Okay, so if we just assume everything you state is factual, what's your point in stating it? Politics is an emergent property of social bonds at scale, sure. Fa

Okay, so if we just assume everything you state is factual, what's your point in stating it? Politics is an emergent property of social bonds at scale, sure. Families are the smallest social group, sure. Strength of social bonds within a grouping tends to be inversely proportional to the size of the grouping, sure. Blood ties are the strongest, sure. So what? Except you're not even right about biological relationships being all that special. You think you don't have to provide evidence for this because it is "common knowledge" but it's based on ideas like the nuclear family, which are fairly recent inventions. Families used to span multiple generations and include unrelated household members (think maids, farm hands, etc) and prior to that tribes encompassed what we might as well refer to as villages, where biological relation is more incidental than the basis for social bonds. Even as a naturalistic argument appealing to other animals it fails: in many species packs will allow stragglers to join the group and treat them no different than blood relatives. There's some truth to parent-child bonds being special but you're attempting to extrapolate from that to entire social groups and to argue for some kind of historical progression based on it which is nothing more than a just-so narrative.