The Hostile Elite, the Non-Hostile Elite and the Widespread Acceptance of Human Neurological Uniformity

I found myself in the greater Detroit area on business and to end my visit, I went to a high-end barbeque place recommended by a co-worker. At the end of the bar I noticed a large portrait of Franklin Roosevelt. I asked the bartender what was the deal, and she said she didn’t know. I told her she should make up a story, but she said she didn’t know enough about him. She was a racially indeterminate woman who looked a bit like Maya Rudolph; other places she could be Hispanic but in Detroit she probably had to be black. A member of a race made by FDR, in a place where the working class was made by FDR, doesn’t know who he is. I suppose it is the destiny of each of us to be forgotten, even the celebrated and powerful.

Foseti had a post on what Steve Sailer calls “liberal creationism”, the belief that evolution stopped 50,000 years ago and humans are neurologically uniform. Like many people of the same beliefs, he seems a bit frustrated and confused that this belief, patently false, should be so widely accepted. I made a comment explaining why this would be so, but it didn’t appear. I don’t think he has banned me- he doesn’t seem like the sensitive type- but it was something I needed to expound on in more detail anyway.

As I have said before, HNU used to be mainstay of white populism. Social Darwinism was the philosophy of late 19th century robber barons who felt it meant they should be able to do whatever they wanted. HNU was the Christian belief of Midwestern farmers who wanted to pay what they wanted for shipping their grain, cattle and pigs and get paid what they wanted for the same goods. In their minds they were the salt of the earth and in no way inferior to the bankers and railroad magnates of New York.

These same people in no way, however, believed in the equality blacks, or even all white people. The Catholic immigrants crowding the Northeast were frightening and almost subhuman scum who were ruining the country. This attitude can be seen today at VDare, and sometimes is expressed by Southern nationalists, although these two groups overlap somewhat.

So you have an elite, arrayed against two non-elite groups who are hostile to each other. The term “hostile elite” is used by various commenters usually to describe Jews- I’m not sure who coined it, maybe Kevin McDonald. The term implies that elites are often not hostile, and that a Protestant elite would be non-hostile- McDonald did once allow for a hostile non-Jewish elite, but only in the context of Transcendentalism.

I contend the American elite or elites have mostly been hostile, with a period of non-hostility, or more accurately restrained and concealed hostility, in the New Deal period from 1933 to 1965. The Puritan elite I have talked about at length and little more is left to be said. The Southern elite was hostile to the Puritans, hostile to lower-class Southern whites, and hostile to democracy in its control of the Supreme Court through John Marshall and Roger Taney. Southern nationalists would claim all whites were equal in the antebellum South, but lower-class whites were expected to defer to the elite in all ways.

Lower-class whites had a lot of democratic power post Civil War, but the Progressive era put an end to that, all in the name of reform of course. Prohibition was an attempt to sober up the dirty drunken Irish and German Catholics. Herbert Hoover defeated the Catholic Al Smith for the Presidency in 1928.

The Depression led to an opportunity for a reset. Rather than fighting lower-class whites, the elite decided to co-opt them. Machine politics became institutionalized- the federal government gave money directly to the urban machines to support them. A brotherhood of man was declared, and all whites were to be regarded as equal. HNU for European Americans became the rule.

Lower-class whites responded strongly and positively to this. After the war they became educated and prosperous, eventually too educated and prosperous, and had to be taken down a notch. The argument for bringing blacks on board was that just as blacks were being treated as inferior, lower-class whites had once been treated as inferior. Give blacks equal access, and they would make just as good Americans as lower-class whites had.

If people aren’t as eager to embrace HBD as its advocates would like, maybe it is because they remember that at one time it was used against them. The whites who do support HBD are those who realize it has been used against them again since the early 1960’s, when the image of the stupid, ignorant southern redneck or northern worker became common.

Class consciousness is needed to produce racial consciousness. Whites, even very conservative whites, who believe they are equal, dignified citizens of a democratic, constitutional republic will not support racial realism. Those who see a hostile, oligarchic elite that despises them will.


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to The Hostile Elite, the Non-Hostile Elite and the Widespread Acceptance of Human Neurological Uniformity

  1. Red says:

    The left always needs a group to uplift and make better. Nothing pisses them off more than that group actually improving. They’re like doctors with only 1 patient. If that patient becomes well and no longer needs to be “cured” they look for a way to poison the patient so they can play doctor again.

  2. Columnist says:

    “The Catholic immigrants crowding the Northeast were frightening and almost subhuman scum who were ruining the country.”

    Muslims in America often compare hatred directed to them not just with Anti-Semitism, but also Know-Nothingism.

  3. spandrell says:

    People’s memories aren’t that long, especially the left half of the Bell Curve. People hate HBD because superiority to blacks doesn’t compensate fixed status in the 60th percentile. Humans want to be overlords, and if they can’t there must be no overlords at all.

  4. I’ve taken hostile elite, in the sense that Kevin MacDonald uses it, to mean an elite which is consciously engaged in hostilities against the non-elites. Lazar Kaganovitch’s campaign to eliminate “bourgeois nationalism” in the Ukraine and the resulting Holodomor is a classic example.

    There are also “got to get me mine” elites, who, although they don’t have an axe to grind, don’t particularly care about the non-elites subject to them. I doubt Mitt Romney harbors a great deal of antipathy towards non-elite whites, but he’ll put them out of work if it means he can get his lawn manicured dirt cheap. No ancient vendetta, nor any noblesse oblige.

    Both groups of elites exhibit hostile behavior, but, theoretically, a selfish elite could be convinced that it is in their interests to, say, hold off on flooding the country with chicanos in order to have cheap chalupas in the short term and ruin forever after.. I hold no great hope for this possibility, however.

  5. fnn says:

    From the pages of Commentary, no less:

    This assumption was natural but wrong. “Yale,” the handbook continues, “will polish rough exteriors.” Yale was in the polishing business.

    Seven years later, the dean was writing in a report to the president that “What I want for Yale college is an intellectual eminence as great as her athletic or her social or her eminence in activities of all sorts.” And things moved briskly in the dean’s direction. One dramatic sign was the big influx of Jews. The intellectualizing trend went a lot farther than bringing in Jews, of course, but Jews are a dye marker that allows us to trace a new class of people as it moves into the system–a new class distinguished by intellect and not social standing. At the prestige colleges today, the goal is to inculcate the intellectual’s habits, not the lady’s or gentleman’s.

    LET US say there was a coup at the top: that, after the war, intellectuals took the helm at the prestige colleges; that a new breed of intellectualized graduates duly emerged to claim (as these graduates always had) a large share of the nation’s elite positions; that the character of the elite changed radically in consequence. Today’s elite is intellectualized, the old elite was not. Why should that matter? What differences does it make?

    The difference is this: the old elite used to get on fairly well with the country it was set over. Members of the old social upper-crust elite were richer and better educated than the public at large, but approached life on basically the same terms. The public went to church and so did they. The public went into the army and so did they. The public staged simpler weddings and the elite put on fancier ones, but they mostly all used the same dignified words and no one self-expressed. They agreed (this being America) that art was a waste, scientists were questionable, engineering and machines and progress and nature were good. Some of the old-time attitudes made sense, some did not; but the staff and their bosses basically concurred. (George Bush was elected in part, Brookhiser suggests, because of public interest in restoring these arrangements.)

    Relations between the elite and the nation are very different today. The enmity between Intellectual and Bourgeois is sheepman against cattleman, farm against city, Army versus Navy: a clichÈ but real. Ever since there was a middle class, intellectuals have despised it. When intellectuals were outsiders, their loves and hates never mattered much. Today they are the bosses and their tastes matter greatly.

    • These people are “intellectual”, get high SAT scores but are by and large as dumb as a box of rocks.

    • Columnist says:

      My mother, an intellectual, always said the businessmen despised intellectuals for being poor. So it is no surprise intellectuals return the favor, and become Marxist. This has little to do with Jews, as nowadays the colleges are virulently opposed to Israel.

  6. I’m somewhat new to the alt-right, so this is probably a stupid question which has been addressed before. But why address race at all? Why not make this into a battle of the idiots against the smart, and the able agasint the not-able, and leave it at that? It would seem this would avert any chance of accusations of racism by the left, and it would make people more likely to sign on with HBD, since it would be about declaring yourself smart, and not an idiot.

    If you want to hit the system hard, and eliminate racial quotas everywhere, piss off all of the producers who fund the system, of all races, and let the idiots, of all races, fend for themselves.

    I’m not arguing with this post, obviously. The rundown of the history behind the two schools of thought, and your take on why some discount HBD today is fascinating. I’m more just wondering aloud if the HBD movement isn’t being hurt by a subpar political packaging and strategy?

    My view of Leftism, as a strategy, is that it tries to form false boundries, so it can pit groups of freedom loving people (who would otherwise not fight) against each other, while the leftist sits it out and lets the two groups savage each other. Race is perfect for that, since there are good and bad within each race, and you can get some people who love freedom fighting with other people who love freedom.

    Idiot takers against the smart producers, that’s not so perfect for the leftist. Separate the various racial communities into the producers and the takers, and unite all the producers agaisnt the takers, and I think we ‘d do a lot better at damaging leftism.

    • ntk says:

      But how many non-white producers are there? If you separate it out into producers/non-producers, what you get looks a lot like white/non-white.

      • Yeah, black people produce little to nothing. The black “middle class” is mostly consistent of parasites like government and corporate bureaucrats and commissars- ever noticed how the HR person is usually black? Hispanics have some of the spoils jobs as well, but are more likely to have low-productivity jobs like cleaning and agriculture. But even an productively employed black or Hispanic is usually a drain on the system, consuming much more in services than they can possibly pay for.

    • Race is simply not avoidable. Briefly, mainstream conservatives, libertarians, neoconservatives, anti-communist/anti-crime liberals- what we think of as the socially legitimate conservative coalition of today- have tried very hard for decades. You just can’t get away from the fact that NAMs have worse outcomes. It is genetic and unavoidable. The rules say that we can’t acknowledge this, and yet we can’t ignore it either. This is a recipe for insanity, the insanity we have today.

      Banding together with all white people isn’t an option either, because white progressives are totalitarian. Canada and Sweden are nice places- excepting the Moslem troubles they have- but they are not free.

    • Columnist says:

      Yes, we should strictly adhere to the idea that race is a social construct. When someone whines that in “colorblind” society, Black people are oppressed, ask:”What Black people?! Race is a social construct!!!”. Simply reverse Cultural “Marxism”. Or even better, outflank it. Do not use their whole set of definitions; “What happens in Sudan to Black people is far worse than racism!”.

  7. foseti says:

    I didn’t block your comment – it just never showed up.

    • There’s people I’m pretty sure I’ve pissed off, on whose blogs my comments don’t appear, and other cases where I’m not sure. I seem to offend a lot of people without really trying.

  8. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You, 7-8-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  9. Pingback: The Hostile Elite and Social Cohesion- An Elaborated Background and History | Deconstructing Leftism

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s