The aristocracy suicides

The leftist would have you believe that every person is equal to every other, and that those who are richer, smarter or better-looking are that way “by accident.”

In saner times, people older than age 6 would see such a person as developmentally stunted, but now we’re expected to take leftists seriously (even if many of us treat them like the overgrown children they are).

But we live in an age where awareness of the vastness of our species, plus democratic and egalitarian ideals, means that it’s not the quality of thought that matters, but the quantity of people who can find that thought appealing.

Sadly, the British monarchy has decided to suicide through outbreeding with unexceptional people:

Is everyone happy with William’s choice?

Some class-conscious snobs are not amused that the 28-year-old prince has settled for a commoner descended from coal miners and laborers over a bride with a hereditary title. Charles Mosley, editor in chief of Burke’s Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage, the Who’s Who of British blue bloods, said that even after eliminating “the married women and those too old,” 10,000 noble women would be eligible. A few of William’s well-heeled friends have reportedly mocked Middleton’s humble family background, dismissing her mother—a former flight attendant—with the phrase “doors to manual.” Many ordinary Brits are derisive of such comments because while Middleton, 29, might technically be a commoner, she’s anything but common. Her parents are millionaires thanks to their party-planning business, and Middleton was educated at Marlborough College, a top boarding school that charges $50,000 a year in fees. – The Week

The idea behind aristocracy is straight out of Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

  1. All traits are inherited.
  2. Individuals have different traits.
  3. Some traits are better adaptations than others.
  4. Evolution favors more adaptive traits.
  5. When agrarian society came about, natural selection ended, so we need a gentle form of human selection.
  6. If we take our best people and form a breeding pool, we will produce superior thinkers, leaders and artists.

The people who most loudly clamor for Evolution-versus-Creationism to be trumpeted from the towers are the ones most likely to be in denial of this obvious truth.

They want evolution to mean that someone else is below them, but not that someone is above them. It’s kind of pathetic when you see how obvious that is.

With our knowledge of the complete unalterability both of character and of mental faculties, we are led to the view that a real and thorough improvement of the human race might be reached not so much from outside as from within, not so much by theory and instruction as rather by the path of generation.

Plato had something of the kind in mind when, in the fifth book of his Republic, he explained his plan for increasing and improving his warrior caste.

If we could castrate all scoundrels and stick all stupid geese in a convent, and give men of noble character a whole harem, and procure men, and indeed thorough men, for all girls of intellect and understanding, then a generation would soon arise which would produce a better age than that of Pericles. – Schopenhauer, Arthur, The World as Will and Representation, trans. E.F.J.Payne, 1969, p. 527

The aristocracy was created by taking the best of the founders of civilization, and putting them in a special group that both maintained civilization and bred future leaders.

The commoners were not in that group because their ancestors lacked those traits, and history records that commoners have since then embarked on an unending series of rather pointless existential quests that involve avoiding the hard realities of life and the opportunity for graceful creation they afford.

Any time you hear complaints about the bourgeoisie, you are hearing people complain about the wealthier commoners who have made a good living, but have no concept of direction in life so fall into idleness and neurotic compulsion.

Below them are the peasants, drones, laborers and others who if not supervised, will steal, lie, cheat, deceive and elude. They are people who have no goal except that given to them by material possessions, bodily sensations or the crack of the whip.

When we look at our society through the broader filter of history, we can see why aristocracy are vital: they are those who keep the sacred role of leadership and civilization improvement alive. Everyone else has fallen into individual pursuits and neuroses.

This is not to say that commoners are bad; it is to say however that aristocrats must be exceptional, and that any society without them is on a path to dissolution.

Most people are in total denial of this fact. They prefer to think that a Prince can marry the grand-daughter of a coal miner, whose parents made their money in selling party supplies, and still produce another generation worthy of leadership.

They cannot. The British monarchy has self-destructed at a time when, like never before, it is vitally needed.


  1. “Any time you hear complaints about the bourgeoisie, you are hearing people complain about the wealthier commoners who have made a good living, but have no concept of direction in life so fall into idleness and neurotic compulsion.

    Below them are the peasants, drones, laborers and others who if not supervised, will steal, lie, cheat, deceive and elude. They are people who have no goal except that given to them by material possessions, bodily sensations or the crack of the whip.”

    Very sharp Brett! Although I would say that the bourgeois does not by definition lack direction in life (sometimes they have a goal such as establishing a business or getting their children through college), I admit they often do. The bourgeois are people who complain about the behaviour of others, but lack the guts to make a stance for an ideal. They avoid conflict while nagging about what bothers them in life, but once directly confronted, they stay silent. Typical bourgeois behaviour is to stay silent because someone may put a scratch on your expensive car. And to complain about violence in the neighbourhood but not to help once somebody gets beaten up across the street, from fear of taking a punch.

    Some guy from a sort of criminal milieu once explained that he had refused to pay taxes all his life, and whenever the cops were on his trail he hid in Germany, and if the cops looked for him there he traveled through Easter-Europe. Then he had saved up so much money from not paying taxes that he could buy a new set of teeth. If an ordinary law-abiding citizen would request new teeth from his ensurance, or from the collective assurance that he has an entitlement to becaues he paid taxes, people would tell him: “but we can’t give you a full new set of teeth. Because it’s a part of growing old that your teeth slowly decay”. Simply put; the bourgeois are those who complain that injustice can be more rewarding than law abiding docile conduct. They lack the militant spiriti required for serious reforms.

  2. Hami says:

    You are correct, Sir, who seems currently so near to Monarchism. (Maybe if I just PUSH you a little toward that big black line that reads, “WARNING: Monarchism: Taboo In Republican & Democratic Circles” you’d just fall over into it…)
    What kills a royal dynasty is when the king or queen decides to diddle the help and concieve literally genetically less fit to rule children, and fails to create legitimate heirs to inherit the throne instead of those bastards… Or, when both exist but the family allows the half-parasite demon spawn to find a way to get the throne instead. (There are ALWAYS parasitic demon spawn flocking around those of us with good fitness waiting to rape at first opportunity. An alpha-evolved family loaded with cash and power such as a royal family can’t afford to let the vultures slip in. They don’t just want good breeding rights, they want the cash and power even more.)

    As for the British royalty… They haven’t been the proper British royalty for a very long time. Especially when you consider that there were at least four different kingdoms in the Brittish isles before the influence of Rome, raising question as to which would be most appropriate to view as *the* royal family. As far as I’m aware, the Welsh is the best preserved of the British Isles throughout numerous efforts by non-Brits to conquer them. Yet, it is viewed as the English who won by non-Brits… But, I once watched a special that said something about that the modern family is actually Welsh, or something… I don’t know, I’m not British, so there’s no reason for me to recall… Anyways, the British royalty is probably not descended of any of the original royal families from the four kingdoms, or from any kingdom at all. And, King Henry VIII alone is proof that they’re not of alpha genetic stock. Then, you follow him with more mediocre Monarchs, and one with a stammer, and at least *three* breakings from proper English patriline lineage… They simply are not a good example of proper royalty.

  3. Ouroborus says:

    “This is not to say that commoners are bad;”

    Haha, well to be honest Brett, you do a good job at making them sound bad in this one. No offense intended.

    I too favor some sort of aristocratic system in place of what we have now. However, The thing that you miss is that there have been countless examples of *terrible* aristocrats and those that would be considered “higher” than us “commoners”. I’m not that convinced that all commoners are “drones” that are simply worse than those who have historically obtained power through family connections, which was the typical method during aristocratic times.

    “The commoners were not in that group because their ancestors lacked those traits”

    Well, lets be honest here, a ton of aristocrats were not put in place because of their skill or knowledge or traits. It was not as meritocratic as you may think. Often, daddy or mommy would appoint them to a position to which they had to do *nothing* for.

    “the wealthier commoners who have made a good living, but have no concept of direction in life so fall into idleness and neurotic compulsion.”

    Again, I think this is too black and white. Aristocracy is not immune to this either. I can think of 5 kings and 3 princes off the top of my head that were totally insane, delusional and totally undeserving of their title and position.

    Like I have said before, I favor some sort of aristocracy. However, I do not think that all “commoners” are just drones that pursue meaningless things. I also do not think that just because you were born into a family of power that you are somehow just “better”, since those are not the conditions to be good at something within the aristocracy. I would favor a system where if a commoner displayed initiative and intelligence in a certain area, they could possibly enter into the aristocracy at some level. I think this is just a good idea since it is foolish to deny a person with talent just because they may have been born to a lower family. This may sound too “liberal” to some people, but I simply call it practicality and using good human capital when it can be found.

    Otherwise, keep up the good work.

  4. Tim Lieder says:

    Everything went to hell after Caligula couldn’t marry his sister.

  5. crow says:

    The aristocracy is taking an awfully long time to achieve this alleged suicide.
    The monarchy has been a very un-funny joke for years and years.
    I used to be a supporter of the monarchy, in the days when I simply accepted certain institutions as right, and inviolable.
    Silly me.
    Royal marriages, such as this latest one, are often touted as “Fairy Tale Marriages”. A rather unfortunate label to apply to something involving adults.
    Such tales have an important place in childhood. Adults seem to take an all too unhealthy interest in such events, that seem always to end up in disaster.

    Here is a link to the very film clip that used to be played after the final cinema performance of the evening, in British theatres. Everybody would stand up and come to attention. A bit of nostalgia, long gone. A fairy tale…

  6. Natural Aristocracy says:

    And what, did that passing on of genes somehow come to an end after all the best of the nation were somehow brought into this aristocratic class? The cases of decadent and imbecilic aristocrats are too numerous to mention. The cases of commoners and bourgeois class men and women rising above their peers are as well. If you are to be consistent, then it is necessary for the aristocracy to bring into its gene pool the best which the commoners possess and to reject from their clans those who cannot fulfill their duties.

    This is the sort of society Plato described in his Republic.

    1. Jim Necroslaughter says:

      In the Republic, if I remember right, Plato (although the character is actually Socrates) basically says that it could be possible for people to “jump” up one “class” so it would most likely be Warriors moving up to Guardians, but if I remember the tone right, it seemed pretty unlikely that a Merchant could directly jump up to a Guardian in a generation or even two.

      Now if you really want to get crazy, I would bring up the idea of a fourth class above even the “secular” leaders. A priestly/philosopher/mystic/shaman/lunatic caste. I suppose it would be unwise to put them “above” the Guardians. And maybe at the end of the day, Plato was wise to just keep it to Merchants, Warriors, Guardians, anyway.

  7. Lupo says:

    Harry seems a good chap. Maybe his brother will get hit by a bus.

    1. Hami says:

      No, he doesn’t…

Leave a Reply

39 queries. 0.890 seconds