement of the current configuration of democracy, multiculturalism, and neoliberalism would allow for such sweeping changes to be implemented.

In a world, then, where imported factional coalitions have been broken on the wheel of traditional, majority identity-based society, what system ought to follow? In short, the artificial construct of weaponizing some identity groups against others for political gain in democracies–governments the international managerial class uses to create the impression of self-rule and legitimacy–should be replaced with a pragmatic system of tribal realism and imperial rule.

Under this paradigm, it would cease to be controversial that white Americans are entitled to a controlling share in the country they founded and form a majority in on terms of their identity. Maintaining a German Germany would not be tarred as Hitlerite.

A world where it is denied that certain peoples exist and have interests, while others not only exist but have additional privileged interests over the others on the basis of weaponized false-interpretations of history is grossly unstable and unjust, and lends itself to bad governance springing from a façade of lies and manipulation.

Another way of looking at it: How can one support a political system in which hundreds of millions of people are said to de facto not exist? How is that even a remotely plausible way of ruling justly and properly? Even apartheid South Africa believed blacks existed as a class and interest group in society that had to be interacted with.

To give one example, at present the government in Germany doesn’t particularly believe its ethnic German majority is of any consequence or importance to Germany being Germany–well, not beyond them being an outdated class of racist kulaks better replaced with citizens sourced from the heterogeneous global population. So irrelevant are the Germans to what Germany is that Berlin has funneled millions of Muslim migrants into what is nominally a Protestant-Catholic-Atheist society. Segments of the German government do believe its immigrant population exists politically, and that they are a class requiring a set of privileges and protections unique from the rest of the population, the natives, who as have been noted, are held to be both irrelevant to Germany and at the same time an evil to be excised. This paradigm is true to varying degrees of intensity all over the West.

I mean, that does sound absurd, right?

Tribal realism is thus Occam’s razor: Germans exist as an identity group with valid interests and, say, Turks in Germany exist as an identity group with valid interests. Now you can have an honest conversation without attempting to plaster over inherent conflicts between the two by arbitrarily declaring one party unfit to negotiate for itself. Now you can have governments and social institutions which don’t tie themselves down with the task of revolutionizing society to make it safe for neoliberal capitalism by turning everyone into interchangeable consumers dependent on the state for protection from the ghost of Hitler. The permanent revolution leads down an increasingly absurdist road, traveled only by the most gaslighted and preyed upon by Bolshevik highwaymen.

It is time to restore realism to the world.

For the state to recognize who its subject peoples are without attempting to destroy them is not a tall order.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

2 Comments

  1. ConantheContrarian March 13, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    I wonder who the Bolsheviks are in the current year.

    1. Two words: “who else?”

Comments are closed.