Does the positive side of tribalism/racism outshine the negative side?

[Greatest I am]

Does the positive side of tribalism/racism outshine the negative side?

The moment we follow our selfish gene’s love bias of tribalism and racism for our own kind and color, we create a hate bias for all other kinds and colors.

Negative racism is born in us from our love of our own kind and color. It is natural and normal for the human species.

We are born the fittest of our line. It follows that nature would have it no other way for us as individual animals but to think of ourselves as the best. Nature always creates for the best possible end and for each of us and our genetic line, something like us is the best.

Tribalism/racism has a dual nature. Good parts and evil parts. Mostly good but it is hell when the uglier negative racist side is in play.

We are racist because we know that reality favors the survival of the fittest. That is what we are in our genetic lines; even the most unfit of us, when compared to the average or above average.

We mostly negatively express our tribalism/racism with violence, even to war and rebellion. The less profitable way to gain the upper hand as compared to trading. Check human history.

We are heading for violence in the U.S thanks to the oppression of too many groups. Blacks, natives, women, gays and all other groups that are oppressed unjustly are beginning to unite into a large group that will no longer be cowed. If nothing changes after peaceful means are tried, violence is bound to happen.

We must live in tribes as we are not in any way born free. That is the good part of tribalism, even as it holds the evil racism part within.

The evil part is using violence against those who are not in our own in groups. That is of course what we whites have been doing to non-whites for a long time now in North America.

It is good to be tribal and loyal to our colors and tribes.

It is foolish to not have the battle of the colors not shift to acceptance instead of hating others and bringing violence to all.

Black to white, all our own genetic lines, have shown that they too are the fittest for their color.

To kill or trade are the only ways to take advantage of each other in terms of control. Good competition without killing or oppressing each other is the ethical way forwards.

I see this as what being civilized is all about, and the best way for tribes, black to white, to co-exist in peace.

You?

Regards
DL

Nothing can change in a secular world if for no other reason than prestige is the motivating factor. The one concept you left out of your fine OP is the concept of humility. It may not exist in a secular world motivated by prestige but is a potential for evolved humanity. Simone Weil explains.

"The combination of these two facts — the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it — constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality.

Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes also that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect.

This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings. Whatever formulation of belief or disbelief a man may choose to make, if his heart inclines him to feel this respect, then he in fact also recognizes a reality other than this world's reality. Whoever in fact does not feel this respect is alien to that other reality also."

If all the races realized that they had a piece of the puzzle leading in the inner psychological direction that when united becomes MAN, it is natural to experience humility. So instead of arguing which race is superior it is logical to assume we are all idiots with the need to feel the quality of "meaning" not originating from our earth. The races have to feel the logic of humility in the context of human potential.

Humility and the awareness of our Source is impossible for an increasingly secular world including secularized religion so without this awareness of the sacred, the struggle for prestige rules the day.

Humility is overrated.

It shows a mind unsure of it's position.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Nothing can change in a secular world if for no other reason than prestige is the motivating factor. The one concept

Humility and the awareness of our Source is impossible for an increasingly secular world including secularized religion so without this awareness of the sacred, the struggle for prestige rules the day.

Humility is overrated.

It shows a mind unsure of it's position.

You say nothing can change in secularism unless for prestige, yet France and Quebec are moving, changing, for security of the whole.

Does that bring prestige? By showing good governance perhaps.

Regards
DL

[Nick_A]

Nothing can change in a secular world if for no other reason than prestige is the motivating factor. The one concept

Humility and the awareness of our Source is impossible for an increasingly secular world including secularized religion so without this awareness of the sacred, the struggle for prestige rules the day.

Humility is overrated.

It shows a mind unsure of it's position.

You say nothing can change in secularism unless for prestige, yet France and Quebec are moving, changing, for security of the whole.

Does that bring prestige? By showing good governance perhaps.

Regards
DL

Without humility and lacking the psychological awareness of our source, prestige is the goal of the mob mind or what Plato called the "beast." Society follows the mob mind attempting to prove "might makes right." Plato explains:

From Book Six of Plato's Republic. Socrates and Adeimantus are discussing the different models by which a government can rule wisely, and Socrates offers this analogy to Adeimantus:

Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarreling with one another about the steering -- every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary.

They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain's senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly kaids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain's hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer's art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.

Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?

[Greatest I am]

Socrates was hardly humble, and yes, fools who do not let those who can do things expertly do it are fools.

He was speaking of governance just as you did.

He saw people's personalities as being either cows or dogs.

He preferred dogs as they always showed their trust or distrust of others and not a blanket acceptance.

One should be humbled by one who knows more, but not at times when his position is well thought out.

In issues like humbleness, it is all subjective, and to try to make it objective is silly.

Regards
DL

[Sculptor]

If we were all born equal, I would agree, but we are not.

I never pegged you as a fascist.
Which tribes are better than others then?
How do you feel about black people?
It's not relevant that we are not born equal.
No one should suffer from fewer or lesser rights just because they are deemed better or worse than another.
You make the most childish mistake on the issue of equality.
Promoting equality does not pretend that we are born equal or that we are the same.
It means that we ought to be treated evenhandedly regardless of of race creed or colour

Some are more fit than others and someone is the fittest.

Equal birth does not give equal outcomes and it is our tribal duty to elect the best of the best.

To say that our leaders are equal, especially given Trump as compared to Obama, would not be an intelligent comparison, regardless of your political affiliation.

Regards
DL

We were talking individuals, not political factions, but of course, some political systems are better than others.

Check the happiness stats and see how low some regimes. like the U.S. system, produce less happiness than, let's say Canada and some of the Northern E.U. nations.

Regards
DL

I've no need.
Happiness quotas are ubiquitous parts of the public domain.
US has high inequality.
Was it not on this forum what Jante was discussed?
Scandinavians respect their citizens

[Nick_A]

Socrates was hardly humble, and yes, fools who do not let those who can do things expertly do it are fools.

He was speaking of governance just as you did.

He saw people's personalities as being either cows or dogs.

He preferred dogs as they always showed their trust or distrust of others and not a blanket acceptance.

One should be humbled by one who knows more, but not at times when his position is well thought out.

In issues like humbleness, it is all subjective, and to try to make it objective is silly.

Regards
DL

If Socrates was hardly humble, why did he say "I know nothing" rather than I know everything?

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." Albert Einstein

Einstein is not referring to secular society but feeling humble with his awareness of the source of our universe. He has experienced his nothingness.

The ship of fools is an allegory which depicts our secular world with its need for meaning. What is the direction of human "meaning?" People argue over which way to steer but in reality "I know nothing." The ship becomes a madhouse we can see beginning to take place in our world now.

So do we have any "philosopher Kings with the knowledge and ability to steer our ship of fools who knows the way home and the return to our origin? NO. A Society begins its death spiral into some sort of slavery.

[Greatest I am]

I've no need.
Happiness quotas are ubiquitous parts of the public domain.
US has high inequality.
Was it not on this forum what Jante was discussed?
Scandinavians respect their citizens

Most countries care more for their citizens than the U.S. IMO.

Europeans and others practice the democratic norms and standards of excellence learned from the U.S. and France, while the U.S. does not walk it's good talk.

Look at health care and the overcrowded jails of non-whites.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Socrates was hardly humble, and yes, fools who do not let those who can do things expertly do it are fools.

He was speaking of governance just as you did.

He saw people's personalities as being either cows or dogs.

He preferred dogs as they always showed their trust or distrust of others and not a blanket acceptance.

One should be humbled by one who knows more, but not at times when his position is well thought out.

In issues like humbleness, it is all subjective, and to try to make it objective is silly.

Regards
DL

If Socrates was hardly humble, why did he say "I know nothing" rather than I know everything?

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble." Albert Einstein

Einstein is not referring to secular society but feeling humble with his awareness of the source of our universe. He has experienced his nothingness.

The ship of fools is an allegory which depicts our secular world with its need for meaning. What is the direction of human "meaning?" People argue over which way to steer but in reality "I know nothing." The ship becomes a madhouse we can see beginning to take place in our world now.

So do we have any "philosopher Kings with the knowledge and ability to steer our ship of fools who knows the way home and the return to our origin? NO. A Society begins its death spiral into some sort of slavery.

We do have such people, but they do not have a platform or political power to clean things up.

No one want to give up the power to do nothing and prefer to allow ourselves to join in the present extinction event.

We need a Captain for spaceship earth but refuse to elect one or form a one world government, which is what we have to have to clean up our act.

I guess things will have to worsen before we smarten up.

Regards
DL

[Sculptor]

I've no need.
Happiness quotas are ubiquitous parts of the public domain.
US has high inequality.
Was it not on this forum what Jante was discussed?
Scandinavians respect their citizens

Most countries care more for their citizens than the U.S. IMO.

Europeans and others practice the democratic norms and standards of excellence learned from the U.S. and France, while the U.S. does not walk it's good talk.

Look at health care and the overcrowded jails of non-whites.

Regards
DL

I don't think any European country as attempted to learn any thing from the USA. It was Englishmen that invented the USA in the first place. And democracy derives from Classical studies of Greece particularly.
Even after 1776 England was pretty much as democratic as the US. And in the vote-race to achieve a larger plebiscite the UK outstripped the US post-Chartist movement; and anti-slavery laws of 1811 and 1832.
Meanwhile the US had to knock ten shades of shit out of themselves before they made slaves free circa 1860.
So, although the US is very good indeed at self publicising themselves as the purveyor of democracy, they have been pretty much behind the curve for most of the time.
What the US does not seem to realise is that democracy at the point of a gun tends to work not too well. And often the results are not what they expect. Such as the democratically elected Hamas party.

[Nick_A]

GIA

We need a Captain for spaceship earth but refuse to elect one or form a one world government, which is what we have to have to clean up our act.

The tribe of one or the just society. This is the dream of socialism. But it is impossible. Why?

Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace. ~ Simone Weil

The last thing a philosopher king learns is knowledge of the GOOD which transcends opinions so that corruption doesn't spoil it through its famous interpretations and devolve it into the lust for power. Why do we need grace to make the just society possible? This is a dangerous topic. Either the emotions of secular intolerance or religious fanaticism makes it so and destroys the benefits of the tribe by denying grace. The just society is impossible since the world rejects it in favor of the perpetual battle over opinions. It is the nature of the World to deny the experience of the GOOD.

[Greatest I am]

I've no need.
Happiness quotas are ubiquitous parts of the public domain.
US has high inequality.
Was it not on this forum what Jante was discussed?
Scandinavians respect their citizens

Most countries care more for their citizens than the U.S. IMO.

Europeans and others practice the democratic norms and standards of excellence learned from the U.S. and France, while the U.S. does not walk it's good talk.

Look at health care and the overcrowded jails of non-whites.

Regards
DL

I don't think any European country as attempted to learn any thing from the USA. It was Englishmen that invented the USA in the first place. And democracy derives from Classical studies of Greece particularly.
Even after 1776 England was pretty much as democratic as the US. And in the vote-race to achieve a larger plebiscite the UK outstripped the US post-Chartist movement; and anti-slavery laws of 1811 and 1832.
Meanwhile the US had to knock ten shades of shit out of themselves before they made slaves free circa 1860.
So, although the US is very good indeed at self publicising themselves as the purveyor of democracy, they have been pretty much behind the curve for most of the time.
What the US does not seem to realise is that democracy at the point of a gun tends to work not too well. And often the results are not what they expect. Such as the democratically elected Hamas party.

To your first. Not now for G D sure.

If you watch the Show Sicko, you will see the democratic ideal that the U.S. constitution gives, that Europe and Canada are practicing a lot better than the U.S. does.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

GIA

We need a Captain for spaceship earth but refuse to elect one or form a one world government, which is what we have to have to clean up our act.

The tribe of one or the just society. This is the dream of socialism. But it is impossible. Why?

Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace. ~ Simone Weil

The last thing a philosopher king learns is knowledge of the GOOD which transcends opinions so that corruption doesn't spoil it through its famous interpretations and devolve it into the lust for power. Why do we need grace to make the just society possible? This is a dangerous topic. Either the emotions of secular intolerance or religious fanaticism makes it so and destroys the benefits of the tribe by denying grace. The just society is impossible since the world rejects it in favor of the perpetual battle over opinions. It is the nature of the World to deny the experience of the GOOD.

Socialism? How do you see an elected democratic government as socialist?

No one would likely agree to vote for such a system. Democracy with social programs are where most democracies want and are implementing.

Grace, whatever that is, has no role unless you personally know the grace giver.

Regards
DL

[Nick_A]

GIA

We need a Captain for spaceship earth but refuse to elect one or form a one world government, which is what we have to have to clean up our act.

The tribe of one or the just society. This is the dream of socialism. But it is impossible. Why?

Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace. ~ Simone Weil

The last thing a philosopher king learns is knowledge of the GOOD which transcends opinions so that corruption doesn't spoil it through its famous interpretations and devolve it into the lust for power. Why do we need grace to make the just society possible? This is a dangerous topic. Either the emotions of secular intolerance or religious fanaticism makes it so and destroys the benefits of the tribe by denying grace. The just society is impossible since the world rejects it in favor of the perpetual battle over opinions. It is the nature of the World to deny the experience of the GOOD.

Socialism? How do you see an elected democratic government as socialist?

No one would likely agree to vote for such a system. Democracy with social programs are where most democracies want and are implementing.

Grace, whatever that is, has no role unless you personally know the grace giver.

Regards
DL

Everything changes. Nothing remains the same including societies which are either evolving towards freedom to become oneself or devolving towards tyranny. Socialism is a potential step towards tyranny and captivation by the group mind.

Democracy isn't possible when the psychological goal of a society is prestige. Social programs re made possible by those with money and prestige. At some point those lacking prestige will rise against those with power for the sake of "equality" which is also an impossibility since everything is in the process of change

One doesn't have to know the grace giver; a person just has to be "open" and temporarily free from the power of imagination. Once again Simone Weil offers a revealing explanation

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."

The world enchanted by imagination especially now denies the help of grace. Without the help of grace, our species as a whole remains on the ship of fools lacking the inner direction leading to objective human meaning and purpose while continuing the eternal battle over opinions denying the potential for human conscious evolution.

[Sculptor]

Most countries care more for their citizens than the U.S. IMO.

Europeans and others practice the democratic norms and standards of excellence learned from the U.S. and France, while the U.S. does not walk it's good talk.

Look at health care and the overcrowded jails of non-whites.

Regards
DL

I don't think any European country as attempted to learn any thing from the USA. It was Englishmen that invented the USA in the first place. And democracy derives from Classical studies of Greece particularly.
Even after 1776 England was pretty much as democratic as the US. And in the vote-race to achieve a larger plebiscite the UK outstripped the US post-Chartist movement; and anti-slavery laws of 1811 and 1832.
Meanwhile the US had to knock ten shades of shit out of themselves before they made slaves free circa 1860.
So, although the US is very good indeed at self publicising themselves as the purveyor of democracy, they have been pretty much behind the curve for most of the time.
What the US does not seem to realise is that democracy at the point of a gun tends to work not too well. And often the results are not what they expect. Such as the democratically elected Hamas party.

To your first. Not now for G D sure.

If you watch the Show Sicko, you will see the democratic ideal that the U.S. constitution gives, that Europe and Canada are practicing a lot better than the U.S. does.

Regards
DL

I've seen Sicko. M Moore is the conscience of the US. HE is widely ignored by those that ought to listen.
The but the US has never led the democracy charge. They have shouted the loudest that is for sure. But US democracy has never been the best.

[Nick_A]

GIA

We must live in tribes as we are not in any way born free. That is the good part of tribalism, even as it holds the evil racism part within.

Plato called the these collective tribes together the Great Beast. What is the goal of a collective? Is it to create free people respecting their need for meaning that doesn't arise from the tribe or is the goal to create atoms of the tribe protecting tribal values while drawing meaning from the collective.

I believe that a tribe can serve as sacrament to reveal meaning beyond the domain of opinions. Most believe that the tribe gives meaning which is found by arguing acceptable opinions. The problem is that non-acceptable opinions like Man's nothingness fly in the face of tribal supremacy inviting the hemlock cocktail.

Are you a satisfied atom of the Great Beast content to argue opinions or do you have a need for meaning not offered by the Beast? The human question.