RSS
While the broke genius archetype may be a meme, the topic of the intelligent yet poor is especially relevant to how we view issues of wealth, privilege, status, and societal incentive structures. A stereotypical demographic profile of the smart but poor, might be of a starving artist or NEET, especially the terminally online underemployed intellectual type. While the technical definition of NEET is not in employment or education, in a more colloquial sense, NEET often describes middle class failures rather than the lumpen proletariat, as the NEET phenomenon is a product of downward mobility among the middle class. Though someone who is smart but poor could also be from a prole background. However, those from working class backgrounds often have contempt for NEETs from middle to upper middle class backgrounds, who they might view as having privilege and more opportunities, but are just lazy and entitled. In turn, high IQ NEETs resent being treated the same as the lumpen proletariat. Even if it can be a cope, it is totally rational for those from the downwardly mobile middle class to feel some sense of entitlement to the class that they were born into, or at the very least still identify with that class. A lot of middle class NEETs may decide to be NEETs, if the alternative is joining the working poor.
I would estimate that the smart but poor demographic is disproportionately White, though obviously not exclusively. This demographic probably includes a decent amount of Asians, though Asians generally have more economic niches and are under more cultural pressure to succeed academically and economically. As for BIPOCs, there are a lot of specialized programs geared towards empowering gifted BIPOC, the talented 10th, such as scholarships and jobs programs. Besides discrimination against White males in hiring, there are logistical issues, as Whites are still a majority, and it is harder to provide economic security for the sheer numbers of intelligent Whites. Whites are also much more geographically dispersed, with the vast majority of America’s untapped cognitive talent, subsisting in middle to lower-middle class Whites in flyover country.
There is speculation about whether historical figures, such as Hitler, Karl Marx, or Nietzsche, were NEETs, which has become a 4chan tier meme. Certainly Ted Kaczynski epitomized the archetype of the genius who becomes disgruntled and at odds against society. The root of Communist uprisings were often broke intellectuals who resented that they could not achieve economic success under a mercantile system. Many great philosophers and artists are often unhappy with life, and that dissatisfaction and resentment can be channeled into great things but also into chaos. The archetype of the broke intellectual, or of the failed, dejected genius, who lashes out against society, has existed throughout history, but elite overproduction has made this archetype much more common.
As for contemporary politics, the smart but poor are overrepresented among dissidents, across the left-right spectrum, as a high IQ plus low economic status, practically entails being disaffected. This demographic was especially overrepresented among the Alt-Right, as well as among Bernie bros, and Andrew Yang’s campaign, which was stereotypically associated with high IQ NEETs. Even DSA, seems to be made up of a lot of failed strivers of the professional managerial class rather than the working class. Think the stereotype of a militant woke leftists as a Starbucks barista, who is working class in income, yet has a degree and lots of student loan debt, and comes from an upper middle class background. Despite the prevalence on the Alt-Right, the smart but poor demographic overall leans left, even taking into account the shift in high income voters leftwards. For instance research by Ohio State Professors, Herbert P. Kitschelt and Philipp Rehm, found that the left’s core support is now concentrated among high education but low income voters.
Even though the archetype of the resentful, neurotic, but intelligent nerd is well represented among leftists, for a lot of young White men who are smart but low status, being gaslit about their alleged privilege adds insult to injury, and explained the appeal of the Alt-Right. The left has traditional catered more to envy and resentment, but those traits also increasingly impact rightwing grievance politics. There are also parallels to the vilification of alienated young White men on the right to the absurd propaganda from neoliberal Clintonites, that Bernie Bros had White male privilege. However, the smart but poor demographic are probably underrepresented among conservatives, as Trump’s biggest supporters were not high IQ NEETs but rather the “prole aristocracy.” These are people who make decent money, but who didn’t acquire it through becoming an “educated libtard,”such as an auto mechanic or electrician, who are financially secure but are otherwise working class in culture. Trump appealed to this demographic with his business background, bravado, and decorum of speaking from the gut. Conservatives generally value those with monetary wealth over those in the arts or “eggheads,” and this anti-intellectualism is a major weakness of the right. Despite its flaws, the Alt-Right was good in that it broke away from that dichotomy.
Research by Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein on intelligence and wealth, found that IQ is especially valued in America’s knowledge-based economy. However, research by Alessandro Pluchino of the University of Catania in Italy, found that “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” and that “almost never the most talented people reach the highest peaks of success, being overtaken by mediocre but sensibly luckier individuals.” The report also warns against a ‘naive meritocracy’ which often fails “to give honors and rewards to the most competent people.” A scholarly paper by economist James Heckman, makes the point that “personality plays a much bigger role in separating those with high and low income, and “found financial success was correlated with conscientiousness, a personality trait marked by diligence, perseverance and self-discipline.”
While it is obvious that IQ correlates positively with economic success, there are other factors such as personality. Psychological traits associated with the smart but poor might include lower agreeability and conscientiousness, and higher introversion and neuroticism, though both very high and low neuroticism probably negatively correlate with success. The smart but poor demographic also disproportionately includes people on the autism spectrum, as well as those with ADHD. Even though a hyperactive mind is the trait of many genius, it could also hinder one from excelling in work or school. Outlier high IQ individuals often have trouble relating to others and live in their minds, which is exacerbated by these other psychological traits.
While dark triad types, who are high in Machiavellian and sociopathic traits, exist among the elite, this trope is probably exaggerated by dissident armchair psychologists. The more common archetype for success, is the pro-social extrovert. While a charismatic or over socialized midwit will have economic advantages over an autistic genius, society dishonestly downplays the importance of networking, popularity, and social skills to economic success. The shift in the corporate world to becoming more managerial also selects for conformity, which has also disproportionately benefited women, who are generally more conformist and pro-social than men. Managerialism disfavors those who don’t want to put up with the BS, but rather carve out their own path, which are often the traits of geniuses. Both secondary and higher education, especially the generalized liberal arts model, also selects for compliant box checkers. The grading system and university admissions demands that students do well in all fields, rather than hone one specialized skill. This lack of specialization disfavors savants and penalizes risk taking and experimentation, which is needed for innovation. Geniuses would be better off under an independent study model of education. For instance independent bloggers often produce material that is superior to credentialed, overpaid academics, and corporate journalists.
As for neurodiversity, the left generally opposes any distinctions between intelligent autists and the disabled. While Neurodiversity jobs programs exist, such as at Microsoft, overall neurodiversity programs have either been deprioritized in favor of diversity, or have been co-opted by wokeness. Cancel culture with woke HR, de facto purges neurodiversity from the corporate world, such as James Damore getting fired from Google. Writer, Razib Khan, made an interesting observation, that our society screws over autists in how it is now “simultaneously preaching hyperindividualism/do your own thing, while enforcing stricter and stricter de facto social norms on politeness and manners.” Overall, successful people are more likely to express mainstream views, and the mainstream is now woke.
Silicon Valley of the 90s was a golden age for high iq spergs to make it rich, which is no longer the case. While intelligent autists can become rich as innovators, rarely do they rise up the corporate ladder. There are also a lot of geniuses who might make 100k working some boring white collar job, yet their talents are wasted. Besides high IQ autists, there are those who thrive more in a wild west type environment, rather than a heavily regulated managerial system. For instance the kinds of guys who relocate to some less regulated third world nation and make a fortune. While this self-reliant archetype is very different from intelligent autists, who generally need patronage to succeed, both of these archetypes are suppressed under the current managerial system, filled with over credentialed midwits and ass kissing mediocracies. The reality is just that midwits are much more in common society, thus jobs, politics, and education caters to them, and outlier brilliant people only matter if they are rich.
Policy solutions that could empower the intelligent but poor, include scraping bureaucracy, no strings attached UBI, independent studies programs in education, patronage for innovators, and specialization in education and the economy, to pair people up with a niche that they excel in. The blogger, Lion of the Blogosphere called for enclaves for the intelligent but poor, which is a great idea, that will likely never be implemented. Even private sector patronage, such as Thielbux, is very limited in scope and benefits a selective few. The left would likely oppose any kind of specialized programs geared at helping the smart but poor, such as a specialized jobs program for high IQ NEETs, because this would disproportionately help White men. A major reason that college degrees are mandatory for White collar jobs, is because IQ tests are illegal, though both the intelligent who are neurodivergent and from less privileged backgrounds, would be much better off with a cognitive testing model for employment and education. Even the US Postal Service used to select employees via IQ tests, which offered job security for the smart but poor, but was scraped, coinciding with Civil Rights. Not to mention scrapping gifted programs in public schools, which further screws over brilliant students whose parents cannot afford private education. There are serious questions about America’s worship of the Meritocracy, as far as whether the best people and concepts are rewarded, even if the current system is far from meritocratic. Certainly if one is high IQ and not a total slacker yet is poor, they are totally justified in having contempt for society and mainstream institutions.
While all societies have malcontents, the more intelligent people that are not utilized or given a role in society, the less legitimacy a system has. Devaluing credentialism and delegitimizing institutions is important, but is only effective if enough successful and high status people do so. The system has been effective at maintaining power and quelling dissent, which could explain why there has not been any efforts to placate the intelligent disaffected, by buying them off with funding or jobs. However, the massive wave of white collar layoffs, will likely exacerbate elite over production, and could increase discontent enough to cause trouble for the system.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
I recall a paper that found out it’s around 120 IQ the ‘sweet spot’ for earning loads of money.
P.S.: I can’t locate the paper; can someone, please?
You get rich by choosing your parents very carefully. That’s all there is to it.
Wow, just wow. Truly superb piece, with more on-target insights per unit of text than anything I have read in a long time.
And a good look in the mirror for many Unz Review writers and commenters.
Smarter, independent-leaning but thereby often-disadvantaged folks, versus socially-compliant midwits … indeed
One one level, these problems seem to be a function of harsher neoliberal etc economic systems affflicting much of the world
But in more just, and thus necessarily more regulated economic arrangements, the rebels are still under attack, however … because the conformist midwits controlling the bureaucracy can’t resist the psychopathic urge to impose excessive behaviour conformity … Sad!
Luck, or fate, is staggeringly important to success too, but it so demolishes the illusion that humans can control outcomes that it is generally downplayed. In classical times, Fortuna, or Tyche, or Nemesis, or the Three Fates, as the phenomenon was variously personified, were the most revered of the minor goddesses. I’ve noticed that through no effort of my own, circumstances have placed me in several right places at several right times, a few of which I’ve been somehow able to use to material advantage, though I claim no special genius or divine favor. At other times my best efforts produced no result worth mentioning.
On the other hand, Machiavelli hit on a great truth with this observation as well, “If you watch the ways of men, you will see that those who obtain great wealth and power do so either by force or fraud, and having got them they conceal under some honest name the foulness of their deeds.”
A better topic but much more taboo would be the rich and stupid or mediocre. Look at the crap Hollywood is making and the ‘journalists’ on television. Look at the Biden family and how the system bent over backwards to accommodate them.
This is the accommodation the elites get https://washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/30/hunter-biden-file-brief-navy-career/
and this is the gauntlet the poor face
https://dnyuz.com/2022/12/09/recruited-for-navy-seals-many-sailors-wind-up-scraping-paint/
in regards to the last article it does seem like things are getting more and more competitive/arbitrary and what matters is connections rather than talent.
Also this is a partially good article on left wing academia producing nothing https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/takeover-russell-jacoby
Reaching retirement (if one is lucky enough to achieve a certain amount of financial security by that time) is heaven to the intelligent/independent-minded male who finally gets out of the female run hell that is government and/or corporate world. For the first time he gets to be himself and finally discard the shoes (that are two sizes too small) that he’s been wearing for the past 40 years. This is hoping that the man hasn’t been driven crazy by ex-wives, conniving bosses and the over-arching bureaucracy that breaks, even the best of us.
The Inappropriately Excluded by Michael W. Ferguson may (or may not) be of interest to you.(?)
☮
True in some cases, but often, it’s the honest and principle midwits vs the smart & cunning careerists.
I’ve heard that marrying a ketchup heiress can work as well if you don’t mind flying around telling people to eat dirt instead of doing cool rich-guy stuff
The Bagel Boyz have corrupted the system for their own benefit.
Any Whites or Asians smarter than them are discriminated against.
Truth is the Bagel Boys of Khazaria only have a median IQ of around 86.
The 130 figure is verbal score only, and leaves out spatial and math.
This dystopian nightmare is right out of their filthy and stupid Babylonian Talmud.
Its a recipe that will DESTROY THE ENTIRE WORLD.
These moronic greedy fools would rather turn the world into a giant ghetto.
This Cancerous Parasite CREATES ghettoes with their Greed and Stupidity.
When these cretins were overthrown in Germany, there was a Golden Age.
All the White Men that were held back by this Obnoxious Parasite began to produce.
Race is hardly a social construct. Society is a racial construct.
Only White Men can create the Future of Space Stations, Moon bases and Martian colonies.
Asians can copy but never create. Without White Men to lead the way, forget it.
This Alien Parasite from Khazaria must be WIPED OUT like the disease they are.
The Future of All Life on Earth depends on White Men casting off this PEST SPECIES.
Do it. Just Do It. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose…
Doesn’t always work. I’ve known several people from upper middle class backgrounds who have blown their money on entertainment and buying friends; typically they had been ignored as children by parents preoccupied with social/business roles. I’ve known one person who took care of his money and lost it all in the flash crash om 1987. I’ve worked with a descendent of the Vanderbilts, who was reduced to being a Washington, DC lobbyist.
Fact is, I’ve known an entire family that went from being rich to being drug addicts in three generations.
So, yes, you can get money from rich parents. You can’t get success from them.
You don’t even understand logic. Go back to grade school.
Your argument is like saying lions can’t kill because one lion let a gazelle get away.
You idiot. People who actually are successful are successful because they had rich parents. That a couple scions of wealth failed is so stupidly irrelevant it passes all understanding.
I like how you tell lying anecdotes that you made up that don’t even serve the purpose you meant them to. Learn to make up better lies about people you “know.”
Based on my 60 adult-years observing my competitors and supervisors, the pro-social professional is vanishingly rare compared to the sociopaths. I knew exactly one successful prosocial university president, and a dozen sociopaths running, and ruining, various administrate units ranging from a USGS regional lab to several academic departments to museum departments and whole museums to chiefs of large departments within the bureaucracy of a large U.S. state. Sociopaths as far as the eye can see, as defined by this acute observer watching from close enough to infer the adminstrators’ motives and options for generalized good versus personal nest-feathering.
A case can be made that those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder perceive most clearly the true values of the culture. It doesn’t take much more than a room temperature level IQ to see, as the rapper sang, life ain’t nuthin’ but bitches an’ money. The media presents us with stories of corruption and profiteering among the wealthy and powerful – when the poor see these they figure it’s open season for them too. The message is clear: the folks at the top of the pile didn’t get there by being decent or honest. As they clearly don’t give a f*** about doing what’s right, why should I? This is one of the media’s remarkable achievements, that in the guise of informing us of elite wrongdoing it has enabled large elements of our population to embrace the contempt for the common weal that characterizes our real rulers. Notice also that despite these crusading exposes, nothing ever changes. The top rank knows that by and large, the American public is quite undiscerning – they didn’t reverse-engineer the educational system to fail for nothing – and as easily distracted and forgetful as children. Advertising copywriters are specifically instructed not to produce material above sixth grade comprehension level for a reason.
However much money you have as a smart NEET, your portfolio should include high dividend bearing stocks. These give you a quarterly income. Invest a large part of your money in these stocks.
You are absolutely correct about those at the “bottom rung” of societies who perceive the true value of the culture.
In almost every communist “revolution” and takeover, it is college students (who have money) who embrace the communist “march through the institutions” the most.
Those on the “bottom rung” are too busy attempting to provide for their families and have no time for such “revolutions”.
Best regards,
All my stories are true. The US hasn’t been a good place for those not politically connected since about 1970; the few exceptions are foreign born or simply exceptions borne upwards by government support for digital/software population control.
You seem to have quite an emotional investment in this. I suppose that I’m lucky you can’t crawl through the VDT and assault me physically, an Argumentum ad Baculum, which would make you Thrasymachus. ( https://www.thoughtco.com/appeal-to-force-fear-250346 )
Perhaps you have a point: perhaps your only chance of becoming “successful” is to have successful parents (although AOC didn’t). Since the number of “successful” people, who were either at the same level as or upwardly mobile from their parent’s “success”, is declining, that would account for my observations and your complaint as well.
The modification would read something like:
Successful parents strongly help to make you successful, but having successful parents does not in itself make you successful.
This reformulation might be correct in most cases.
“Like father, like son” is not accurate. “Like father’s ancestors, like son” is more accurate. That’s what is meant by “regression to the mean”. If the father is unusual in his line of ancestors, his son probably won’t be unusual, will be more like his and his father’s average ancestor than like the father.
However, I should also point out that having a short temper and being disposed to make your point through personal attacks does not contribute to your success. You might give that some thought.
Of course, if your field is politics, than precisely such personal attacks are required for success or even participation. Various Black groups, for example, provide nothing more or less than attacks by Dunning-Kruger victims. Be aware, though, that the field of politics is highly competitive and that the unsuccessful are often penalized severely.
Parents [all in some of the following], Luck [environment dropped into (etno centric, group acceptance), the single Attraction (mentors, admirers, basic-instinct types)], Choice of environment [if possible], a Populus “talent” [beauty, sports, music, “smart enough”], Submissive-ness [effortlessly suck up to others, socializing without any drain on the batteries]. Not exhaustive all of these, but definitely more important then raw processing power, memory, balls, analytical and synthesizing brain power.
Great article https://archive.ph/PRQpJ thanks for sharing it!
– https://archive.ph/PRQpJ#selection-907.0-907.129
Volkmar Weiss found the same thing, but he also found far more low IQ persons than what the standard, Gaussian distribution predicts, i.e. “a multi-modal, heavy-tailed, likely DUF1220-caused distribution of intelligence” https://www.unz.com/aanglin/after-weeks-of-nonsense-elon-finally-restores-donald-trumps-twitter-account/?showcomments#comment-5670365 :
Image Source: https://www.unz.com/jthompson/text-and-talk/?showcomments#comment-2311497
“In developed societies high intelligence of a person seems to be of such an advantage, that one wonders why the major gene M2 responsible for lower normal intelligence has survived with a frequency of about 0.80. A relatively stable social hierarchy needs a small number of high IQ individuals at the top, a greater number of individuals of average intelligence for the middle positions, and a large number of low IQ individuals [ “Survival of the friendliest” https://www.unz.com/jthompson/dunning-kruger-effect-done-with/?showcomments#comment-5694100 ] to perform modest routine work at the bottom. […] antagonism between ruling and powerless high IQ-individuals, i.e. the struggle for leadership of the majority, is the most potentially destabilizing factor, not the direct challenge to the ruling elite by the low IQ majority itself. All societies have to have a hierarchy with a relatively fixed ratio of leading to nonleading positions. […] A pack of mammoth hunters of about a dozen men with an IQ of 94 and half a dozen heterozygotes with an IQ of 112, led by an alpha male with an IQ of 130 became an optimal foraging unit. Such a one-level hierarchy, based on a division of labour correlated with intelligence, was the prerequisite for the rise of multi-level societies. However, this rise was not accompanied by a fundamental change of the stabilizing forces of the genetic polymorphism itself.” – THE EVOLUTION OF A BALANCED POLYMORPHISM FOR HUMAN INTELLIGENCE https://archive.is/blV7b#selection-3707.0-3707.63
That’s the credo of the loser. Fact is, there’s much more to success than being smart, but this is covered well in the article:
The sad thing is that MSM propaganda promote notions such as yours, and devalue things like self-discipline–which is far more important for success in life, and which can be taught.
I hate to be a pest, but translating technical information into ordinary language is a skill. My advice to people usually is, play your strengths. Anyone who says, come out of the gate devoting your time and energy to working on your weaknesses is setting you up to play yourself out of the league real quick.
When someone is out of the gate and going already, as someone like you is, yes, you do need to make some effort to bring up your weaknesses.
Another organizational model is pack of IQ 94 rubes, some IQ 115 team leaders, and an IQ 122 sociopathic max leader employing some IQ 130 plus consigliere/mentats**.
The idea of the three or some other number peaks is interesting. Maybe society groups people according to the peak model even if the distribution of measured intelligence follows the normal bell curve.
**From the Frank Herbert Dune novels. The mentat was a confidential counselor and a sort of human A.I. computer employed by the warlords to counsel them and develop strategy particularly in times of war. I sometimes use the term to describe modern war and geopolitical consiglieres like the fictional Dr. Strangelove, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Colin Powell. I might even be an unemployed mentat myself.
It is not MSM propaganda.
I have found that as soon as the Benjamins go North, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS goes south.
Why else do we get pranked into believing that billionaires are good for society?
– https://www.unz.com/jfreud/the-dark-ramifications-of-jews-controlling-the-gods/?showcomments#comment-5797425
No wonder… recommended reading, in case you want to learn something about your own likely “Ashkepathy”:
– https://www.unz.com/article/my-journey-to-the-homosexual-question/?showcomments#comment-5768456
You are correct, and the other repliers are simply trolls. Exceptions exist, but few.
Ono Yoko as a fit-into-the-pattern. A hysterical nutcase in Japan, feigned suicide more than once, her very wealthy parents paid for her to be free-range abroad, she actually did some good art work, John Lennon decided to get yellow fever for her, she knew she was on a very profitable game, she also inherited at least part of her parent’s fortunes.
Husband, John Lennon being shot, she became spectacularly wealthy.
I’m working class, as likely you. Have seen multiple examples of wealthy families, for example, restoring totally fucked-up and despicable children, heroin addicts, to good positions, in culture, money, and land ownership.
The Jewish evolutionary response to elite overproduction has been to seek opportunities in places their offspring can prosper as minorities.
Take a White city or country and introduce a Jewish diaspora, and in a few generations the diaspora will be a driving force of ‘new money’.
For the benefit of their offspring, encouraging mass immigration means their children’s boats will be lifted by the rising tide of human economic activity. They dont have to go abroad, they instead invite the world to a place they’ve staked out.
Unfortunately, much of late diaspora behavior is rent-seeking and ethnic nepotism. Mass immigration, which most Whites oppose, is the final Ponzi scheme of a tribe attempting to thwart natural cycles of boom and bust.
Couldn’t agree more. Great article. Great comment response too.
In fact, it’s not only one of Stark’s best, it’s one of TUR‘s best. And that’s saying plenty.
There’s certainly a lot to respond to. For example…
Certainly if one is high IQ and not a total slacker yet is poor, they are totally justified in having contempt for society and mainstream institutions.
In any hierarchical society – and that, in spite of the egalitarian rhetoric of some, is what we live in – the normal mode looking down from the top is contempt, from the bottom is resentment. Both perspectives are understandable, even if they’re not entirely justifiable. And they’re not.
The reason why is because both are sources of righteousness, and righteousness (as in self-righteousness) is a strategy for avoiding the problems of a society, culture, institution, etc.
Having said that, the interesting thing about the above quote from the article is that with The Inverted World we live in today, the bottom are at the top and the top are seen or treated as if they’re on the bottom. But some aren’t on the top or bottom because they’ve transcended the culture completely.
I’m tempted to elaborate, and such a statement certainly needs to be explained. But it’d probably be better to let it go at that for now and respond more fully in another comment. Because, again, there’s certainly a lot in this article to respond to.
Since there’s no real data on the matter the second sentence is just an opinion in response to the first sentence, which is also an opinion. Which would explain why Robert was careful to include the world probably in the first sentence. If I were to use the word I’d say both points of view are probably right. But, again, since there’s no hard data, we have to rely on common sense observation (though the book Retrun On Character touches on this and, despite its flaws, is well worth reading).
Toward that end, I’m inclined toward the first sentence, which I would rewrite to read:
Dark Triad types, high in Machiavellian and sociopathic traits, have always existed among the elite. Because, of course they have.
The problem is, they’re behavior, their actions are now more intense than ever and more hostile to those they control. The explanation for this is that they are mostly Jewish and certainly Jewish-driven. That we are living in an age of Jewish Supremacy (or what I refer to simply as Supremacy Inc.) and that they have an historical hatred of the West and long for its destruction is obvious to anyone who cares to look, as opposed to looking away. But that’s not the most important feature of Supremacy Inc.
The most important, and damaging feature by far, is the obvious fact that they are pretty much above criticism. In the sense that, of all of the groups placed under the Identity Politics umbrella, as it were, the risks one runs criticising them are by far the greatest. So there’s no real limit to what they can get away with. At least not yet. And they certainly have no problem with Dark Triad types among their white Useful Idiots and poc Proxies.
In any event, as far as noticing Dark Triad types being dismissed as a trope, I’d say that the phrase is more commonly used because the behavior associated with the Dark Triad (lust for power, narcissism, and psychopathy) has become more common.
In short, the term is commonly used because the behavior is commonly noticed.
The more power Supremacy Inc. has the more openly hostile and destructive their behavior becomes. They are not even bothering to hide the hatred they have for the West in general or whites in particular.
And I wouldn’t dismiss those who notice Dark Triad types as armchair psychologists.
I would call them amateur psychologists. And this brings us to an important point Robert indirectly touches on in his excellent article – the value and even rebirth of amateurization.
But, perhaps it would be better to continue in a follow-up comment, except to say this:
It’s important to remember that Western Civilization itself has almost entirely been created by people who today would be classed as amateurs. In contrast, professionalization, a phenomenon of only the last one hundred and fifty years or more, has been anything but a mixed blessing.
Very well summarized! The only peoples that have the cognitive and creative capacity to resist them are Hanseatic peoples, and among them the Danes are currently the tip of the spear in this struggle, as discussed recently: https://www.unz.com/article/danish-socialists-felt-heat-saw-light-on-immigration/?showcomments#comment-5840698
I have been advocating for a revival of the Hanseatic League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanseatic_League for a while:
– October 24, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT • 5.4 years ago • 500 Words https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/austrians-vote-against-muslim-anschluss-get-called-nazis/?showcomments#comment-2055009
I believe, the Jewish share of the population of that “Protestant European Union” would be minuscule, but they would probably try to infiltrate:
– https://archive.ph/OWooe#selection-1327.0-1339.322
Intereresting ideas. I only know a little about the Hanseatic League, maps, photographs and drawings of architecture, etc.
An interesting point I read of in the last few months was that the German Nationalist Socialist government allowed the Danish Social Democrats to remain in power for years (the only such place, from my reading) and civil institutions in general to continue as normal to the end.
If I were a Dane, though, I would not trust the modern version of the Social Democrats to continue their current lightly pro-Dane policies and would support the People’s Party.
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel. – https://www.unz.com/article/danish-socialists-felt-heat-saw-light-on-immigration/?showcomments#comment-5849256
The Danes were also the first to officially stop the transatlantic slave trade (inspired and initiated by one of my Prussian/German relatives): https://www.unz.com/article/thoughts-on-decolonization-as-an-anti-white-discourse/?showcomments#comment-2075756
Why were our forefathers not sensible enough to establish plantations right there in the fertile continent of Africa; plantations for sugar, coffee, cacao, cotton and other articles that had become so necessary in Europe?
“…if we had come to them with an olive branch in our hand instead of murderous steel, the natives would willingly have given us access to the best and most fertile parts of their lands, areas which for untold years had been lying desolate.”
These African people would have helped us in freedom and, for low wages would have given us greatness and riches with no offense against nature, or our personal and national consciences.
[…]
Denmark-Norway thus bears the honour of being the first established sovereign state to prohibit the transatlantic slave trade.
As much as I would have liked to see such a scenario develop, I do not think that it would have been possible.
Not only were the black tribes warring each other, the white man was especially vulnerable, not only to disease, but to the constantly warring factions, the practice of cannibalism, and the desire to consume human white flesh in order to get the “white man’s mojo”. The same situation exists to this day, albinos being especially prized for their “magical powers”.
If, by chance, such a scenario developed, we would be seeing the destruction of the white infrastructure, not unlike what is occurring in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and other formerly white-run countries.
All one has to do is observe Eskom, South Africa’s electrical energy producer which cannot operate properly due to “black economic empowerment” (BEE) which is the “law of the land”. Incompetent blacks are given positions which they are not qualified for. Electrical blackouts are a common, daily occurrence. The results have been disastrous.
The Danes are to be commended for their efforts, but in the real world, they would have been decimated for attempting to “civilize” the African continent.
Thanks very much for your feedback.
I just found out that Bruce Gilley https://www.unz.com/article/thoughts-on-decolonization-as-an-anti-white-discourse/?showcomments#comment-2075669 responded to his critics last year. You might find this read of interest:
The Case for Colonialism: A Response to My Critics
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/35/1/the-case-for-colonialism-a-response-to-my-critics or https://archive.ph/Rtpm5
Other studies have found a uniform, positive, and large effect of all colonial empires on health and education. For instance, Calvi and Mantovanelli found in a study of 183 Protestant medical missions in 1908 sponsored by the colonial government in India (and located along colonial-built railway lines) that the presence of those missions generated durable long-term improvements in health for Indians through improved hygiene, health behavior, and nutrition.
Also, more support for his argument:
– https://www.unz.com/isteve/height-changes-from-1914-2014/
I argued before that with the advent of the (Protestant) birth control movement (which started about 75 years after the Danes ended their transatlantic salve trade), e.g. the Malthusian League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_League , even Africa could be civilized and prosper. But fundamentalist Catholicism, Islam and modern-day Evangelical Protestantism are an impediment to that:
Why Is Barbados So Civilized?
Remember that Barbados was the jewel in the crown of the British colonies, and was a colony until it was granted independence in 1966. Contrary to contemporary opinion, colonialism, especially the English variety, was (compared to the governments ruling in former colonies today), a very effective and successful system of government.
[…]
I think an important distinction has to me made between Catholic/French/Belgian, etc. and Protestant/British/Dutch, etc. colonies here, when it comes to the promotion or prohibition of birth control, etc. and what kind of effect this has had on the difference in observed levels of civility and violence these nations exhibit even today. In my experience, even majority-African populations can be relatively civilized and prosperous if they have the combination and follow the formula of a lower fertility rate and a higher median age population. This demographic combination has a civilizing and pacifying effect on any culture and people, no matter the genetic, racial predisposition towards aggression, impulsivity, etc. […] Stopes was particularly influential in helping emerging birth control movements in a number of British colonies. […] The French banned contraception and abortion, following policies they enforced in other colonies and in France itself. – https://www.unz.com/article/thoughts-on-decolonization-as-an-anti-white-discourse/?showcomments#comment-2076646