August 19, 2004

Grouping to compete

Everything that everyone does is ultimately rooted in
the self preservation of ones interest and values. In
other words, everything that everyone does is selfish,
in that the choice or action is taken to maximize a
person’s interest and or values, culminating in a
reward. One can be seen as a Saint, as in the case of
Mother Teresa, for their apparent sacrifices they make
on behalf of others. However, the actions of Saints
are equally as selfish as those of callous sinners.
The only difference being their hierarchy of values
and subsequent rewards based upon choices emanating
from those values. This all works to the benefit of
the first law of nature, which is self preservation.

Now that we have established a selfish motive for
everything humans do, we must note the fact that
humans are a socially and economically interactive and
interdependent animal. Thus, it is the norm that our
interests are often at odds with the interest of some,
while in concert with the interest of others. This
invariably leads to the creation of competition and
alliances whose ultimate functionality is the
promotion and success of individual member’s interest.

If two or more males have an interest in one alpha
female, the natural resultant is a competition. If two
separate population groups expand to the borders of
the others territory, then a competition will result
over the land, because it is the land that is
providing the individuals from both groups the ability
to survive.

In light of all this, it should be fairly obviously as
to why we affiliate ourselves with groups. Everyone is
part of some group, either by choice, by birth or by
both. These groups then often become a way for
individuals to compete with other groups for the goal
of maximizing the individual interest of its members.
The reason being is that there is strength in numbers
and individuals often can further their individual
interest more effectively by joining with those of
similar interest and or needs. Also, an individual, by
virtue of birth and or choice, may be a member of
several different groups, some in conflict with
others. In such a case, that individual will rank the
memberships in order of their ability to promote
whatever the individual values most.

Our group memberships are a strategy designed to
promote the offensive and or defensive needs of
individuals against other competing human groups whom
we feel either threaten us or have something that we
covet. Consequently, we divide ourselves by nations
and borders, religion, political systems, economic
systems, political parties, ethnicity, race, tribe and
far lesser affiliations, mostly for the purpose
competing for the actualization or preservation of our
interest as individuals, which are shared by the

More often than not, our interest and values are
learned. Often we simply inherit them from our
families, communities and nations. It is often part
and parcel with socialization and acculturation via
emulation. Thus, more often than not, interest and
membership becomes self perpetuating through birth.
However, people do break the mode of their
environments training, but it is generally an
exception to the rule. Also, propaganda from a
powerful source can shape individuals beliefs and
values, by appealing to certain emotions that triggers
the need to become offensive or defensive to another

Not all groups are morally equivalent however. As I
mentioned before, some groups arise as a defensive
reaction to offensive actions by other groups. The
black struggle or the Pan African struggle cannot be
viewed in the same moral light as the Aryan or
skinhead movements. The former being the defensive
reaction to centuries of offensive racial oppression
and attacks from others, while the latter being a
movement to preserve the status gained from past
offensive attacks against others. In other words, one
is a movement to defend and uplift itself up from
inferior treatment and status, while the other is a
movement to preserve itself as a privileged superior
entity in juxtaposition. In spite of this huge
difference, people often try to draw a moral
equivalence between the two.

So, are these groupings and competition a good thing?
Yes and No. In nature, competition or resistance
produces advancement, through adaptation, mutation and
evolution. Thus, the absence of competition produces
stagnation. Hence, it can be argued that this division
and competition is actually advancing humanity (via
exploiting and harming humanity). However, “too” much
competition becomes destructive and ultimately
threatening to humanity. Therefore, competition needs
to be infused with its opposite phenomenon, which is
cooperation, in order to create the proper and most
efficient equilibrium for humanity.

Cooperation requires placing a high value on
collective interest. In order to increase the value on
collective interest of humanity, the trade off must
come from reducing the value and emphasis placed on
individual interest. The only way that this can be
done, since humans can only be selfish beings, is to
convince the masses that it is ultimately in their
best interest to do such, if they are interested in
the world that their descendants will inherit in the
future (fat chance?).

Ultimately too many competing groups (the natural
consequence of promoting individualism) and not enough
cooperating groups will sink humanity. A key aspect of
cooperation is that those with much need to help
promote those with the least ability to compete, even
though it may threaten the rank and holding of the
elites, who can currently only remain elite via the
juxtaposition with those with less.

Noah The African


At 4:18 AM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...


First, this is an excellent exploration. This, if nothing else proves beyond shadow of a doubt that you are AFRICAN. As an interesting note, in my usual Google Research for conventional/popular explanation for prevalent concepts like this, The Selfish-Gene Theory basically says because of how functional certain genes are towards self-preservation et al that those genes are passed on from generation to generation. This might resurrect the old Nature vs. Nuture and Darwinistic debate, but that's not the purpose of my comment.

What I really have to say may come down to semantics but I personally use different terminology when describing this human phenomenon. If for no other reason, I do it for clarity sake because I think there's reason enough to make a distinction.

True enough, there really is no such thing as a completely selfless act (I guess you could say). However, being motivated out of self-interest that reaps say more of a social or emotional reward as opposed to more tangible material reward by definition has to be different.

Thus, I tend to term all human motivation as coming out of self-interest which broadly would incorporate both the COOPERATIVE and COMPETITIVE strains. However, when attempting to adequately explain the competitive mindset especially as it relates to its extremes, I feel that is what can only be appropriately called SELFISH because if I try to "beat" you and take all the "reward" for myself then there is absolutely no way we can cooperate, much less co-exist, when it comes to that. Such "competition" is a direct assault to the survival of all those included in the competition whether by choice or by the force of whoever decides that their survival is contingent on outpacing you.

So its obvious that you are right on the spot when you say too much of that is completely destructive and too many people, especially those Negro-CONs who play both sides of the fence, are promoting a SELFISH mindset as a value unto itself.

So I usually term an (overly) competitive mindset as being one of selfish-interest and the cooperative as one of self-interest, acknowledging that both get something out of a human exchange yet allowing for the different types of intentional motivations and different types of rewards.

As an aside, it can be said that even when it comes to "cooperating" that one person can get more out such arrangement than the other.

The telling thing about Cooperation though is that one has to have an interest in seeing others flourish as well as one's self. That requires some respect for their humanity and their desire to survive as well. Cooperation also presumes there is something that one is willing to give up (sacrifices one is willing to make, if you would) in exchange for something from someone else. The idea is that both parties have something to offer and if nothing else a need to survive.

Competition on the other hand has little or no concern with the well-being of others. It is almost by definition self-centered. The presumption of Competition is that I don't have to make an exchange or sacrifice when it comes to my survival or anything esle if I can beat you to it or beat it out of you. The idea here is that only the "strong" survive and who cares about the "weak", they have nothing to offer society (the thinking would be...)

So it goes without saying that if someone has the mindset that when and if something is important to their survival (pursuit of happiness or whatever) they are more or less justified in taking it no matter how many other people need it as well and regardless as to how much other people may need it more. That coupled with its companion idea that presumes that you have nothing to offer me that I can't just as easily take makes for a difficult road to Cooperation.

It would be like "Cooperation for what?" in the minds of those with no real respect for humanity, other people's that is.

The only way to change the value system and to place a higher priority on cooperation is to somehow change the reward system. Either that or change the value placed on the rewards for being selfish and even that would be hard to maintain as long as there are so much more greater rewards for being selfish. That's why socialism is so abhorred.

At 4:42 PM, Blogger NmagiNATE said...


What would you say this viewing of human self-interested (or selfish) motivations says about the White Liberal/Moderate?


Post a Comment

<< Home

Black Sites and Forums