Musing on Genetic Class and Condemnations

Although only about 10% of the population are obligatory lawbreakers, 90% of the population is more criminal than not. Christians downplayed original sin. This means whenever you want to outgroup/cancel/excommunicate someone, you can. They will have done something serious. Abusive, parasitic, racist, heretical, irresponsible, whatever. Losers gonna lose.

You may notice that politicians have scandals all the time, and while they are indeed terrible sociopaths, they are almost certainly less dysfunctional than the peasants condemning them. The difference is only that there's no incentive to go around documenting every scandal the peasantry engage in. The peasantry wanted to be politicians or at least middle managers; they couldn't manage it. They aspire to be a welfare queen, an activist, or the 3-letter agency guy who comes into work at 10, does nothing, and then leaves at 2. Their resume was rejected, though.

Also 5% is straight insane. Only ~5% can even aspire to being good. 

If the 80% can get away with not locking their doors and cars, that only means the 80% think they can't get away with taking someone's car or invading their house.

One of the things the basically criminal 80% do: pretend to be surprised when another member of the 80% is noticeably a shitbag. It's all kto kogo. Pretend not to see if it's useful, pretend to be surprised by the obvious if that's useful instead. No principles, no honour. 

Certainly we can see that in the modern world everyone is socialized to be honourless and narcissistic. On the other hand, would you be surprised if principles and honour were restricted to the top 5%? I wouldn't be surprised. 

Human nature has some floating variables but it's largely not malleable. The bottom 95% are desperate by default, because they're genuinely that weak. Although not entirely idiotic. If they wanted to have honour, they would figure out how to get it, like big boys and girls.
Worse, they're all twisted descendants of a previous top 5%. Their weaknesses are mutations that don't fit with the confident ubermen the rest of the genome assumes it belongs to. If they were genuinely the default they would be evolved to be comfortable as they are, but in the long term the lower classes are constantly dying out. 

We can also put it this way: genetic wisdom is impossibly wise. They know the lower 95% are constantly dying out, and become desperate when they realize they're in that 95%. Put a third way, the Christian idea of the holy spirit doesn't come from nowhere. The peasantry know, at some level, they're basically criminal, and that the criminal has no place in civilized society, but they don't know it enough to stop.

Christians also committed the egalitarian trespass. Life is unfair: some 5% don't suffer from original sin, on average.
In the modern world they aspire to be gooder but rarely consider being good enough. Once they have the peasantry and lower politicians beat, they think that's enough. Parochial imperial narcissism excludes the awareness that Gnon exists or has his own demands. Turns out physical maturity is automatic but mental maturity is fully manual.

As I've mentioned before, this may be optimistic. Society needs about one lord for every hundred peasants. The top 5% may manage to pass the standard of being pro-social without having to be constantly whipped into it, but 5% is 1 in 20. Modernity acts as if it has one lord for every thousand peasants, at best. The manual maturity can be abjured, and is. Would you be surprised if life even more unfair than it could be? I would not surprised. 

Regardless, if someone wants to portray themselves as a 5%, then of course it's fine to hold them to a higher standard. E.g. booze is a crutch. Are your legs broken? Walk on your own. Indeed, needing to be told this, rather than figuring it out on your own, is itself disqualifying. 

Rather than fine, it's necessary. The peasantry's legs really are broken. They all have club feet or something. If you want to place yourself above the peasantry, showing off ([concrete bragging]) your non-broken legs is clearly step 1. Flattering their delusions of adequacy is step -1. Doubtless many politicians pretend to drink but in fact don't.

P.S. Egalitarianism likes to force the peasantry to pretend not to be peasant-y, while at the same time forbidding the upper classes from being better. Lords aren't allowed to display their skills on behalf of society, while the peasants are forced to aspire to skills they cannot acquire. Then they run around calling themselves especially empathetic, because of course they do. 

P.S.S. I especially enjoy the folk who can't trust someone they haven't had a drink with. Your judgment of character is either shitty or you already know to assume they're untrustworthy. 

Trust is expensive. Lack of trustworthiness limits deals, but the deal isn't always worth paying to build trust. The limited version can be good enough. E.g. use a subscription model so if they welch on their end you can simply cancel your end in response, with minimal losses.