Add new comment

It used to refer to a "great" leader. A magnanimous, or "magnus". It's a common thing in the ancient world to be depicting them as physically larger than humans, at least twice larger. The (safe) narrative convention in anthropology and history is to be attributing it to a tendency in ancient mythology of aggrandizing the State leaders and their families. There could be underneath this theocratic mythology of State leaders the physical reality of a (previously existing but extinct, rather than extant ;) ) breed of giant humans, the so-called Rephaim, and earlier Nephilim. Goliath for instance was a lugal, also in his case a champion strongman. ANYWAYS... ancient history and its mind tricks. Will we ever know what was real or myth?

About tribes, they're are also already being created by Left milieus... run by their own sub-capitalist politics, they aren't nice or desirable aggregates at all. I know a network like this in my area, that connects to a much wider network, and it could be totally referred to as a "tribe". They're the call-out justice crowd. Little shitty phallocrats are managing things, supported by several over-infatuating females who stand by their rooster of the coop, and several male henchmen. Very exploitative and self-absorbing gangs. I wouldn't recommend such tribes as any progressive, even less liberating "solution". The structure of these social arrangements are the reason why the Left since the '70s doesn't "work", or doesn't gain enough capital to lift itself upward enough to become the State, as they'd so much like. They only become a mid-layer of the State apparatus, getting jobs as lower social managers, especially those abhorrent MANAGERS OF MISERY, i.e. the social workers and their counterpart, the communitarian sector. If that was a choice between two, I'd rather be having your usual clean-cut money-addicted idiots in charge of municipalities and governments than those totalitarian collectivist hypocrites.

Or provide me with an instance of a tribe that didn't suck.