1. Strength in numbers.
A group is almost always more powerful, resilient, successful than an individual. Humans have been forming groups for a long time (it appears that more than one person built the Great Pyramids). Grouping allows for the division of labor and strength in numbers. It is wise to belong to a beneficial group.There’s an old saying best put the Iraqi way:
Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my cousin. My family against my tribe. My tribe against Iraq, Iraq against the world.
Notice the egg within an egg nesting of the groups. Not every group has to be enemies of every other group. Human groupings form naturally and unnaturally. These groups can and do work against other groups. That is why it’s important to have a strong group. Strong groups can be bonded by blood, religion, and reason. Over time these bonds can coalesce, such as arranged marriages between European royalty or assimilation.
2. What makes a group strong.
Groups can have strong or weak bonds. Some religious groups have members that would blow themselves up for the group. Other religious groups have easily malleable principles. Some family groups have members that would sit in a cell before snitching on a brother. Other family groups have members that would sell each other out for various things. Strong bonds lead to strong groups over time.
3. Group competition.
The simplified spirit of in-group out-group is this: the in-group competes against other out-groups. This can be through economics, politics, violence or even deception. This creates relativism between the groups, so that every side can think “we are the good guys”. This also allows for the dehumanization of “the enemy” so that they receive no mercy or quarter in conflict. To restate, groups are almost always more powerful than individuals.
4. Group manipulation.
The concept of the state allows for a group of many individuals that might not be bonded in other groups. It also might make membership in the nation group non negotiable. It can be argued that the state is the pinnacle of in-group development. The concept of in-group out-group is simple yet somehow become convoluted. Words like traditional, ethnic, social construct, power structure, and hierarchy get thrown around until the average man has no identity with a powerful group unless it is one assigned to him. In Western societies, powerful groups not sanctioned by the state are frowned upon. They could be criminal, not politically popular or even a possible contender to state power.
Grouping is a source of power so other groups can work to destroy the integrity of competing groups. It can be seen today with the elevation of some over the degradation of others. Natural groupings are sometimes discouraged and artificial ones encouraged. An example of this would be division on trivial political views or trends
The creation of “artificial” groups can be deceiving. There is a theory that the atomization of the American family was by design to weaken the power held by large groups of related people. Mommies dependent on the government instead of the father of their children is a good example of a mass of individuals easier to control than a group of bonded people. One can see powerful entities operate on this in group philosophy. For example, chairmen of wealthy nonprofit organizations tend to have strong fertile families living in insular suburbs even though the politics of their nonprofit might be to “help” the inner-city. As Bruce Wayne said in “Batman Begins”, he needed to become more than just a man. Sometimes you do to.
Some “socially constructed” group members have no actual loyalty to each other. These groups tend to be certain social movements and political groups. The basic design of these groups is powerful people at the top manipulating the foot soldiers at the bottom to do their bidding with little or no payoff. A sign carrier at an Occupy really has no tangible benefit for being the sign carrier but feels like he belongs to something. A soldier shooting it out with people he would have never met in the Third World feels like he belongs to something. Whoever moved those pawns on the board is surely getting a payoff.
5. Conclusions.
Be wary of groups that seem to be more of a master-slave relationship or predatory such as certain unions, community activism, and lonely hearts clubs. Also you can judge a person by their loyalty to the varying groups. If someone snitched on a member of his or her immediate family, it is best not to go into crime, business, or romantic relationships with them.
Read More: The Harem, The Tribe, And The Pride
True, something in inventing that I like that relates is that many in a group think better than the lone genius.
The problem is when you need to pick a leader. People like someone who makes them feel good. Yet it is only when they are a long way removed from working directly with a successful leader that they think highly of the guy.
If your people respect but hate you, you have most likely reached the most base level of successful leadership. Because if all of them like you, chances are likely you can get them to do nothing for you, maybe more but most likely less than the guy they hate.
You want to be in a group great, you want to be its leader, you better be able to pay the prices.
Not true. You could be a wolfpack of 10 billion and one genius would still own you all.
it’s all in the power structure…
the wild mad genius at the top is tolerated by a few loyal charismatic lieutenants that spread his word…. and because the orders don’t come directly from the lieutenants, they can give harsh and unpleasant orders, without seeming like nasty guys….
the ultimate version of this is god….
i’m sorry Jesse but God said I have to cut your balls off slowly and in the most gruesome way possible and post it on youtube….
i can smile and look in your eyes, and you might even believe me and go along with it.
Hitler wasn’t the true evil genius… Goerbels, Goering, Himmler and co. that put him at the top and then lauded over his ideals were the ones that actually made it happen.
Ideally what you need is a totally weak minded and reclusive puppet leader…. that you then control…. he’s always the one giving commands…… but never present….. “sorry, but the balls have to go…. because swami powerboi said so….. ”
I really wish it could go down another way…… I’m such a nice guy…..
fucknigiyou bdg snbzg k; mxzhikn b.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, it is the fourth of July isn’t it? And apparently I am getting clowned by a few who started the fireworks a little early. O-face seems to not be able to handle his liquor though?
Bullshit when it comes to game. Complete fucking bullshit. If you’re with a bunch of players, yeah, it will tighten your shit up – even if you’re left with the runt of the pack, but if you’re will a bunch of betas it will only drag you down.
I’m drunk right now, it’s fucking taking forever to correct my spelling mistakes. Fuck it,
I’m fucking sick of betas preching fucking bullshit to anyone and everyone. Especilally black betas. They’re the fucking worst. Don’t provide a fucki glick of insight to anyone except black begtas. Wish tey whould all fuck off of of ag least state they’re fuclking black, save eplel f the fucke tiem raeaging the shift. fuck.! d
iips neabt too renply tgo y theabd bot jesse fames. Whatever. all good youn dong’ vi z fucj,
dude you are having a stroke.
friends dont let friends comment drunk
Some ‘spherians have opined that this kind of in-grouping works well only on the basis of a preference. Women seem to have a hard-wired, innate sense of in-group preference, which goes quite a ways to explain how they can rally around an issue, grow in number, and, consequently, effect change. Frauen uber alles. This is how shit, on a macro level, gets done. No movement is able to effect change unless its members become Borg-like and can marshal resources to weaken the opposition.
Men, by contrast, seem to lack this in-group preference, and are further hobbled by a hard-wired instinct to protect women, in most cases. Men proceed more on a case-by-case basis, which is informed by their own personal experiences, and logical weighing of pros-and-cons. I’m no different.
For example, did a guy get ass-raped by his wife in court? Too bad for him, but as I’m not married, I’m not sure I feel all that much sympathy with him since I don’t have a comparable experience. I can do this only intellectually, and informed, at more than one level, by ‘spherian teachings and anecdotes. Vs. what about the average guy being flaked on in trying to set up a date? Oh, yes . . . THAT I know well. I can sympathize with other guys. But, also, what’s the solution to this? Will crying on some dude’s shoulder solve the problem of flakey women? No, it won’t. Rather, again, what’s the solution? And, more importantly, what’s the solution relative to my current dating status, age of the women I’m trying to date (and eventually bang), the culture in which I’m dating, and her expectations?
In either case, there are no mass movements to rectify the wrongs in both cases. Men don’t operate this way because, on the whole, we don’t give a shit because there are many individual cases out there. How to avoid the court ass-raping? Don’t get married. How to avoid the flaking? Don’t date Americhicks, for starters, and date outside of the US. That might go a long way in reducing the problem, but not necessarily eliminating it.
Finally, in trying to gather a group or a posse, again, its a case-by-case basis. For we older guys, this gets more and more difficult because huge swaths of men have commitments, that might or might not include us. The hapless beta whose wife or girlfriend has him by the balls? He’s not going to want to posse up. If he has kids, even less likely. The older, single guy who might be a good candidate for the posse? He’s likely going his own way and not interested in making new friends. And, to get anything done on a macro level, there has to be some shared goals and interests, which are difficult to define in this atomized and hyper-individualist culture.
I think that ideally, you find a group of like-minded individuals who are red pill, ambitious, have plenty of knowledge and are doing something with their lives. If however, you cannot find people like that and they’re losers whom happily accept a life of mediocrity then I would certainly roll solo. You really are the sum of the company you keep.
All groups can be subverted. The best ideas, like Roosh once said, come from spending time thinking about a situation by yourself, without worldly distractions. Group-think in the modern era is dangerous and has led to more oppression; groups to support a course of action are a necessary evil.
I often wish I could find a group that I could join. Unfortunately, I have failed and live my life in isolation with no close connections. That’s the hell that I live in.
In all seriousness, We have to have each others backs. If you get invariably lonely Ill hear you out no problem.
I been rolling solo in belgrade for nearly two weeks now. The girls here are all in tight protective groups. I’ve been getting massacred all week (gamewise), right now i wish i had a wing or two to keep the motivation and social energy going as well as untangling the complex knots of a group dedicatedly protecting the sought-after target.
Too many people strive to make group selection about biology. Cultural group selection is much more credible, especially in conjunction with work that has been done on altruism. People engage in “Tit-for-tat” strategy.But that also means retaliating against those who betray them. Without mechanisms of punishment, the group will inevitably dissolve. One can argue this is whats happening in Western countries, whose citizens think its wrong to have any pride in their nation to any degree.
When the author said, “occupy” he should have also add tea party movement.
Ask the Asians if group thinking is good. They will say Yes why not. Their culture stresses this. Collectivism. Group thinking, We-mentality.
Our white culture is Individualistic, free-thinking. And guess whose culture will produce more geniuses?