Wednesday, 19 November 2014

A two factor model of current Western elite behaviour

*
The two factors about current Western elites is that they are both incompetent and suicidal.

It is hard to explain what is distinctive about them, and what contrasts with previous elites of several generations ago, by invoking just a single factor.

*

By the way, I am not taking account here of the factor that all elites everywhere and at all times share; that they are - to some extent - self-serving, a gangster class, demagogues, a kleptocracy; who are exploiting one set of the population to expropriate another; feathering their own nests, and preparing the ground for their own family and friends/ supporters.

This, however, is not distinctive to modern elites; indeed, although modern elites are to some extent self-serving, what is striking is the extent to which instead of feathering their own nests, they are actually fouling their own nests.

Current elites are wrecking things so fast and so comprehensively that they can themselves expect to live long enough personally to experience the problems they have inflicted on society; and certainly their children (what few children they have) and their extended family and friends will suffer greatly from the effects of what current elites are doing.

*

The current elite are very obviously stupid, incompetent, ill-educated, unskilled and in general rubbish at doing things compared with previous elites. This is due to a multitude of factors including the decline of Christianity, the decline of schooling and colleges, the corruption and inversion of selection mechanisms, the growth of democracy, bureaucracy and the mass media.

In other words, the modern elite are broken: they have lost the adaptations that would enable them to rule.

To some extent, they look helplessly on, as they are helpless to prevent civilization collapsing around them. They just cannot do the job.

*

What is most strange and disturbing, however, is the extent to which current elites are also self-hating and suicidal: they have a covert wish for extinctino which comes out in many ways.

So it is not only that they cannot do the job, but also that they do not even want to do the job.

This applies both in terms of the self-hating suicidal ideology of Leftism in the form of Political Correctness - by which the elite are replacing themselves with 'other' people (people born in some other place, other ethnicities, other classes, other sexes and other sexual preferences - for example); and extending also to their own personal lives; in which the elites have all-but abandoned having children; and are focused instead wholly on feeling good, and feeling good about themselves - with the hope of being humanely murdered ('euthanasia') as soon life stops being enjoyable and there is a risk of misery.

*

This is a very dangerous situation, because when the elites are self-hating and suicidal, then insofar as they act upon this will; they inflict extinction on everybody else.

I think this self-hatred is partly biological and a warped kind of altruism. Its roots may be genetic and group-evolutionary. The elites have been accumulating mutations, and their fitness declining, for about 200 years, since the child mortality rates began to plummet with the advent of the industrial revolution. And some versions of group selection theory predict that unfit individuals will tend not to to struggle to survive and reproduce, and may even de facto kill themselves (usually indirectly) to prevent themselves consuming scarce resources.

*

At some level, perhaps, the current elite sense that they are damaged people who are not up to-the-job, that they lack even the will to rule with justice wisdom; that they are wrecking things for everybody else, and are indeed consuming scarce resources without benefiting the ruled; and they know that the proper thing to do would be to sacrifice themselves for the general good - even unto death.

But this they will not do in any kind of wholehearted fashion (they will not even stand-aside, nor resign their power; nor will they give away their wealth). There is no follow-through, because they are conflicted both within-themselves, and also between-themselves - changing sides and one pitted against another.

So the elites vacillate and squabble and are torn between despair and selfishness. Partly they are trying to be real rulers, partly  they are failing in their job due to intractable incompetence, and partly they have given-up and yearn for oblivion.

*


The above analysis comes from a conversation with Michael Woodley - who likened the modern elites to a nest of cancer cell - mutated and damaged normal cells that mostly try to exploit their host even unto death; but also have a tendency to self destruction (apoptosis) which can at any moment emerge and lead to localized tumour destruction and partial remission.

11 comments:

  1. Ascribed to Napoleon and others is the saying, 'never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.'

    To which modernity replies, 'Reject the false dichotomy.'

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Adam - One way in which I feel different from the mass of people, is that I find our current elites extremely strange, weirdly scary, highly unpredictable and almost incomprehensible (as well as utterly disgusting) - whereas most people regard the current rulers as just more of the same usual.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder if at any other time in history did the elites turn against their own culture. Is that a natural part of decline? From what history I've read, I don't see it.

    What is so wrong with the current elite who are so filled with hate of our civilizations history and accomplishments? It's very puzzling to me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have had the same feeling for quite some time, of having been born into a society, as an early baby boomer, that has turned into more or less a lunatic asylum at the leadership level. The concept of thinking more than 3 months ahead has seemingly disappeared, with catastrophic consequences readily foreseeable in the next generation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And here, I will attempt to answer my own questions. I think the problem is spiritual, not physical. The elites started turning against civilization over 200 years ago. See Rousseau and his 'noble savages' concept.

    Pride in mankinds accomplishments led many elites to think they could perfect human society. However, that is trying to do what is God's work: the salvation of man.

    In times previous to the Enlightenment, elites understood that they were trying to manage fallen, sinful people. They did the best they could, or else didn't really care.

    Nowadays, the elites try to perfect society, which isn't possible. Any attempts at utopia bring distopia, see communism for example.

    The elites are also convinced that not only should they ignore God in their attempts to perfect mankind, but actively undermine faith in God. They view religion as an impediment to improving mankind.

    Any time an elite tries to solve a society problem (race relations, relations between the sexes, poverty) his "solutions" only bring more problems. This is enough to drive them mad.

    If you try to get the elites to bring an understanding of human nature, and the God who created humans, into the equation, then they will point out all the failings of Christian civilization. Of course, that civilization, being made up of imperfect, sinful, people was full of failings.

    However, the elites start from the wrong premise - one formed in pride- that mankind is perfectable. Rejecting God, and therefore, rejecting the true understanding of human nature leads to a sort of spiritual madness. It's demonic at times.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @A - "Nowadays, the elites try to perfect society"

    Well, there is an *element* of that in Political Correctness, but there is no system and no plan and no follow through - there is no Politically Correct Utopia.

    So this is one of the conflicting motivations which our current elite are buffeted by;but this is far from single minded; and there are frequent incursions of despair, and sheer hate-fuelled destructiveness, and crass careerism, and kleptocracy.

    Just a mess!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Because they deny God, and then defy God. That leads many to only understand destructiveness and hate of anything that reminds them of God or God-given human nature. See transgenderism for an example.

    This isn't true of all elites. Some really think they are ushering in a better society, but they refuse to turn to any traditional ideas. Some feel they must destroy society to remake it.

    Most don't think about it much at all. They only know what they've been taught. And for over a century that is post-christian modernism of one stripe or another.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Comment from VALKEA: "I would explain liberal elites' thanatos-instinct, suicide-instinct, with a two factor philosophical model (slightly sharpened words to make the underlying meaning more visible):

    Atheism is hollow, empty and meaningless belief, something missing, a nothing. Atheism cant justify it's existence with itself, with positive entirety connected with itself, like most religions can. To enable atheism to survive, atheists must surround their atheism with selectively chosen and distortingly interpreted negative information about religions, using confirmation bias:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

    This negative bulwark creates punishment-incentive to follow and preach atheistic pseudo-religion; if you dont defend, maintain and preach atheism, such and such negative things threaten you, strike you down and suppress you, or hamper, encumber or harm you. Atheists have mostly a negative raison d'etre, to weaken, erode or destroy religions, or, to lesser extent, defensively separating and protecting themselves with all kinds psychological, physical, ideological, social, political etc. barricades and distances from religions (this latter to lesser extent, because it doesnt give atheists truly active agenda, which people need). Religions, if they are not aiming at expansive domination... can live in harmony and balance with surrounding religions, ideologies and thought streams, because their inner life is sufficient positive incentive -fountain and raison d'etre to them.

    Liberalism / liberal ideology differs from atheism to some extent; it has an inner life, mundane little work, mundane little distractions and mundane small goals. This doesnt however bestow enough metaphysical and ideological meaning and importance to them. Liberalism must progress; to develop, to improve, to expand, to conquer, to become dominant in its stealth way and to finally cover the whole world with liberalism.

    This creates positive incentives and raison d'etre to liberals. Liberals dont want to destroy others outright, they want to slowly digest others to destruction with little and constantly increasing laws, propaganda, "education", entertainment, organizational rules, restrictions, demands, competing incentives etc.

    Because liberals now have pseudo-metaphysical meaning in their actions, they become more protective of their mundane little work and mundane little goals, the source of the liberal system and ultimately their expansion. This protectiveness is however in constant conflict with their assimilative digestion of the world to liberal system, with their most important raison d'etre.

    In this conflict of interests metaphysically meaningful expansion wins most of the time. Thus liberals mostly dont protect their mundane work, mundane life, mundane society etc. if they can expand and assimilate more and more of the other.

    ReplyDelete
  9. VALKEA continued - If *** police officers in police force increase corruption and incompetence, and damages liberals' mundane work and mundane goals, so be it, if we can assimilate them thus to the liberal system and give thus to us our metaphysical meaning. If immigration increases criminality and dysfunction in liberal society, so be it, if we can hence assimilate those foreigners to our society, and give hence to us our metaphysical meaning. If media dumbs down people and increases destructive and harmful ways of life, so be it, if we can thus integrate people's minds in home and abroad more and more fully to liberal atomized, meaningless and consumptive way of life, and give thus to us our metaphysical meaning. Etc. Liberals protect vigorously their mundane work, mundane life and mundane society only if those who are already fully absorbed and integrated into the liberal system, who are its traditional and long time parts, oppose further expansions that destroy society.

    Special, supportive, lenient treatment is given to those, who are trophies of metaphysical expansion victories of the liberals; thus e.g. if immigrants misbehave or break the rules, they are treated mildly or their actions are overlooked. Those who have no real meaning in their lives, can only think of expansion as a raison d'etre.

    These two thanatos-instincts combine, cohere and strenghten each other. The atheist or agnostic liberal sees more clearly, at least intermittently, the true emptiness and meaninglessness inside and around him. To escape that emptiness he must defend it vigorously and expand it, to give it meaning, thus creating something, anything, out of that nothing.

    Liberal metaphysics is created ex nihilo. The void and ravine inside constantly threatens and despairs, and the more that happens, the more angrily (inwardly or outwardly) and energetically liberal must lash out expansively at the world and its peoples. The inner fearful escape and rageful expansion blinds him to the consequences, and on the other hand makes him not to care about the consequences, if he sees them. The liberal action and distraction must consume him, all the time, all the energy.

    It is not possible retreat, slow down, contemplate, rest, cancel, diminish, change course etc., otherwise the whole reason for being would collapse. The relentless punishment and reward incentives push him and draw him at the same time. Atheist liberal becomes fanatic and destructive.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @V - Astute psychological analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Titus Didius Tacitus21 November 2014 at 09:02

    "The two factors about current Western elites is that they are both incompetent and suicidal."

    Why would slaves promoted for their propensity to destroy themselves, their kin and their posterity be competent? For this purpose, you do not want a murderous but efficient type like Stalin (we now realize); a man like that can tell real power from false, and will strive with ability to get the real thing for himself. That is too dangerous. What you really want are mutton-heads who will lead their fellow-sheep into the abattoir, caring only that for now they are in front, being flattered and petted.


    "It is hard to explain what is distinctive about them, and what contrasts with previous elites of several generations ago, by invoking just a single factor."

    The elites of several generations ago were to a much greater extent self-governing.


    "This, however, is not distinctive to modern elites; indeed, although modern elites are to some extent self-serving, what is striking is the extent to which instead of feathering their own nests, they are actually fouling their own nests."

    Naturally.


    "In other words, the modern elite are broken: they have lost the adaptations that would enable them to rule."

    Naturally.


    "This is a very dangerous situation, because when the elites are self-hating and suicidal, then insofar as they act upon this will; they inflict extinction on everybody else."

    The true rulers are genocidal; their puppets are collectively suicidal. Selecting for suitability for that purpose is rough on competence, honesty and drive.


    "I think this self-hatred is partly biological and a warped kind of altruism. Its roots may be genetic and group-evolutionary."

    They are, but not in the way that you mean.

    ReplyDelete