A very interesting and informative article, but I think the conclusion is off. The question we should be asking (and answering) is not how to convince the elites, but how to replace them.
Precisely this. A degree of getting their own way is one thing. Money talks after all. But the wholesale destruction of ancient nations is quite another. And to what end? It can only be deliberate destruction at this stage.
"Money talks after all. But the wholesale destruction of ancient nations is quite another. And to what end? It can only be deliberate destruction at this stage."
I agree. It is what I call acts of societal disruption. The purpose is to destroy our civilization to effect total control.
Yes. To demolish even the idea of a nation-state. I live alongside people whose grandparents are buried thousands of miles away, for example. We share very little and I know they won't die for my homeland even though they were born here.
Excellent if depressing analysis. But this is essentially why what was once radical leftism became the mainstream-they targeted the super-rich for conversion. And it’s an ancient technique. Christian missionaries were most successful when they converted kings and emperors, who then converted the rest of the populace. Christianity won the West when it converted Constantine the Great. The top of society can influence or force the rest of society to follow. Critical to this in the modern age has been essentially a deal between the business/billionaire class and radical leftist activism, which is that radical ‘progressive’ social ideas will be pressed by business and elite interests in return for those leftists no longer caring about class differences and wealth disparities in any manner except as a rhetorical device.
"And it’s an ancient technique. Christian missionaries were most successful when they converted kings and emperors, who then converted the rest of the populace."
Yes, religion and government are running the same scam, so they split the spoils taken from the proles.
"...in the modern age has been essentially a deal between the business/billionaire class and radical leftist activism, which is that radical ‘progressive’ social ideas will be pressed by business and elite interests in return for those leftists no longer caring about class differences and wealth disparities in any manner except as a rhetorical device."
I think that this is a very important observation and it explains the "conversion" of business interests from traditionalism to the current woke drift--without the necessity of postulating improbable conspiracies.
It seems organic. Leading corporations, dominant ones, have relied on top quality talent as it emerged from universities. This pool of talent increasingly expressed social responsibility, even if they had not real inkling of what that might mean in real life. Their values were driven by a very simplistic view of right and wrong, with little gradation. I don't mean this is a pejorative sense, but it's objectively a fairly simplistic worldview with very little understanding of human behavioral tendencies.
This seems to have been a product of a gradual increase of emphasizing social tolerance--complete with the idea of deserving underdogs--by US educational institutions at all levels starting in the Civil Rights era.
So in the early 2000s up to the present, as the demand for top performing grads increased at places like Google, Apple, Facebook, etc., the companies, to attract this talent, began to portray themselves publicly as socially conscious--a great place to work.
But I suspect that underlying these declarations the commitments to social justice by these companies was highly qualified and inconsistent. The also realized that they could both sell themselves as social justice beacons (capturing top talent) and still end up with policies favorable to themselves by backing politicians, who, for their part, agreed to do so by obtaining the votes of the socially responsible (as well as other progressive constituencies) thus gaining power, but mainly serving the interests of their corporate contributors first and foremost, with actual social policy being distributed in ways that don't imperil the corporations.
Basically, these polices are window dressing, really changing nothing for those who are the nominal target of these helpful policies.
Yes, it can definitely work in a non conspiratorial fashion as a deal that emerges organically, although I think there is a conspiratorial element to it as well. We should also be careful of accepting simplistic ideological fanatics as the best talent. Often they aren’t, but have specific technical skills-like the programmers at Twitter. Musk showed that about 80% of them were adding no real work or talent at all. They might have the technical skills, but they were not adding anything of worth, simply using those skills to enforce their ideology. Which is true of the majority of this kind of indoctrinated graduate, whatever field they work in.
California has very liberal elites, so I don't know what you're talking about.
In the past, California elites were more conservative relative to today's standards, but the elite has swung much further left in recent decades, especially in California. This isn't the case as much in places like Arizona and Texas, which have more conservative elites, relatively speaking of course, despite those States being hit just as hard by immigration if not harder.
I think it's more accurate to say that immigration gave power to leftist elites over rightist elites. Of course, once elites realize that being a leftist is the best path to wielding power, the vast majority of elites that simply worship power convert accordingly.
Texas whites vote 2/3rds GOP, so the GOP remains in power despite immigration (for now). California's whites were more evenly split so immigration swamped them.
I would assert that the elites shaped immigration policy before immigration policy had any chance to shape the elites. JFK said that "America is a nation of immigrants" even before the Hart-Cellar act, and that act itself was passed prior to mass non-white immigration.
'The central point of our research is that economic elites and organized business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence'. https://tinyurl.com/yc3mvrxh
Asking "[w]ho really rules?" Stanford researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.
Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.
Nope. Do you? European countries regularly do things the US doesn't want them to do. The US can't even make NATO allies spend the amount on the military that they've promised.
"European countries regularly do things the US doesn't want them to do. The US can't even make NATO allies spend the amount on the military that they've promised."
On important issues, Europeans bend over and take the buggering.
"Stanford researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power."
Correct, but I would say, further, we live in a plutocratic oligarchy.
How to convince the elites? Their ideas about how the world works are usually downstream from social science - what they believe about human nature is what social scientists told them was true. To change elite opinion, convince them that the social scientists were wrong (should not be hard with the replication crisis, fraud and the blatant ideological bias lately).
I've said this before, but we really need a world-class wiki covering all herederatian arguments. Having a central repository of knowledge that is well respected would go long way to educating the elites on the topic, or more accurately, allow them to educate themselves. Right now, you are aiming for the elites with your articles, but why not have the elites come to you instead?
I do not believe they are all ignorant of hereditary theories at all. The alternative is simply much more useful for ruling. Flood your country with people you traditionally understood to be backwards, and nurture theories and plenty of discussion about racism keeps the natives on the back foot.
Why would they give that up? The imports aren't a threat to them.
There might be a few that know the score, but I think most are intellectually lazy technocrats. They might be well read, but they never transcend the presuppositions that have been given them by The Science. For the least 70 years or so The Science has been "debunking" common sense views of the world only to have them proved correct later. Right now, the question of racial differences has still been "debunked" for most them.
I find it astonishing anyone with above average IQ can believe in the tabula rasa theory. The level of fiction you would have to maintain in your head is incredible.
Although you could be right. Certainly McGilchrist's hemisphere theory would suggest the left hemisphere limitations are all around us.
The USA used to be (and darkly ironically it in many ways more resembled contemporary China than the contemporary USA) a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, semi-scientifically decentralized republic with democratic governance structures such that completely different from today decentralized mass-member Republican and Democratic parties of old. This different socio-economic-political architecture enabled far more interest groups, from local governmental interests, to business SMEs, to local trade associations, and yes, even organized groups of citizens to effect and manipulate government and play a role, even if a somewhat limited one (although there could be big occasions and many small ones where that role could be huge) in the formulation, design, and execution of policy
I think tribalism distorts the relationship between consumer - > marketplace and backward. There was a poll where after Trump was convicted of felonies the amount of Republicans allowing felons to run for president increased from about 10% to a majority
A very interesting and informative article, but I think the conclusion is off. The question we should be asking (and answering) is not how to convince the elites, but how to replace them.
Precisely this. A degree of getting their own way is one thing. Money talks after all. But the wholesale destruction of ancient nations is quite another. And to what end? It can only be deliberate destruction at this stage.
"Money talks after all. But the wholesale destruction of ancient nations is quite another. And to what end? It can only be deliberate destruction at this stage."
I agree. It is what I call acts of societal disruption. The purpose is to destroy our civilization to effect total control.
Yes. To demolish even the idea of a nation-state. I live alongside people whose grandparents are buried thousands of miles away, for example. We share very little and I know they won't die for my homeland even though they were born here.
That's how you destroy a nation.
Yes, indeed.
Excellent if depressing analysis. But this is essentially why what was once radical leftism became the mainstream-they targeted the super-rich for conversion. And it’s an ancient technique. Christian missionaries were most successful when they converted kings and emperors, who then converted the rest of the populace. Christianity won the West when it converted Constantine the Great. The top of society can influence or force the rest of society to follow. Critical to this in the modern age has been essentially a deal between the business/billionaire class and radical leftist activism, which is that radical ‘progressive’ social ideas will be pressed by business and elite interests in return for those leftists no longer caring about class differences and wealth disparities in any manner except as a rhetorical device.
"And it’s an ancient technique. Christian missionaries were most successful when they converted kings and emperors, who then converted the rest of the populace."
Yes, religion and government are running the same scam, so they split the spoils taken from the proles.
"...in the modern age has been essentially a deal between the business/billionaire class and radical leftist activism, which is that radical ‘progressive’ social ideas will be pressed by business and elite interests in return for those leftists no longer caring about class differences and wealth disparities in any manner except as a rhetorical device."
I think that this is a very important observation and it explains the "conversion" of business interests from traditionalism to the current woke drift--without the necessity of postulating improbable conspiracies.
It seems organic. Leading corporations, dominant ones, have relied on top quality talent as it emerged from universities. This pool of talent increasingly expressed social responsibility, even if they had not real inkling of what that might mean in real life. Their values were driven by a very simplistic view of right and wrong, with little gradation. I don't mean this is a pejorative sense, but it's objectively a fairly simplistic worldview with very little understanding of human behavioral tendencies.
This seems to have been a product of a gradual increase of emphasizing social tolerance--complete with the idea of deserving underdogs--by US educational institutions at all levels starting in the Civil Rights era.
So in the early 2000s up to the present, as the demand for top performing grads increased at places like Google, Apple, Facebook, etc., the companies, to attract this talent, began to portray themselves publicly as socially conscious--a great place to work.
But I suspect that underlying these declarations the commitments to social justice by these companies was highly qualified and inconsistent. The also realized that they could both sell themselves as social justice beacons (capturing top talent) and still end up with policies favorable to themselves by backing politicians, who, for their part, agreed to do so by obtaining the votes of the socially responsible (as well as other progressive constituencies) thus gaining power, but mainly serving the interests of their corporate contributors first and foremost, with actual social policy being distributed in ways that don't imperil the corporations.
Basically, these polices are window dressing, really changing nothing for those who are the nominal target of these helpful policies.
Yes, it can definitely work in a non conspiratorial fashion as a deal that emerges organically, although I think there is a conspiratorial element to it as well. We should also be careful of accepting simplistic ideological fanatics as the best talent. Often they aren’t, but have specific technical skills-like the programmers at Twitter. Musk showed that about 80% of them were adding no real work or talent at all. They might have the technical skills, but they were not adding anything of worth, simply using those skills to enforce their ideology. Which is true of the majority of this kind of indoctrinated graduate, whatever field they work in.
All of the casual left-wing voters that I encounter "know" whatever these elites' media outlets say, and don't know anything else.
Yes. We must examine the willingness of so many to accept obviously harmful policies like mass immigration or job quotas.
"We must examine the willingness of so many to accept obviously harmful policies like mass immigration or job quotas."
It is insouciance and stupidity.
Why is California a shithole?
Obviously California has conservative elites. You know the names. Their predecessors ran California before 2000ish.
But given the demographics of the voter/ today, only leftist elites can hold power.
Elite consensus is important, but elites themselves respond to incentives. They care most about being elites, and do what it takes.
A good test of elite theory is if they can astroturf one of the most grotesquely cringe people in all of history, Kamala Harris, to the presidency.
California has very liberal elites, so I don't know what you're talking about.
In the past, California elites were more conservative relative to today's standards, but the elite has swung much further left in recent decades, especially in California. This isn't the case as much in places like Arizona and Texas, which have more conservative elites, relatively speaking of course, despite those States being hit just as hard by immigration if not harder.
I think it's more accurate to say that immigration gave power to leftist elites over rightist elites. Of course, once elites realize that being a leftist is the best path to wielding power, the vast majority of elites that simply worship power convert accordingly.
Texas whites vote 2/3rds GOP, so the GOP remains in power despite immigration (for now). California's whites were more evenly split so immigration swamped them.
"Texas whites vote 2/3rds GOP, so the GOP remains in power despite immigration (for now)."
But not for long.
I would assert that the elites shaped immigration policy before immigration policy had any chance to shape the elites. JFK said that "America is a nation of immigrants" even before the Hart-Cellar act, and that act itself was passed prior to mass non-white immigration.
'The central point of our research is that economic elites and organized business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence'. https://tinyurl.com/yc3mvrxh
Asking "[w]ho really rules?" Stanford researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.
Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.
Maybe that explains why not much changes in Europe no matter who gets elected.
"Maybe that explains why not much changes in Europe no matter who gets elected."
Indeed, since Europe is a puppet of the U.S.
How so?
"How so?"
Do you live under a rock?
Nope. Do you? European countries regularly do things the US doesn't want them to do. The US can't even make NATO allies spend the amount on the military that they've promised.
"European countries regularly do things the US doesn't want them to do. The US can't even make NATO allies spend the amount on the military that they've promised."
On important issues, Europeans bend over and take the buggering.
"Stanford researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argue that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power."
Correct, but I would say, further, we live in a plutocratic oligarchy.
It's little changed since Roman times. Violently intolerant of other powers, indifferent to its plebeian 90%, self-indulgent and increasingly coarse.
How to convince the elites? Their ideas about how the world works are usually downstream from social science - what they believe about human nature is what social scientists told them was true. To change elite opinion, convince them that the social scientists were wrong (should not be hard with the replication crisis, fraud and the blatant ideological bias lately).
I've said this before, but we really need a world-class wiki covering all herederatian arguments. Having a central repository of knowledge that is well respected would go long way to educating the elites on the topic, or more accurately, allow them to educate themselves. Right now, you are aiming for the elites with your articles, but why not have the elites come to you instead?
I do not believe they are all ignorant of hereditary theories at all. The alternative is simply much more useful for ruling. Flood your country with people you traditionally understood to be backwards, and nurture theories and plenty of discussion about racism keeps the natives on the back foot.
Why would they give that up? The imports aren't a threat to them.
There might be a few that know the score, but I think most are intellectually lazy technocrats. They might be well read, but they never transcend the presuppositions that have been given them by The Science. For the least 70 years or so The Science has been "debunking" common sense views of the world only to have them proved correct later. Right now, the question of racial differences has still been "debunked" for most them.
I find it astonishing anyone with above average IQ can believe in the tabula rasa theory. The level of fiction you would have to maintain in your head is incredible.
Although you could be right. Certainly McGilchrist's hemisphere theory would suggest the left hemisphere limitations are all around us.
Donors set the agenda.
The USA used to be (and darkly ironically it in many ways more resembled contemporary China than the contemporary USA) a semi-populist, semi-politically decentralized, semi-economically decentralized, semi-culturally decentralized, semi-scientifically decentralized republic with democratic governance structures such that completely different from today decentralized mass-member Republican and Democratic parties of old. This different socio-economic-political architecture enabled far more interest groups, from local governmental interests, to business SMEs, to local trade associations, and yes, even organized groups of citizens to effect and manipulate government and play a role, even if a somewhat limited one (although there could be big occasions and many small ones where that role could be huge) in the formulation, design, and execution of policy
The oligarchs bought up the media, social media platforms, culture and Hollywood and set the narratives.
I think tribalism distorts the relationship between consumer - > marketplace and backward. There was a poll where after Trump was convicted of felonies the amount of Republicans allowing felons to run for president increased from about 10% to a majority