>>515686211 (OP)
Yes, and its part of a double edged sword.
Putting family loyalty first ensures the people will remain in a tribal structure. Weakened by infighting, vendettas, and nepotism.
Putting loyalty first to the State ensures the concentration of power in the hands of the State. It allows society to be well ordered, focused on national tasks, and reduces inefficiency.
This is what allowed the Romans to conquer their neighbors and Gaul so easily.
The Roman army was superior becasue it acted as one force, obeyed orders, could be trained in the same way, could be directed by one leader. As opposed to collection of tribes who spent as much time fighting each other, who had to be cajoled into action against a foreign invader, and who would fuck off at the drop of a hat if they didn't like the situation.
Western Europeans adopted this loyalty to the state system, which is one of the reasons wars between them were so deadly. It did however work very well in advancing their society through the establishment of national institutions. Education, Banking, Language, Governance, and the adoption of Technological advancements. This made them able to expand across the world and defeat lesser peoples with superior weapons and superior armies, despite facing numerical odds. This was the sword swinging one way, delivering deep cuts to any who opposed them.
The trouble comes when those societies stop expanding, and when the quality of their leadership declines. Which is exactly what began to happen towards the end of the 19th century. Now you had a cowed society with a misplaced faith in its government. This is why whites are eager to betray each other, so unwilling to unite against a domestic threat, why they will stand around doing nothing when one of their own is getting beaten up by some subhuman. Their tribal structure has been destroyed and they feel no immediate kinship towards each other. The sword has swung the other way and now its cuts deeply.