Agreed, but I'd like to add to it. It's tangentially related, but I love philosophical subjects and how they connect to real world stuff.

adult realization that there are things more important than you and fundamental purpose of your life is to sacrifice yourself for those is almost impossible for a person to do for himself in a vacuum.

There's a somewhat paradoxical view of humanity that I've learned over the years. I try to break things down to the foundations, to learn the true causes and effects, and what happens when things are changed (corrupted, like in modern society).

In this case, specifically, I view humanity's natural state as living without civilization, in the wild, forced to survive in a harsh environment. It's the beginning stages of all life and all people. Civilization is a result of man's efforts and works. Without that effort and work, to start it and maintain it, civilization ceases to exist.

However, people are social creatures. We naturally form communities/tribes/groups with others of like mind to pursue common interests and goals. The first/primary/foundational and most important mutual goal is survival. This is why we see social circles in other species as well. The natural state of man is create the very foundations of civilization itself, which seems to contradict the first stage as being the foundation. This statement is neither here nor there, but I just find it interesting.

In any case, man forms tribes to pursue mutual interests, the first being survival. If the people of that tribe adhere to truth, it grows and prospers. If not, it barely escapes this first stage of development, fails completely, separates into differing other tribes to pursue differing opinions, or is killed off, enslaved, or conquered by outside forces due to some weakness, derived from our lack of adherence to truth and/or our inherent weaknesses as mortal, finite, imperfect beings. To steal a line from Star Trek, " it is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose". While perfect adherence to truth absolutely lessens the possibility of failure, it doesn't completely prevent it, as we're still mortal, finite, imperfect beings living in a universe that is vastly, infinitely bigger than us. We don't have godlike powers to prevent natural disasters, on this planet or the wider space around us, from destroying us. Over enough time we may be able to overcome these dangers, though, but we'll always fall short of perfection.

This is also why anyone claiming stuff like "diversity is our strength" are either fools or liars. All groups of life, regardless of size, purpose, location, and time, are formed along homogeneous lines. Usually, the greater the homogeneity, the greater the social cohesion, and greater likelihood that tribe can grow, prosper, and succeed. If diversity is artificially forced into a group, it inherently weakens the group cohesion, making the group itself weaker, from degenerating and corrupting forces from within, and destructive forces from without. The only purpose to pushing diversity is so subversives and despots can gain power over a group that otherwise would reject them.

As a normie acceptable example, think of what sports would be like if we artificially pushed diversity into, say, football, by claiming "unless football accepts basketball into their communities and stadiums, football won't survive". Football then accept basketball into it, and all hell break loose. The basketball players try to play basketball on a football field while the football teams are trying to play football, and the football fans are trying to watch football. It completely breaks the group, its purpose, and its cohesion. This sounds absurd, but this is exactly what's happened to other hobbyist communities like video games, comic books, specific internet forums, etc. People who had no real interest in the hobby invaded, pushed out the people who formed it, and now it's a watered down diverse mess. Subversives love to use this tactic, because once it's watered down and the original inhabitants are censored, shamed, or pushed out, the subversives can push their propaganda through it, which explains all the subversive crap taking/taken over communities.

There are several mistakes that normie tier right wingers make about communities and homogeneity.

First, they think race plays no part, when it's arguably the most important. The root words for nation derive from French and Latin, literally meaning children, parents, ancestry, heritage, family, people, etc. One can't change the people of a group/nation without changing/destroying the group/nation.

Second, they've embraced the concept of self destructive individualism. I can safely assume this is due to subversive influences pushing the idea on the mainstream right wing, to keep it controlled and weak, incapable of truly stopping the people in power. Individualism, by itself, is inherently self destructive because it ignores the welfare of the collective, the group(s) they're in. The individuals may be strong, but th collective is weak, making it easy to subvert from within or destroy from without. Without collective, mutual, shared interests, groups cease to exist, and individuals are easily defeated, enslaved, conquered, and killed. I assume this position is easy to accept for normie right wingers because the argument has been framed in such a way that they view leftists as collectivists (communists), and since leftists/communists are bad/wrong (a correct assertion), that therefore all forms of collectivism are bad/wrong (a false assertion). Collectivism, by itself, is also destructive, but only because it ignores the well being of the individuals, often trampling upon them, weakening the individuals, who in turn weaken the collective, which is then susceptible to insidious forces from within or destructive forces from without. Reality lies somewhere in the middle, a union between individualism and collectivism. All individuals part of a group must sacrifice in some way for the collective health of the group, otherwise the group will cease to exist.

Thirdly, they've been brainwashed to think groups can't gatekeep, and more importantly, that White people can't gatekeep their own borders. It's safe to assume this is why so much White guilt history is taught in schools, much of it either a lie or taken out of context, and anti-White media is pushed out regularly, to perpetually reinforce the propaganda we were taught in schools. Gatekeeping allows the group to remain homogeneous, by controlling who can enter. If gatekeeping wasn't necessary, ancient cities wouldn't have walls surrounding them, castles wouldn't exist, and homes would just be roofs with no walls or doors. Our nations/groups are our homes. We all have the natural right to protect our homes and controls who enters. Good men know they must do this to protect what they love within, which is also why men and the role of men has been intentionally subverted and weakened in society, as it's our evolved/created role as part of every group we're with: protectors. Without the men protecting a group, subversives, tyrants, and invading armies face no resistance.

In any case, back to the topic at hand, we form groups to do and create things we can't do on our own. Nature is harsh. It kills idiots with ease and impunity. Nature (the universe) is built upon truth, with all the rules laid within it. That's why going against truth is so fatal in a harsh environment. Want to go hug the kodiak bears over there? Dead. Want to play with the rattlesnake? Dead. Want to subvert the natural order, put women in power, and allow women to work? Dead. Some truths are more apparent than others, and the less obvious ones take longer to unfold the consequences, but the truth remains. In the beginning stages of civilization, nature will often weed out the stupid quite quickly, and the strongest tribes will quickly (relatively speaking) grow stronger and form city states and then nation states, with strength being derived from adherence to truth. Once a civilization becomes successful, life becomes easier, as paradoxically, we erect barriers between ourselves and nature so we can advance, but it was nature that honed us and taught us the rules in the first place, which enabled our success. Those barriers we erect weaken us over time, preventing nature from weeding out the stupidity. Success also breeds complacence and comfort, as abundance and safety become the norm. Atomization and apathy, especially toward the group, becomes more common and social cohesion plummets, as people face less dire need for the help of others. This is also when subversives are most easily able to infiltrate and corrupt. This explains modern Western civilization perfectly. It's why all civilizations rise and fall.

So, in part I agree with you, and in part I think there's more to it (at least with how you worded it). We form groups for mutual interests, like being able to survive, find a spouse, create families, raise our kids, and our kids to survive and be strong, healthy, and better than we are. However, nature (truth) does the same. It forces us to do this, to group up, out of necessity.

Agreed, but I'd like to something. It's tangentially related, but I love philosophical subjects and how they connect to real world stuff.

adult realization that there are things more important than you and fundamental purpose of your life is to sacrifice yourself for those is almost impossible for a person to do for himself in a vacuum.

There's a somewhat paradoxical view of humanity that I've learned over the years. I try to break things down to the foundations, to learn the true causes and effects, and what happens when things are changed (corrupted, like in modern society).

In this case, specifically, I view humanity's natural state as living without civilization, in the wild, forced to survive in a harsh environment. It's the beginning stages of all life and all people. Civilization is a result of man's efforts and works. Without that effort and work, to start it and maintain it, civilization ceases to exist.

However, people are social creatures. We naturally form communities/tribes/groups with others of like mind to pursue common interests and goals. The first/primary/foundational and most important mutual goal is survival. This is why we see social circles in other species as well. The natural state of man is create the very foundations of civilization itself, which seems to contradict the first stage as being the foundation. This statement is neither here nor there, but I just find it interesting.

In any case, man forms tribes to pursue mutual interests, the first being survival. If the people of that tribe adhere to truth, it grows and prospers. If not, it barely escapes this first stage of development, fails completely, separates into differing other tribes to pursue differing opinions, or is killed off, enslaved, or conquered by outside forces due to some weakness, derived from our lack of adherence to truth and/or our inherent weaknesses as mortal, finite, imperfect beings. To steal a line from Star Trek, " it is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose". While perfect adherence to truth absolutely lessens the possibility of failure, it doesn't completely prevent it, as we're still mortal, finite, imperfect beings living in a universe that is vastly, infinitely bigger than us. We don't have godlike powers to prevent natural disasters, on this planet or the wider space around us, from destroying us. Over enough time we may be able to overcome these dangers, though, but we'll always fall short of perfection.

This is also why anyone claiming stuff like "diversity is our strength" are either fools or liars. All groups of life, regardless of size, purpose, location, and time, are formed along homogeneous lines. Usually, the greater the homogeneity, the greater the social cohesion, and greater likelihood that tribe can grow, prosper, and succeed. If diversity is artificially forced into a group, it inherently weakens the group cohesion, making the group itself weaker, from degenerating and corrupting forces from within, and destructive forces from without. The only purpose to pushing diversity is so subversives and despots can gain power over a group that otherwise would reject them.

As a normie acceptable example, think of what sports would be like if we artificially pushed diversity into, say, football, by claiming "unless football accepts basketball into their communities and stadiums, football won't survive". Football then accept basketball into it, and all hell break loose. The basketball players try to play basketball on a football field while the football teams are trying to play football, and the football fans are trying to watch football. It completely breaks the group, its purpose, and its cohesion. This sounds absurd, but this is exactly what's happened to other hobbyist communities like video games, comic books, specific internet forums, etc. People who had no real interest in the hobby invaded, pushed out the people who formed it, and now it's a watered down diverse mess. Subversives love to use this tactic, because once it's watered down and the original inhabitants are censored, shamed, or pushed out, the subversives can push their propaganda through it, which explains all the subversive crap taking/taken over communities.

There are several mistakes that normie tier right wingers make about communities and homogeneity.

First, they think race plays no part, when it's arguably the most important. The root words for nation derive from French and Latin, literally meaning children, parents, ancestry, heritage, family, people, etc. One can't change the people of a group/nation without changing/destroying the group/nation.

Second, they've embraced the concept of self destructive individualism. I can safely assume this is due to subversive influences pushing the idea on the mainstream right wing, to keep it controlled and weak, incapable of truly stopping the people in power. Individualism, by itself, is inherently self destructive because it ignores the welfare of the collective, the group(s) they're in. The individuals may be strong, but th collective is weak, making it easy to subvert from within or destroy from without. Without collective, mutual, shared interests, groups cease to exist, and individuals are easily defeated, enslaved, conquered, and killed. I assume this position is easy to accept for normie right wingers because the argument has been framed in such a way that they view leftists as collectivists (communists), and since leftists/communists are bad/wrong (a correct assertion), that therefore all forms of collectivism are bad/wrong (a false assertion). Collectivism, by itself, is also destructive, but only because it ignores the well being of the individuals, often trampling upon them, weakening the individuals, who in turn weaken the collective, which is then susceptible to insidious forces from within or destructive forces from without. Reality lies somewhere in the middle, a union between individualism and collectivism. All individuals part of a group must sacrifice in some way for the collective health of the group, otherwise the group will cease to exist.

Thirdly, they've been brainwashed to think groups can't gatekeep, and more importantly, that White people can't gatekeep their own borders. It's safe to assume this is why so much White guilt history is taught in schools, much of it either a lie or taken out of context, and anti-White media is pushed out regularly, to perpetually reinforce the propaganda we were taught in schools. Gatekeeping allows the group to remain homogeneous, by controlling who can enter. If gatekeeping wasn't necessary, ancient cities wouldn't have walls surrounding them, castles wouldn't exist, and homes would just be roofs with no walls or doors. Our nations/groups are our homes. We all have the natural right to protect our homes and controls who enters. Good men know they must do this to protect what they love within, which is also why men and the role of men has been intentionally subverted and weakened in society, as it's our evolved/created role as part of every group we're with: protectors. Without the men protecting a group, subversives, tyrants, and invading armies face no resistance.

In any case, back to the topic at hand, we form groups to do and create things we can't do on our own. Nature is harsh. It kills idiots with ease and impunity. Nature (the universe) is built upon truth, with all the rules laid within it. That's why going against truth is so fatal in a harsh environment. Want to go hug the kodiak bears over there? Dead. Want to play with the rattlesnake? Dead. Want to subvert the natural order, put women in power, and allow women to work? Dead. Some truths are more apparent than others, and the less obvious ones take longer to unfold the consequences, but the truth remains. In the beginning stages of civilization, nature will often weed out the stupid quite quickly, and the strongest tribes will quickly (relatively speaking) grow stronger and form city states and then nation states, with strength being derived from adherence to truth. Once a civilization becomes successful, life becomes easier, as paradoxically, we erect barriers between ourselves and nature so we can advance, but it was nature that honed us and taught us the rules in the first place, which enabled our success. Those barriers we erect weaken us over time, preventing nature from weeding out the stupidity. Success also breeds complacence and comfort, as abundance and safety become the norm. Atomization and apathy, especially toward the group, becomes more common and social cohesion plummets, as people face less dire need for the help of others. This is also when subversives are most easily able to infiltrate and corrupt. This explains modern Western civilization perfectly. It's why all civilizations rise and fall.

So, in part I agree with you, and in part I think there's more to it (at least with how you worded it). We form groups for mutual interests, like being able to survive, find a spouse, create families, raise our kids, and our kids to survive and be strong, healthy, and better than we are. However, nature (truth) does the same. It forces us to do this, to group up, out of necessity.