About This Site

Please read this before looking at my site.

© April 2017 Tom Rogers

Back to the Home Page

Purpose of this Site

I have produced some legal small print for the site, which you will find here.

The main purpose of this site is to practice my coding skills. As you can see, it's not exactly my forte, plus I am busy in other aspects of my life. But my skills are slowly improving.

Initially, I thought that perhaps the best way to do this would be by writing comment pieces and articles on subjects that especially interest me - politics, philosophy, astronomy, computing, archaeology, and history and similar areas. I thought it would also be a good idea to collect together in one place all the music and art that I like, so that I can easily find it when online. My interests are pretty broad - in fact, pretty much everything I encounter fascinates me - so I had in the back of my mind a vain notion that this site might also evolve into a sort of mini-mundaneum.

This Is Not A Hate Site

In point of fact, I do not hate anybody. As the late comedian George Carlin once quipped (about why he hadn't committed suicide): "I've got too much to do". Likewise, I'm too busy to be bothered with hating any particular person or group in society.

When you read an opinion here, it is exactly that. If you don't like it, you don't have to continue reading. I have the liberty to speak and write freely. I was born with this liberty.

It is not a 'right' of any kind that I exercise here. The proper meaning of 'right' is 'law' - from the French origin word, droit. In other words, a 'right' is something that can be granted or taken away from one by a state body. I reject entirely Napoleonic legal constructions such as this.

To speak and write and assembly freely is my liberty. It is not something that can be granted or taken away by a judge, lawmaker or state official. It is something that has existed always.

Contacting Me

You are welcome to contact me if:

- you have noticed something on this site that is factually wrong and you would like to put me right;
- I have breached your copyright;
- you think I have libelled or slandered you (in which case, I will apologise and remedy the matter with an immediate take-down or correction);
- I have insulted you personally (unlikely to happen, but again, if it does, I will most likely apologise and remedy the situation immediately); or,
- you have some polite, constructive criticisms to make.

Please don't contact me if:

- you hate Jews or any other group in society;
- you have the mental and emotional disposition of a 15-year old and think you're right about everything and anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot, and you want to tell me just what an idiot I am; or,
- any similar reason.

I don't want to be contacted by idiots, and to be perfectly honest, I prefer not to be contacted at all. I admit that I have a slight misanthropic side to me (which I'm not proud of), and I would rather just be left alone.

In my experience, debate is useless because most people don't understand what a debate is, and discussion is hopeless because most people cannot cope emotionally and psychologically with disagreement, think they are right about everything and won't consider different views to their own. A point often missed in that regard is that sometimes the speaker or writer's confidence in his own rightness or correctness will be well-justified, but that if anything is the point of greatest danger. I've often noticed that people who have good arguments can become blind to important points that might improve understanding or remedy a small flaw in the argument.

I believe these problems are just manifestations of human nature and reflect the way the brain is structured: the hormonal 'facility' of the brain is proportionately larger than the cognitive function. This is simply the result of evolution: our ancient and primeval individual and species-level survival needs were met most optimally by such a brain. Since I have that same brain, I must accept that I exhibit unintellectual traits from time-to-time and allow emotion to rule intellect. There is nothing to be done about it, as it is just what we are.

This is especially true of Marxists, many of whom I have found are extremely intelligent and insightful and have a very good theoretical understanding of the way society works, but refuse to acknowledge some elementary facts about human nature, and even Nature itself. The typical response of the Marxist, even to points made politely and constructively, is to accuse the critic of Nazism or fascism. For the moment, I will put aside whether there is anything wrong with Nazism or fascism, properly understood. My point is that even among highly intelligent people, the basic flaw of the human brain becomes evident - it's essentially a hormone factory. After a certain point, the individual cannot cope emotionally with disagreement, he has vested his ego in the position, and no further discussion is allowed. The problem is not unique to Marxists, I simply cite them as an example. As I have said, it is a facet of human nature and the flaw is in the brain we have all been given.

In my experience, the overwhelming majority of people are not 'thinkers'. I would put the percentage of non-thinkers at 95% - that is to say, society consists of 95% followers, and 5% thinkers. Of the small number of thinkers, around two-fifths (i.e. 2% of the general population) are capable of independent thought over a sustained period. I believe this cognitive division has arisen for evolutionary reasons and is due to the need for a preponderance of followers in large-scale societies. If society was composed of 95% thinkers, nothing would ever get done. If anything, there would be more conflict and strife, not less. In fact, the wars would probably rage until one group of thinkers had prevailed over all the rest and subsumed them into a larger class of followers. Again, this I believe is just human nature. We are animals.

People in fringe and rebellious movements often vainly believe that they are among the 'thinkers' in society and that they are in possession of some sort of 'truth' that maybe 95% of everybody can't see. In reality, my experience tells me that most such people are simply dupes themselves - what David Icke would call 'replicators' - and they are just parroting what somebody else has told them to say. This can be seen especially in New Internet Movements such as the Alt Right, MGTOW and similar, which have their own obnoxious hypnotic words and phrases that adherents mindlessly parrot on cue. Often comments from such people are just an extended string of hypnotic words and phrases that this person has learnt to repeat. I regard discussion with such people as largely pointless and unproductive.

However, in saying that, I ought to add an important qualifier, which is that I do think such movements have very valid critiques of society, and their ideas have strongly influenced my own. Any criticism I make of their followers should not be taken to reflect the validity or otherwise of the beliefs they hold, which is a different point.

My experience is that racial nationalists, right-wing and conservative people on average tend to be quite dim and unimaginative. They are likely to stay within the same consistent groove of thought and methodology, even when little or no progress is made. Conservatives in my experience are especially dim when it comes to abstract thought and ideas. They reject perfectly valid ideas on the basis that they don't like the sound of them or there is a learned or ingrained hostility to the underpinning ideology that the conservative can't quite shake off.

Leftists and Marxists tend to be more intelligent, in my experience, but exhibit much the same argumentative traits as their opponents. Discussions with either group can be intensely frustrating and are best avoided. At the moment, we are experiencing what it is like when the extreme Left get into power. Any more of it, and we may well see blood in the streets. But having encountered Nationalists and the Right, I have little confidence that the experience under their rule would be much of an improvement. There would be the same sort of censorship and repression and eventually people would revolt.

My Views

Much of what I write here is about politics and social issues. My ideological position on politics is very eclectic, borrowing ideas and traditions from both the Left and the Right, and can generically be described as a kind of 'libertarian social-nationalism', in which there are the following features:

- a minimal state, and if possible, a stateless society;
- broadly-speaking, a morally conservative social environment, in which the roles of men and women are traditionally-defined (but not mandated by force of law);
- common law;
- liberties rather than rights;
- the use of elected parliaments and assemblies as decision-making bodies;
- restriction of the franchise to property-owning white males;
- a political economy based on socialist and co-operative principles; and,
- ethnic and cultural boundaries are honoured and respected.

I consider these to be the essential features of what I call 'English National Socialism', and that is the name I will give to my ideology, which is rooted in the English liberal political tradition, reflects the English sonderweg (folkway), and involves the re-assertion of English freedom, family, self-government and ethnic identity. A more generic name for the ideology would be Autonomous National Socialism, which reflects the liberal and anarchistic basis of the position.

This is not a case of me trying to 'have my cake and eat it', in which I propound a position that appeases both traditionalism and socialism, so that I can sit on both sides of the fence. Rather, it is my belief that a traditionalistic, socialistic and libertarian social vision pretty accurately reflects the direction of north-western (white) European (certainly Anglophone) societies when they are not under foreign and alien influence or infected with subversive ideas. In other words, I believe north-western Europeans, especially Anglophones, tend towards liberty but in a traditional and co-operative/socialistic context, with nil or minimal state involvement, a juridical culture based on common law, and maximum freedom in principle (but individual actions bound by custom and tradition). I hold this up as my ideal social model.

This is also how I believe all healthy, high IQs societies must develop, in which there is a recognition of a Natural Order and ingrained differences and an acknowledgement of distinctions between people (including between men and women), a respect for culture and the inherited civilisation, and an underlying belief in solidarity and the co-operative use of resources.

I would also hold that the tendency among north-western Europeans, again especially Anglophones, towards liberty, while certainly a good thing and to our credit, is also apt to be something of an Achilles' heel under circumstances such as those we have now, in which our civilisation is, in effect, under a concerted assault. I believe that the National Socialist reaction in Germany and Italian Fascism during the 1920s and 1930s can be explained in part by this. It was clearly appreciated by political thinkers during the late 19th. and early 20th. century that European civilisation was fragile and open to conquest and exploitation by outside forces, thus it was necessary to develop societies that could resist these external threats while at the same time holding out the promise of a freer existence in the long-term. Certainly in the case of National Socialism, the long-term vision was of a libertarian Europe along the lines of western America, in which the Germanic race and closely-related ethnic groups would be able to prosper as 'Noble Men' (the literal meaning of the Nazi term Herrenvolk), a privilege arising from the freedoms inherent in a strongly-defended civilisational perimeter, much like the independent-minded western American could (and maybe still can) live relatively freely in a bucolic, self-governing utopia.

I consider myself a National Socialist in that I, too, believe in the ideal of a Herrenvolk, based on the innate capacity of the European for freedom and self-government. I believe that self-government requires social order, or it cannot work. To the extent that I am technically an anarchist, this is only in the sense that I reject the idea of an all-encompassing state (which is Italian Fascism, not National Socialism). In National Socialism, the state is merely an expediency, not the muscular representation of the individual, as in doctrinal Fascism. The German National Socialists were authoritarian and statist, but the basis of their beliefs was not the authority of the state or law, but the personal authority vested in men and in traditional social relations. To some extent, this represented a departure from the legal-rationalism of the modern industrial state, in which the rule of law is venerated, but there was still a rule of law in Nazi Germany for practical purposes, it is just that in addition to that here was a hierarchy of authority beginning with the Führer himself, and cascading down each social level. The Nazi vision was that a culture of personal authority would replace, or take precedence over, rational-legal authority. This, too, is the basis of my view. I am not a contractual anarchist. I believe in a minimalist state or anarchy within a society that is governed by the family and wider authority, based on a Natural Order. This authoritarianism is the basis of the Fuhrerprinzip, in which authority in society is vested in responsible men, including fathers (the head of the household, or the uncle where the mother is widowed), older brothers, uncles, the local police officer, the teacher, the community leader and so on.

National Socialism is necessarily totalitarian in that it holds to the creation of a single, all-encompassing social vision: a Weltenshauung. This places it in stark contrast to liberalism, which is anti-totalitarian in that it does not offer an all-encompassing social reality (Weltenshauung) or process of social co-ordination (Gleichschaltung). Instead, the liberal credo at its most strident is that a mass of fungible individuals can and should each pursue their own peculiar path through life, free of social constraints, and in that sense, all are 'free' and 'equal'.


Here are some of the thinkers whose writings have influenced my views:

- Marcus Aurelius (Stoicism and ethics);
- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (especially historical materialism, but also some of their central critique of industrial capitalism);
- Robert Nozik (especially his concept of a 'utopia of utopias');
- Adolf Hitler (his racial ideas and the concept of Herrenvolk);
- Hegel (equality, social conditions and dialectics);
- Aristotle (equality, ethics and the idea of a political community);
- John Bryant (Actonite libertarianism and white liberation philosophy);
- Karl Polanyi (on the origin of markets); and,
- Neil Lock (convivial order).


I am not a superstitious person and I do not believe in any sort of god or spiritual realm. That is not out of ignorance - I have read the entirety of the Bible, and once studied it formally - but try as I might, I have never been able to see any of Christianity as much more than the result of a primitive Middle Eastern superstition, melded on to various European pagan traditions. My views about other religions are similar. However I acknowledge that Christianity especially is important to Western history and has influenced how we have formed our moral and social ideas.

I do not accept the label 'atheist'. If anything, I am an anti-atheist, as I think that the matter should not even enter into intelligent discussion. It seems to me self-evident that God does not exist, thus 'atheism' is a tautology. It's rather like calling yourself a 'Lunatic' on account of your confidence that the Moon isn't made of cheese.

Believing in a god is unequivocally childish: a remnant of the child-like phase of our species. It is also, paradoxically, quite rational, in much the way that believing in other myths and official lies might be considered rational. If it makes you feel better and helps you in life, then believing in a lie or a myth is perfectly rational. In any event, it is not necessarily irrational to believe in something non-existent. Myths have a powerful hold on all cultures.

I must also grant that we all - myself included - have to believe in silly things. Lots of self-declared atheists of the militant or strident type, when not berating theists, also believe in human equality, which is at least as silly and unscientific as believing in supernatural gods. Nobody has a monopoly on reason here! That being the case, if somebody wants to believe in God (or gods, or ghosts or other spirits), then they are welcome to do so, as it seems to me a pretty harmless endeavour. People don't kill or commit terrorism just because of religious beliefs. Those actions are due to underlying causes, of which affiliation to religious dogmas are only a manifestation.

The persistence of religious spirituality is also a tribute to the profundity of our imagination and intelligence as a species. No other animal on this planet shows any sign of believing in gods or much else beyond the satisfaction of their own base needs. Our belief in gods was, I believe, a necessary part of our cognitive evolution as hominids, and as alluded to above, is manifestly crucial to the intellectual inheritance of Western civilisation.

In my view, the real question of 'God' is strictly utilitarian: we must consider the social utility of spirituality. Does it make people happy (or happier than they otherwise would be)? Does a belief in God add to the net sum of kindness and good order in the world? If the answer to any of these questions is in the affirmative, then the beliefs are not only harmless, they also evidently do some good. In any event, I think people should be left to their own beliefs.

Religion and Morality

One of the arguments for religion is that is facilitates earthly morality. We humans, the argument goes, need some kind of external and higher regulator in regard to our behaviour and conduct. The rationalisation for this works on two levels. The popular explanation, which has its roots in Jewish theology and the Hebraic sense of 'law', is that each of us faces a moral Reckoning, in which God will punish wrong-doers and reward the just and righteous, etc. The Nazarene Church, which developed into Christianity, largely rejected this Jewish legalism and instead posited that we are all born sinners who must be saved through acceptance of Christ, who died for our original sins and any sins in vitam. There is no Solomonic balancing of wrong-doing against right-doing in Christianity. There are no 'laws' as there might be in Judaism and Islam. In Western European Christianity especially, you'd never see an archbishop go on TV and with a straight face remind the multitudes that they are not to eat pork or on any account forget to praise the Almighty in every other sentence. Christianity is not a 'legalistic' belief system.

Instead, for Christians, there is a hope and expectation of moral and ethical transformation through the acceptance of faith. If you worship Christ, you will be saved, your sins will be washed away, and you will appear clean before God. This spiritual cleansing is possible for all - mass killers and monastic ascetes alike - regardless of errors and wrong-doing during life. But aside from these differences between the Abrahamic traditions, Judeo-Islamic and Christian respectively, there is a shared deeper reason - we might say, a sociological reason - for superstitiously-formed moral codes: a belief that there is need of a firm basis for an absolute objective morality and a need for a higher authority to police and regulate human conduct.

It should be obvious that this is a very poor basis for morality in society, and if this is all we had to go on, we would be in a bad way. The immediate objection that can be raised to any superstitiously-formed moral code is the danger of what I will call 'justificatory regression'. In simple terms, if belief in divine judgment is the basis of good behaviour, it could just as easily be the basis for socially-harmful behaviour. "God says I must not do this" can quickly become, "God says I can do this", which then becomes "God told me to do this". In extreme cases, that becomes something like this: "God told me to kill prostitutes" - so said Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper. Actually, Sutcliffe's example is not extreme. One only need open a general history book to see how religion has become a rationalisation for, or a basis for the absolution of, all kinds of evil. Sociopaths often believe they are doing God's work, even if they don't believe in God themselves.

However I repeat what I stated a few moments ago: in my view, religions cannot be blamed for the immoral acts committed in their name. They provide the justification, and in that sense, religion has its dangers, but it is not the root of the matter. What is the root of morality (and lack thereof) in human societies?

Imagine we are part of a group plotting to assassinate the Queen. What are the objections to such a course of action? Some people would immediately give answers such as the following:

(i). it would be murder, and murder is against the law, and obeying law has value in its own right;
(ii). the Queen has done no apparent wrong to me or my family, and was not a mortal threat to me in that instant, so I am without moral or legal justification;
(iii). I would be quickly apprehended anyway, and most probably stopped before I could inflict harm, by her bodyguards, and if not killed in the attempt, I would then be in serious legal trouble;
(iv). if I did succeed, then as a serious and notorious law-breaker, I would be confined for a very long time in a prison or psychiatric hospital; and,
(v). murder is also morally wrong in its own right.

We could group all these reasons together under the heading 'Legal/Moral'. Religious belief systems have influenced them and also tend to support them, but almost-all of us (I hope!) would agree that these are good reasons for not killing the Queen, and it is not my intention to rubbish or minimise the importance of these. The last one in particular represents a positive influence of Christianity, in that we believe each human being is deserving of life and dignity in his own right. However the reasons given don't help us with an explanation for why killing the Queen under such circumstances would be immoral. We are still left with the question 'Why?'. The third reason involves a practicality: the Queen is heavily and expertly guarded by professionals, and the likelihood is I would be killed or seriously injured before I could get to her, but even then, we have to ask why such people would be willing to risk their own lives (albeit as paid professionals) to intervene and stop me killing somebody who is not a blood relative of theirs? What is the basis of this use of force? What is the root of the moral attitude behind it? So even there, we are still left with the question: 'Why?'

Religion attempts to answer the 'Why?' question with myth and obfuscation, and ultimately the answer is in 'God', an entity that can be infinitely regressed. This type of primitive explanation reflects the pre-scientific era of Man.

My position, and what I will attempt to argue here, is that our morality (in so far as it has universal coinage among human societies) - including our sympathy for, and protective instincts towards, the weak (and weaker) - is a result of our social and biological evolution as a species. The precepts of this morality could have easily turned out differently, indeed there are signs of alternate moral precepts among tribal societies in recent history that killed or sacrificed their weaker members.

Of course, some of the evolutionary reasons for morality are fairly obvious, even self-explanatory. For instance, we have a shared moral understanding that theft is wrong because of the need for trust in human interactions. We can easily imagine how such a morality will have had its origins in human communities, and I need not labour the point here. I will instead focus on what I think are the less obviously logical moral traits that concern protection of the weak and vulnerable.

Evolution and meta-morality: why do we protect the weak?

So we still have this nagging question. Obvious answers would include the notion that we have developed a nurturing facility, which is triggered by conspicuous traits of vulnerability such as neoteny (women and children). This in turn led to the development of intellectual and moral ideas intended to protect vulnerability and discourage exploitative and abusive behaviour. But this and similar are only answers, not explanations. The matter remains unaddressed of how and why these ideas surfaced in the first place.

Imagine an intelligent extra-terrestrial alien visits Earth to investigate humans and the societies we live in. Much like us, the alien's species has evolved along broadly Darwinian lines. In a state of puzzlement, the alien asks about something that has been troubling him since his arrival in his warp-drive spacecraft:

"You humans are very strange. Why do you worship and protect these weaklings? Your Queen is of no further use as a reproductive unit. Moreover, she is physically and intellectually weak. What is her authority? Why doesn't somebody stronger just kill her and pronounce himself King? Surely that would be the moral thing to do?"

In the alien's civilisation, it is immoral to allow the strong to be ruled over by the weak. The alien doesn't understand why our morality is somewhat different and more complex.

Still musing on the problem, the alien goes on: "The female branch of your species is obviously physically and intellectually weaker on average, a result of evolution. On our planet, once a female's reproductive use is exhausted and her nurturing duties are over, she is normally killed, as she is of no further use to us. Yet you sometimes allow individual females to rule over you in politics, business and other areas, and many of your females choose not to have children at all. That too is immoral by our standards. The weak should never have the whip hand over the strong. We always kill our weak when they are of no further use, and we then either eat them or bury them. Surely that makes more sense anyway?"

There is no denying the fictitious alien's logic. Why do we humans illogically protect and care for our weak, even when they are of no economic or reproductive use to us? Why not just kill them? Where does this 'moral' equation come from? What is its purpose, if any?

Survival of the Fittest does not necessarily imply Survival of the Strongest

Survival of the Fittest refers to the evolutionary fact that genes are passed on by those who are most successfully able to adapt to their environment. The adaptive are not necessarily always the strongest, and 'Fittest' is not mean to connote 'strongest'. If it did, then we would not have people among us who have sub-optimal or counter-reproductive traits - people who are homosexual, paedophilic, fat, ugly, stupid, myopic, maloccluded and so on. Hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution should have bred these traits out, if survival of the fittest meant survival of the strongest. So there must be some evolutionary advantage in weakness and evolutionary pressures must include some pressures towards sub-optimisation within the species. Just as an example, it could be that the reason we still have male homosexuals is that there is some broader evolutionary benefit in sequestrating a minority of males away from reproduction by rendering them psychologically somewhere between the 'male' and 'female' conditions as they are quintessentially (which is not to say that homosexuals never reproduce, only to explain a possible vestigial basis for their existence).

Admittedly, it is also possible that there is a sociological factor at work: agricultural societies and then urban civilisations have introduced counter-evolutionary pressures. Also, some of the traits we see as sub-optimal will only be that in the context of an industrial or information society, or may even be a result of such a society - examples include obesity, depression, mental illness, all of which are probably the result of modern societies and could even be an adaptation to those conditions.

Weakness can be an adaptive trait

Weakness could be an adaptive trait on its own merits. Individuals who project weakness and vulnerability will often receive protection and other benefits which may be denied to a seemingly capable person. There must be some reproductive pay-off for the helper in such scenarios, or it wouldn't happen. That aspect of the equation is often missed in commentary on these issues. For example, the notion that women should be protected and their needs prioritised in certain situations is often explained on the basis that an individual female is of greater reproductive value than an individual male. Although, granted, male biological disposability is not a difficult concept to grasp - the maths is easy enough - I find it doesn't quite ring true as a practical calculation. The explanation for female privilege is surely much simpler: female privileges crystallised only in recent history, women were once hardier, and the situation continues due to the simple need among men for sex, which women can now deny to them. Women are indulged by men simply because men enjoy sex (a proxy for the need to mate with women to pass on genes).

Another example is mental illness. Schizophrenia could be a selective adaptation to industrial society. The essence of schizophrenia is that the sufferer is unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality. I do not believe that the presence of schizophrenia is always obvious and I suspect it is more widespread than is acknowledged and manifests itself in all sorts of behaviours - for instance, an unrealistic adherence to extreme Left or extreme Right political ideas - many of which will be considered socially-acceptable. It could be that such a disposition - a loose grip on reality - is of benefit in this type of society in the sense that it assists with the acceptance of a constructed hyper-reality. It seems to be common now to find people who are predisposed to accept constructed social explanations that a more mentally-balanced person might find improbable or unrealistic.

Technological societies heighten counter-evolutionary pressures

The current geological age is known as the Anthropocene - to reflect the significant human impact on this planet, its environment, our own evolution and the evolution of other species. We probably became a 'meta-evolved' species at the dawn of agricultural societies. It was from that point that we were able to subsume selective pressures to social values and priorities, and eventually to political ideas. We ceased to be a simple nomadic, tool-using species at the mercy of our immediate environment, and began to form settled communities, developing our consciousness to plan and organise socially according to shared priorities, including the discovery of technology, agglomerating into ever-larger social groupings and ever more complex political formations until we reach the modern industrial state.

Community requires high investment from its members, with the result that the evolutionary calculus changed slowly and subtly over time. The imperatives of a turbulent and violent daily struggle for survival gave way to a more routinised existence, and with the onset of industrialisation, Man became alienated from Nature and its realities. I don't mean to suggest that these social changes caused a significant change in basic selective pressures, which I think are more or less the same as they have been for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. But what I would suggest is that the relevant material conditions would have influenced a shared understanding of what is 'right' and 'wrong', and this understanding would have been selected for.

'Weak' people often make 'better' rulers (and bosses, etc.)

Weaker or 'average' people among a group will often end up becoming the most successful in a given endeavour. One reason this happens generally is due to the benefit inherent in being the average plodder or 'grey man' who is not noticed, and so perhaps not challenged or selected out of a competitive process. There is also the 'pleasant surprise' element: the plodder inevitably performs better than expected, while the individual of superior abilities, who is placed under greater expectant pressures, will be apt to disappoint. It is in the nature of things that this will affect social assessments.

Among the reasons for the apparent paradox within a hierarchy are stability and conflict minimisation. With a weak person in the most powerful position, there is less of a motivation for rivals to fight each other. Instead, a kind of truce can subsist in which each side can manipulate the titular place-holder. This can in turn lead to a more positive assessment of the ruler or boss's abilities than might be justified. It could be that one of the reasons for the apparent intellectual weakness in royal families is a tendency to encourage selection on some specialist basis that prioritises union among closely-related families, with the result that royal place-men (and women) are more manipulable than they otherwise would be.

My guess is that an analogous process happens in workplaces and in competitive vocations such as politics, in which women and incompetent or weak individuals can be promoted to notionally powerful positions - and probably unconsciously, because people have a need to find stability and equilibrium in their situations for all sorts of reasons. The Peter Principle, a management theory concept developed by Laurence J. Peter, tried to explain pervasive incompetence on the basis that in hierarchies individuals tend to be promoted up to their level of incompetence. That's a persuasive idea, however it may be that the explanation for incompetence is that hierarchies promote weakness in the first place. There is no inherent reason why hierarchical societies or organisations should be better at promoting adaptive fitness or competence.

The Wise Man Factor: dim but experienced people make better decisions than intelligent people

Another paradox, and like the above, also quite counter-intuitive, is that unintelligent people can be more adept than the intelligent at generalised decision-making. I have explained this idea in greater depth in my introductory piece on Evolution and IQ. We often see a conflict in societies between the views of the 'wise' on the one hand and the intelligent on the other. This can be played out in various ways - the technocrats versus the populists; the metropolitan class versus the provincials; Normans versus Saxons; conservatives versus liberals - you get the idea.

My thesis is that societies have evolved mechanisms that prioritise decision-making by the wise but unintelligent in matters of public affairs. This may help explain such rudimentary things as the continuation of custom and tradition, which might not make any rational sense, but could be justified on non-intellectual grounds.

If I needed somebody to build a rocket or draft a highly-complex trust deed, I would enlist the services of an 'intelligent' person. Those are specialised tasks demanding expertise and training, which are cornered by the intelligent. On the other hand, if I needed somebody to make a decision about immigration policy, whether to go to war, or decide on the criminal culpability of an accused, it might be better to seek advice from somebody of more modest abilities but who has vast life experience and who would take into account important non-intellectual matters. A more intelligent person might not do so, and might take a decision that, while defensible on rational grounds, could be harmful to society in the long-term.

Institutions such as juries, the lay Magistracy, the Monarchy (its ancient origins), the old hereditary House of Lords, and so on, might have begun as mechanisms for sequestrating insensitive technocrats away from strategic decisions in society. Thus, we have a further example of how a morality might have developed that valued weakness, in this case in the sense that people might have learned to associate 'age' with 'experience', and thus the old and weak came to be seen as 'wise' and of continuing value in basic societies due to the acquired wisdom they possessed that would enable to tribe or community to negotiate challenging novel situations or make difficult strategic decisions.

Back to the Home Page