“Mass formation is extreme collectivism” Mattias Desmet
As I am witnessing the reactions to the events in Israel/Gaza I cannot stop being amazed by the increasingly feverish pitch of the partisan divide. Friendships, families and work-relationships are breaking up over it.
As I look at the discourse (if you can call it that), I realized that calling it tribalism gives a bad name to the expression. It is far worse than that, it is more of an example of the mass formation
is talking about.Tribalism isn’t necessarily bad, while totalitarian mass formation most definitely is. Tribal identity is not the same as the formation of a lynch mob. It does not imply looting, vandalism or – as in the case of Hamas – terrorism.
Collectivism, especially the ideological kind, is dangerous as it does not allow for any deviation from accepted dogma.
When you type “Israel Gaza” into the YouTube search engine, you get an endless stream of propaganda, 99% pro-Palestinian, with the stench of antisemitism all over them. The propaganda is shameless and it is working. It is far past reason.
The news of last week was the ‘feud’ between Ben Shapiro and Candice Owens.
A cheesy tabloid-take on a serious question.
Candice commented on the news that the alumni of some Ivy-league universities are threatening to withhold donations if the Universities (some of which are heavily dependent on those donations) will not control the extreme antisemitism. She asked the question: where were these donors when the target of these extremists were ‘just’ whites, Christians and conservatives?
It is a legitimate question that deserves an answer, but bringing complexity into the debate would expose the propaganda. Reasonable arguments and informed analysis would render propaganda powerless. Ben Shapiro’s answer was a personal attack on Candice Owens. A typical mob response to any challenge: suppress the question by destroying the legitimacy of the messenger.
When I was talking to a ‘friend’ about the war in Ukraine, after explaining to him the background of this proxy war, the betrayals, the lies, the corruption, the propaganda and the fundamentally cynical immorality of the Western powers, I asked him how can he possibly support it? His answer was “I don’t care, I live here, I want my side to win.”
A typical mob response: ‘your’ side should never be questioned. Your side is always right because it is your side, and might makes right.
As Desmet points out in his interview with Tucker Carlson, the individual is not so much accepted, as it is dissolved in the collective. The very appeal of the collective is this freedom from individual responsibility.
The tribe is a structured society, with rules, expectations and responsibilities. The herd is undifferentiated conformity.
I found it shocking to see how rational conversation is missing from the public discourse. There is plenty of blame to go around, yet the most important one is hardly ever discussed.
There are no serious discussions about the historic responsibility of Western hegemonic interest on the one hand and the reginal power competition of the Muslim world on the other. There is no proper analysis of the expectations and the options; no plan for the resolution of the conflict.
The lack of which explains the propaganda, the whipped-up emotions and the lynch-mob like reactions.
As if nobody had ANY idea about possible resolutions.
No wonder we are stuck with stupid hysteria and virtue signaling.
Reason has no place here.
Further reading (more from me)
Worthwhile reading (more from Others)
JUICY DRAMA
Paul Joseph Watson on the Ben Shapiro-Candice Owens feudIsrael & Palestine | The Politics of War | Victor Davis Hanson
Alumni Withhold Donations Over University Responses to Pro-Palestine Protests
"Herdism" is a good word for it. They are like gazelles being herded by a pride of lions. Maybe a herd of socialist being herded by communists is a better analogy. The communists want to keep them alive.
I read an essay on Facebook by an indigenous Chief whos name I can't remember about his tribal 'smoke house' where all his relatives lived and shared everything. He did not mention anything about war with other tribes, maybe because they lived in peace with them (and probably intermarried).