Skip to content

Origins of merit to rule

August 28, 2011

On the topic of “intelligence” – I was guided back to this article by Linda at “NoOneofAnyImport” (who we find  quite important, FWIW)

America’s Ruling Class


until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. … . All that has changed.

Today’s ruling class… was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity.

The article is long, but worth the read. What is the underlying tenant the author believes caused the bureaucrat to believe they have a right to nanny or nag other men?

By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called “all men are created equal” “a self-evident lie,” much of America’s educated class had already absorbed the “scientific” notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest….by nature, superior men subdue inferior ones as they subdue lower beings or try to improve them as they please.. they were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they, the most highly evolved of all, were the improvers.

…This dismissal of the American people’s intellectual, spiritual, and moral substance is the very heart of what our ruling class is about. Its principal article of faith… is precisely thatit knows things and operates by standards beyond others’ comprehension....the enlightened ones know that we are products of evolution, driven by chance, the environment, and the will to primacy.

Even before evolution became the philosophy du-jour, the Egyptians, Babylonians and Romans had their Emperor cults. India has their caste system – Those were the answers of the ancients to the questions:  “Why do I have unearned extraordinary power, talent and wealth, and those others do not?”  Today, some tell themselves they deserve it. Others convince themselves that they’re offering a fair exchange by giving more to “the less well off” (in exchange for votes). Of course, to do that they take things away from those who don’t thank their betters for bearing with the hassle of ruling them. Someone else’s $ to the downtrodden masses (who I make sure my kids never come in contact with) so I deserve comfort and perks.

The fundamental question for the USA in the next few years :

Since when and by what right does intelligence trump human equality?


4 Comments leave one →
  1. August 28, 2011 9:34 pm

    It is rare that I would disagree with your conclusions. I liked your process of getting to it, and agree that the sameness of education is a big part of producing this deleterious result.

    But I would not give the Left — those that sat unquestioningly through indoctrination by the likes of Zinn and Churchill and De Genovo and a thousand others, and came out of it willing to do a “two minute hate” on demand for whomever their masters decide to vilify — the badge of “intelligence.”

    They do not want to be challenged by new ideas, because they don’t believe their own ideas will win out. This is why the Left’s “intolerance” in the name of tolerance, a rationale that they explicitly use, is so important to them.

    If they were intelligent, they’d have better ideas. We consider a dog or a seal or a parrot “intelligent” if it can learn by continuous repetition to perform a limited number of tricks. From humans, earning this term should demand something more.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

    • August 29, 2011 10:01 am

      Keith – I probably wrote my post in too neutral of a voice….if “intelligence” is measured by blind adherence to specific doctrines, then they are the “intelligent” because “everyone knows intelligent people think ____”. The real issue is the redefinition of intelligent by higher education to mean “adhering to in-vogue secular, modernistic dogmas”.

      That is somewhat aside from the point I was attempting to make in the post however – why is intelligence, particularly as it is measured today – the criteria for the right to rule? What about character? What about charisma and drive? What about – gasp – results and outcomes for those you rule! Even if “intelligence” were measured the way you and I both think it SHOULD be, why is that the primary criteria? What about emotional stability (Nero was potentially bipolar…) – you get the idea. I’m not sure the good rulers were the “most intelligent” in the bunch.I’m questioning by what criteria SHOULD rulers be allowed to rule? Ancient cultures it was birth (or death of the last ruler). The teknocrats in charge say it’s ‘intelligence’ as measured by blind adherence to what they consider ‘scientific’.

      • August 29, 2011 1:23 pm

        Totally with you on “intelligence” not the #1 criteria for leadership, regardless of how it’s measured.

        Funny, but we just happened to read a story during homeschool today that fits this theme. “The Golden Goose,” a Brothers Grimm story I wasn’t familiar with. The “dumb” brother is the only one that shared his food and drink with some kind of magical old man, and he ends up marrying a princess in the end.

        Thanks for the hattip and compliment.


    • August 29, 2011 1:49 pm

      One of the great strengths of our Constitutional republic system is that we can elect people. No universal highest importance is given to intelligence, integrity, experience, physical capability, or anything else, though all of these atributes should be part of who we choose. Instead of “rulers are picked by intelligence,” each of us decides the relative strength of these criteria on our own.

      Well, in theory, anyway. In practice, sadly, we are being trained to respond in uniform to centrally dispensed pap. I am greatly troubled by this.

      As for intelligence as a choice, the Leftist concept of intelligence has tended to be self-limiting. Leftist “intelligentsia” advocate communism until it comes to power. Then communism, born from envy and ruled by brutality rather than intellect, considers as its first order of business to eliminate the intelligent. And here, they eliminate the intelligent on both sides, because both can be threats.

      The criteria should be to select those people who have produced, or shown that they could produce, the results that are in accord with people’s desires as well as with the Constitution they will be sworn to protect. This information, presented honestly, should enable the people to make the right choice.

      But that “honestly” bit is in trouble, and the trouble started long before Howard Zinn’s Marxist propaganda tract A People’s History of the United States became common in universities and even high schools.

      Give people good character and good basic education, and they’ll make the right choices. Run them through the current US university and public school systems, and you get Barack Obama.

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

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

%d bloggers like this: