The fact that this has to be explained and in fact seems like a strange concept to many ethnic Europeans today, would be bizarre to our ancestors. Great video.
Great vid, Gabe. Most of what you illustrate here should be transparent if one simply reflects on the nature of human relations at scale and considers them as fractal. You hug family, you shake hands with strangers. You lock your door, but you don't generally place landmines under your driveway. If one actually believed in radical openness to the outside, why don't we stop living in houses and dwell entirely outdoors? There is a proper degree of distance from the outside and a level of internal coherence that must be understood as normative and is de facto so, even if it is ultimately meant to be transcended in bonds of civilizational logos or Christian brotherhood. The inability to see this is a uniquely unreflective and contemporary one.
I agree with you on the premise but I found this justification to be insufficient so I'd like to add two more points: 1. The group creates the individual. For an individual to be distinct it needs to relate to other individuals. In addition to this individuality is only expressed in the role an individual plays in relation to their group. The group whether it is an ethnic, religious one or a political one is determined by one's own nature, genetics and culture. However since all other types of groups are built on top of an ethnic group we must question whether any other type of group can fully supplant the underlying ethnic group. Think Stalin's Russia which was Russian first communist second, or Communist China which is the most ethnocentric country on the planet. Think about the Middle East where each ethnic group adapted Islam to express their ethnicity over its quite ethnocentric Arabic origin. 2. Division of responsibility. Much like the division of labour it is more adaptive (both societally and evolutionarily) to take care of one's own before drawing a larger circle around oneself. One can much more efficiently take responsibility for their family, city, country before they take care of an arbitrary multitude of people because of the emotional, genetic, cultural and historical connection. Without ethnic and familial connection and responsibility the group falls apart under heavy pressure which is why ethnocentrism was selected for. Individualism is largely a maladaptive trait whose life support is created by society which was in turn created by group orientation and hence ethnocentrism. My points are not perfectly formulated but you get the point. Is it possible to take the fundamental building blocks of society away to create something new without the new eventually melting into the old or killing both the old and the new?
"Love of one's own does not entail hatred for the other", but it sure makes it a lot easier. You should read Nietzsche a little closer, he found the German fascination with race during his time contempible, and representative of herd morality. To assiociate yourself with a group is slavish. The slave sees first in him the master, not himself. To see in oneself the herd first, as it were, represents a retardation of the spirit, akin to something like an animal.
-‘but it sure makes it a lot easier’ that is a slippery slope fallacy. You are not engaging with the argument itself but rather with what it may potentially entail. -Nietzsche was a loser who didn’t understand that inherent to human nature is being group oriented. We are stronger in groups than we are alone. Individualism is a disease of the mind because it goes against every aspect of what we are to our core. There are no individuals without groups and vice versa - the individual realizes himself through his participation in the group. Ethnocentrism is the love of your people. Slave morality is the hatred of the powerful for the sake of having power in itself. Totally unrelated. Being in a herd and living for your family and people is the best thing one can do. To give to others and those closest to you. Nietzsche leaves us with an empty individualism. Self craft for its own sake and not others. One could argue your disdain for white people to organize collectively and advocate for themselves and wield power is a form of slave morality. You despise the power of the collective for the sake of them having power. No different than the group hating the individual for being powerful in itself. Nietzsche is nonsense and the philosopher for middle schoolers who have yet to learn. Hope this helps.
@@gabrielsprach8323 don't project with your own middleshcool knowledge of Nietzsche. Why do I have disdain for collectivist ideology? Let's see, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or more recently, populist politics in the United States on both sides, the death of real political debate, etc. Cancel culture, etc. Just because you and I are White men does not make us close, I don't support your view in any way.
@@gabrielsprach8323 btw I already engaged with the argument on the other video from multiple ethical standpoints and you failed to respond in earnest to any of them. Let's do a video call and record it.
@@JS-dt1tn no you are 14 and can’t argue. I’ve already given you more time than you deserve. You also didn’t reply to a single argument I made here except cry about Hitler and Stalin or something. Come back when you know better then maybe I’ll consider it.
Questions on your loyalty argument: if I’m of Italian descent, wouldn’t I only be ontologically and existentially subordinate to the Italian ethnic group? If not, my next question would be why would my subordination extend to all Europeans? Another question: if someone is half European and half African, do they have an ontological and existential subordination to both their European ancestry and their African ancestry? Would the only ethical way to reproduce be for them to find someone who is also mixed?
The fact that this has to be explained and in fact seems like a strange concept to many ethnic Europeans today, would be bizarre to our ancestors. Great video.
Great vid, Gabe. Most of what you illustrate here should be transparent if one simply reflects on the nature of human relations at scale and considers them as fractal. You hug family, you shake hands with strangers. You lock your door, but you don't generally place landmines under your driveway. If one actually believed in radical openness to the outside, why don't we stop living in houses and dwell entirely outdoors? There is a proper degree of distance from the outside and a level of internal coherence that must be understood as normative and is de facto so, even if it is ultimately meant to be transcended in bonds of civilizational logos or Christian brotherhood. The inability to see this is a uniquely unreflective and contemporary one.
I agree with you on the premise but I found this justification to be insufficient so I'd like to add two more points:
1. The group creates the individual. For an individual to be distinct it needs to relate to other individuals. In addition to this individuality is only expressed in the role an individual plays in relation to their group. The group whether it is an ethnic, religious one or a political one is determined by one's own nature, genetics and culture. However since all other types of groups are built on top of an ethnic group we must question whether any other type of group can fully supplant the underlying ethnic group. Think Stalin's Russia which was Russian first communist second, or Communist China which is the most ethnocentric country on the planet. Think about the Middle East where each ethnic group adapted Islam to express their ethnicity over its quite ethnocentric Arabic origin.
2. Division of responsibility. Much like the division of labour it is more adaptive (both societally and evolutionarily) to take care of one's own before drawing a larger circle around oneself. One can much more efficiently take responsibility for their family, city, country before they take care of an arbitrary multitude of people because of the emotional, genetic, cultural and historical connection. Without ethnic and familial connection and responsibility the group falls apart under heavy pressure which is why ethnocentrism was selected for. Individualism is largely a maladaptive trait whose life support is created by society which was in turn created by group orientation and hence ethnocentrism.
My points are not perfectly formulated but you get the point. Is it possible to take the fundamental building blocks of society away to create something new without the new eventually melting into the old or killing both the old and the new?
each ethnic groups has its own ethic. Thugs had their own too...
"Love of one's own does not entail hatred for the other", but it sure makes it a lot easier. You should read Nietzsche a little closer, he found the German fascination with race during his time contempible, and representative of herd morality. To assiociate yourself with a group is slavish. The slave sees first in him the master, not himself. To see in oneself the herd first, as it were, represents a retardation of the spirit, akin to something like an animal.
-‘but it sure makes it a lot easier’ that is a slippery slope fallacy. You are not engaging with the argument itself but rather with what it may potentially entail.
-Nietzsche was a loser who didn’t understand that inherent to human nature is being group oriented. We are stronger in groups than we are alone. Individualism is a disease of the mind because it goes against every aspect of what we are to our core. There are no individuals without groups and vice versa - the individual realizes himself through his participation in the group.
Ethnocentrism is the love of your people. Slave morality is the hatred of the powerful for the sake of having power in itself. Totally unrelated. Being in a herd and living for your family and people is the best thing one can do. To give to others and those closest to you.
Nietzsche leaves us with an empty individualism. Self craft for its own sake and not others.
One could argue your disdain for white people to organize collectively and advocate for themselves and wield power is a form of slave morality. You despise the power of the collective for the sake of them having power. No different than the group hating the individual for being powerful in itself.
Nietzsche is nonsense and the philosopher for middle schoolers who have yet to learn.
Hope this helps.
@@gabrielsprach8323 don't project with your own middleshcool knowledge of Nietzsche. Why do I have disdain for collectivist ideology? Let's see, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, or more recently, populist politics in the United States on both sides, the death of real political debate, etc. Cancel culture, etc. Just because you and I are White men does not make us close, I don't support your view in any way.
@@gabrielsprach8323 btw I already engaged with the argument on the other video from multiple ethical standpoints and you failed to respond in earnest to any of them. Let's do a video call and record it.
@@JS-dt1tn you haven’t read Nietzsche. You’re citing school of philosophy tier points to me. Thank you for your surrender.
@@JS-dt1tn no you are 14 and can’t argue. I’ve already given you more time than you deserve. You also didn’t reply to a single argument I made here except cry about Hitler and Stalin or something. Come back when you know better then maybe I’ll consider it.
I"ll match your monthly salary in exchange for a single one-hour video to discuss the ethics of ethnocentrism.
Assuming you're employed, of course.
Questions on your loyalty argument: if I’m of Italian descent, wouldn’t I only be ontologically and existentially subordinate to the Italian ethnic group? If not, my next question would be why would my subordination extend to all Europeans?
Another question: if someone is half European and half African, do they have an ontological and existential subordination to both their European ancestry and their African ancestry? Would the only ethical way to reproduce be for them to find someone who is also mixed?
All good and reasonable questions, I doubt he would honestly answer.