Are humans inherently tribalist?

Are humans inherently tribalist?

Pretty much

Swedes aren't. Wouldn't that make Swedes non-human?

Yes, more or less.

Yes, we've been so for at least 95% of our total time spent on this planet.

Yes, but the tribes can be based on arbitrary criteria.

People wearing blue hats, people wearing red hats.
People who like anime, people who don't like anime.
People who follow Protestantism, people who follow Orthodoxy, people who follow Catholocism, people who follow Taoism, people who follow Islam.
People who live in the city, people who live in urban areas, people who live by the sea.
People who ascribe to Classical Liberalism, people who who ascribe to post-Rawlsian liberalism, people who describe to don't ascribe to liberalism at all.
People who like chocolate ice cream, people who like strawberry ice cream, people who like stracciatella ice cream.

Sure we are. The marxist reptilian overlords aren't though, and they've brainwashed the populace. Since we historically have put a high trust in fellow Swedes, when the leaders got corrupted they fucked up the whole dynamic of the society. You're mad if you think even the most die-hard leftist Swede see himself as truly equal to a Somali in his heart of hearts. If he saw him as equal, why does he wish to help him as if he was a helpless child or animal?

Swedes chimp out if you arent a mindless libtard.

Swedish government is run by feminists who are working over time to import as much BBC as possible.

No its ran by jews who fool the population into thinking they have any control.

Yes, that's what I said. Times are changing though.

Yes the times are changing since the Swedish government now says that people with an immigrant background will the majority by 2032.
Already 37% for under 45 year olds.

You talk like helping someone inherently is treating someone as a child or animal.

No, tribalism is an invention of the evil patriarchy. We all belong to one tribe - the human tribe - and we must oppose those evil people who disagree.

...

JonTron, is that you?

>inherently

You say that ironically, but conceiving the human species as a tribe is a valid way to look at at, too. Humans then are contrasted with animals.

Yes, and more and more people are waking up, in a best case scenario we could be looking at ripping up citizenships in 10-20 years.

Saying that africans can do no wrong, handing out tons of free shit to them, changing society to suit their wishes, that is treating them like a precious little animal, not a human.

Fucking SPECIEIST. Animals are people too!

#notallanimals

While you're right, the deeper issue is that Sweden was and is a bastion of Protestantism and secular humanism.

>humans evolved from primitive ape like creatures who formed groups

>they competed with other groups fro food and resources

>meeting other groups usually resulted in conflict

being suspicious of people who are not part of your group and being hostile to them is human nature. It's been bred into us over millions of years.

things like racism, bullying, and "us vs them" can be attributed to this (very successful I might add) evolutionary trait

>that is treating them like a precious little animal, not a human.
I don't even agree that this constitutes a treatment as an animal, but more importantly, I disagree that anybody even does all that in a way that they wouldn't do for any other part of the population: I don't think that any leftist genuinely thinks that Africans are saintly, supermoral beings that all 1.200.000.000 of them now and the billions before have never done anything wrong, nor is "handing out" things anything exceptional in a welfare state, nor is considering the needs and wishes of a subset of the population anything special in a pluralistic society.

>implying if Sweden had a different Jewish ideology in place of Protestantism, that would be better
Jesuit subverter detected

I remember reading a paper suggesting that early humans actually weren't all that tribal, and that archaeological evidence somehow suggests that tribalism emerged and utterly supplanted non-tribal groups. It had something to do with a human population that was pushed up against the coasts in southern Africa being forced to adopt tribalism, which ended up being way more beneficial to them so they grew, spread, and eclipsed the non-tribal humans. Anyone remember the paper? It was pretty interesting and they had evidence that was described much, much better than what I just did.

you don't get it, Swedes just believe Somalians are part of their in-group

Default tribalism: genetic relation, e.g, clans, tribes, ethnic groups, and now as the world is getting globalized, races

Shit tier spooky ''''tribalism'''' that has been forced by ideologues:

-religion
-class
-gender

Implying men don't have much more in common with other men than with women.
Implying similar classes throughout the world don't have the same experiences, no matter whether they're genetically related or not.

Tribalism through genetic relation is the biggest spook of all for anything that goes beyond your immediate family. People don't even give a single fuck about their 2nd-degree cousins. I'd take my coworker that has seen some shit with me over a 2nd-degree cousin I don't even fucking know.

The members of your genetic tribe usually look, speak and behave like you do. You also share a common goal of passing these traits on through the ages.

Religious, class, state and gender spook tribalism tries to enforce the same kind of solidarity inside a diverse group with little common interest other than forcing a meme.

>Yes, but the tribes can be based on arbitrary criteria.
Okay, but what does that say about tribalism?

All tribalism is a spook, the übermensch has no loyalty to his clan, tribe, ethnic group, race, religion, class or gender.

I can tell you right now that I act and behave nothing like Brits, Welshmen, American Southerners, Australians, or any of the various Anglo ancestors that went to colonize places in the rest of the world.

Attempting to unite people through their genetic traits by bypassing their cultures, countries of origin, religion, and political thoughts is the height of idiocy. I have no obligation to whatever race you think I belong to (am I Anglo-Saxon first, or am I white first? Should I be more friendly with North Indians, Ashkenazi Jews, or Iranians?), but I do have an obligation to support my like-minded peers, the country I am a citizen of, and the nations my country requires to survive in its current state.

How can humans be tribalist, if everyone in this thread is from different parts of the worlds, had different upbringings, etc.

Really makes you think doesn't it

Yes. There's a tribal hierarchy (in order from most socially cohesive to least):

Tribe/clan
Ethnicity
City State (The Athenians were not the most welcoming people in the world)
Nation (multiETHNIC)
Superstate/Multiracial society (US)

People get anxious and apprehensive at "nation" (multiethnic) and go absolutely batshit at "multiracial superstate/democracy".

Humans can only function with peoples that similar cultural norms and languages. Hell sometimes not even that. Look at France and Spain. They were at each other's throats for centuries
even though in the later parts (1670-French Revolution) they had KINGS DESCENDED FROM THE SAME LINEAGE (Bourbon) and spoke Romance languages.

What about his word and vision?

Spoken like a true little duality-whore. Humans are "inherently" everything and nothing, every virtue has its opposing vice either stemming from excess or lack there of. We have the ability of moderation, there is no justification or excuse.

that doesn't involve other people

There is one word and one destination, ultimately.

>Implying men don't have much more in common with other men than with women.
Men and women are intrinsically tied to one another. They cannot survive without one another; therefore, it is stupid to think of men and women as separate (and therefore competing with each other) groups

Do you honestly believe you have that long?

t. Never Read Stirner
or
t. Read Stirner Horribly

>human
>nature
And no, people just "revert" to tribalism because none of the systems we've established has actually made any serious attempt to do away with it. Even in gommie countries like the Soviet Union they played the ethnicities off against each other, especially in the steppenigger SSRs.

In a sexually reproducing species, a tendency to form groups along gender boundaries is not an evolutionarily viable trait.

notice how you don't see many ubermenschen around these days. modern conditions among homo sapiens select for individuals who are capable cooperating with members of larger groups.

sweden isn't a pluralistic society though
they might claim to be, but they aint

Is Sweden a society in which subgroups of a population are competing over economic, social and political power through the political process, actualized through the state? Yes.

Do the intermediary groups such as churches, parties, unions, associations of scientists and citizen initiatives pursue their goals autonomously and do they, at least theoretically, have equal rights? Yes.

Then Sweden is pluralistic.

...

It's plenty viable, evolutionarily. I guess you have the misconception that a conscious being can only form one group, which would be why pure male or pure female groups wouldn't be able to reproduce (which is actually wrong, too - males could just form groups and rape females, then leave the females), but it can actually be part of multiple groups through the introduction of further subgroups, forming groups within the group based on arbitrary criteria - such as gender.

Truth. Humanity is just one race and species. Anybody who says otherwise are Nazi /pol/tard non-humans and its okay to punch them in the face

>making the same unfunny joke and strawman thrice within 30 posts
Was it autism?

>People take Stirner seriously

>tribalism causes ethnicities to stick to one another in tribes and stay in a territory where they can live, protecting it from other tribes, forming unique religions,languages and cultures.

>nations attack one another for the tribes (the country) benefit, gaining resources and territory, and force the original tribe of the territory onto the host nations culture, religion etc...

No, tribalism is just a social construct, forcing everyone to live in the same territory can only end well and is actually biological.

Once the different populations reach high numbers in a nation and the state holding the population by law together collapses, it can only end well. :)

It says that this tendency of ours is so basic almost anything can set it off.

I really had a moment where I realized modern political discourse operates on the same discourse as Asuka vs Rei.

Not saying I had a revelation, its more that I went into those threads to escape from the vitriol that comes with talking about things that actually matter, found autism and victim complexes that I thought weren't possible, then came out of it to find that same autism was keeping shit from getting done.

Our brains only have the ability to maintain an interpersonal relationship with about 120 people.
I wouldn't say we are inherently tribalistic, our cognition is obtained through experience. The life style of humans as been tribal for most of our history, so our cognition was as well. However we are inherently reductive and that certainly plays into our tribalistic tendency.

Saying
>muh human nature
doesn't actually refute the fact that human nature is a thing.
I know marxists aren't used to any particularly high level of debate but for fuck's sake at least try.

>Our brains only have the ability to maintain an interpersonal relationship with about 120 people.

dunbar's number doesn't specify 120 people where are you getting that number from?

nvm just saw
>about 120
ignore me

this

no, it's how /they/ "argue"