Sounds natural

For instance, if one person achieving their procreative /recruitment goals means that another person *can't* procreate / recruit

Or if the only way for someone to survive, is if they kill someone else

An example of this in action, an extremely brief and spontaneous event, was given as a group of people trapped in an elevator.

Their survival has the same threat. The elevator being stuck and the fear of panic. So, if they can share a common ritual, such as calling for help to keep each other calm, and in order to recruit (procreate) someone to join them in solving the problem, this means they will likely have a fairly high loyalty.

Right now, the left and right wing in the US have increasingly disparate, and antagonistic forms of *all* these factors.

Which is why tensions have gotten so high.

The left and right often don't share much common ritual, they have competitive procreation, due to immigration, the media, and academia, and each one regards the other as a threat to survival, more than an asset to it.

Left and Right wing americans, particularly of the far left, and even moderate right, are functionally not of the same tribe. Rather, they are two separate tribes at war with one another.

Intertribal loyalty should be expected to be extraordinarily low.

There's actually a fascinating experimental demonstration of this, as well.

iirc the details, some adolescent boys were recruited into some kind of camp or recreation event, and were placed in two separate teams, which would compete with one another in various activities

There was a marked level of hostility and antagonism between them, even though they had no real history outside these initial events, and were selected arbitrarily, not based on any particular characteristics to distinguish them.

However, there was a turning point in the experiment.

At one point, the boys are riding a bus up a road, and the bus, as part of an undisclosed script, gets stuck.

To get it unstuck to continue on their journey, the two teams *must* work together.

After this event, the tensions and hostility see a marked decline.

Because they had to share a common ritual, a common goal, and a common victory.

Using this as a precedent, possibly one of the few things which could possibly mend the divide between left and right in the US today, is for them to recognize a common threat to their survival, or procreation. Ritual, maybe, but they share very little ritual, and are unlikely to adopt a common ritual without regarding it as necessary to meet one of the other two priorities.

survival is the most likely, because of how distinct their procreation has become.

In the absence of such an event, I suspect a political specieation to eventually occur, eventually culminating in the formal recognition of distinct nations.

That said, the loyalty matrix tends to have a strong organic correlation to "blood and soil" So, yeah, that's what nations tend to organize around most often.

Probably with one of the most common exceptions being religion.

Good stuff

I've heard that the Brazilian government is purposely setting the fires off for land, and the president there was democratically voted in.

Hey guys wanna see a funny meme?
Did you know the film "Schindler's List" is based on a FICTION novel titled "Schindler's Ark".
look the book up, spend 5 mins on on the wikipedia article
best meme you will ever see I trust you
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/588581337414500373/614527223566696448/1561138049285.png

So the government has royaly screwed up with the social welfare as now Universal credit claimants can't keep up with rent so are being forced into homelessness which is affecting their universal credit as they don't have a permanent residence. Also DWP staff working in UC are going on strike and the staff have also seemed to give up communicating with claimants

It's almost as if...

@Monstrous Moonshine @Miniature Menace propatarianism is a fed operation, change my mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jDOMmk3N_A

universal credit - whose idea was that?

aha - IDS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Credit

Conservatives

the problem they were trying to solve is valid - we had 4 different work income related benefits alone

just read something i didnt know about it - it penalises large families. good.

Does it penalize large families, or does it jsut cut off after a certain point?

cut off at max 2 children

you know those stereotype poor estate roads with loads of unemployed families smoking in the doorwy shouting at their 5-6 kids?

those exist, i lived near some

@Comando Just got to the point where he's criticizing the lie by omission standard. This is both something which is a valid criticism or obstacle to enforcement, as well as something Kurt has actually acknowledged. A lot of this is specifically why I don't actually have any great faith in a particular system. In reality, however a system functions will be the product of the aggregate actions of those who operate within and against it. The priorities, values, and abilities of your folk are more important than anything specifically written on paper as law.

@Comando Reaching the part where he's providing a argument against the feasibility of a red american victory in civil war, so far it seems like he doesn't actually *understand* the arguments provided. The reason they bring up that red america has more guns isn't just a point of material logistics, but of temperament and preparedness. They have guns because they *chose* to obtain them, which speaks for a variable of self-selection. If a group of people are more willing to arm themselves with a politically contentious weapon, what *other* things might they have done, or been willing to do? And for those who choose *not* to arm themselves, what does this say about what they're mentally preparing for? He also fails to acknowledge a very important point that Justicar brought up regarding asymmetric warfare against a native insurgency. And that is, that the establishment army and the masses share the same infrastructure. As well as that sabotage of industrial scale is actually shockingly inexpensive, with a little creativity. And that the cities are so dependent on the rest of the country is less a point of, "oh, just blockade them" and more a revelation of how much a *liability* cities can be in a crisis. Sure they have lots of people, but those people have lots of mouths, and many liberal cities are now occupied by tremendous populations of the largely unemployable, mentally ill, and opportunistic criminals. The establishment would be compelled to defend points of major infrastructure to maintain control of them, but wouldn't necessarily be able to strategically deprive insurgents of resources, without risk of collateral events turning the population at large against them.