The raging ego

All ideology is constructed as an interpretation of reality. Over time, in a quest for simplicity, the interpretation supplants reality. This means that ideology as we know it is a distraction from the actual quest of life.

The quest of life is not universal to humans, because we can “choose” an ideology instead. But it is universal to all creatures who want to continue surviving. We call it adaptation.

Adaptation has simple rules. Find a food source and a way of avoiding threats long enough to reproduce. Over time, become better at this task — but a species is many individuals.

This means that for a species to thrive, it must make sure that its individuals correspond to a high standard of adaptation. A self-policing species like humanity then needs individuals with high individual moral standards.

It may shock some people that royalists like myself are dismissive of commoners. After all, we are commoners. But we’re only too aware of how members of our families would crack under the pressure of leadership.

That’s not to say that, over many generations, commoners do not rise. They do, but very slowly. First they rise from peasant to warrior, from warrior to artisan, from artisan to steward, from steward to minor aristocracy and then, over many generations, into royalty.

All of this exists like a giant graduated filter to produce the best at the top. What makes them the best? Moral integrity: they are able to defer their base impulses and desires, assess complex data and make comprehensive decisions, and they never lose their focus on the important values that create a civilization.

Are there bad aristocrats? Yes, many have failed. But at a far lower rate than anarchist societies, democratic leaders, corporate figureheads, and other commoner-derived leadership systems that tend to produce people who use society as a means to their own enrichment.

This is why the recent “Royal” wedding was a gruesome sham. Kate Middleton is not only a commoner, but she acts like one — in fact, she acts like a restaurant hostess, bar girl, or tanning salon proprietor. Her family made its money in party supplies, which is nothing if an occupation unfit to prepare one for leadership.

But the interesting facet of this is how the “Royal” wedding is only an example of a broader phenomenon dissolving our society — the raging ego.

When social order collapses, people return to the law of the jungle, which is every-man-for-himself. But as society collapses slowly, much of that happens within society, so they do this indirectly. They adorn themselves in altruism, egalitarianism, charity, peace and love — and while your brain is baffled by the spotlight of those absolutes, they rob you blind in the shadows.

The result is a society of individuals who are both lonely and selfish. They trust no one, and take everything they can get because they expect nothing from the social order, which leaves them alienated even when among “friends.” They distrust others because they distrust themselves.

Their motto is that no one can tell them what to do or not to do, and they’ll claim that on the basis of “equality” or equal “validity.” They are arguing from equality, meaning that if we assume they are equal, anything they do is also equally valid.

Underneath the bluster, it’s just the selfish impulse — a desire to do whatever they want, have no consequences, and have someone else support them, just because they’re equally human:

If you think every parent would ensure their children go to school with a pen when they are sitting their exams, think again. After all, why should their children bother to pack a pen when someone else is bound to provide it for them?

This lack of responsibility extends to uniforms (children regularly appear in customised versions, hoodies and short skirts), breakfast (that so many children turn up at school at 7am to have breakfast is a sad indictment of our society) and, of course, a profound lack of discipline.

[...]

As a teacher, I can tell you the root of the problem: the children I teach arrive at secondary school, aged 11, having already learnt one lesson very thoroughly. Nothing is ever their fault, and they never have to take responsibility for anything. – The Daily Mail

This attitude has spread throughout our society like wildfire since 1789, when we overthrew the idea of a monarchy. It was assumed that it was arbitrary that some were kings and some were peasants; there couldn’t be actual differences between the two.

After all, if I want freedom, I want the ability to do anything I want, at any time I want, in any place I want. And the notion of a social order, or of some being tasked with getting correct answers so that life itself doesn’t slap us in the face, conflicts with that.

Instead of caring about reality, I need to only care about social reality. I need to play by the rules of the game of socialization, and get away with whatever I can by fooling other people. They don’t want to appear uncharitable, so I can passive-aggressively use my equality as a weapon. If they don’t like my selfish behavior, they’re not treating me as an equal, and I can summon a crowd to beat them down.

That’s how you get a society of self-impressed, oblivious people who cheat on the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter of the law. They assume the rules just don’t apply to them:

Someone watching from Wisconsin called rangers Wednesday evening to tell them about the errant tourists, according to a news release. When the first park ranger arrived, she found about 30 people around the geyser’s cone taking pictures.

The tourists said they didn’t see the signs that spell out the dangers of thermal areas and the requirement to stay on boardwalks and designated trails.

The Yellowstone trip planner brochure warns visitors of the dangers of the park’s hydrothermal features. “Their waters are frequently near or above boiling. The crust surrounding them is thin and breaks easily, and often overlies more scalding water. People have died in these pools. Be safe, be careful — enjoy the hydrothermal areas from a distance.” – MSN

It’s easy to not see the signs if you refuse to look for them. You want what you want. Who is anyone else to tell you otherwise? What are they, more equal than you are?

The people who create civilizations have broken away from dying civilizations, or broken away from a larger group with lesser ambitions. They then conceive of the idea of a new civilization and make it happen, often by organizing their fellow humans toward productive behavior.

Of all the un-PC things we say on this blog, one that should be said more is this: the default state of humanity is unproductive, dysfunctional, disorganized and self-serving behavior. Only rarely does a group rise above this and create something good.

Sure, there’s lots of things that are praised in magazines and by politicians or your peers, but how many are “important” a year later — or a decade, or a century? These are trends, not actual achievements.

When civilization-founders impose order, function, hygiene, learning and goal-oriented behavior, they force humanity to rise above its temporary desires and confusions. This is why we elevate those founders to being an aristocracy, and breed our best blood into them.

The raging ego in all of us does not want to see any distinctions made among humanity. In each of us, it wants us to be able to be kings just by wishing it so. Forget all that discipline, creativity and hard work — we just want to be kings because we’re human too.

When a crowd of raging egos forms, they demand the standard of equality so that each can pretend they, too, can be king.

Kate Middleton, who looked confused and distracted throughout the ceremony, and has no particular achievements in life, is not up to the standard of aristocracy. Even her appearance, which reveals a muddle of ancestors without any distinction, and seems more appropriate on a reality TV show than leading a nation, shows her deficiencies.

While the ceremony went on, she showed no signs of understanding the gravity of what was occurring. Rather, she looked like the cat that got the cream. This was not a ceremony about a nation, but about her personal triumph — her acquisition, like she had been shopping. In commoners, wealth may truly be arbitrary.

Middleton not only does not look royal, and not act royal, but in her refusal to address those shortcomings shows she is not focused on the level of detail and gravity which a royal needs. She is a good commoner, perhaps, and may even make a pot of money amusing others with diversions as her ancestors did.

But to conflate her with the kind of leadership that we expect from aristocracy — Charlemagnes and Lavoisiers — is to make a grave mistake. In the name of equality, our raging egos tear down our highest so we can each be kings for a day, and impoverish us all as a result.

8 Comments

  1. Duane says:

    This article is a breath of fresh air after reading Native Son today for class.

  2. Iain Swan says:

    Thank God !
    At last ! finally someone on the right who cuts through the flim flam and tells it how it is.
    I am no republican , rather I am a fervant monarchist but could not bear to watch yesterdays abomination as our beloved monarchy descends further in tawdry reality television purgatory, as it opens it doors to fake tanned commoners, amid insistence from the liberal media that it must modernise.
    What next ? American Idol /X-Factor style programmes to decide who should succeed our dear Queen?
    The whole day was a sad example of how our nation has declined, inane comments from semi literate , self declared experts, vulgar American style cheering more suited to a pop concert replacing dignified applause of previous generations and low rent “celebrity” guests in place of two of Her Majesty’s prime ministers.
    Today , Britain wakes to find it is still a nation that is semi literate, ill educated, ignorant of its past , bankrupt , wedded to state socialism , under siege from immigrant parasites , a non – Christian province of the Union of European Socialist Republics.
    Bread and circuses ! like the dross on television every other day will keep the lower orders occupied but it also highlights our sad decline.

  3. Vance says:

    Assuming that the author’s writing is not skillfully articulated, dramatic hyperbole, shouldn’t he be directing any and all bombast at Prince William?

  4. john says:

    good call. an article thats unlikely to gain this blog many friends, but undoubtedly the content of it is noble.

  5. CallistoRising says:

    I dunno man, she’s got that posh manjaw thing going on. I see the common/noble thing as a continuum and she’s definitely on the high end of the scale as far as her stock goes. That is, on a ‘poshness’ scale, not greatness-of-genes scale. She’s definitely not admirable like I’d say Prince Charles is on at least some levels.

  6. crow says:

    “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!”

  7. [...] “Why Diversity Self-Destructs“, “The Aristocracy Suicides“, “The Raging Ego“, “A Tale of Two [...]

  8. Hami says:

    You might be the first person to humble me.
    But, you still fail to grasp that a woman’s achievements are her choice in partner, her children, her grandchildren, her community influence, et cetera. Until a woman already has these things, it is impossible to judge her character and worthiness by her achievements. The key to knowing a woman’s character is to look at her ambitions and her motivation. If she is more concerned with fame or fortune than getting her responsibilities as a woman right (i.e. choosing the right partner, making the right choices as a mother, etc.), then she is a bad woman who is not fit for a good husband or a powerful position in society.
    It is your blog entries, your failing in knowing how to fix the issues in the female half of society, that matured my view of Monarchism from favoring one Monarch’s rule, to requiring that king and queen be in agreement. While a society can be free of racial, ethnic, and religious diversity to lower a need for finding a happy medium on those issues… A healthy society cannot be guilty of oppressing or mis-handling either gender and cannot be void of a gender in its population. The issue of sexism is unavoidable, a society must address and overcome it.
    The manner in which a reigning king or queen selects and treats his or her spouse(s) is very telling of the society they represent.
    The prince could not find an unrelated woman he liked among the nobility? It only backs what I said before about the U.K. upper classes having clearly already been infiltrated and washed down in quality by inferior families. A commoner should not make for a more attractive, loveable, and trustworthy wife than a lady. And, if she is not so, then the prince is also not fit for his station, because a prince should be able to select the right partner, or the prince himself is of inferior breeding and inferior raising. Prince William is too old to be guilty of not knowing better due to being young. So is Prince harry, and so was their father when he married Princess Diana instead of the woman he wanted. (And, I’m sorry to say this to any Diania fans, but that woman was an absolute idiot and had horrrible fashion sense, so I have no idea why everyone claims she was so wonderful and fashionable. All it is is worship of a less-than-royal-by-blood royal for sake of the fairy tale. Well, fairy tale princesses don’t die in a car crash after a party. And, almost all fairy talle princesses and princes are soby birth. Even Cinderella is not a commoner, but middle class.)

Leave a Reply

41 queries. 0.905 seconds