Elite Human Capital DEBUNKED
Debunking The Idea That Elite Human Capital Leans Left
Thus far, no one on the Right has formulated a proper response to the concept of Elite Human Capital by Richard Hanania and Anatoly Karlin, making this the first serious attempt. Why the first? Richard Hanania’s book hasn’t yet came out and so I will be responding to EHC as it presently exists.
First I’d like to say that I found one of the chapters Richard Hanania released on the EHC from his upcoming book quite enjoyable. However, my first main objection to the thesis is that he attempts to unify high intelligence, activism, openness, liberal institutional norms, leftism, status-signaling, honesty, anti-conservative and specific moral foundations into a single framework. In truth, these elements must be assessed individually, as different elite groups exhibit some while lacking others. Likewise, I could compile a list of traits I admire in a person or a state and derive a generalized factor from it. However, given the inherent complexity and heterogeneity of causality of the listed variables, such an approach would lead to a weak analysis if these correlations do not imply mutual causation.
Because this significantly complicates the matter, so I will examine the EHC as Hanania presents it in his earlier writings, alongside relevant Twitter posts from him and Anatoly Karlin, the concept’s originator. As I will later show, these traits do not always correlate positively and because of Banania’s aggressive efforts at owning the chuds, he overstretched his definition of EHC to mean often-times contradictory things.
If we break it down the EHC can be defined by:
Dislike of Rightism
Status-Signaling
Leftist or Liberal Beliefs
High intelligence/Income/Education
Being Against Supremacy
In practice Elite Human Capital is always equated with the defense of the Liberal-Leftist status quo done through status signaling. “We’re powerful, therefore we win”. Ironically enough, it comes from the very same people who have originally supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Likely for the same psychological desire of feeling like they are in the driving seat.
The EHC functions similar to the Rightist famous “physiognomy check”, except the person’s opinion is dismissed not because of looks, but because of the person’s background or beliefs which are not sufficiently elite coded. It works like Rob Henderson’s conception of luxurious beliefs in which leftists adopt a set of identifiable beliefs in order to distinguish themselves from whoever they perceive to be lower than them by status.
Differences in Intelligence Between Liberals and Conservatives
The central claim supporting the EHC thesis is that those on the left are simply more intelligent than those on the Right, citing wordsum, IQ data and educational attainment. This happens to be true, however the degree to which it is the case is largely trivial and for the most part has only recently became an observable trend.
Below is a typical voting pattern from the 2000s, before the Republican Party transformed into a “multi-racial coalition”.
It is certainly most pronounced when examining the correlation between IQ and political ideology exclusively among Whites.
However when you look at non-Whites, this relationship falls apart. For instance, educated Blacks and Hispanics are much more likely to be backing President Trump than their less educated counterparts.
As Emil Kirkegaard writes in his response article to Richard Hanania, the differences aren’t significant when you don’t divide this by race.
Ironically enough, Richard Hanania is most close to a “moderate” ideologically speaking, yet moderates were found to have the lowest wordsum score out of all.
Banania then pretends that because of this MASSIVE PARTISAN DIFFERENCE IN IQ (1-3 IQ points depending on the study), “Liberals” happen to control everything however as Noah Carl brilliantly argues using statistical data, accounting for IQ, Conservatives would be about 30% of the professoriate elite as opposed to about 5% as they are now.
Richard Hanania looks at the power structure and assumes that whoever has attained power has acquired it through a meritocratic selection process, as opposed to our elites undergoing a process of self-reproducing centralization as I argued in my manifesto.
“You see… it is not that the system benefits “liberals” because it is run by “liberals”, but because “liberals” are exceptionally talented people!“
Why, then, didn’t the Republicans dominate in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, despite holding a clear advantage over Democrats in IQ, income, wealth, and even educational attainment? Could it simply be that the system was and is rigged against them for the very reasons I outlined in my manifesto?
Anyways, I’ll live you with this. Because of insane partisan differences in fertility, smart Conservatives will outnumber smart Liberals 4-1 in 50 years from now. The fertility difference between strong Democrats and strong Republicans is already 1.37 vs 1.76 and increasing with every year.
As Edward Dutton and J. O. A. Rayner-Hilles explain in their book analyzing bipartisan fertility rates, extreme Conservatives with an above average IQ will greatly outnumber extreme liberals with an above average IQ
Such effects may already be observed with the recent data that studied how college educated young adults have voted in relation to their older counterparts, identifying a huge 27 point intergenerational shift among college-educated White men.
Counter Examples in which EHC doesn’t lean liberal and leftist:
Russia
Russia appears to be an example of country in which its EHC is generally inline with its governmental policy. Many in the West have scolded Rightoids for being anti-vaxxxers yet in Russia it is precisely the opposite. Leftists and Liberals are anti-vaxxers whereas Pvtin supporters are pro-vaccines.
Even the very highly educated left-leaning, anti-war liberals (like the supporters of Yabloko) were twice as likely to be antivaxxers than Putin’s ruling party. The relationship is staggering but it can be explained by the fact that Russian institutions benefit those who like Putin, whereas Liberals and Leftists are driven into the conspiracy world and alternative institutions. This situation is not just typical for Russia, but of Israel too in which a majority of Israeli Rightists have absolute confidence in their government and civic institutions (unlike Israeli leftists).
In contrast, Western institutions don’t benefit the Right which is why some rightoids don’t like them very much.
Many well-educated people in the West believe that the war on Ukraine is a poor decision on behalf of Putin, their un-educated Russian counterparts almost agree (38% agree, 46% disagree). On the other hand to the question asking “if you had the opportunity to go back in time and reverse the decision to start the special military operation, would you do it or not?”, 34% of the most highly educated Russians said yes and 50% said no.
If we break this down by income, 85% of the upper class in Russia supports the SMO whereas just 59% of the lowest class supports it. If we look at the levels of opposition to the war, the Russian upper-middle class is twice more opposed to the war than the Russian upper class whereas the Russian impoverished class is three times more likely to oppose the war than the Russian upper class.
In either way, the so called EHC in Russia is certainly not gay and trans and if you look at the Russian billionaires, they actually have children (unlike the Western billionaires).
Obviously that is not to suggest that the Russian educated and upper middle class buys into the Z-propaganda, polls show they believe in it less than the less educated/impoverished Russians, however they do support the SMO and Putin because (1) it is advantageous for them to be closely aligned with power, and/or (2) Russian elites were historically selected for greater state/leader conformity, and/or (3) such is the natural expression of moral/civic values of the Russian EHC.
In the following section I will explore the (3) possibility but in reference to Jews/Israel.
Jews as EHC and Israel
Richard Hanania and Anatoly Karlin view Jews as a primary example of a EHC group. I wouldn’t blame them! It is self evident that Jews have above average IQ, occupy important positions of power, lean left (in America, but not in Israel ;) and are highly over-represented in politics. Heck, Hanania likes to write about it himself!
Both Karlin and Banania like to applaud Jews for “providing freedom” to Americans that they never had, yet how can that be the case when a majority of Jews do not fundamentally believe in free speech including 44% of Republicans?
The reason that the Jews were strongly in favor of free speech in the 1960s and earlier, is because it directly benefited them by shifting the country towards a more cosmopolitan and left-wing direction. Most Jews today do not support free-speech, and those who advocated for it in the past did so not out of principle, but because it served their interests at the time.
Recent polls show that even the most culturally and genetically assimilated Jewish student youth (which on average is just 60% genetically Ashkenazi Jewish), may support protests in theory, but when such protests concern the Jewish-supremacist ethnostate, a majority of them oppose it and even advocate for the police to arrest the protestors.
According to the most recent survey of American Jews, 85% of them believe it is important for the US to support Israel despite Israeli actions that have led to the most devastating war in the 21st century.
“But these are just words and opinions! What about their actual support?”
Okay, 78% of American Jews have said that they will donate money to an organization that supports Israel, whereas 44% of American Jews said they will donate to the Israeli army directly. I wonder how many of American Jews pledged to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza or donated to Hamas directly given that supporting them is the most leftist, privileged and EHC coded thing to do?
For a faraway ethnostate built in their name which at that time was engaging in massive atrocities that could be described as genocidal, I think that such level of support for Israel and hatred of Palestinian self-determination indicates that Jews despite having EHC predispositions, do not necessarily buy its bullshit for themselves.
Furthermore, if Jews are so good for freedom and equality as advocated by Banania et al., how come non-Jews can’t marry Jews in Israel or why can’t non-Jews immigrate to Israel without converting or having a Jewish spouse?
The Jewish community has enthusiastically supported the Civil Rights Act in America, yet Israel is ranked as one of the least minority friendly countries in the world.
On the question of whether Israel should remain a Jewish ethnostate there is no difference between college educated Israeli Jews and those who couldn’t finish high school both support the existence of Israel as the Jewish ethnostate at 98% (not that different from American Jews, 95% of whom support the existence of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate), whereas there is a small difference in relation to whether Israel should also be a Jewish supremacist ethnostate with legal discrimination directed against non-Jews (just 71% of the college educated Jews agree). However given that this poll is quite old, I expect that the support for Jewish supremacy today is much stronger among the elites as is their support for Zionism (in relation to the less educated).
PS: Funny enough the only group of people who do not identify as Zionists are the highly-fertile and predominately Ashkenazi “Haredi” lunatics (same group of people who would be digging tunnels under New York). The reasons for them not being Zionists are pretty amusing considering that they are also hardcode Jewish supremacists, but I won’t get into it.
In either way, Jewish morality in relation to viewing the in/outgroup mirrors the National-Socialist German worldview as well as the world views of modern White-supremacists like Joel Davis. However, unlike modern-day neo-Nazis, Jews are not losers and therefore have the privilege of avoiding self-reflection or even a desire of assimilating to the cultural codes of their inferior Western Woke Elites. The existence of Jews shows that elite human capital does not mean individualism, cosmopolitanism or anti-racism, as we can judge by the graph below:
So given this is what elite human capital Israeli-Jews do when Liberal Whites aren’t watching them, how come American Jews, don’t pressure Israeli Jews to be less racist & have fewer kids (their current fertility rate is well above the replacement levels)? Why wouldn’t influential American Jews be upset that Israel won’t open its borders to Muslims and Ethiopians and do all sorts of other nice things they like to tell White people to do here in the West?
Afterall, Bari Weiss has once remarked in an interview: “we appear to be white, but in fact, we, Jews are loyal to Black people, and Brown people, and immigrants, and Muslims.” So how about Jews finally show some loyalty to Blacks, Browns, immigrants and Muslims in Israel? Ohh and did I mention that Israel is also a waring state that conscripts every citizen besides-Arabs (because they don’t trust them) including all non-Arab women?
So how come while the EHC is super anti-Israel, the Jewish element within it is super-pro Israel? Something doesn’t add up!
Also, I’m not saying all of this to bash Jews, this is only my secondary objective. For all its worth, Israel is a model for a future White ethnostate minus their backward religiosity. The evolutionary strategy that Jews have adopted is a successful one that is worthy of emulation by White nationalists. My central thesis is that despite Jews being well educated, having a high income, being objectively smarter and directly involved in social activism, they don’t act like EHC would expect them to!
When it comes to important matters, they always side with their race at the expense of universal rights, human decency or any other fancy EHC concepts that are not evolutionary adaptive. Jews win precisely because they have developed an immunity to EHC values. Something that is still unfortunately *work in progress* for many in our scene.
If we look back at the Russian example and wonder why they act differently than Westerners, the likely explanation for these disparities is that they evolved under different selective conditions. Russians (and especially their elites) were selected for obeying the government/the leader.
Banania himself admits that his theory doesn’t work in Russia (but doesn’t mention Jews, who differ much more strongly than Russians differ from Westerners especially around issues of treating the out-group. For instance, only 21% of Israeli Jews believe that the government should prosecute Jews for raping non-Jewish POW as a form of torture, days after a large swaths of Israeli civic society have attempted to overthrow their government for not allowing them to rape Palestinian prisoners)
He believes that the reason EHC doesn’t work in Russia is due to the culture of “amorality” on behalf of the Russian elites. While I couldn’t find any information about approval of striking civilian targets in Ukraine, 76% of Russians are against using tactical nukes in Ukraine, including 90% of the youngest cohort. In contrast less than 20% of Israeli Jews think that civilian Palestinian casualties should even be taken into consideration when Israel does its bombings, thus allowing Israeli military to engage in total war without using nuclear weapons,
To reiterate, Jews and Israeli Jews especially, provide a much stronger contrast between high genetic ability and predisposition to EHC values than Russians. Whereas EHC values fail in Russia, in Israel they fail so much you’d think that being EHC is being a hardcore racial-supremacist. But that’s doing a little bit of a foreshadowing for my next section…
GERMANY
To be fair to EHC Jews, a majority of Jewish college graduates (at least in 2014-2015) disagreed with the notion that Israeli citizens of Arab descent must be forcefully expelled from Israel. However, when examined through the lens of educational background, a stark contrast emerges: among those who received a secular education, opinion was evenly split, whereas only 30% of those with a Jewish education expressed disagreement with the notion.
In contrast, the German elite human capital of the late 1920s and early 1930s that would later democratically elect Hitler into power was even more radical than the Jewish elite human capital. Even before the mainstreaming of National-Socialism to the masses, German universities (the natural gathering point of EHC) were already hotbeds of supremacist thinking. As early as in 1927, 77 per cent of all Prussian students voted for a charter of academic self-government which excluded non-Aryans from membership of student corporations.
To quote Gotz Aly:
Given this logic, it isn’t surprising that the Nazis commanded majority support at universities, trade academies, and polytechnic colleges long before they were able to win over other segments of the populace. In the parliamentary elections of 1930, the Nazi Party got 18.3 percent of the vote. That same year the National Socialist German Students’ Association polled 34.4 percent in student representative elections.
Smart people are always ahead of the curve.
If we look at the amount of graduate students a year later, the number of Nazi support among them rises to astronomical 60%.
So Why has Germany's elite human capital been so drawn to Hitler and the ideological foundations of National Socialism (which have predated Fascism by the way)?
Gotz Aly explains it through the frame of populist/economic interests:
From 1930 onward, well-educated young people had few or no opportunities to find work. Masses flooded the job market without any hope of success. The NSDAP benefited from their resultant frustration.
Around 1930, almost all young Germans felt themselves drawn to romantic movements that rebelled against the smug, overfed bourgeoisie… On the left and on the right, the battle cries of the postwar generation were the same. Down with bourgeois liberalism! Down with individualism! Up with the collective!
The 2.5 million first-time voters in 1930 were all born in the final years before the war. They had spent their early childhoods living in difficult circumstances, mostly with their fathers away at the war. Now most of them wanted to join the newly expanded middle classes. Many had enjoyed a better education than their parents had, and many felt drawn to the NSDAP. Most of the Nazi Party’s functionaries were under forty, and they promoted themselves as fighters who had stayed young. The average age of the 114 NSDAP parliamentary deputies elected in 1930 was just under thirty-eight, compared with forty-six for the Reichstag as a whole. From the perspective of young voters, Nazi candidates belonged to the previous half generation—people ten to fifteen years older, who always serve as guides for those younger. The National Socialists were men of action, determined to enact radical change. To put it in the youthful slang of the 1930s, the Nazis showed that they didn’t have “chalk coming out their pant legs”— that is, that they weren’t ossified old farts.
The greatest contrast was between the NSDAP and the democratic parties of the political center. In 1930, only 8 percent of card-carrying SPD members were under the age of twenty-five. By contrast, the Nazi Party consisted almost exclusively of young people. In 1927, the average age of 81 new Nazi Party members was twenty-five. Between 1928 and 1930, it was twenty-nine. The NSDAP seemed like a fresh, flexible, youthful force, while the SPD and the other centrist parties were reminiscent of an old folks’ club. Moreover, SPD representatives emphasized policies over personalities. They did not go in for emotional appeals but rather, in the words of Sigmund Neumann, stressed “rationalism, pragmatism instead of fantasy, and level-headed and often middle-of-the-road calculations.”
The Nazis were thus a highly capable and mobile youth movement, sharing one thing in common: the desire to get ahead and earn social recognition.
However as other books show (Social History Of The Third Reich, Leviathan and Its Enemies, Selling Hitler) National-Socialism was so popular because it innately appealed to EHC-like traits: regulation and management.
If I were to compare National-Socialism with any other non-German movements, they certainly will be most reminiscent of the American Early XXth century Progressive movement emphasizing: regulations, economic mobility, eugenics, nationalism and scientific management. The key distinction between Germany's National Socialism and the American Progressive Movement lies in their structural foundations—the former operated within a Fascist framework, while the latter developed within a Liberal system that prioritized the rule of law. Ideologically, they were nearly identical, apart from the absence of anti-Semitism in the American variant.
Right-Wing Progressivism stands for all these things, but unlike the former American Progressives or the National-Socialist, the foundation of my ideology is Tectocracy, or self-emerging market-democracy in which the dynamics of the market are applied to politics. However, instead of the capital consuming the polity, the polity begins to operate like the market, where the central currency becomes ability (intellect and initiative) to organize. This represents an evolution of Republicanism and Capitalism, advancing beyond their constraints and synergizing into a distinct Fourth Political Theory.
If my Right-Wing Progressivism ideology will ever become mainstream, it will undoubtedly be appeal to the same demographic groups which have brought Hitler, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson into power. Though, I won’t rule out that so called “Liberal Nietzscheans” might be interested too.
EHC? More like WEIRD values
Richard Hanania’s model can be true, but it works mostly on countries within the Western Civilization and as we know with the example of Nazi Germany, with the right environmental circumstances the Western EHC may be made to support some form of Rightist Progressivism again. Take a look at the map showing where gay-marriage is legal.
Are countries like South Africa, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil hotbeds of elite human capital? Culturally, apparently so! Just as Nepal which is the only non-Western country on the list to legally recognize gay marriage.
Now, that is not to say that higher education doesn’t correlate with support for gay marriage, feminism and similar left-wing agendas, rather, it underscores that those who embrace these agendas are simply good students. As we have established before, people tend to repeat what they’ve been indoctrinated into by universities citing the examples of Israel, Russia and Nazi Germany whose institutions of higher learning were or are overrun by rightoids.
Eric Kauffman and Zach Goldberg have conducted a wonderful analysis of how EHC ideas about race are spread to kids through schools. Turns out the extent to which these concepts are integrated into education directly influences the degree of student adherence to them. The more they are taught, the more indoctrinated students will become.
Embracement of left-wing beliefs about the world, is not a consequence of advanced civilization, but rather a consequence of being under the influence of what remains of Western Civilization. Smart people are going to be more culturally literate and so they will be the ones at the front of spreading the virus. Unless of course, the epistemology and the cultural baggage of what constitutes Western morality receives a major overhaul, such trends are to continue. To quote Richard Hanania:
An unusually bright and idealistic girl born into a Medieval village was unlikely to develop a value system all that different from that of those around her. She may not even have been exposed to ideas indicating that a different way of life was possible. Even if she was, she was unlikely to meet many others like her of a similar disposition, much less form a community of like-minded individuals with them that had the potential to develop its own norms, moral outlook, and status hierarchy.
We are that bright idealistic girl born to a Medieval village. Our institutions lack the scientific and epistemological knowledge that predisposes one towards racialist, rightist and progressive thinking and so we construct our morality with the inferior tools available to us based upon false assumptions. As I write in my manifesto, few people are able to question the political system and even fewer area able reform it, if it possesses the power of selection.
As the book Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era explains, we too once possessed this epistemic knowledge and associated virtue with things like eugenics, immigration restriction, rule by experts and even supported the Ku-Klux-Klan at the elite level. To quote from the prologue:
The economic progressives fashioned the new sciences of society, founded the modern American university, invented the think tank, and blueprinted and framed the American administrative state. Progressives built these vital institutions of American life to carry out the twinned principles at Progressivism’s core: first, modern government should be guided by science and not politics; and second, an industrialized economy should be supervised, investigated, and regulated by the visible hand of a modern administrative state. In so doing, they reconstructed American liberalism. There was a price to be paid, however, a price Illiberal Reformers explores in its second half. Part II of Illiberal Reformers also has several acts, but each tells the same dark story— the campaign of labor reformers to exclude the disabled, immigrants, African Americans, and women from the American work force, all in the name of progress (Chapters 8, 9, and 10, respectively). The progressives combined their extravagant faith in science and the state with an outsized confidence in their own expertise as a reliable, even necessary, guide to the public good. They were so sure of their own expertise as a necessary guide to the public good, so convinced of the righteousness of their crusade to redeem America, that they rarely considered the unintended consequences of ambitious but untried reforms.
Economic progressives either ignored the plight of African Americans during the brutal reestablishment of white supremacy in the Jim Crow South, or, as in the case of Woodrow Wilson, justified it. Progressive economists provided essential intellectual support to the cause of race-based immigration restriction, which, in the early 1920s, all but ended immigration from Asia and southern and eastern Europe. Such progressive exemplars as Richard T. Ely, John R. Commons, and Edward A. Ross promoted an influential theory known as race suicide, Ross’s term for the notion that racially inferior immigrants, by undercutting American workers’ wages, outbred and dis placed their Anglo- Saxon betters. The same theory— that so-called unemployable workers were innately dis posed to accept lower wages— was readily adapted to apply to African Americans, the disabled, and women. The leading lights of American economic reform advocated regulation of workers’ wages and hours to bar or remove the unemployable from employment, on the grounds that their inferior nationality, race, gender, or intelligence made their economic competition a threat to the American workingman and to Anglo-Saxon racial integrity. It is important to understand that the progressive campaign to exclude the inferior from employment was not (merely) the product of an unreflective prejudice. Progressive arguments warning of inferiority were deeply informed by elaborate scientific discourses of heredity. Darwinism, eugenics, and race science recast spiritual or moral failure as biological inferiority and offered scientific legitimacy to established American hierarchies of race, gender, class, and intellect. Economic progressives were profoundly influenced by Darwin and other evolutionists. Chapter 6 shows how the economic progressives (and their critics) drew deeply on evolutionary science’s conceptions of heredity, progress, competition, selection, fitness, organism, and the role of human beings in controlling nature. Chapter 7 shows the uses economic progressives made of race science and eugenics, the social control of human breeding.
And just to show how EHC it was:
To conceptualize the period as Progressive was to define it by its politics and to associate Progressivism with an elite class: political figures like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, university social scientists, settlement-house workers, muckraking journalists, conservationists, Prohibitionists, and birth controllers. The protest of the progressives originated not out of personal suffering but rather out of moral and intellectual discontent with the suffering (and enrichment) of others. Progressives did not work in factories; they inspected them. Progressives did not drink in saloons; they tried to shutter them. The bold women who chose to live among the immigrant poor in city slums called themselves “settlers,” not neighbors. Even when progressives idealized workers, they tended to patronize them, romanticizing a brotherhood they would never consider joining.
The roster of progressives who advocated exclusion of hereditary inferiors reads like a Who’s Who of American economic reform. It includes the founders of American economics: Edward Bemis, John R. Commons, Richard T. Ely, Irving Fisher, Arthur Holcombe, Jeremiah Jenks, W. Jett Lauck, Richmond Mayo-Smith, Royal Meeker, Simon N. Patten, and Henry R. Seager. T hey were joined by the founders of American sociology, Charles Horton Cooley, Charles Richmond Henderson, and Edward A. Ross; pioneering social-work professionals, such as Edward Devine, Robert Hunter, and Paul U. Kellogg; and leading Protestant social gospelers, such as Walter Rauschenbusch and Josiah Strong. University presidents, such as the University of Wisconsin’s Charles Van Hise and Stanford’s David Starr Jordan, vigorously advocated exclusion of hereditary inferiors, as did such political journalists as Hebert Croly, such jurists as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and many other progressive luminaries, not least US Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Their causes varied, as did their justifications, but they all advocated the exclusion of immigrants, African Americans, women, and the disabled.
Anyways, I hope you read the book ;)
Against EHC
As already established, the EHC theory is not universal and practically does nothing else besides rationalizing the dominance of the political left. It is a way to signal conformity to the regime while also feeling like you are better than people who share your views on eugenics, wokeness, AI and the rule of law.
Instead of trying to shape the environment, proponents elite human capital effectively advocate for the assimilation to the environment as it presently is. This reminds me of many Russian liberals who have turned Z after their decision to stay in Russia but in reverse. The theory attempts to copy Putnam’s studies on civic society but does it spitefully and with poor predictive validity.
However that is not even the strongest critique of EHC. The strongest critique of EHC is that its beliefs are wrong. The central flaw with EHC is that it’s reasoning leads to poorer policies. Let’s give a few examples of what an EHC member may believe and what the social consequences of it will be:
“gay marriage” outcomes:
Decrease in birth rate (immediate impact)
Proliferation of infectious diseases (immediate impact)
Polyamorous, child marriage (long term impact)
Queers correlate with high levels of mutational load on genetic level and so the fact that being gay or trans is considered “elite” is absolutely preposterous to the utmost degree. As a matter of fact, I made an entire video on the topic, explaining my position. These people are genetic defects and the proponents of real EHC/Progressive ideals should be funding embryo research so that future couples could select the gay genes out of the population as opposed to pretending like they are equal or even “better” to neurologically healthy people who sexually reproduce.
“gender equality” outcomes:
Cultural feminization (women’s tears win the marketplace of ideas, remember that Richard?)
Soft dictatorship (women are more likely to support economic and social authoritarianism than men)
Decrease of birth rates which reinforces the need for immigration (meanwhile Israel’s birth rate is 3 women per child btw)
“all races are equal” outcomes:
DEI policy as the only way to equalize in outcomes the already equal races in ability.
White Replacement (The Republican Party is getting dumber for the reason that many non-Whites begin voting for it, which is something that EHC may not have wished for but still received and is now weirdly complaining about it for some reason???)
Victimhood narratives drive racial policy
“open borders” outcomes:
Institutions begin to function in accordance to the customs of people who have crossed the border illegally.
EHC can no longer function at the institutional level (long-term impact)
Funny enough, the open borders grift doesn’t even much up with larger historical patterns in which states increasingly develop a harsher immigration system as opposed to a softer one. I’m sorry but liberal immigration system is something we had 100 years ago. The fact that we’ve developed regional unions doesn’t undermine the states comprising these unions, just as with the invention of states we didn’t get rid of the family.
“wealth inequality is bad” potential outcomes
Softcore economic socialist policies
Incentivization of dysgenic outcomes
Outflow of actual capital
Leftism is inherently destructive to civilization, not constructive of it. Civic Society is crucially important, yet Civic Society as it presently exist is a deeply flawed one. as I write in my manifesto:
In a progressive commonwealth (its final stage), the civic society is relatively heterogeneous and pluralistic, but it also holds particular shared characteristics that are generally universal such as the advocation of accountability, openness, dynamism, personal freedoms, commitment to the general good, and a will for autopoiesis (of itself, the nation, or the management). It serves as a regulatory apparatus of both the governors and the governed- a rudimentary mechanism for self-regulation within the body politic.
Practically all Western states could be described as states in which civic society combined with the bureaucratic apparatus assumes primary responsibility of governance for the absolute majority of economic, cultural, and political elites who happen to be graduates of institutions and believers of the ideals which were created and formulated by the members of the civic society.
However, as you will learn throughout this manuscript, the integrative (homogenizing) dynamics of the Western regulator class have begun to proliferate their organic differentiative dynamics, having changed the destination of political evolution from the emergence of a market democracy (Tectocracy) to the solidification of the increasingly homogeneous civic society.
A typical subject, when placed into an environment of control with strong pressures to conform, inevitably conforms to the will of the environment. The left won everywhere because it was intolerant and uncompromising in relation to enforcing its rigid social codes, and people who simply wanted not to cause any trouble and be left alone to pursue a career, followed through and conformed.
Passionaries, those whose internal organizational forces overcame selective pressures, are rare; of course, they punch above their weight, like the Biorealist academics, but in aggregate represent only a small collective unit compared to the size of the indifferent and established masses; thus, America will eventually become autocratic if no significant change occurs within management. The moment civic society ceases to embrace the values of pluralism and liberalism it ceases to be a regulator and instead becomes the converter of differentiated elements into a homogenized whole. This is the inevitable character of present-day political trends: a stagnation and creation of a bureaucratic class that serves its own interests for the increasing proliferation of integrative processes over differential processes always results in violent homogenization of the organization.
It is further troubling because an alliance between our upper elites has already formed with ‘identity’ masses that has been described as ‘Bioleninism’: a system which allows for the further consolidation of power of the ruling elite through the appeals to serve the interests of the demographic groups which are predicted to become majorities in Western nations as well as the demographic groups that are not able to socially and morally rise on their own, becoming dependent on the patronage they receive from the nomenklatura. In such a state of affairs, it becomes increasingly difficult to solve this issue democratically, for with enough Bioleninist modification to our demographics we will eventually see the day in which the power of the nomenklatura is completely unrestrained by the democratic processes, as they begin to realize their authoritarian fantasies, which are not enacted solely through government force but mostly through every single organization in which these attitudes proliferate, that is to say, the entirety of high society combined with middle management. At that time, the government will be run in a state of exception, with little hope for the return of pluralism or social-conservative rule without a revolution.
My point is this: civic societies in other countries, such as Israel, evolved in the opposite direction from our own despite being democratic, pluralistic, differentiated, integrated, and developing systems of accountability for their leaders; these dynamics combined do not produce leftism– they produce a civic society or the generalized estate as they should, for it is not the inherent rise of pluralism and institutions that produce leftism as our elites often claim, but the elements comprising said organizations.
If Elite-Human-Capital end-goals look like cities like San-Francisco and Vancouver. Aka places with insane racial laws & composition, a bunch of HIV infected queeroids and homeless roaming the streets, little autonomy and property rights, families non-existent, rapid social disintegration and drug needles & poop everywhere, why should one listen to EHC?
How about instead of copying San-Francisco and Vancouver we begin copying Israel and the Jewish evolutionary strategy? Certainly neither I, Karlin or Hanania dispute their genetic EHC status. Instead of doing what the Jews say we should do, perhaps for once we should try to do as the Jews do? (if we wish to be in control of our own destiny that is)