Divided by Class and Brains

 

You know, just for emphasis: The portion of the population that is working class but which also has the brain structure that produces "conservatism" is a danger to us. They are a separate danger from the oligarchic capitalists but they also reinforce the danger from that class. The oligarchic capitalists use them for their own purposes. But even on their own they would present a danger to us.

You see, there is some truth to the arguments advanced by more cerebral leftist writers that it is counterproductive to write-off a large portion of possible allies as "deplorable" or "stupid." I've said this myself. Several times. A lot of support for conservative political parties arises out of ignorance. These people can be reached. Many ignorant conservative voters aren't inherently racist, mouth-breathing cretins. The people who voted twice for Obama and then voted for Trump did not see the skin colour of the candidates as particularly relevant. (One could argue - and many screeching, entitled Hillary Clinton supporters have done so - that genitalia was an issue in 2016. There is no doubt that sexism was a factor in Clinton's Electoral College loss. But more important was the disappointment with the Democrats among its traditional supporters beginning in 2010, and continuing on to 2016. When Hillary Clinton arrogantly campaigned on the same pro-Wall Street, pro-"Forever Wars" garbage that Obama had governed by, and ... and, well, when she just did everything that she did that discouraged Democrats from turning out on election day, that was the reason she lost.)

Anyhoooooooooo ... some people who vote for conservative parties can be reached. But the hardcore, ... forget about it. 

Let's look at the quote from John Stuart Mill from a couple of posts ago:

“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honorable gentlemen should see that position at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party. I know that I am liable to a retort, and an obvious one enough; and as I do not wish to allow any honorable gentleman the credit of making it, I make it myself. It may be said that if stupidity has a tendency to Conservatism, sciolism, or half-knowledge, has a tendency to Liberalism. Something might be said for that, but it is not at all so clear as the other. There is an uncertainty about sciolists; we cannot count upon them; and therefore they are a less dangerous class. But there is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power”

Let's go into it.

“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative."

Okay? So, you can have an intelligent person with a larger amygdala (propensity to fight or flight over rational thinking) and a greater habit to focus on threats and to interpret things as threatening. This is the basic argument for conservatism; whereas liberals see most people as "improvable" and they see the possibility of progress if people are free to read, think, say, believe what they want to believe, the more articulate conservatives see collective humanity as dangerous, slaves to beastly appetites and urges. It is dangerous to underestimate the selfishness and stupidity of people. Therefore we need a system that regulates people's behaviour, especially with traditional moral codes, traditional religious beliefs, traditional authority. Traditions are important because obeying them is often second-nature and does not require omnipresent coercion. 

One can believe in this baser view of humanity and still be intelligent. However, as I argued in other posts, being stupid can, by itself, make the world seem threatening. You don't understand how things work. You feel lost. You can tell people are making fun of you or regarding you with contempt. You struggle to figure out how the world works, and, being stupid, you take your cues from the edifice of lies produced by self-serving elites. (You know: "Your country/culture is superior to others. You live in a free society. The police officer is your friend. God is real. The businesman gives you jobs. Professional wrestling is real. Immigrants are a threat.") These are the people who tend to vote for conservative parties.

Obviously, some stupid people are fearless, devil-may-care, air-heads. They laugh at their mistakes and the groans of their co-workers. They never stop trusting people. Why can't we all just get along? These types would be more likely to support non-conservative parties. If they vote at all. If they think about it at all. But most stupid people are going to feel threatened by a world they don't understand and most of them tend to vote right-wing.

"Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honorable gentlemen should see that position at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party."😊🐱‍🚀

Okay? So, if your party attracts the bulk of the stupid people in the community, then it will be the party of the stupid people (as well as the party for its other members, who I'll get to). And this will be a good thing for that party so far as electoral contests go.

"I know that I am liable to a retort, and an obvious one enough; and as I do not wish to allow any honorable gentleman the credit of making it, I make it myself. It may be said that if stupidity has a tendency to Conservatism, sciolism, or half-knowledge, has a tendency to Liberalism. Something might be said for that, but it is not at all so clear as the other. There is an uncertainty about sciolists; we cannot count upon them; and therefore they are a less dangerous class."

By this, Mill is talking about people who think that they know what they're talking about when they often don't. "Half-knowledge," or superficial knowledge, about subjects that causes them to spew half-correct opinions that often come across as "stupid." But people who are, for the most part, tethered to the ground of reality in their day-to-day existences. Mill says that these people can't be depended on as much as stupid people can be, because they're independent thinkers who are equally, if not more capable of being right rather than wrong. And, as such, they are harder to manipulate against their own best interests.

"But there is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power”

That just about says it all, doesn't it? Stupidity doesn't seem to leave much room for doubt. Stupidity provides a force and conviction that non-conservative movements often don't seem to have. And, when intelligent people (either the genuine conservatives who, again, also see the world as threatening, or cynical, mercenary types for whom the lies of our culture benefit and who work to maintain adherence to those lies) organize stupid people into a political force, they find themselves with a loyal, fervid set of supporters.

Now, there's STUPID. From "stupefy" or "stupefication." To make someone unable to think properly or the state of being unable to think properly. I've been talking about that topic so far and how the state of being stupid can produce the larger amygdala (the brain being plastic and all) because it makes the world a more threatening place. Being stupid can make you conservative.

Then there's the larger amygdala, which, while not precluding the possibility of intelligence, by its nature, inteferes with rational thinking (at least to some degree).  So, again, this sort of person tends to see everything as a threat while also fixating on threats when they're not around. People like this also tend to like the status-quo. They see the potential dangers of social innovations. Even if they acknowledge problems with the status-quo they have developed a familiarity, a comfort with it. If they were intelligent then they might have even been able to navigate it to their own personal benefit. People like this are hostile to newcomers. They see differences as points of conflict, not growth. They believe that society is more dangerous than any empirical investigation would show it to be. Therefore they believe in strong police-states. (Even if they occasionally claim to be defenders of freedom. Think of cowardly imbecile stephen harper's simultaneous attempts to sabotage the Census out of privacy concerns while radically expanding the state's spying powers and the carceral state itself.)

So, of course there can be intelligent conservatives. And, from time to time, their caution, their respect for time-honoured traditions, etc., ... they can make a positive contribution to any political conversation. However, the next group that I want to deal with might be the most dangerous of all. (They might also be merely the stupid people I just got finished talking about.) These are the conservatives that show up on social media pontificating all sorts of bizarre, convoluted, moronic theories and arguments which utilize considerably more brain-power than you'd imagine a true dullard would be capable of, but which are (as stated) moronic. I dealt with two such individuals; one here, and the other one here. (The latter example, upon reflection, could be considered as being truly stupid, but the diversity and range of his ranting opens me up to the possibility that he might have more capabilities than your average mouth-breathing cretin.)

Anyhow, ... this is just an unpaid blogpost written in boredom and frustration. I'll type more at a later date.