← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · YertleTurtle
Thread ID: 20165 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2005-09-12
2005-09-12 12:28 | User Profile
The Tribe and the Outsider
by Bob Wallace
So the Mommy-State wants to force all the boys and girls to share and get along. Now that may sorta work with five-year-olds, although not very well, as any parent will attest, but it doesn't work at all with adults, until someone, somehow, comes up with a really cheap operation in which the public's brains are not only washed but dry-cleaned, or else with some kind of soma-like drug that will permanently shrink adults to being kids again. Except, of course, for those in charge of the Mommy-State, who have to keep whatever deluded wits and withered morals they have about them, so they can order all the dopified kids around. Boy, that sure sounds a lot like Brave New World, doesn't it?
These days, forcing the boys and girls to "share" and "get along" is called "multiculturalism." It has never worked in the past, anywhere. It doesn't work now, anywhere, and it won't in the future, ever. There are many reasons why it doesn't work, but I think the simplest is what I will call the Tribe and the Outsider.
Human nature is such that people instinctively gather into tribes. Every living creature, from ants to elephants, does it; why should people be any different? Whether this tribalism is a problem or not, there is no way around its existence. People want community, and that community usually involves being with people like them, or who they like.
Now "tribes" may be a primitive term, but it was applicable not only in the past but also certainly today. You might want to call them "ethnic groups" or "nations" instead. It doesn't matter. They're still tribes, whether they're big or little, powerful or weak.
Where one problem arises is that every tribe in the past has, with monotonous regularity, grandiosely called themselves "the People" or "the Humans." Anyone outside the tribe was, obviously, devalued into being non-People and non-Human. That gives a foot in the door to murdering them.
All tribes today still consider themselves "the Humans," even though they use different words. No country today is going to call itself "the United States of All Humans" or "The Union of All People, and Everyone Outside Isn't," but all countries will say God has chosen them and is on their side, which logically means the Other Guy is on the Other Side. That's pretty much saying the same thing as "We're human, and you ain't."
During World War II, for example, the Russians spoke of "Holy Mother Russia," which implied that God had chosen Russia. Their opponents, necessarily, had to have the Devil on theirs. We're the People; you're the Unpeople!
But their opponents, the Germans, did the same thing the Russians did, when they said, "Gott mit uns." German soldiers even had that saying inscribed on their belt buckles when in combat. To stop bullets, I suppose. The question is: on whose side was God during the battle of Stalingrad, where both sides lost, combined, more soldiers than America has lost in all of its wars? The answer: neither.
It's painfully obvious that a grandiose certainty that God is on your side does not equal God being on your side, even if Jerry Fallwell or George Bush believe it. Neither does it mean your tribe is human and the other is not, even if you think God told you that. A movie example that comes to mind: I remember watching a Japanese officer, in The Last Emperor, exclaim, "The Japanese are the only divine race!" Later, when Russian soldiers closed in on him, he hurriedly scrambled his brains with his pistol bullet. Self-proclaimed divinity always has a price, never a good one.
People in the US, cultural differences aside, are no different than people anywhere else. They ask, "God bless America." It's never, God bless another country; it's always, God bless America. God should keep America's soldiers safe, but never any other country's. Our soldiers should be saved by God; their soldiers should die. Is that any different than those German soldiers with their talismans? Why should God bless America if America does not follow God's laws? It should be so simply because we, in our magical thinking, believe it should be so?
It's all pretty grandiose. It's assuming Americans are the Chosen, just as every tribe in the past has thought it was the Chosen. They weren't, and neither are we. And other tribes are full of humans, even if we pretend they aren't and act as if their deaths mean nothing and are just the "collateral damage" that always happens in war.
The biggest problem, though, is that every tribe projects its problems onto the outsider. There are, not surprisingly, two archetypes in literature called the Scapegoat and the Outsider. Often – in fact, maybe always – they are the one and the same.
The most famous, or maybe infamous, story about the Outsider and the Scapegoat is Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery," which everyone in the recent past had to read in middle school. Every year, someone was chosen as a scapegoat, which made them an outsider, then bonked with rocks until they were dead. It was an example of scapegoating always leading to human sacrifice, of projecting "badness" on someone and then killing them, in order to "save" the tribe.
Since every tribe grandiosely considers itself "good," all "evil" must be projected elsewhere. If one tribe considers itself human, and good, and chosen by God, then the other tribe, the outsider, must necessarily be evil, sub-human, and of the Devil. Maybe we don't consciously believe this, but emotionally we do. It why most people don't care – indeed sometimes even cheer – if foreigners die in wars. Then we act shocked when foreigners cheer when we die, the way some cheered about 9-11. How dare they act like us! Since we are good, they must be evil! It was horrible that nearly 3000 innocent people were murdered on 9-11 (and, yes, it was), but it was a good thing we murdered all those people in Vietnam, Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq? But since they were outside our tribe, they don't really count, and sacrificing and killing them doesn't matter because it was to liberate them.
Today in the US you can see our tribe projecting certain of its problems on the outsider. The US attacked Iraq over ten years ago when it didn't attack us, then blockaded the country and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then placed troops in Saudi Arabia, and supported Israel uncritically no matter what it did. We did this because we are "good," at least in our tribe's collective group-think mind, if not in the mind of other tribes.
So, when resentment, envy, anger and hate sent blowback our way on 9-11, we denied the bad things we had done to others, and instead claimed our attackers had to be "evil," who attacked us because we are "good." Now maybe things are that simple in the childish, black-and-white fantasy of Bizarro World, but certainly not in reality.
It's bad enough to have different tribes in different countries get into wars, but when tribes in the same country war, that is a prescription for national suicide. And multiculturalism, if it is anything, is several tribes fighting over the same land, and for political power, which is power over others. Therefore, it is national suicide. Each tribe is going to grandiosely call itself "the Humans" in some form, then deny its problems and instead project them onto the devalued other, which it will want to remove or murder.
Every empire in the past has fallen not because of attacks from the outside, but because of attacks from the inside. Once the barbarians are inside the gate it's harder to remove them. They may claim they're not barbarians, but apparently the Greek story of the Trojan Horse isn't taught to Americans in school anymore.
Some examples of tribal warfare? How about "Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan," whose motto is "Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada." It translates as, "Everything for the race. Everything outside the race, nothing." That's pretty grandiose, and fits exactly the idea of one tribe denying its flaws and projecting them onto a devalued other. It is projection/scapegoating leading to human sacrifice. They're the cause of our problems, not us! Remove them or rub them out!
Another example in the US? In the original teachings of the Nation of Islam (not only related to Islam in name only, but in my opinion, apparently in large part based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' Martian/Barsoom novels) blacks are gods, the original men, and whites are devils. Guess who's completely to blame for the problems of the former? That's right; you've got it! It's just another example of "Since we are good, you must be evil and the cause of our problems, so we must eradicate you." Denial and projection. Lies (to oneself and others) followed by scapegoating and human sacrifice.
A true conservative, a true Rightist (which hardly exist today), understand that human nature is imperfect. They know people will always define themselves not just as individuals, but as part of family, nation, religion. They know if large enough different groups of people try to share the same land, and vie for political power, each is going to define itself as good, the others as bad, then deny its own flaws and instead project their problems on those defined as outsiders. It is the Left, believers in the Mommy-State, which doesn't merely misunderstand human nature but doesn't understand it at all, and which believes several large tribes can co-exist peacefully on the same land.
The problem is made far worse when the State gets involved, because each group will fight for political power to protect itself and hurt the other. Each group will try to capture the State to use for its own purposes, which involves removing the others, or, ultimately, killing them. State-sponsored "multiculturalism," a misguided attempt to force different tribes to get along on the same land, will, as it always does when the State gets involved, have the exact opposite effect: it will make them fight even more, to the detriment of those involved, and, ultimately, the nation. So, not only are the boys and girls not going to share and get along, they're going to get into constant bloody brawls.
2005-09-13 12:00 | User Profile
YT, [QUOTE]Except, of course, for those in charge of the Mommy-State, who have to keep whatever deluded wits and withered morals they have about them, so they can order all the dopified kids around. Boy, that sure sounds a lot like Brave New World, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] This paragraph reminds me of a book entitled The Devil's Advocate by Taylor Caldwell. She wrote about this. Have you read it, by chance? ===============
What you wrote I believe to be true based upon history and personal experience. Yet, when one points out these truths on how people see themselves in terms of "good" verses "evil", one can quickly find one's self accused of such things as being "unpatriotic" when that has nothing to do with it. It is simply an honest appraisal of the real world.
I think you are correct about God being on no one's side in a war, save in one case. I believe that He may bless certain individuals for their character and courage. I think history is filled with such people. Incidently, isn't it interesting to note that Stalin had to make an appeal to Russian Nationalism, the Rodina, to save his bacon in WW II? To think, to have to do this after trashing Nationalism for so many years the Bolsheviks had to return to it. I noted that the Establishment here in America quit trashing patriotism after 9/11 not because the believe in it, but so as to misuse it.
Multicultural societies do collapse due to the inherit instability are built into them. I think my favorite example was the stupidity of the Romans who allowed the Goths to cross the Danube and settle in what is now Bulgaria. When the Goths decided to change things to their liking the Roman belately concluded that the Goths shouldn't have been allowed in in the first place and were utterly defeated at Adrianopolis in an attempt to remove them. One wonders if there were Romans at the time that spouted off the nonsense we hear today about "cheap labor" or "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande"?
2005-09-13 22:38 | User Profile
I've never read Taylor Caldwell but will pick up that particular book. Yes, I believe certain people are blessed, but I just can't fathom it happening for entire tribes -- no matter how much certain ones claim God chose them. And you're right about the Roman Empire -- it to us. I honestly don't understand anyone who is for open borders. What will they say when it brings only civil war? Will they admit their mistakes, or blame the problem on someone else?
2005-09-14 02:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]What will they say when it brings only civil war? Will they admit their mistakes, or blame the problem on someone else?[/QUOTE]
They will blame us.
2005-09-14 03:54 | User Profile
Yes, in the same way that they are now in some quarters trying to blame everyone who was against invading Iraq as somehow being responsible for the present day mess.
2005-09-14 12:24 | User Profile
Multicultural societies do collapse due to the inherit instability are built into them. I think my favorite example was the stupidity of the Romans who allowed the Goths to cross the Danube and settle in what is now Bulgaria. When the Goths decided to change things to their liking the Roman belately concluded that the Goths shouldn't have been allowed in in the first place and were utterly defeated at Adrianopolis in an attempt to remove them. One wonders if there were Romans at the time that spouted off the nonsense we hear today about "cheap labor" or "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande"?[/QUOTE]
Family values don't stop at the Rubicon, Dudus Maximus...
2005-09-14 12:37 | User Profile
May I add that [B]medieval Muslims[/B] also committed this folly - around 1000 AD, nomadic Turkish tribes from the steppes of Central Asia, led by Seljuks, descended on more civilized Persian and Arab Muslims in Iran and Iraq, who had before that heavily relied on Turkish mercenaries in the armies of the Caliphate: [COLOR=DarkRed] [SIZE=3] [FONT=Times New Roman] " [B]The Oxus was the traditional boundary between civilization and barbarism in Western Asia, between Iran and Turan[/B], and Persian legend, versified in Firdawsi's great epic, the Shah-namah, told of the heroic battles of the Iranians against the Turanian king Afrasiyab, who was at last hunted down and killed in Azerbaijan. When the Arabs crossed the Oxus after the fall of the Sassanids, they took over the defence of kan against the barbarian nomads and pushed them back beyond the Jaxartes. The Turkish tribes were in political disarray, and were never able to oppose a unified resistance to the Arabs, who carried their advance as far as the Talas river. For nearly three centuries Transoxiana, or as the Arabs called it, Ma Wara al-Nahr, 'that which is beyond the river', was a flourishing land, free from serious nomadic incursions, and cities like Samarkand and Bukhara rose to fame and wealth.
"[B][U]From the ninth century onwards the Turks began to enter the Caliphate, not in mass, but as slaves or adventurers serving as soldiers. They thus infiltrated the world of Islam as the Germans did the Roman Empire[/U][/B]. The Caliph Mu'tasim (833-842) was the first Muslim ruler to surround himself with a Turkish guard. [B]Turkish officers rose to high rank, commanding armies, governing provinces, sometimes ruling as independent princes: thus Ahmad b.Tulun seized power in Egypt in 868, and a second Turkish family, that of the Ikhshidids (from an Iranian title ikkshid, meaning 'prince'), ran the same country from 933 until the Fatimid conquest in 969.[/B] The disintegration of the Abbasid Empire afforded ample scope for such political adventurism, but so long as Transoxiana was held for civilization, the heart of Islam was safe from a massive barbarian break-through. When the Caliphs ceased to exercise authority on the distant eastern frontier, the task was shouldered by the Samanids, perhaps the most brilliant of the dynasties which took over from the enfeebled Abbasids. [B]In the end it proved too heavy a burden, and the Samanid collapse at the end of the tenth century opened the floodgates to Turkish nomad tribes, who poured across both Jaxartes and Oxus into the lands of the Persians and Arabs[/B]. [/FONT] [/SIZE][/COLOR]
[url]http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/saunders.html[/url]
It was precisely these Turkish tribes that were to be the main military opponents of Crusaders...
Petr
2005-09-15 03:29 | User Profile
since every tribe grandiosely considers itself "good," all "evil" must be projected elsewhere. if one tribe considers itself human, and good, and chosen by God, then the other tribe, the outsider, must necessarily be evil, sub-human, and of the devil. maybe we don't consciously believe this, but emotionally we do. good enlightenment> people in the us, cultural differences aside, are no different than people anywhere else. they ask, "God bless america." it's never, God bless another country; it's always, God bless america. God bless the world