The need to build or belong to a "tribe" is a common refrain among prepper and survivalist instructors and advocates. In this context, is generally refers to building a close and strong social network of friends and family from which you can seek help, or to which you will provide assistance, in times of emergency and need, up to and including physically defending one another. This is not the topic of this post. Rather, my topic is that whether you like it or not, you probably belong to a tribe--perhaps more than one, depending on how the term is used. And if this tribe is targeted for some reason, you, also, will be targeted because of your membership in that "tribe."
There are several definitions of tribe. One definition is "a group of persons having a common character, occupation, or interest." Thus the modern "urban tribe" consisting of groups of friends or roomies that hang out with each other, as exemplified in various popular sitcoms over the past 25 years including
Seinfeld,
Friends,
How I Met Your Mother, and
Big Bang Theory.
The term "urban tribe" was originally coined, however, as reference to "young city people that gathered in relatively small, fluid groups" with "shared common interests that [are], in general, different from the interests of mainstream culture" such as Goths, Skinheads, Metalheads, etc. Thus, in this sense, it exists at a level above gangs.
But there are other, more primal, tribes. The definition of tribe includes "a group of people that includes many families and relatives who have the same language, customs, and beliefs." But it can be more expansive than this definition allows, and to get a clearer understanding of the term, it is best to study the etymology of the word. According to
Wikipedia: "The word is from Old French
tribu, in turn from Latin
tribus, referring to the original tripartite ethnic division of the Ancient Roman state: Ramnes (Ramnenses), Tities (Titienses), and Luceres, corresponding ... to the Latins, Sabines, and Etruscans, respectively." Thus, the word may be, in certain contexts, nearly synonymous with ethnicity. (I use ethnicity in the official definition, which is that "[e]thnicity represents social groups with a shared history, sense of identity, geography and cultural roots, which may occur despite racial difference"). Thus, for instance, in history we might discuss German tribes, Celtic or Pictish tribes, Indian tribes (referring to the indigenous population of the Americas in the 15th and 16th centuries), Pushtun or Uzbek tribes, and so on.
Supposedly we live in a post-tribal world--at least in industrialized countries--but it isn't actually true. We look around us and we see not only "urban tribes," as that term is used above, but clear and stark differences between ethnicities. This is the diversity of which we are told we should celebrate because it is necessary to a vital and developing country or civilization. I'm not attempting to address the issue of whether diversity is necessary or even desirable, but merely wish to address the issue that the "identity politics" is pushing the United States into different "tribes"--and the globalists (at least the neo-cons) are concerned that white Americans may begin to think of themselves as "white Americans" rather than simply "American."
Vox Day linked to an article at
The Federalist entitled "
How Anti-White Rhetoric Is Fueling White Nationalism" and written by David Marcus. While Marcus apparently has no issue with non-European ethnicities celebrating their "tribe," the author does not feel the same warm glow of "celebrate diversity" when he refers to "white nationalism," but uses the term in its pejorative sense as being synonymous with neo-Nazi or similar movements. And he views it as a palpable threat, writing:
What is new is the direct indictment of white people as a race. This happened through a strange rhetorical transformation over the past few years. At first, “white men are our greatest threat” postings tended to be ironic, a way of putting the racist shoe on the other foot. They were meant to show that blaming an entire race for the harmful actions of a few individuals is senseless.
Then the tenor changed. What started as irony turned into an actual belief that white people, specifically white men, are more dangerous and immoral than any other people. Loosely backed up by historical inequities and disparities in mass shootings [ed.: apparently gangland shootings don't qualify as "mass shootings"], this position has begun to take a serious foothold.
Strikingly, this shift in rhetoric undermines what was once the core of anti-racist efforts. Treating people equally has given way to making all of us ambassadors for our race. This is a classic theme in critical race theory, that people of color carry a burden of representation that white people do not. But foisting the baggage of representation onto white people doesn’t solve that problem. It makes it worse.
Treating people equally has given way to making all of us ambassadors for our race.
White people are being asked—or pushed—to take stock of their whiteness and identify with it more. This is a remarkably bad idea. The last thing our society needs is for white people to feel more tribal. The result of this tribalism will not be a catharsis of white identity, improving equality for non-whites. It will be resentment towards being the only tribe not given the special treatment bestowed by victimhood.
A big part of the reason white Americans have been willing to go along with policies that are prejudicial on their face, such as affirmative action, is that they do not view themselves as a tribe. Given the inequality of resources favoring whites in our society, it is a good thing that white people view themselves as the ones without an accent. Should that change, white privilege (whatever one views that to be) will not be eviscerated—it will be entrenched.
Marcus goes on to discuss and address where he believes educators have gone wrong in attempting to teach "white privilege" to young white males* because, as he sees, the vilifying of white men and Western history has created a backlash. Marcus observes that:
[Whites are] upset at having to confess guilt for events [they] had no control over. ... Moreover, many resent the pedagogical transformations that their history and culture are undergoing. White historical figures once held in too high esteem have swung the other way into utter disrepute. Also, the histories of no other peoples are being held to these lofty standards.
The problem, as Marcus views it, is that "[t]he combination of the confessional and universal aspects of white privilege and the reconstruction of white history has opened the door for white racial grievance-mongers." He also points out that "[t]he result of these societal double standards is for many a desire to lash out against it." What Marcus fears happening is that young white men will embrace not only a victim attitude--similar to that seen in the identity politics of other groups--but may embrace the ultimate
crimethink: white superiority.**
Interestingly, Rod Deher tapped into a similar theme in his article "
Re-Tribalizing America" at
The American Conservative. He begins by noting the recent violent protests outside a Trump event in New Mexico, and the attack on Milo Yiannopoulos at a speaking event at DePaul University. Deher brands Trump and Yiannopoulos as provocateurs, but also admits that "they are proving something important about the militant left: that it is often racist against whites, and has no intention of allowing any opinions other than its own to be voiced in the public square. And whether in the streets or in a university lecture hall, it will use violence to impose its will." Similar, but more plainly than Marcus, Deher warns that the militant left will drive a lot of people into the arms of the militant right. He also writes:
The answer to this racist SJW garbage is not to embrace white supremacy! But without a forceful, effective, unambivalent response to the unhinged militant left, sooner or later the forces of white supremacy are going to organize the dispossessed, demoralized, chaotic white rabble, and the SJWs, as well as the Washington elites, aren’t going to know what hit them. God knows I’m not saying I want this to happen, but I think it probably will happen if we continue on this current trajectory. Slouching rough beasts and all that. It’s Weimar America.
(Emphasis in original).
I don't believe that people rejecting the left's racist socialism are going to run into the arms of national socialists (i.e., Nazis). But there probably will be a backlash, or should be. It will be necessary for the survival of our children and grandchildren.
We've been told over and over for at least a decade that the United States is becoming less white. For instance,
in 2011, more minority babies were born than were white babies, and
the Census Bureau estimates that whites will be a minority by 2045. Not only is this shift occurring, but we are told it is a good thing (although no one can, or will, explain why). But as whites become a minority, they will suffer more discrimination, not less. The leftist race-mongers will not suddenly stop because they "have won," but will press the advantage to eradicate their foes. While Marcus fears to go there, Deher concedes this point, relating an anecdote from a reader, who wrote to Deher:
Here’s a true story. When I was in medical school there was a group of 20-40 students who were self-defined “progressive brown people” (their words, not mine). I was once told by one member of this group that eventually brown people were going to “outnumber white people” and when “Texas goes Democratic” it is going to be “game over for white people”—they will end the hegemony of white culture and tax me so much there will be no privilege left to give my children.
Here is the thing: whites represent to the leftist race-mongers what the Jews represented to the Nazis--scapegoats for all their perceived slights and deficiencies. And there is no guarantee that these soon to be majorities will treat whites any better than the Nazis treated the Jews. The issue is whether whites will go quietly to the gas chambers (which, frankly, given how much "law and order" and "white guilt" is so beat into our heads, is a real possibility) or not.
This article is not intended to be a political or cultural analysis, but a warning. If
Matthew Bracken and many others are correct, the United States will see interracial conflict (i.e., a civil war). You won't be completely free to choose sides. You can choose to distance yourself from a particular racial group, but it will not have any significant impact on how the enemies of that group will view you. You can choose to not be involved in your tribe, but others tribes will still view you as being a part of your tribe. And you will be targeted for that reason.
Bracken has postulated that a loss of welfare benefits would trigger a civil war. It's one possibility. But it could also slowly build up, violence slowly escalating, like the spreading charring and smoke just before a pile of tinder bursts into flame. And then there is flame. I've noted before that we are in a civilizational collapse--have been for several decades--but we just can't see it because we are too close to the matter. The same applies to the civil war. In my opinion, it has already started; the flame may not be there, but the smoke certainly is.
Footnotes:
*It is interesting to me that Marcus singles out "white males." There are reasons why this is significant, but such are beyond the scope of this post.
** Frankly, Marcus' essay is fairly transparent in its goal. It is primarily a screed against the Alt-Right, a nascent political and cultural movement that has overwhelmed the Republican old-guard in this current presidential campaign. Marcus is simply too afraid to openly admit that his article is an attack on the Alt-Right.
