University-Age Brahmins And Dalits Get ‘Voice’

We do not live in the Holy Roman Empire or Victorian Britain or early modern Spain. We live in an age of hyper-democracy, where the opinions of university-age Brahmins and Dalits are exalted because they are part of the leviathan and therefore considered worthwhile in the first case and  “authentic” in the second by the intelligentsia.

In democracies, people have been granted power over things most of them have no knowledge or understanding of. Do we get to vote on what medicine best treats certain diseases? No. Then why do we vote on economic policy, given that only a small minority of the population has ever read anything about the subject?

Take any number of street protests in the west today. One will see protesters holding placards saying such things as ‘Solidarity with Greece,’ or ‘We Want Jobs.’ Journalists reporting on these events will paint protesters in a neutral or even positive light, photographers will snap some images from the occasion, and the whole thing will be put together in a neat little package conveying the message that what the protesters are doing is the normal behavior of responsible citizens, and that they are legitimate in their grievances.

Protestors have much to protest, to be sure. When the state decides to reduce funding to the Transgender Disabled Immigrant Alliance people will complain, and when the state raises taxes in order to fund the Transgender Disabled Immigrant Alliance, people will complain. Often it is the same people doing the complaining. But how many protesters have even a rudimentary understanding of economics? Should basic knowledge of public finance and the global banking system not be a prerequisite for taking part in such cocksure demonstrations? By prerequisite I don’t mean legal sanction from the state, rather that the protester might show some humility and restraint, that they might think to themselves: “I’ve never actually picked up a book about economics before. Where am I getting the confidence to march about something I know very little about?”

Yet, their opinions on economics and politics are not just ignored in a democracy, but cherished.

The Cathedral has significant interest in legitimizing demonstrators’ grievances. Treating as credible the protests of angry and envious hordes is a primary function of the left; riling up the mob is necessary if it is to achieve its aims. Seeing articles in the following day’s newspapers (accompanied by images of riot police on horseback) the protesters view themselves as slingshot-bearing Davids and are emboldened in their belief that their struggle is righteous, even if their understanding of economic policy is as scant as it was the day before.

Egalitarianism is nothing new of course, but it is a particular bugbear of reactionaries, who witness equality nowhere in nature, yet see the drive towards this contrived singularity accepted as normal everywhere they look. Now it is expected that everyone should finish high school, the outcome being that standards have to drop in order to pull the less able over the finish line. Vocational schools and apprenticeships are sneered at, and equal outcome is the expected result of public education, regardless of a natural and clearly unequal distribution of intellectual gifts.

Every year in the United States one in five students entering university enrolls in remedial classes to bring their English up to standard. This jumps to 60% for community college applicants. We can continue to deny reality and blame this (as the left does) on poor teacher salaries or some other underfunded area in education, or we can acknowledge the fact that too many people are attending university. Like the literate peasant in early modern Europe, an abundance of physics, engineering and medical graduates is probably beneficial to a society. But are all literature, gender studies and queer studies graduates as worthwhile? The answer clearly is no, but the democratization (“College for all!”) of university education means dumbing down is essential.

During the course of these various victimology degrees students are imbued with Marxist fervour by ideologically deranged professors and deposited after a few years onto the street indebted and brainwashed. In the real world, they find few job-creating capitalists with any use for uppity feminists and race-obsessed professional victims, and inevitably their bitterness spills over into community activism where their egos are indulged just as they were on campus.

All of these people can vote. In Scotland, sixteen-year-olds can vote. A sixteen-year-old can make a decision based on something like national independence. That they can hold an opinion is not in doubt. What is in doubt is their ability to make a measured decision based on evidence and broad, prior knowledge. Speaking candidly, few people can, but sixteen-year-olds certainly can’t: the human brain finishes developing only around the age of 25. Overwhelmingly, young people vote progressive, which is why the left supports their suffrage. Children seldom like whiskey, coffee, oysters, or Brahms. They like orange soda, Frosted Flakes, fish sticks and the Pussycat Dolls. The insane situation we find ourselves in is summed up neatly by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn in his 1974 tome Leftism:

The 21-year-old semiliterate prostitute and the 65-year-old professor of political science who has lost an arm in the war, has a large family, carries a considerable tax burden, and has a real understanding of the political problems on which he is expected to cast his ballot—they are politically equal as citizens.

The point is that the ignorant (i.e. the left) choose what is simplest, what is most palatable, what gives instant gratification. Revolution over gradual change. Blaming others for one’s woes. Envy. Covetousness. It is simpler to believe rent is too high and that there should be rent control rather than face the fact that these policies cause shortages due to single-person occupancies and property moguls’ lack of interest in developing anything less than luxury accommodation in such a market. It is easier to believe wealth is a zero sum game and that the Mercedes-owning banker across the street has an ‘unfair’ share of the pie. This fascination with equality traditionally only extended to our ability to make money. More recently with the proliferation of cultural Marxism this compulsion for equality has extended to appearance (“All women are beautiful”, “Gender is a social construct”).

This desire for equality is at odds with human nature. We delight in sports and games which have clear winners and losers. We love film, music and food critics who trumpet the superiority and inferiority of certain subjective things.

In reality there is little difference between children and most adults when it comes to political sophistication. Conditioned like Pavlovian dogs, when there is dissatisfaction in their lives they respond with faux-outraged and obsequious demands to government to fix the problem without comprehending how this is supposed to happen. Platitudes abound. Vicissitudes in the job market manifest as anger against government on the streets, yet for the wrong reasons. Demonstrators believe that the very corporations producing jobs should be taxed more and not less and that the state in its beneficence could end poverty, war and hunger if only it had the desire. Lessons are not learned from past attempts to engineer utopian societies and it seems humanity’s fate that we must relearn this basic truth first-hand every generation.

Winston Churchill famously stated that “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Early in the twenty first century trending topics on social media give us a good indication of the West’s collective passions: Kim Kardashian, her transgender stepfather, “The dress is blue”. But these are all fictions, distracting us from reality. And the reality being ignored is that the people for whom these are the important issues can vote, and our civilization is falling apart because of it.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

18 Comments

  1. The rest of the EVKL quote rates the views of “our friendly prostiture” as probably being more grounded in reality than that of a university student. Just thought it would be fun to mention.

    More seriously the bigger problem isn’t just education but it’s effective cost. If too many people went to college for two or three years at only $5k a year or so, it wouldn’t be nearly as bad. Now students are probably going to continue radical thinking because they are in debt greater than they could ever repay, and have far less of a shot at anything like the calming effect of honorable employment that pays enough to fund a decent human life.

    The progressives have managed to create a middle class (on the surface at least) underclass.

    1. A middle-class underclass. Good way to put it. The entire college bubble was more-or-less created by the federal government, and just like Soviet economic policies produced more illusions than production… the state produced an illusion of a middle-class but actually created an underclass.

  2. Yes, hordes of ignorant protest and vote. We seem to live in a “protestocracy”.

  3. Monarch of Idaho April 3, 2016 at 2:01 am

    “This desire for equality is at odds with human nature.”

    Wrong. The desire for equality is rooted in human nature just as surely as fondness for hierarchy. Hence, egalitarians.

    Human nature is fallen.

    1. You are of course right, but egalitarians are just as hierarchical as those who advocate hierarchy openly. Egalitarians would like to lift themselves to the top or nearer to the top, and drop the top to the bottom, but they cant say this openly, because:

      1) Egalitarians want the largest coalition possible, and they want everybody in the bottom to feel that they will get equally large share when the hierarchy is turned upside down.

      2) If they would openly advocate turning the hierarchy upside down, then they would be open to the same accusations than they hurl against the present hierarchy. Egalitarianism is hence under the surface projective blaming (i.e. they accuse the present top about the same thing that they themselves want) and a form of blame avoidance.

      3) Egalitarianism is an attempt to make the turning of the hierarchy upside down palatable and acceptable to everyone, even to the people at the top of hierarchy. Egalitarians try to appeal with their egalitarianism to the elites sense of justice, saying in essence that justice and righteousness = egalitarianism. Egalitarians want the people at the top to lay down their defenses and resistance because of the appealing nature of egalitarian ideology.

      This is the reality in the present societal situation. But in more psychologically and socially healthy situations the egalitarian impulse can be honest, real, healthy and reasonable, especially in good communities. Of course in egalitarian communities there are hierarchies too, but they are not steep, they are gentle. People at the bottom of such hierarchies almost always have satisfying fast and concrete influence in the community. People at the top share the burdens and risks others share, i.e they cant charge others burdens and risks, and live themselves in ease, luxury, safety and idleness at the expense of others. To enable this kind of community to function, the members must be similar ethnically, religiously, intellectually, in values and morals, in cooperative spirit, in individual responsibility, etc.

      The liberal elites know the political power of egalitarianism as an attack ideology against them, so they have co-opted egalitarianism to their power structure, not only making it harmless, but turning it to an essential tool to bolster their power and wealth. The more people demand equality, the higher the liberal elites will rise, and thus the higher the inequality. The more “equal” the massess become, the more atomized and interchangeable individuals become, hence the more worthless and independently capable they become. Thus they become less able to form independent social structures, which could challenge the elites, and hence the more they can be used, controlled and exploited by the elites, and hence the higher elites rise, both in absolute terms and relative to the massess. This said the massess must get something for their egalitarian demands to keep them in their place, thus the little spoils dealing system of the liberal socialist state.

      1. “The more “equal” the massess become, the more atomized and interchangeable individuals become, hence the more worthless and independently capable they become.”

        Very true. Actually, real egalitarian thinking was and, to a certain extent, still is an outstanding feature in European societies, going back to the ancient Greeks and Nordic Allting. When modernists talk equality they really mean blame racist, bigot, haters for their own unaccountable desires.

        Today, European men are hopelessly inept when faced with angry, envious groups who demand their “rights,” a stupid idea but apparently taboo idol.

        1. IA,

          I have slight dyslexia, which manifest itself fairly often in such a way that my mind reads the text as it should be, even though whole words are missing. I am often completely blind to such things.

          The part you quoted should read as follows:

          “The more “equal” the massess become, the more atomized and interchangeable individuals become, hence the more worthless and *less* independently capable they become.”

          It is as you describe, although liberals exploit and misdirect many natural tendencies, among them the egalitarian tendency.

  4. We don’t live in a democracy. We (speaking of anyone in the West) live in a bureaucratic civil-service state that manages public opinion in order not to seem horrendously oppressive by using idolization of democracy as a distraction and a method of decentralized coordination of ideas.

    Real democracies are probably worse: look at Tammany Hall and Athens during the Peloponnesian War for examples. The one advantage (and disadvantage) they have over our current arrangement is that they are more volatile.

    Taken as a whole, this strikes me as a very good deprogramming piece for those in love with democracy but otherwise part of the Alt-Right, but not a particularly insightful analysis of phenomena. That’s fine; both are useful. The problem comes in confusing one for the other.

    Nota bene: “obsequious demands” is, possibly, a very good description of the phenomenon of protest among these obedient rebels (http://thefutureprimaeval.net/the-obedient-rebel/), but on its face it looks like a contradiction. You may want to expand on that a bit more to be more clear.

    1. I noticed “obsequious demands” but was hesitant to point it out as a seeming contradiction, because I didn’t want to seem like the earnest pedant that I am. “Obnoxious demands” is not a contradiction, but is kind of trite and obvious.

      The possibility that the author did truly intend to write “obsequious demands” is quite likely and just needs a little clarification. That so called rebels are in fact totally dependent on a grievance structure of protest is noted widely, and is a good point to expand upon. (I am trying to find additional evidence of the grievance structure of coddled college protest in my browser history, and failing at the moment, but I know it is there somewhere….)

      1. I agree completely and without reservation.

      2. Happy to clarify; perhaps I should indeed have expanded upon this in the essay.

        “Faux-outrage” because it is a different ball game to the kind of dissatisfaction that foments genuine revolution. Spoilt westerners are not freezing and starving Russians in the winter of 1917. They protest about relative trifles. When “The Poor” riot they don’t steal bread, but Nikes and iPhones.

        As to “obsequious”, the word was carefully chosen. The masses are inculcated from early childhood with the belief that “the government” can solve all their problems. Their anger at a street march is not against government per se, but against how that particular cabinet is governing. There is a firm belief that the government is not only omnipotent but benevolent, too. At least this is the case in Europe, where I’m from. Folks may have a healthier skepticism in the United States.

  5. Derek,

    I would say that in the present system, where there are too many “moving parts”, we are all too stupid. After all, the present dysfunctional system was designed and is operated by the high intelligence people. This is concealed by IQ differences. The higher IQ people compare themselves to the less intelligent, so they feel superior and more than enough for the societies problems. In reality the most intelligent people know only relatively small part of “moving parts” in the system, let alone how all the parts function as a whole.

    The quality, versatility and quantity (too little or too much) of intellectual input often restricts the output. Ideological output restrictions restrict the outputs. Liberal intellectuals often live in liberal information and social bubbles, which limits their input. Their output is restricted further by liberal ideological constraints. These are interwoven with all kinds of liberal biases.

    One of the first thing we can do, is to say to all high intelligence people, “If you work in a field that deals with society wide things, you are too stupid, and you dont understand even that. If you are, say engineer, who deals with relatively small, restricted and clearly demarcated problems, then you might well be a smart man.”

    The less intelligent people could function independently and reasonably, if they would have been prepared and schooled for that from the beginning, but the liberal elites wanted to make demanding and unsatisfied dependents of them.

  6. The more screwed up you are the more your “rights” are being violated by the least screwed up. This is why victim groups jealously guard their status and become increasingly angry. In a fit of perversity they will mock other stronger, more “erect” groups who are forced to behave in a similar weak fashion, because discrimination. This is the mechanism that grinds down our culture generation after generation.

  7. What. So because a bunch of useful idiots are allowed to make some noise, we live in a hyper-democracy? You’re confused.

  8. Superb piece. Will be ignored by the masses. The conclusion is spot on.

  9. The percentage of college graduates with a degree in liberal arts or the Humanities has just slightly increased since 1950. The difference is that more people attend college while the number of jobs requiring a degree has not increased at the same rate. This is particularly true for non-technical degrees. In the 1970-1990s; India, China and South Korea began to massively send their youngsters to university. They believed that a highly educated population would increase wealth. However, the news jobs which were added (mostly through U.S. and European outsourcing) were jobs requiring no or very little skills. The increasing number of graduates caused an oversupply of skilled labor. It became so severe that youngsters migrated to United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Australia. Since then China and South Korea has reduced the number of students to better fit market demand. Currently, India is redesigning their universities into technical schools. In China another problem has recently emerged. Their shift from focusing on trades diplomas has created an oversupply of laborers of that sort. Currently, China has only a balance (or rather a shortage) of non-skilled factory worker.

    Western countries tend to have an oversupply of liberal arts majors as they are cheap to produce while they often suffering from an undersupply of medical doctors as they are more expensive to produce. Higher education has been used by liberals, socialists and conservatives as a tool to temporary reduce unemployment. When unemployed youth go to school they are not unemployed which also increase the opportunity for those not in school to find employment. In the 1990 the socialist Swedish government used education, early retirement and disabilities to reduce the unemployment. The negative effect is however well defined. When the “party is over” the situation is worse for as these young people leave school with debt and little prospects of finding a good job to pay off that debt. This happened to Sweden and other countries who have implemented such system to quickly lower unemployment.

    Even in central-planned system tend partly correct itself. People learn that certain degrees do not lead to a job. More young refrain from liberal arts and the Humanities than before as the job prospects are bad. Instead we see a slow shift towards natural science. However, STEM degrees have lost much has seen a decline in the demand outsourcing and technological developments continue. Central-planned education (I don’t say all central planning is horrific) has a history of generating an unbalanced market. Education is actually something government (…And I’m not libertarian) ought to stay away from as the market place will solve it.

    One ought to remember that our societies had not been filled with such waste of human and financial resources we would easily have been able to curb the underunemployment and unemployment. Many of the underunemployed or unemployed shouldn’t be looking at their credentials. Rather, they are victims of a failed society. I will go so far to say that we could almost create a fluffy Bernie Sanders (…and he is far from being the most terrible voice on the hill) socialist paradise if our elites had made correct political decisions. However, politicians always make the wrong decisions because of incompetence, donors, ideological believes or that they listen to separate interests.

    Lastly, I have much respect for “soft science”. Liberal Arts and the Humanities are of much importance and we should cultivate it. However, the numbers of graduates need to be balanced through smart decision-making (if we most have central-planning) or through a free market system which would also reduce the number of students or/also distribute them differently. I do agree with the writer that universities are a breeding ground for left-wing ideologies. It is also beyond me that universities continue to create new interdisciplinary liberal arts program which neither help students to find good employment after graduation or give the student a higher degree of knowledge. I think we should stop overeducate our children. Take journalism as an example. ? Many journalists do not even have a journalist degree and why should they? Journalism has historically been a trade you learn working not a degree. Today, we corporations and governments which require employees to have college degrees for positions which just twenty years ago was performed by workers with high school diplomas – and often for no reason. This is what happens when you have an oversupply of workers and when there is liberal culture which tells us that “education always create better workers” – when the truth is that “practical experience” make better workers.

    In the 1950 less than 10 percent of Americans had a college degree. You didn’t need a college degree to find a good paying job enough to support a family. There are simply just enough good jobs to go around – because of government waste, outsourcing, unregulated migration, high taxes and technological progress. People have no choice other than go into debt and go to college. In the same time the quality of the students decline as most people are not fit to go to college. In return college has become a government funded business. We have such an oversupply over college graduates that you need to be to be in the top of your class and outstanding – and even if you are you still will have a trouble finding a job. Good connections to employers have become more important as there I simply not enough jobs to go around. Liberals (and Conservatives) tend to defend meritocracy – however there system of “education for all” is part of the reason why we have less meritocracy.

  10. The sick joke on us:

    (1) The alt-right rails against Democracy.
    (2) Finally there comes a candidate that the alt-right can support.
    (3) And in that exact moment, the powers that be temporarily suspend Democracy.

    1. You achieve Dark Enlightenment once you realize that this sick joke is a stale and old joke. The Powers That Be have been doing it for centuries.

Comments are closed.