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.

catgang

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.

seekers

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

subversion

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