Furthest Right

How Meritocracy Defeats Civilization

Most conservatives have no idea that most of their ideas are Leftist and that the ideas that are not are generally a reaction to Leftism. Their thinking is both compensatory because they rationalize their ideas in terms of what is current, and reactionary, in that they hate what is current but do not understand what something actually different would look like.

In the bigger picture, the Left aims for quantity while the Right aspires to quality. Leftism argues for making individuals equal so that a vast number of equal units can apply force to any problem, without the problem of any of them defecting from the faith by noticing problems with the status quo.

Most conservatives misunderstand the Left, taking it at face value as an attempt to improve society, and fail to see the individualism at the core of it. Individualism means an opposition to quality and “good to the good, bad to the bad”; it wants to replace it with equal good which in practice means “good to the good, and good to the bad.”

From this confusion we have conservatives talking about equality, but they try to redefine it in conservative terms. From that comes ideas like “equity not equality” and “meritocracy,” both of which are compensatory adaptations to a Leftist era.

Meritocracy sounds good — reward people based on performance — but almost everyone forgets that this means performance in the context of the system, which is narrower in detail than actual reality. School rewards those who are good at school, and business rewards those talented at public relations.

Bruce Charlton writes on the type of person likely to succeed in a meritocracy versus actual genius:

The ideal Head Girl is an all-rounder: performs extremely well in all school subjects and has a very high Grade Point Average. She is excellent at sports, Captaining all the major teams. She is also pretty, popular, sociable and well-behaved.

The Head Girl will probably be a big success in life, in whatever terms being a big success happens to be framed (she will gravitate towards such aspects of life) – so she might in some times and places make a Good Marriage and do a great job of raising a family; in another time and place she might go to a top-notch college and get a top-notch job – and pursue a glamorous and infertile lifestyle of ‘serial monogamy’; with desirable mates.

But the Head Girl is not, cannot be, a creative genius.


Modern society is run by Head Girls, of both sexes, hence there is no place for the creative genius.

Modern Colleges aim at recruiting Head Girls, so do universities, so does science, so do the arts, so does the mass media, so does the legal profession, so does medicine, so does the military…

And in doing so, they filter-out and exclude creative genius.


The genius is pretty much everything the Head Girl is not. He is lop-sided in his abilities – truly excellent at some things or maybe just one thing, he is either hopeless or bored by many others. He won’t work hard for long periods at things he does not want to do. He will not gravitate to the prestige areas of life, or cannot or will not do the networking necessary to get-on.


The Head Girl can never be a creative genius because she does what other people want by the standards they most value. She will worker harder and at a higher standard in doing whatever it is that social pressure tells her to do – and she will do this by whatever social standards prevail, only more thoroughly.

Meanwhile the creative genius will do what he does because he must.


The Head Girl will not ever want to alienate potentially powerful allies.

Meanwhile the creative genius is indifferent or hostile to the opinions of others so long as he knows he is right.

Creative geniuses are those who understand the natural order, the transcendent within it, and are able to find answers that no one else can see, per Schopenhauer:

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see.

Meritocracy rewards talent plus obedience. Genius thrives outside of the confines of meritocracies.

As part of the thesis of Crowdism, I explore the tendency of human groups to self-destruct through social influences and eventually, social control.

Groups of humans, if not guided otherwise, tend toward entropy, meaning that they introduce too many conflicting goals and select a compromise instead.

This compromise gains momentum and becomes a reality replacement, at which point you have an Enlightenment™-style justification of me-first individualism, and society tears itself apart with many conflicting directions.

People in the grips of this society pursue their own goals against those of civilization and realism, and become active agents of destruction, hiding behind benevolent-sounding and popular ideas like equality, peace, love, art, happiness, acceptance, tolerance, and empathy.

Diversity simply intensifies this and, like feminism and class warfare, is one of the many forms that it takes.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn