Why Clans Persist

Thomas Jackson, American Renaissance, October 4, 2013

Do they threaten the modern state?

Mark S. Weiner, The Rule of the Clan: What an Ancient Form of Human Organization Reveals About the Future of Individual Freedom, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013, $27.00, 258 pp.

What is the oldest, most natural form of human organization? The clan or tribe. Even in societies that that are not ruled by clans, people have instinctive kinship loyalties. In the United States, this loyalty is weakest among whites, who rarely show much attachment beyond their immediate family, and strongest among blacks, most of whom have a strong sense of loyalty to their entire race.


Mark S. Weiner of Rutgers University Law School has written a book about the powerful attractions of clan loyalty and the persistence of clan rule in some parts of the world. He has interesting things to say about how clans work, and offers case studies of clan societies past and present. He also understands why clan loyalties are so powerful and how they shape a member’s identity.

And yet, this book is irritatingly couched as a solution to an imaginary problem. Prof. Weiner actually seems to think that proponents of small government want to hack away the state to the point that the United States could fall into clan chaos. Get the government out of medicine and education, and we’ll be back to the blood feud. It’s hard to think of a stupider defense of big government but fortunately there are other, better things in this book.

Clan society

Prof. Weiner writes that “clan societies meet certain basic human needs more effectively than liberal nations.” (By “liberal,” he means any non-clan-based democratic country.) He’s right. Members have dense, interlocking associations with many people. They know exactly who they are, and how they fit. Compared to the “bowling alone” individualism and loneliness of many in the West, clansmen—Prof. Weiner concedes he is writing about tribes as well, but doesn’t like the T-word because of “negative and racialist connotations”—have a profound sense of identity and affiliation.

The identity of clan members tends to be collective. They take great pride in the accomplishments of their fellows and they share responsibility for failure. A clansman’s offense against a neighboring clan could bring retaliation against anyone, so clans police their members and make sure they behave.

Clan relationships are also permanent. In “liberal” societies, we have a few ties we cannot cut—laws enforce a parent’s obligations to his children—but most of our associations are voluntary. We can change jobs, skip town, join a new club or church. Tribesmen find deep meaning and security in their tribe, but they are stuck with it.

If there are disputes within the clan, councils of elders dispense justice, and there is usually not much need to enforce decisions. Members do as they are told because violators could pay a heavy penalty in ostracism or even violence.

Clans have clear boundaries. These are usually set by lineal descent, but sometimes non-related but similar groups known as septs may become part of a clan. Clans may join forces in the face of foreign invasion, but there is almost never any doubt about membership. Prof. Weiner reports that clansmen in Somalia can often trace their ancestry back 20 generations.

Prof. Weiner does not mention this, but many clans physically mark their members. Among West African tribes it is still common to scar the faces and bodies of children so they will always be recognizable as members. Highland tartans served the same purpose, as do the “colors,” branding, and tattoos of American criminal gangs.

Prof. Weiner writes that a legitimate American organization that closely resembles a clan is the Marine Corps. Although the corps is not a kinship group, many corpsmen are loyal for life, take pride in each others’ accomplishments, and share the humiliation when a Marine misbehaves.

The most obvious problem with clans is that they recognize no superior authority. Prof. Weiner notes, however, that catastrophic feuding is rare; clan societies have what he calls “justice without government.” There are rules that cover violations, and a well-considered act of revenge often squares the books. Sometimes elders from a third clan reconcile hostile clans. No one wants all-out war, so there are built-in curbs against it, but sometimes clan honor requires mass violence. Much blood may be shed before one clan is routed or the exhausted belligerents finally make peace.

Case studies

The most interesting parts of this book explain how clans worked in the past and continue to work in the present. Iceland, settled in 870 AD by Norsemen, was one of the most finely regulated clan societies. There were courts and a legislature—the famous Althing—and by 1117 the legal code ran to several hundred pages. However, there was no executive authority; kin banded together to enforce judgments. This system worked for more than 300 years but divisions sparked by the introduction of Christianity led to several decades of feuding, and in 1262 the chieftains agreed to submit to rule by Norway. Icelandic clan society is dramatically depicted in epics such as Njal’s Saga.

The original Althing was founded in 930, and is considered the oldest extant parliamentary institution.

The original Althing was founded in 930, and is the oldest still functioning parliamentary institution.

In present-day Pakistan, clan loyalty helps explain why no one handed Osama bin Laden over to the US authorities, despite a $25 million reward. Anyone tempted by the money knew he would face the wrath of the clan if he violated both the code of hospitality and the prohibition against placing a fellow Muslim in the hands of infidels.

The Palestinians, according to Prof. Weiner, are hopelessly clan ridden. Both the Gaza Strip under Hamas and the West Bank under Fatah are wracked by feuding, which makes it hard for either group to negotiate consistently with Israel or anyone else.

In parts of India, disputes are settled by clan councils. Councils are much quicker and more efficient than Indian courts, and probably dispense justice that is at least as fair, and certainly in accordance with tribal expectations. Albania has traditionally been a clan-based society but was held together by Communists. There has been a return to feuding since the collapse of the old regime; people build walls around their property for protection, and some children stay away from school for fear of clan violence.

The Nuer of South Sudan have rigid clan affiliations that clearly identify all people as either kinsmen (actual or accepted as such) or strangers. This difference governs every aspect of how they deal with each other.

Damning the clan

Prof. Weiner clearly thinks that feuding alone is reason enough to abolish clans, but he has other reasons to dislike them:

[C]ompared with modern liberal states, communities governed by the rule of the clan possess a markedly diminished conception of individual freedom. This is because under their legal principles people are valued less as individuals per se than as members of their extended families. The rights and obligations of individuals are fundamentally influenced by their places within the kin groups to which they inescapably belong.

It is true that modern Westerners might find clan life suffocating, but people accustomed to it think we live isolated, fragmented lives. Prof. Weiner concedes that “liberal societies are threatened by anomie,” but insists that individual freedom is a higher value than tribal identity.

He also argues—wrongly—that clans are bad because they mistreat women. Muslim clans mistreat women, but ancient Germanic, Scandinavian, and Anglo-Saxon clans treated women well. It is Islam that mistreats women, and fully-functioning Islamic states can mistreat them as much as any clan.

Ride of the Valkyries by William T. Maud (1890). Women held honored positions in the Norse pantheon.

Ride of the Valkyries by William T. Maud (1890). Women hold honored positions in the Norse pantheon.

Prof. Weiner’s final argument against the clan is that “societies founded on kin solidarity lack the common consciousness necessary to pursue truly public ends.” This is for the most part true. However, Prof. Weiner seems to think any group of people can build a “liberal” society if we just point the way.

Some simply cannot, and average IQ probably matters most. In The Limits of Democracy, Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Tempere, Finland, shows the unmistakable correlation between a population’s intelligence and its capacity for representative government. High-IQ people show more mutual trust and can see beyond kinship relations to larger associations. Clans are especially powerful in places—mostly Muslim—that practice cousin-marriage, which both lowers IQ and tightens kinship bonds.

The parts of the world run by clans are probably doing about the best they can. A strongman who imposes order might be an improvement—or he might not. In most of black Africa, what passes for government is simply the means for the tribe in power more efficiently to suck the blood of every other tribe.

Prof. Weiner makes another mistake when he says that since “liberal” societies foster individualism and “truly public ends,” we have a moral obligation to use “hard” and “soft” power to drag clan societies into the sweet light of liberalism. This is the dangerous nonsense that leads to “nation building,” in which we kill a lot of people—including the one man who had figured out how to control sectarian violence—and are then baffled because the survivors do not embrace Robert’s Rules of Order and women’s liberation. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya are worse—more clan ridden, if anything—since our bloody neddling, and Syria is hardly likely to improve if we start shooting people.

But this is the folly that follows from believing, as Prof. Weiner does, that the entire world will revert to clannism unless the United States is constantly projecting power. This violent arrogance makes us hugely unpopular.

Prof. Weiner also thinks we have to promote “liberalism” because “clan societies . . .  provide safe-havens for a wide variety of militant groups waging war against liberal democracies and other modern governments.” More nonsense. No one is waging war against modern governments. Foreigners wouldn’t care if we were a divine-right monarchy. They hate us because we bomb them or their friends, and we support other countries that bomb them or their friends.

Prof. Weiner’s trump argument—that clans are bad because people die in feuds—is not nearly as powerful as he thinks. Strong central states—not clans—are the unsurpassed champions of butchery. Even the Hutu and Tutsi tribes, who managed to hack nearly a million of each other to death with machetes in 1994, were amateurs compared to the modern nations that fought two world wars and imposed scientific socialism on themselves.

Prof. Weiner thinks the United States—the indispensable liberal society—is holding clan authority and clan violence in check around the world, but how many people have we had to kill in the last 10 years to do it? Estimates in Iraq alone run from 100,000 to 650,000. All the feuding clans in the world have probably not killed anything near that number.


But if Prof. Weiner misunderstands foreigners, his misunderstanding of his own country is even more astonishing. “[T]here has been a widespread call . . . to engage in wholesale dismantling of public institutions,” he warns, adding that “the individualism we cherish will be lost as a result of a deterioration of the state.” He imagines a future 50 years from now in which there are no courts and no police. Family-based clans, religious groups, racial gangs, crime syndicates, and international corporations have filled the void. “Universities have been captured by international businesses,” and courts are run by international companies that favor their own employees.

If there have been widespread calls for “wholesale dismantling” of the police and the courts, I missed them. But Prof. Weiner thinks we don’t even need “wholesale dismantling,” since “the state can waste away through neglect. It can grow anemic. It can even vanish.”

States never “waste away through neglect.” States always seek more power. They can be destroyed by stronger forces, but they never “vanish.” The idea that even the government of Yemen or Mali would “waste away” is fantastic. The US federal government in President McKinley’s time was a scrawny thing by today’s standards, but the anarchist who shot him in 1901 certainly had no hopes that the state would “waste away.”

The prospect of rule by feuding clans would seem to be about the least convincing argument for yet more government, but that—believe it or not—is the main idea of this book.

Topics: , , , , , , ,

Share This

Thomas Jackson
Thomas Jackson lives in Virginia and has been writing for American Renaissance for more than 20 years.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading

    “…strongest among blacks, most of whom have a strong sense of loyalty to their entire race.”

    Maybe because they are the only race “allowed or encouraged” to do so. Hell, they’ve even convinced almost an entire generation of Whites to celebrate, idolize and emulate them.

    The rest of us dare embrace our own heritage and culture at our own peril.

    • Garrett Brown

      I’m glad you said “almost”. I am of that generation and I think it’s disgusting.

    • Rhialto

      My only knowledge of Blacks comes from direct association, not from sociologists or AfricanAmericanologists. My observations lead me to believe that Blacks generally have loyalty only to their extended family and a small group of associates (e.g. fellow gang members), They talk the talk about Black solidarity, but cooperate with other Blacks only when it is in a Black’s immediate interest to do so.

      I have not observed Blacks making any sacrifice for the benefit of “The Black People”. There was no outpouring of financial support from Blacks for the relief of devastated Haiti, or NOLA, or the nation formerly known as Rhodesia.

      • gemjunior

        You are thinking with a white person’s brain, you see. Your higher intellect’s version of “making sacrifices” for others is actually putting yourself out somewhat for the benefit of whoever you are helping. Which is the definition of what a sacrifice is. Giving money that you could have used yourself, traveling somewhere to help someone do something etc., is something blacks don’t do because they are so busy meeting their own basic needs at the bottom of the hierarchy of needs proving their lack of development. For blacks the “sacrifices” that they will make ONLY for their own race are: rioting when a thoroughly guilty black thug violates a white person and is punished, excluding another racial member who exhibits human-style empathy or justice for anyone with white skin. That’s the extent of their “humanitarianism.”

        • Bill

          Well stated.

      • Of course not, and the way blacks gleefully murder each other – along with anyone else – suggests that they don’t really feel bound to one another.

        A common bit of white social bonding is helping a friend move. Painting the inside of a friend’s house. Letting him move in for a few months after he gets separated from his wife. Driving him home from his colon cancer screening. Whites, Asians and Mexicans do these things together. Do blacks?

        In modern America, the sheer spaces and mobility whites possess have reduced the importance of the extended family. My mother’s sister lives on Long Island. I have no idea where my ex-father’s two sisters live. I haven’t seen any of my cousins in 25 years.

        We have friends instead. These voluntary associations can not be enforced, which makes them more special, rather than less so.

      • john boggs

        Board members at Chaney University here in Philly are crying racism because austerity measures by the state could force the traditionally-black school to close. They fail to acknowledge that the other seven state-run schools are ALSO facing major cutbacks, and are doing just fine to boot. Chaney is facing bankruptcy because of a lack of alumni donations, supporting your point that blacks will not support other blacks unless they can gain personally from doing so. The thought of a black professional donating a large sum of money to his alma mater is laughable.

      • NordicHeritage

        Only the white race has the altrusim gene that is more trouble than it’s worth.

  • What’s the supergiant white elephant in the room that both Weiner and Thomas Jackson miss when it comes to clan sociology? Other than “clans” of voluntary association, such as the Marine Corps.

    Cousin marriage, aka inbreeding, aka consanguinity.

    Clans continue to exist and continue to generate fierce loyalty from their clan members because clans are basically inbred extended families. “Liberal societies,” in Weiner’s terms, are ones where this sort of tight endogamy is panned and outlawed, therefore, the inbreeding is far far far far looser, and the fundamental clan loyalty is stretched out much further. In other words, the modern liberal society which Weiner thinks is preferable to tight clans is nothing more than a loose clan that developed because first cousin marriage was outlawed and made a societally deviant act.

    • Spartacus

      To be honest, I’ve always wondered whether cousin marriage is really that harmful genetically as it’s usually claimed. It must’ve been the only kind of marriage in the world for thousands of years all around the world, including in Europe, and none of those groups went extinct .

      Some groups are extremely inbred – Afrikaaners, jews, Icelanders, Japanese, most of sub-Saharan africans… It doesn’t seem to have affected them that much .

      • If it’s no big deal, then why did people with developed frontal lobes develop an aversion to it?

        • Spartacus

          I didn’t say it’s no big deal, I just noticed it’s nowhere near as “destructive” as some scientists claim it is . I wonder if it’s used as a pretext for miscegenation . I’ve already heard so-called scientists claiming that race-mixing is “healthier”, using cousin marriage as an example .

          • I don’t think most first world white people are stuck with the Hobson’s Choice of marrying your first cousin or a Bellcurvius.

          • Spartacus

            You misunderstand my point – marxists dressed as “scientists” claim that race-mixing is healthier than mono-racialism, like here :


            And I was wondering – how can they claim such a thing when marriages within one family have been and still are so wide-spread, without them having any visible effect on the peoples who practice them .

          • Sick of it

            They call it hybrid vigor.

          • Spartacus

            I call it bull**** .

          • Sick of it

            I do too, considering that studies have shown deleterious health effects from such interbreeding and that I’ve seen those effects with my own two eyes.

          • There has been notable genetic damage to Muzzies living in Britain caused by repeated first-cousin marriages. The occasional one carries some risk of recessive genetic defects surfacing, but doing this for generations makes it an eventual certainty, and then you get the Habsburg royalty, who in addition to becoming deformed, eventually ended up producing emotionally unstable imbeciles (Carlos II).

            The “one child” policy in China has resulted in arranged first-cousin marriages, and this has already produced congenital deafness in some of the offspring.

          • Sick of it

            If I had married one of my first cousins, she would have had white children instead of brown children. Good looking and intelligent kids at that.

          • Mike Lane

            I’ve thought the same thing.

        • freddy_hills

          Why do people have an aversion to eating sushi? The aversion is cultural not instinctive. In most of the world for most of history there’s been no aversion to it.

      • B.B.

        Spartacus said:
        To be honest, I’ve always wondered whether cousin marriage is really
        that harmful genetically as it’s usually claimed. It must’ve been the
        only kind of marriage in the world for thousands of years all around the
        world, including in Europe, and none of those groups went extinct .

        Arthur Jensen in How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement pointed to a Japanese study that indicated that the offspring of cousin-marriage couples had an IQ deficit of 8 points compared to the control group. Of course widespread cousin marriage won’t lead to extinction. Low IQ societies have no trouble reproducing above replacement level as the profligate fertility of sub-Saharan Africa indicates. As Richard Lynn’s book on Dysgenics indicates, natural selection currently favors low IQ. Nonetheless I’d prefer to live in a society with a relatively high IQ, with it’s attendant benefits of a decent quality of life.

      • William Krapek

        This one one of the many reasons why I think white nationalism goes most naturally with Christianity (as opposed to neo-paganism). Everything we can think of that makes us so amazing can be traced right back to the Catholic Church. Her ban on polygamy and harems gave families to more men – and therefore more men had a meaningful stake in society. Her ban on cousin marriages almost certainly resulted in the high social capital/low corruption we see today. And there would be NO MODERN SCIENCE absent the Church’s extension of Aristotle.

        (William Harvey and Galileo didn’t use the modern scientific method for theír breakthroughs. They used methods developed by the Scholastics; preeminently the demonstrative regress perfected at the University of Padua. As did Theodoric of Freiburg way back in 1305 when he used the method to make breakthroughs in the optics of rainbows.)

        As for the loneliness experienced in modern society – GO TO CHURCH! All this progress was made in the context of people doing that. Good Catholics are well known to have very low rates of mental problems. C.G. Jung often noticed that neurosis was a much bigger problem with Jews and atheists.

      • @ spartacus – “To be honest, I’ve always wondered whether cousin marriage is really that harmful genetically as it’s usually claimed.”

        weaver1 gets to it in a comment below: “What’s harmful is when genetic mutations get into the stock….”
        precisely. there is a lot of evidence connecting inbreeding to terrible congenital defects (the rates of these are VERY high in places like saudi arabia where they marry close cousins a lot and have done for a very long time) and even low iqs, but that is clearly because there are “harmful” or deleterious genetic mutations in the stock.
        obviously (or, at least, it seems obvious to me), if you have a healthy, intelligent stock (think: the darwins, galtons, and wedgewoods), you’re NOT going to have problems with inbreeding (or maybe not so much — darwin did worry about the inbreeding in his family and his children’s poor health).
        i don’t know why scientists/geneticists keep overlooking this fact. inbreeding, after all, is how we get thoroughbreds!
        the issue is not the inbreeding, per se, it’s the gene stock that you are starting off with (or in which problem mutations arise).

        • Spontaneous mutations are normal. Leaving cosmic ray impacts aside, chemistry shows a near certainty of cancer by the age of 70.

          Dog breeders have to worry about hip dysplasia.

      • freddy_hills

        Cousin marriage isn’t harmful. In fact, it’s eugenic in that it’s the only way to remove harmful mutations from the gene pool. It’s complicated but has to do with consanguinous marriage producing children that are homozygous for certain alleles. There’s a slightly higher risk of defects but not that high. It’s greatly exaggerated.

        • fuzzypook

          The history of European monarchy is littered with lunatics and imbeciles due to inbreeding throughout the centuries.

          • freddy_hills

            Inbreeding doesn’t cause mutations. It merely produces offspring that are homozygous for certain alleles. It allows those mutations to be expressed in the phenotype rather than hiding as recessive alleles in the genotype.

            Consider a family that carries a recessive allele for a disease — hemophilia, sickle cell, etc. If they inbreed then it’s unlikely they’ll marry another carrier. Their children won’t get that disease but the diseased alleles will multiply in the gene pool.

            Now consider if that family inbreeds. Their relatives are much more likely to be a carrier because they share more genetics than a random stranger. The parents would each contain 1 healthy (H) and 1 diseased allele (D). The parents would both be (HD) and the possible combinations of 4 children would be (HH), (HD), (DH) & (DD). The child who is (DD) would get the disease and die leaving two recessive carriers (to replace the parents) and one child who doesn’t carry the diseased allele at all. That’s a statistical improvement to the gene pool.

            But wait, there’s more. inbreeding also allows recessive positive alleles to be expressed which allows those positive alleles to improve the gene pool. In short, inbreeding may be bad for an individual child but it’s good for the gene pool.

            All those “lunatics and imbeciles” in the European monarchy weren’t damaging the gene pool. They were cleaning and improving it.

    • gemjunior

      Wow, you’d never know that from television or movies. I thought that the only people who married cousins, or inbred with sisters etc., were white trash or white crackers, or anyone from Appalachia. At least that’s what I noticed is the usual portrayal on the jelevision or the jewvies.

  • joesolargenius

    What has been expressed as Clanism in this article I have been referring to as (Familiarism) I made that word up 18 years ago to describe to people clinging to and protecting that which they are most familiar with , such as home,family and cultural interactions such as church and school , even music. Most White Southerners as well as urban Northern Blacks express this on a daily basis although sometimes to extremes, I have not been to a church in years but still feel nostalgic loyalty to it.

    • Sick of it

      Most of those Northern blacks have Southern roots. People joke about fried chicken and whatnot, but that all came from down here.

  • Spartacus

    “No one is waging war against modern governments. Foreigners wouldn’t
    care if we were a divine-right monarchy. They hate us because we bomb
    them or their friends, and we support other countries that bomb them or
    their friends.”


    This is a superficial statement. Not all clans/tribes are the same. Some – like muslims – will hate you no matter what .

    • Muzzies hate each other, the Shi’ites versus Sunnis being a case in point. What does anyone imagine the Middle East would look like if they didn’t have Jews and occasional Christians to hate?

      • Spartacus

        In Somalia, over 99% of all “people” have the same race, same religion, same ethnicity, same language, same sect within that religion… And it doesn’t matter at all .

        • Sick of it

          Indeed, they still murder and starve each other.

    • WR_the_realist

      If we weren’t always over there meddling in their countries and bombing them, Muslims would have stuck to their traditional practice of killing each other. I didn’t see Muslims fly planes into buildings in Zurich or Geneva. The Swiss mind their own business.

      • Spartacus

        The Muslims have been waging endless war against all non-muslims since their retarded religion was founded . My country was at a permanent state of war with them for centuries, starting long before Columbus was even born…

  • bigone4u

    Africans recognize their tribal loyalites and make war on other tribes, while in the USA, blacks are members of one giant tribe. They still kill each other in large numbers, however, all the while espousing loyalty to the race. Sort of a phony, superficial clanship at work, I would say.

    Mexicans have a theory that the human race is destined to be their clan, embodied in the concept of the Cosmic Race. Prof. Jose Vasconcelos gave them that foolish idea in his 1925 essay “La Raza Cosmica.” It expresses “the ideology of a future “fifth race” in the Americas; an agglomeration of all the races in the world with no respect to colour or number to erect a new civilisation: Universópolis.” (Source: Wikipedia)

    In the universities, the Cultural Marxists promote the idea of a “black community,” “Latino community,” “gay community,” etc. The word “community” is one I despise because there are no such communities, but rather they are “social constructs” created to promote a universal anti-white, anti-heterosexual mindset among impressionable youths and mentally ill liberals.

    When I as a white male seek my own personal clan identity, I read Socrates and go on from there to include Norse and other Euro mythology, etc.. I wonder if my ancestors would approve.

  • Alfred the Great

    Patriarchal societies were the norm in prehistoric and historic times. The Old Testament is about the Israelites and their tribes, which means families. And, yes, they were a race, descended from the stock of Abraham. In order to be an Israelite, the person had to be an Israelite by blood first. The Israelites had marriage laws and had to marry within the Israelites. For the Levites it was more restrictive in that they had to marry within the Levite tribe. Genesis means racial origin. The word comes from the Greek word “genea,” which means race, family, tribe, clan, kin, kindred, and descendants. Another variant of the same root means generations or lineage. Noah was selected by God because he was “perfect in his generations.” In the Book of Numbers, there is much time spent numbering the Israelites by first accounting for each tribe’s generations. The tribal chiefs were elected and they were literally the fathers of the family or tribe. The elders who made up the councils were literally the fathers from the various families. It was truly a representative form of government. In war tribes are oftentimes very fierce because they are fighting for their families and they obey their commanders because they are literally their fathers. This was a decided advantage that the Germanic tribes had over the Romans, for an example. Finally, to sum up the most important element of a society, it is, in a word, race (blood). In order to destroy a society, the first step is to dilute or pollute the blood, then that tie is removed. Religion can help hold a society together for a little while, but it will not last. I am writing a book about this, but I tried to be brief. I love this stuff!

    • William Krapek

      Interesting fact about that first census in Numbers: if you follow it up in the next chapter where God tells the tribes where they’re suppose to camp around the Tabernacle, they form a cross that faces east. The Tabernacle also faces east. I think it foreshadows Jesus: the Sacrifice, the Temple, and the Priest all rolled up in one.

      Incredibly off topic. Just fun.

      • Sick of it

        Quite a few things foreshadowed the coming of Christ. Joshua leading them into the promised land, for example (Yeshua).

      • Alfred the Great

        I also like the story in which the three men (God) appear to Abraham when he was in his tent. I think that was very foretelling too.

        • William Krapek

          Oh yeah. And every time the Angel of the Lord shows up, it turns out to be the Lord. Very strange if you’re Jewish – not at all strange if you’re Christian. It’s as if the Lord sends himself to give a message to us from himself.

    • Jacobite2

      Patriarchy and matriarchy are geneological terms. In real life the only difference between the two is whether women are ruled by their husbands or their brothers. There has never been any society anywhere where women dominate men.

  • One of my favorites. I wonder though, what caused the CC to ban cousin marriage? Did they do it knowing that it would weaken the tightly endogamous clan because it thought that that would somehow enhance the Church’s power? Or did they do it for some other reason, and the de-clanning of Europe just happened to fall out of the design?

    • Sick of it

      Probably to enhance the power of the Pope. Same with their new-found control over marriage generally.

    • Romulus

      One of the primary reasons was during the forced conversion and cultural domination of the various barbarian tribes.

  • Sick of it

    Our ancient clans worked quite differently from those he describes. Otherwise, where did we get the concept of a hero?

  • i said: “but the church didn’t ban cousin marriage until aquinas’ time.”

    i have to correct myself. the church REVISED its cousin marriage bans during acquinas’ time (down from sixth cousins to third) — it had actually instituted the first cousin marriage bans several centuries before aquinas. (sorry. too much typing and too little food!)

  • Eagle_Eyed

    I’d give up the life we have now for a Germanic tribal society shortly after it became Christianized.

    • usathoughts

      Not to worry. If Europe keeps on its current path Germany will complete what it started 60 years ago. Won’t even have to use guns to do so.

  • Any ethnic group or even racial group is going to be very loosely inbred and related. But there’s no way I buy 3rd cousin.

    You see it every time we get a new President; the genealogy will reveal that he’s related to a lot of other ex-Presidents to something like the 8th/9th/10th cousin etc.

  • Mark Weiner might as well be the poster boy for the sort of ideological cultist about whom some of us here are trying to warn the rest of us here. His purpose with this book of his seems to be that any sort of mode of human organization that revolves around particular groups of people that are related by blood should be dismantled and delegitimized because they’re a hindrance to the utopia that his politics that are a curious combination of liberalism, libertarianism and neo-conservatism is supposed to bring.

    I know some of you will tell me that even at that, I’m making the issue too complicated, and that all I need to do is examine his surname for one millisecond. No comment there.

    The truth of the matter is that while Weiner hauls out his disgusts for tight clans in this book, it is almost a 100% certainty that he doesn’t like loose clans that are nation-states, either, with the possible exception of one in particular. IOW, he has already said that the clans of the Muslim Middle East and other similar tightly endogamous clans are a hindrance to universal values and rights, so why should he like loosely endogamous clans of European nation-states any better?

    In Weiner’s ideal world, everyone on Earth is merely a denizen of the planet, “liberated” from any loyalty to any group of people less numerous than the whole of humanity, all seven plus billion of us in the constant pursuit of “rights.”

    Sounds more like hell to me.

    • Alfred the Great

      Yes, you are correct. The “one worlders” cannot attain their utopia with a bunch of Liberty-minded people around. So they have to dismantle them and then establish their government under the guise of compassion. When, what it actually is, is totalitarianism accompanied with endless tyranny. Most races are well suited for enslavement, but we are not.

      • Some “liberty minded people” actually help the cause of the one worlders.

        However, we know for certain that people who think racially, ethnically, tribally or clannishly can be nothing but a hindrance to our enemies.

    • robinbishop34

      “In Weiner’s ideal world, everyone on Earth is merely a denizen of the
      planet, “liberated” from any loyalty to any group of people less
      numerous than the whole of humanity”

      Yeah, but why do some of these people go into pit stained frenzies in an effort to achieve this, and does he mean for his own group as well?

  • drattastic

    American Jews seem to have no problems throwing Israeli Jews under the bus.

  • Jacobite2

    Maybe the Church wanted to maintain the decimal system by eliminating people with twelve fingers. The problems with inbreeding became obvious with the first domestic cattle.

  • Jacobite2

    Inbreeding has nothing to do with creating mutations. The problem is that inbreeds are likely to share deleterious recessive genes that would never express themselves with out-breeding. Any animal-breeder can tell you this (ask your vet about how healthy pure-bred dogs are). I can see already the Leftist agenda here — marry your cousin, all your cousins, the little kid down the street, your pets, Some Brit author defined Leftism as the relentless war against everything normal. This is just one front in that war, but more instructive than some others. Let’s put it to this test: note the ‘normal’ human behavior (any behavior) and predict that the Left will demand that it be outlawed, or that the corresponding ‘abnormal’ behavior be recognized and preferred. You will not lose much money!

  • loyalwhitebriton

    British Football culture is a good example of Tribalism. Most of British history consists of warring Celtic and Anglos Saxon tribes, and this has bled into the sporting culture. Actually, “culture” probably isn’t the right word, more like “violence”, which just illustrates further the tribalist undercurrent. My own teams biggest rival is another English team just 40 miles north, and the rivalry is quite bitter. Indeed, in my younger days, and regardless of who my team was playing, I myself often got caught up in the..er..”excitement”. Another example can be found in Glasgow, Scotland. If you ever visit that city it is probably not a good idea to walk around protestant Bridgeton wearing a Celtic FC shirt. At least, not if you value your health and general well being.

  • Epiminondas

    Mr. Weiner’s own clan…Jews…are among the most inward looking and xenophobic of any clan in world history.

  • Carney3

    Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan will never be Finland, but they are far better off than before we liberated them. Both were no mere ordinary Third World dictatorship or failed state, but rather North Korea-level worst-of-the-worst totalitarian nightmare states, actively supporting terrorism against us, not because “we bomb them and their friends” or back Israel, but because we are the leading cultural, economic, political, and military force ensuring that an Islamist global caliphate is an insane pipe dream.

    • usathoughts

      You received a number of down ticks? Your narrative is spot on.

  • Carney3

    Jews are famously fractious; so much so they joke among themselves that there’s more opinions than Jews in a given room or group. The portrayal of them as being monolithic, focused, united, agenda-driven Borg is a crackpot fantasy. Yes, they tend to not support political and cultural agendas that reject them – what would you expect?

    • They tend to think white gentiles should be forced to support blacks, while blacks hate Jews even more than they hate other whites. If Al $harpton was a *white* Jew-hater instead of a black one, he wouldn’t have a TV show.

      • Carney3

        Jews lean left, so they support the welfare state and PC charities, thus laws and a cultural milieu in which white Gentiles support blacks. But Jews would be and are also themselves taxed to support the welfare state which few of them need themselves, and Jews also cough up for charities which benefit blacks as well.

        Your last sentence is true but a non sequitur.

        • I don’t hate Jews, but I also don’t understand their politics. I’ll fess up that I don’t get it.

          • Massinissa

            Even some Jews don’t seem to understand why so many of their fellow Jews can lean so far to the left and be anti-Israel.
            I heard Dennis Prager (a conservative Jew) talk about his co-ethnoreligionists. He said that most of Western Jews abandoned Judaism and embraced communism and marxism as their new religion.

            But from what I’ve noticed, Israeli Jews tend to be more right-leaning (by Western standards) and more pro-Western than Western Jews.

          • usathoughts

            Perhaps you have heard the saying; “There is no one more dangerous than a godless Jew”. The mayor of Chicago is a perfect example.

  • Sick of it

    Well, when the atheists took over the scientific realm, space exploration more or less went kaput. Now they study new ways to fornicate in vile ways.

  • Bossman

    The natural evolution of a successful tribe is to become a nation and from a nation to an empire.

  • Romulus

    Exactly the kind of intellectual garbage i would expect from a jewish intellectual.
    Im surprised that he didnt mention americas most infamous ( according to them and the negroes) klan.
    What’s more is that he never mentions the most powerful clan or tribe that humanity has ever seen. His own!!!!!

  • Jacobite2

    Heredity is not optional. A concise statement of human society popped up today in “Before France & Germany: The Creation &Transformation of the Merovingian World” by Patrick J. Geary. Page 100: “Between enemies, that is, any persons not bound by a mutual relationship of friendship, goods circulated by plunder and theft.”

  • ricpic

    I’m a second generation American. For my grandparents, born in Europe and even for my first generation American parents, the Family Organization, all the descendants of my great grandparents on my mother’s side, was of central importance. It was the way family members set up other family members in business with loans (that’s how my grandparents on my father’s side were set up in a small bookstore, even though they weren’t direct family they got the consideration as an in-law’s parents) or the way a more established member of the family could recommend a less established member to an institution (my father got into med school based partially on the recommendation of an uncle with “pull”) or several members of the family would pool their available money to buy a piece of property (in our case an apartment building in which a few apartments were kept open for the very old in the family at low rents). Where would we have all been without the Family? In a much colder place. I don’t know if all the descendants of a set of ancestors rates as a clan. Make no mistake, the Family was very clear eyed about members who didn’t pull their weight. It wasn’t a charity and neither I assume is a clan a charity. But there is a heart. The members are YOUR people. Compare that to the state: not only heartless but more often then not a threat.

  • In a strictly tribal social environment, villages and towns often fought each other over livestock, land and access to water, and the usual result included rape. This means that primitive social groups were not really genetic “islands”.

  • usathoughts

    Watched an interview with the lone purported survivor. Says he is on the run. The raid on the military base did take place, however, Osama was not there. Though most of his family were killed there was no need to do so. The helicopter crash was pilot error. The occupants of the house had plenty of time to organize a defense but did not do so.

    That just about sums up the interview.

  • usathoughts

    Neglected to mention Chicago!

  • usathoughts

    In the main you are correct. However, there is an undermined point in which whites will rise up in mass, the result being rather bloody. Most countries, including the East have experienced mass uprisings at some point in time. It is perhaps good that such happens infrequently.

  • usathoughts

    The Jewish people may be the smartest, meanest…. However, they have powerful competition from the Chinese.

    Get the Jews and Chinese together and biblical prophesy would be fulfilled.

  • usathoughts

    They vote for democrats. Even while this administration is seeking their nations destruction.

  • Jacobite2

    I don’t know who you’ve been talking to, but I guarantee that people who are okay with sodomy are okay with bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and every other kink known, and unknown, to man, along with first-cousin marriage. Libertines aren’t narrowly-focussed. They have learned in the last 40-50 years that, as individual perverts, they stand no chance, but if they ally with all types of weirdos, they can elect a President.