1. What this is about
This is not an argument against intellectuals, rather itís an observation of what they are, with some speculation on their possible limitations. This is not my final word on the topic, it's just some brief rough notes summarising my thoughts at this time.
2. The contradictions of Left intellectuals
One of the questions often pondered on the Right is why intelligent left-wing people would want to destroy their own society. Orwell wrote a great deal about the conundrum of the left-wing intellectual and famously panned the modish Left. In My Country Left Or Right, he remarked on how polemic intellectuals fail to understand the feelings of ordinary people, despite the fact that patriotic feeling is something common to both sides of politics. He also remarked on the counter-normativeness of the wider Left in The Road To Wigan Pier:
"In addition to this there is the horrible ó the really disquieting ó prevalence of cranks wherever Socialists are gathered together. One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words "Socialism" and "Communism" draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, "Nature Cure" quack, pacifist, and feminist in England."
"It would help enormously, for instance, if the smell of crankishness which still clings to the Socialist movement could be dispelled. If only the sandals and the pistachio-coloured shirts could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaller, and creeping Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly! But that, I am afraid, is not going to happen."
3. The problem of abstraction
Intellectuals live in abstraction and have to be somewhat detached from reality in order to carry our their work. Serious intellectual work requires mental objectivity and intense focus on the subject-matter. I think this point was implicitly grasped by our ancestors and explains why our society is still mostly governed by legacy institutions headed by laity, advised by experts who must defer to them: juries and Magistrates deliver verdicts in criminal cases but need not have legal qualifications; politicians without technical credentials make important decisions; and so on. These institutions predate modern democracy and may have arisen as a means of preventing the growth of technocracies, due to their cruelty and insensitivity. Traditionally, we distrusted experts and we disliked technocracies. We wanted people who were in touch with reality making strategic decisions, not people who operate in ivory tower environments.
4. Are 'politics' necessary?
For now, I'll confine myself to some questions. Does the problem of abstraction (assuming the premise is accepted) mean that politics are a necessary evil, that in complex societies we cannot rely on contractual relationships and interpersonal trust alone and need constructions of political community for sound decision-making? How could an anti- (or post-) political society work? Would technocratic intellectuals predominate in such a society? The example of contractual libertarianism can be considered. What is posited is a network of private law societies, in which formal relationships to do with law and commerce and similar matters are governed entirely by contract and other voluntary arrangements. Would such a society (assuming it could function) tend towards kritarchy? A libertarian response would be that the judicial community in such a society would not possess any moral privilege and would merely act as service providers under contractual terms, however it has to be asked whether this theoretical position is likely to reflect reality, given what we know about human nature. Would the absence of any political element to counter-balance and supervise judicial power lead to some degree of judicial tyranny or would contractual relationships be sufficient to temper any creeping tendency towards a statisation?
5. Pseudo-intellectual ethnic elites
Some minority ethnic groups exert disproportionate influence in society. In conventional histories, this is often explained on the basis of superior strength or intelligence. For instance, the Norman elites that ruled England during and after the Norman Conquest did so as conquerors of the English; then there is the disproportionate power and influence of Jewish people in Western societies; and, there again, perhaps a more trivial example, is the disproportionate number of Scots involved in UK-level politics (though that does not appear to be the case so much anymore now that the Scots have their own Parliament). Each of the minority groups mentioned adopts a slightly different strategy. Norman overlordship, much like British colonial rule in its thalassocratic empire, was open and no secret was made about it; Jewish influence is more subtle and largely hidden from view. Nobody would doubt that the Normans as an ethnic group were powerful and influenced the course of English, and British, history - while at the same time leaving the ethnic composition of the country largely untouched - but then, the Normans didn't hide what they were doing. Likewise, nobody would seriously doubt that Scots have a disproportionate influence (varying from time-to-time) in the political affairs of the country as a whole. It may be that the Scots as an ethnic group are able to produce politicians, captains of industry and other figures who are particularly astute and clever - and I do accept that can be true - but it could also be that ethnic favouritism is part of the explanation; but whatever the reason, nobody doubts that this influence has existed (even if it still doesn't).
I also accept that Jews can be clever, but is their cleverness of the objective, Faustian kind (as it seems to be with Scots) or is it of a more worldly variety? There is cleverness in learning, in understanding things and in contributing to societal and civilisational progress, which is mostly academic and applied intelligence, and then there is political intelligence. Jews seems exceptionally adept at networking and wielding soft influence in important organs of state and other organisations, and in insinuating socio-legal and political concepts into the prevailing belief systems and institutions of the host society. They do have applied intelligence, but this seems mostly limited to commercial endeavours in which the Jew, acting as a manager, financier or entrepreneur, harnesses the expertise of others to curate or procure new products or services.
The Normans, unlike Jews, possessed considerable applied intelligence and brought with them both practical and politico-legal innovations that changed the country fundamentally. The rest of English history has been a tug-of-war between alien Normanised influences on the one hand, and indigenous Anglo-Saxonised influences on the other (that is, to the extent they are in conflict). During the medieval period, the Anglo-Norman elite were openly opposed and much of English political folklore was shaped by this period, which included the legend of Robin Hood, an indigenous Saxon fighting the Normans. This is simplistic of course - my purpose here is not historical comprehensiveness - and it might be added that the 'real' individual who gave rise to the legend of Robin Hood could well have been of Norman descent, but for the present, my point is that Anglo-Saxonry distrusted Norman authority.
We can see, perhaps, that some kind of political organisation on behalf of the indigenous collective folk might have been necessary to insure a bulwark against overlordship by a 'superior' ethnic minority group. In short, my provisional thesis is that juries, lay Magistrates, elected officials, and other facets of popular influence became important checks on the hostile power of a superior ethno-technocratic elite.