More on the art of being ruled
The higher on the scale of intelligence and creativity people are found, the less they care to, and the less they are able, to associate with one another and lend each other help. Suppose KMD is right (as seems likely) that Europeans (whites) are the least naturally ethnocentric race, and that Yggdrasil is right that the question of the relationship of elites to each other and to nonelites is central to an understanding of history. The political elite and the cognitive elite are not identical; but of course there is a correlation. Yet if one wanted to find ability that was unrewarded, that is, to find extremely clever people who were not identified in school and drafted into the upper class, or who were so identified and rejected by the system anyway, you would not (in the US and I suspect in Britain) look among nonwhites. This is a fact of huge importance. Any plan to deal with our troubles that does not include this suppressed or failed elite will not succeed. As long as the clever ones were useful in building up the modern world, some of them were so used; now there are too many for that purpose, partly because the world is shortly to stop being built up; and it remains to be seen what will happen when the tide of industrial civilization starts ebbing, but there is no reason for optimism, and the supposed surplus of talent is illusory. They will not help each other; and nobody else will help them either. Yet all hope rests with them.
Trackbacks (0) | Comments (16) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/trackback/2083/YXWH0V8I/
Trackbacks:
Comments:
Page 1 of 1 pages
This blog entry is way to intellectual. Thanks to peak oil, millions of intelligent people are going to lose their chushy jobs and have to do farm labor or somesuch. They’ll be mad as hell and the whole system will lose legitimacy. Whites will come together just as the Germans did in 1933.
This is one reason I am focusing on technological self-sufficiency using locally available resources. While we must attempt to design such technologies to be scalable and prepare for the (eventual) upside, the sad fact is we may need to prepare for a long cold period of attrition during which the current elites free-ride technological civilizaion into the ground. The secure survival of our people depends on using our technological strength and self-reliant nature to disassociate ourselves from the scale free networks of what our own John Bolton has so aptly christened “vectorism”—a topic I will write about here shortly.
Posted by James Bowery on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 08:12 PM | #
This is one reason I am focusing on technological self-sufficiency using locally available resources.
Yes. After the collapse, we must be prepared to maintain pockets o ftechnological advancement while we regroup.
Posted by Ben Tillman on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 09:00 PM | #
I am a poor conspiricist. I do not see what glue binds together disparate political and academic, artistic, legal, mega-buck, non-governmental organising and daily-scribbling souls - beyond the general trajectory of liberalism itself. Who is the gatekeeper to this land of giants? Who unveils the esoteric to these pre-Kantians, arrogant and masterful in the knowledge that the Outer Party will be forever delighted by beans on stale toast?
Certainly, liberalism is a corrupt politic and those who champion it are corrupted in an extra way that the lumpen proles are not. But I impute no superhuman capacities to them, only corruption.
If one reads Chronicles regularly, which I do only as a result of a kindness by Geoff, one soon becomes familiar with the slightly idealised vision of that independent, courageous frontiersman or farmer who went out and “made” white America. Of course he was doing so in an age of immense cultural confidence. Equally staggering things were achieved in 19th century Britain.
In their genetic potential people do not change. The same energy and creativity that flowed in those times is merely dormant in us today. The difference is that modernity no longer affords us a sense of striving against the odds ... of risking everything, perhaps, but relying on our essential character to see us through. We have managed to make life risk-free and as painless as possible. But we have paid with our sense of purpose.
If, indeed, Peak Oil and the mighty hand of global-elite control did strip away from us our comfort zone, our layers of security, we might actually find ourselves again. The danger is that nothing of the sort will happen, and we will sweetly sleep our worthless lives away in a patchouli-scented dream. The danger is that absolutely nothing will happen to shock us out of our reverie.
I am not saying that this is inevitable, with or without Peak Oil et al. But it is a grave possibility.
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 09:34 PM | #
Very clever people born 13th Century serfs also didn’t have much opportuinity to shine. While life is likely to get tougher once we run out of cheap oil, there are plenty of alternatives available, (e.g. sugar cane ethanol) so it won’t make civilisation collapse.
The only thing that can do that is too many people, a problem we have made some progress on but are nowhere near cracking, and that is surely worsened worldwide by high international migration (because high 3rd world birthrates spread to the west and make low, civilized reproduction rates, as would produce higher and pleasanter living standards, ethnically and economically counterproductive.)
Posted by karlmagnus on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 09:45 PM | #
Suppose KMD is right (as seems likely) that Europeans (whites) are the least naturally ethnocentric race
I dunno if I buy that. I used to, but have since reevaluated; now I think ethnocentrism falls as it “should” given Rushton’s placement of traits on an rK scale, with yellows most, blacks least, and whites in-between.
Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 09:55 PM | #
Guessedworker,
Some still do go to extra lengths to keep that fire burning. I would bet many on this board have a professional lifestyle that is highly risky with potential for failure.
I have a small business(S Corp) and operate in different industry segments and carve out a living for my wife and children. My wife doesn’t work nor has she ever.
I don’t answer to anyone and never have to attend a diversity training seminar etc nor, knock on wood, will I ever. I don’t sit in a cubicle and I think exactly what I want to think whenever I want.
I am not wealthy(not even close) but provide a comfortable lifestyle with absolutely no debt except a mortgage.
If it all falls down around me, I will move to an area of the country where my family is surrounded by sane, white culture but takes less income to maintain it.
For full disclosure, I wasn’t able to achieve this in the UK as the tax system is oppressive whereas in the US we have a good system where you can make up to $100k and pay very little tax and then you get drilled.
The point I am trying to make is most posters on the MR board have have that energy and creativity and it isn’t lying dormant- including you! sorry for the cheesey commnent at the end
Posted by Voice on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 10:13 PM | #
Yep, that one qualifies for an instant ban, I think! Thank God you didn’t mean it.
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 10:40 PM | #
“This blog entry is way to intellectual. “
Glad to hear from the cheap seats.
Posted by Søren Renner on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 10:57 PM | #
Maybe it’s because it’s very late in my temporary neck of the woods (15th floor of a hotel room in a Euro city) but I read your entry twice and I have no clue what your talking about.
:(
Posted by friedrich braun on Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 12:00 AM | #
Guessed Worker writes:
we may need to prepare for a long cold period of attrition during which the current elites free-ride technological civilizaion into the ground.
That’s exactly what I mean when I say:
The danger is that ... we will sweetly sleep our worthless lives away in a patchouli-scented dream. The danger is that absolutely nothing will happen to shock us out of our reverie.
It is only prudent to prepare for this possibility.
Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 12:25 AM | #
Erratum: The attributions in the above post of mine must be reversed for it to make sense.
Posted by James Bowery on Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 12:26 AM | #
I read your entry twice and I have no clue what your [sic] talking about.
QED
Posted by Søren Renner on Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 03:42 AM | #
Please forgive my ignorance on this issue—could Soren, Phil, or someone say again why commentators like John Ray and Martin Hutchinson are wrong in their view that peak oil’s effect likely will be blunted by sugar-cane ethanol production in the tropics, sparing us a really catastrophic dislocation? Is it that the tropics won’t be able to produce enough of it to meet the need?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 11:31 AM | #
sparing us a really catastrophic dislocation
Our best hope is for a catastrophic dislocation. The current regime is not going to stop until its elites have free-ridden the entire planet into a morass parasitism.
Having said that, the best hope we have for a catastrophic dislocation is the epidemic destruction of the centers of civilization.
Posted by James Bowery on Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 02:53 AM | #
I am going to disagree entirely with catastrophists. Peak oil has been predicted real soon now since the 1850s (we were about to run out of whales). In fact there are enormous quantities of shale oil available which, with improving technology are becoming available. More importantly we can have virtually unlimited quantities of nuclear power for at least the next few billion years. Better yet, we stand on the edge of the conquest of space & are being held back only by the fact that NASA can’t find their backsides because they are sitting on them.
The problem is that our leaders aren’t part of any elite they are politically correct entertainers, who only get in the way of the creative minority.
Posted by Neil Craig on Saturday, February 25, 2006 at 04:49 PM | #
Page 1 of 1 pages
Next entry: Hate crime victims - Young, poor, white
Previous entry: Tony Blair's "Enabling Act"
Posted by TomS on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 08:12 PM | #