Humanity has always recognized that there is a natural inequality that seems to come from birth. We’ve all seen this, and it’s undeniable:
This is clearly not biological, as brilliant children can be born anywhere. A good system will be able to search the entire planet for sensitive and smart children, no matter where they originate. The most brilliant people can be born in slums and poverty stricken countries.
When someone is in the brilliant, smart, or sensitive group of humanity, they need training to be able to harness their abilities. Without training, people will go off into all directions, the worst is that they’ll get too tangled up with the bulk of humanity and lose their vision. However, if brilliant people are overly constrained, others may not see the benefits of their actions in the longer term. Something like a warlord may seem evil for killing, but the consequences over the long-term may be something good for a bulk of people. This could be termed a kind of utilitarianism, but this isn’t right, since it’s more people following their own inspirations and impulses, not really thinking in terms of happiness or good.
Others, for example, disagree with warlords by saying that killing is always wrong. So there’s disagreement and fighting among the elites. Each one has their own idea of the best course of action, and it’s difficult to get the elites to work together. You often see them on completely opposite sides of a fight.
We have risen above our animal instincts. The more primitive bulk of humanity would simply devolve into animal nature, just focusing on immediate pleasures. This goes back to wandering around, just eating whatever we find, and not thinking much beyond immediate needs.
Civilization arose when sensitive and smart people began to take charge. How the process started is unknown, but numerous factors may have contributed to it. The sensitive people are the ones who started architecture, clothing, rituals, agriculture, and all the rest of the things we know. This wasn’t so much about basic needs or belief in God, but instead they were trying to address something they were inspired to do.
There is evidence of humanity doing this around the world, not because we were in contact with each other, but because sensitive people are born at random, and they all had similar inspirations to do something different. Progress wasn’t the same everywhere, so some groups developed in a quicker way. Once all the groups started to get in touch with each other, progress really took off.
Time can move both linearly and in cycles. You see this with electricity, time is moving forward, but sine waves are cycling, so both are right. Humanity can progress forward through time and trying new ideas, while the overall level of development and intelligence can go up and down. So we can never repeat the past in the exact same way, but the development of the elite class does change.
In 2022, it seems we’re in a low level with the elites, where many are simply chasing money & have lost sight of their own vision. Industrial life happened too quickly for many, and they didn’t know how to handle it. Even with brilliant people, it’s very easy to get off the path if they aren’t focused. Nobody can tell someone exactly how to use money, this is where inspired people come in and decide what’s best to do. My take is that future generations will need to pull back from all of this extreme material consumption but will build on top of this with a new system that uses what we have, but in a far less destructive and random way.
There has always been something with elites, that they are to self-sacrifice themselves and to ideally remain alone and celibate. Why is this? Why do elites give up marriage, starve themselves, or kill themselves for some higher ideal? Is asceticism itself a good thing? Why is it rewarded and attacked?
My take is that you can have a kind of focus through self-denial. Asceticism isn’t good or bad but is something that can enhance focus. The problem with things like the Christians is that they made asceticism a virtue, and demanding obedience to random acts of asceticism. So you ended up with people like Catherine of Sienna, who was famous simply for self-mutilation, not for anything positive she did.
What’s important are the actions that an inspired person takes and not the methods they use to get there. Things aren’t good or bad, it’s all just a tool. Taking action is always something elites do, even if they deny it. The Cynics liked to pretend that they weren’t taking action, whereas it was really a street performance and teaching. Suicide has never been a recommended action by any person, it’s always the result of imbalances and problems in a group, so just killing yourself is always bad.
The people who fall into the group of self-destructive, stupid, energy draining group must be dealt with. If you take everything from them, they’ll be able to revolt, as an elite warlord can manipulate masses of idiots to work along side of them. You see this in revolutions throughout history.
In the modern world, the trend seems to be we should throw good money after bad with these idiots, but in the long term, it’s a good investment. If people are pacified and give money to the elites, then institutions can be built, and something good can be done behind the scenes. The problem with this is the gigantic waste of material on these people, since they aren’t deserving of any of this stuff, since they add nothing to humanity and are a drain. My take is that over time, the resources will need to be cut off from these people, we can’t be funding billions of idiots, since the planet can’t handle it. This may be why elites are planning off-world colonies and why they live in gated communities with potential safeguards against future disruptions. The elites will still be fine, even if the world itself starts to become more unstable.
Texas & Germany both have systems for separating children at age 5-10. However, the school system can only do so much, since people are still stuck with their biological parents, even if they want to escape. In a better system, children would be able to remove themselves from their household, or they could be taken away. People may think this is ripe for abuse, but what of brilliant children stuck in poverty or with parents who are abusive idiots? Leaving them at home with their parents may be worse, so it may be in the parents best interest to remove kids from their home.