The secret to egalitarianism’s success is that the superior people have been converted to egalitarianism. They can’t straight-up admit this, of course, since the content of their creed is that there are no superior people, or at least that it has little connection to social power. On the other hand, they don’t try very hard to deny something so gratifying to their egos. Officially, IQ doesn’t measure anything, but they make sure you know that theirs are higher than the conservatives’. Marriage is officially oppressive, but they like to remind us that they beat us on avoiding divorce and unwed pregnancy. These claims are all more-or-less true. Liberals dominate every profession because they are by-and-large superior.
Raw intelligence is only one aspect of their superiority, perhaps not the most important. They seem to have various dispositional advantages as well. I’ve remarked before on the apparently low sex drive of Leftists. That probably keeps them out of a lot of trouble. They may be less physically aggressive as well. At the same time, they have tremendous energy for their work, hobbies, and ideological policing. I sense that I am more sex-obsessed, shorter-tempered, and lazier than my liberal colleagues. Above all, liberals are formidable in the solidity of their faith, their complete inability to experience doubt. The Christian is always plagued by the knowledge of how implausible and wicked his beliefs seem to outsiders, but the Leftist lives completely within his belief system and cannot imagine seeing the world through any other. A Leftist doesn’t understand his enemies and sees no reason to try; we’re just mean, crazy, or stupid, that’s all. This iron certainty makes the Leftist shameless and fearless, not to mention fearsome to his enemies. Another remarkable fact about progressives is their ability to avoid complacency, no matter how total their dominance of a given field may be. They can destroy a man for the slightest ideological deviation, then shake their heads solemnly about “how far we still have to go” that they can still find people so obstinate as to “force” them to take such measures. Conservatives, on the other hand, are demoralized even more by success than we are by victory. Integralism disappeared with the death of Piux X, and modernism was then free to grow until it captured the Church. If conservatism held the allegiance of such men and women, our times would be different.
(Before anyone complains, notice that I have not made an exception for myself. I’m one of the timid, sex-obsessed dullards holding conservatism back. This is not one of those rants, of which we see far too many, against “those other conservatives who are holding the rest of us back.” And, of course, I’m speaking of aggregates. We have a few people as able as the liberals, just not enough.)
The Jewish problem is a microcosm of the liberal problem. It’s not just one small subset of very smart people against us. It’s most smart people against us.
Why is that? Some theories:
- Liberalism is the ideology that justifies technocracy, rule by smart people. It does this by delegitimizing any rival organizing principle as “discrimination”. It’s no wonder smart people support rule by smart people.
- Liberalism is established, and since man is a social animal, his proper function is to conform. A failure to conform is almost always the sign of some sort of defect. Since we are dissidents, most of us are defective in some way so that our indoctrination or social conditioning didn’t stick. Since liberalism is not difficult to understand, most likely nonconformism is found among the socially/emotionally defective. E.g., what must be wrong with me, that pictures of dead babies didn’t turn me into a socialist like it did my peers?
- Liberalism is a status marker of the upper class. Those who inherit it often make a great display of their contempt for their social inferiors in the countryside. Those who convert are desperate to prove that they fit in.
There’s probably some truth to all of these. A key test of any sociology of knowledge–one that most fail–is that it makes no exception for the theorist himself. The Marxist intellectual who claims that beliefs derive from economic interests implicitly makes an exception for himself and his theories. I went to school for a long time, during which I became much more conservative than when I’d left. True, I studied a weakly ideologized field, but I was certainly in an environment dominated by Leftists. What’s more, my parents and elementary-to-high-school teachers never said much of anything to me about politics, so I had little in the way of counter-programming. On the other hand, being a white Catholic from a small midwestern town meant I was clearly not part of the in-group Leftism serves to mark. I certainly could have converted, but I didn’t feel any strong alienation from my home community, so rationalizing my outsider-ness may well have been the path of least resistance. Perhaps if I were not so obstinate, which is if anything a character flaw, I would have conformed. I wonder if most academic Rightists were small town white kids like me.
What to do about our human capital gap?
- Solve it by conversions or self-improvement
- Rearrange society so that it doesn’t matter: Less power to professionals, more to hereditary nobles, or something like that.
Neither would be easy.
Filed under: Uncategorized |