Egregoros

Tribalism (I'm gonna call it Izzat because it matches up very well) is a double-edged sword.

It provides significant advantage when you're a small tribe within a larger ecosystem, but as it tries to scale its power it starts to become consumed by freeloaders.

Someone like Epstein could be considered a "reputational freeloader". He gets the safety net while others pay the price (being disliked in their community). Same with Vivek, he's freeloading off of Indian tribalism to put money in his own pocket, and Indians of greater morals pay for his sins. Same thing with the BLM leaders who stole all of the money, etc etc etc

Here's the thing, and why I think Christian / Pegan / Unaffiliated individualism actually wins out in the end: Racism is checkmate on Izzat. In a massively interconnected post-privacy reality, if you look like a tribe and act like a tribe, you get judged like a tribe.

So either you have to self-police, or you disband. If you self-police, you have to police to a MUCH HIGHER STANDARD than average, because it only takes one psychopath to make viral mp4. So quickly all of the advantage of izzat gets dragged down by the cost of ensuring nobody in your group ever does anything scandalous.

The alternative is your best and brightest don't want to be associated with their worst co-ethnics, so they start marrying out of group and generally disassociate (the Irish and Italians in America basically did this). In this case, the tribe gets boiled down to some small band of mutants that don't have what it takes to make it outside of their bubble, and the world basically just leaves them behind.

This also explains why in the 20th century, racism was considered The Pinnacle of Evil.

Because when groups are treated as groups, NO group is safe from judgement. So when power is projected via groups, the powerful will fight to the death to prevent people from doing that.

Mass Media was the golden goose for these people, because it allowed them to create an entire generation that had no connection to reality (boomers, obviously). But the death of Mass Media is the death of their hold on power.

And you can watch this playing out in real time. The clever are quietly adapting to the new reality while the stupid are still pulling the same levers as before, thinking that they'll continue to work.

@cjd
Tribalism does scale into nations. Many related families make a tribe, and many related tribes (a race) make a nation.

Nations usually develop a state to administer punishment to psychopaths and reprobates. This state also provides the protection of its race from other nations and supports its flourishing.

Here in the US where we no longer have a single nation supported by a state, you find many nations forming and vying for control of the state. One nation/tribe has clearly succeeded to take control at the detriment of the people of the former nation. The colonial founding stock and other later arrivals such as Italians not only lack protection from the state but are actively targeted for destruction or dissolution. One way this is done is by promoting dysgenic or evil people within the targeted tribe to create the disharmony you describe.

All of that stuff you're talking about worked pre-20th-century. But nation-state susceptibility to takeover already reveals its weakness.

Post-21st century Nationalism is a DOA. Politicians are giving it lip service but it won't go anywhere because it can't, game theory is rigged against it.

The beginning of the end of Nationalism was the rise of the Bank of England in the 1800s. England colonized a large part of the world because they *collaborated* with local elites to help them hide their wealth. Some of it was legitimately earned and they didn't want their countrymen appropriating it, some of it was just stolen, the bank didn't care as long as you put it in an account with them. That's why nobody really resisted colonization, it was in their interest to welcome the British. If you stole from your country and put it in the Bank, you're protected because nobody knows you have the money, the Bank would hide it for you.

That was then, but the problem now is even worse. Today, every nationalistic country faces a dilemma:
A. Maintain aristocratic control over resources, or
B. Embrace neoliberalism and allow clever ambitious people to rise to power.

Every country's aristocracy is squarely aligned with A. But the problem is that when you don't give smart ambitious people a path to the top, someone else will.

So at best, your Nation will bleed its top-IQ performers to Silicon Valley (as they all do). At worst, top performers will collaborate with internationalists to undermine your country's sovereignty. Remember, the people ruling their country are the ones blocking their path to success, so internationalists will be welcomed as friends.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the Bank of England model is still alive as well. Any country that meaningfully taxes billionaires ends up bleeding billionaires to places like Malta, Hong Kong, and Dubai.

This one-two punch is why trying to go back to 20th century nationalism is going to be like going back to horse and buggy. Some will try it, but they will quickly give up when they realize they're fighting nature.

@cjd
The war between nationalists and internationalists has been waging for centuries now. It is too much to summarize. In 1948, the internationalists established themselves a nation that the conquered/globalized nations now serve.

The lack of social mobility in aristocracy was addressed beautifully by the NSDAP. Talented individuals were encouraged to move up its ranks regardless of their family's class. They were building a utopian model until the internationalists rounded up a big enough fighting force to crush them.

White populations across the anglosphere are waking up to the genocide being done to them. They are building many nationalist movements. Nationalism is the only viable solution to change the direction. I know many people who will never give up. It is in our blood to keep fighting for our people's future regardless of how futile it sometimes looks.