[nek]

I'm not sure I would. As much as it bothers me that the "noose is tightening" around the average citizen, the more I'm around the average person, the more I realize that a) a majority are not that great of people and would be far worse tyrants if given the power and b) need to be controlled to some extent; otherwise, they wouldn't be far removed in behavior from wild animals that have the added ability of being just smart enough to get in their own way. I'd try to figure out a way to filter out the good ones though, but in morality and competency.

[HOD]

They say that 1 in 20 people are social-paths. I do believe that.

Especially among western women, a western women personality is similar to most executive leaders of corporation, very cunning.

Sociopathy is a personality disorder that manifests itself in such traits as dishonesty, charm, manipulation, narcissism, and a lack of both remorse and impulse control. In 1980, criminal psychologist Robert Hare developed the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), the universally heralded method for diagnosing psychopathy—used most often to determine whether a criminal is suitable for parole or poses such a danger to society that he deserves the death penalty. But Hare doesn’t believe psychopathy is confined to the prison system. In fact, quite the opposite: two years ago, Ronson quoted Hare’s assessment that “you’re four times more likely to find a psychopath at the top of the corporate ladder than you are walking around the janitor’s office.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...e-you.html

[el mechanico]

Short answer. Yes. I'd be part of the elite. I'd enjoy late night texts from the Rothchilds and hedge fund guyz all night.

[Brodiaga]

I would just be an asshole. If you're rich, there's no point trying to be nice.

[Guriko]

Honestly, I am scared to find out.

Power reveals the true character of any Man say the Wise Men from ancient times.

And sometimes I fear darkness is lurking inside of me, waiting for an opportune moment to present itself, take over and wreak havoc.

But all Men will be tested somewhere and sometime within their lifetimes. God's plan? The plan of the Universe? I don't know.

But I do know something - had I not discovered RVF and the Manosphere blogs two years ago then... yes. I would probably be no different than the 'Elite'.

I would be a virtue signaling altruist whose true egoistical sick mind would cause destruction.

Now I am an egoist of sound mind, pursuing my own goals and helping people on my way while keeping my mouth shut.

The world needs not to know, only I do and my soul. That is enough.

I am content.

[Vinny]

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Scientists made experiments on rats. Where a group of rats is locked within a confines space and rats are made to work for food (swim through a tunnel of water to get some bread crumbs) social hierarchy is formed. Some rats are become masters, others workers etc.
Then they took weakest members and formed a separate experiment group. Same hierarchy was created. Pattern repeated. They took strongest members of different experiment groups. Pattern repeated again. Among the group some became masters, some workers etc. And they behaved similarly, biting subordinates and making them work hard to bring them food.

When I was growing up I studied in 3 different schools due to my parents relocated. To this day I can see how similar is the group hierarchy.

So I guess now if you take few average dudes and give them absolute power and money, they will repeat the patterns of already existed elites.

Interesting pert about the rat experiment is that leader rats were the ones under constant stress, due to being afraid to lose their high position at any given time. So they were the least happiest one. Does the same apply to out humane elites? Are they constantly taking away people's freedoms to make sure they stay in power? Are they happy or do they feel subconscious guilt?

Any elite member on this board? Can you tell us what you feel?

[John_Galt]

Would I change, personally?

I don't know.

If I had the power to MAKE changes, I would. At the very least, I would try to make sure those running things were, at the very least, held accountable for their actions. (This is assuming I had real power, not being a puppet)

I'm sure that power would eventually corrupt me. I'd like to think less so than other men, but who knows?

What do you mean by "elite"? Can you give some examples? That would make it easier to answer the hypothetical.

[debeguiled]

I and I alone would be a benevolent dictator.

[sterling_archer]

Yeah, good point John Galt, what the OP considers the elite? Do you think about 0,1% of population or more like a not necessary rich, but powerful individuals in one of the 1500 NGO's who have part in control of the world?

[ScrapperTL]

Time for some real Red Pill Mind-fucking.
I'm about to drop a Tyrannosaurus amount of neuron-firing-WTF thoughts on you.

What life would you rather live.

1) Born into the Elite, being served hand and foot in their Concrete, Sanitized, Fortress.
Whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want.

or

2) Be like Mike Cernovich.
Fight through insurmountable odds, scraping your way out of the ass-pit hell that is regular life.
Only to rise like the Phoenix on the cover of his latest MAGA book.
Directly impacting the lives of millions for the better, while making the Mainstream Propaganda Machine quiver and squirm.
Tingling Ginas on an International Level.
Flickering the lights of Confidence back on, in the minds of once hopeless Men.
Rebellion, Revolution, Evolution - he's fucking NEO from the Matrix.
Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, the Creator of Dilbert - can't get enough of him.

Fuck the Elite, they are like a Gayer version of Monty Burns.
Be like Cernovich, choose the Gorilla.

[RatInTheWoods]

I would incorruptibly use my power for good, and probably be assassinated by the other elites for doing it.

[Ivanis]

It depends on the definition. Somebody can be apart of the so-called “elite”, just to be used and paraded around as a politically correct puppet. A stark example of this is Justin Trudeau, he fakes power, when really he just makes the call, his overlords make the actual decision. This is seen all over, and a basic guideline I use is in relation to fame. If someone has fame, then they can’t change anything. Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter because they will always cater to their respective crowds. Every public figure is a puppet, whose strings are being pulled by the person behind the curtain who holds all of the actual power.

The person who is known by no one and feared by everyone is who is going to get the most done. So are you telling me that you could give me the money and position of someone who was never talked about in the media? Or are you telling me that you could give me the money and position of someone who is always seen in the media and is a public figure?

One will gain you power, the other will give you fame and pussy. Most in the world would pick the latter, only few would pick the former due to our materialistic society and tendency to desire wealth, and societal status. However, I hate fame as it is, so give me the former.

Now to your question, would it change me? Truly, I don’t know, hopefully I can find out one day and let you know. If it did change me, then that would be a terrible thing and I hope someone else when put in the same position as I theoretically was will be able to have more will power and is able to persist. However, if I wasn’t changed, what would I do?

This is where it gets fun, because in this scenario you have everything to cause some major waves in the status quo. I would first start dismantling all of the fucked up shit that the globalists have created. I would make the LGTB community turn on the feminism community and the feminists turn on the atheists. Divide and fucking conquer baby! From there you pretty much wreak havoc until the world either destroys itself or finds logic in the midst of the stupidity.

After that, I would need to find/groom someone to take power so my identity can be left in the shadow, where it belongs.


I’d say it’s a 50/50 between smooth sailing and nuclear war after that…

[Ivanis]

(10-19-2016 04:30 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

I would incorruptibly use my power for good, and probably be assassinated by the other elites for doing it.

This is why having your identity private is of the utmost importance. If they don’t know who you are, they can’t kill you. They can kill your pawns, you rooks, your bishops, your king and your queen, but they can’t kill a shadow, be that shadow, and you will win.

[John_Galt]

^

How are you going to be PART of "the elite", and yet be a "shadow"?

That doesn't make sense.

[sterling_archer]

If OP thinks of elite that which I asked him, then they are shadows.

[Phoenix]

The question is nonsense though. To become a member of the elite nowadays you have to be either human slime, or at least submit to human slime.

The "power corrupts" dictum rings true as always. Even if you were inherently good before, once in power you feel the pressure to keep it, there is more to lose so you take slights more to heart, you become a minority battling to keep his place above a minority, and so on.

One thing that has surprised me the most here though, is the tendency just to leave it at "the elites are bad". It smacks of a very zelcorpion-like "its all hopeless because the conspiracies are so vast and the elites so remote and powerful".

I forwarded this question to Roosh in his Q&A, and in spite of answering I think he'll admit he hasn't really come up with a clear reason:

Quote:

You constantly refer to the elites and the establishment (i.e. as a specific group of people) as the cause of the west’s ills. In your opinion, why is it that the elites of the 21st century west are destructive, whereas in the 17th,18th&19th centuries (i.e. enlightenment onwards until WW1) they were constructive

Constitution is everything. The elites of Saudi Arabia are the members of the Saud family's absolute monarchy. The elites of Sweden are the worst examples of democratic degeneracy known to man. Much better social examples have landed somewhere in between.

Constitution is the question of "who in a society has what powers". It is a question older than Aristotle (or for you young readers: "the bedrock philosopher of Cernovich's Gorilla Mindset"), who himself collected 150 constitutions of different states from around that period (300s BC).

Even back then, everybody will completely aware of good elites and bad elites. They had been aware of it for millennia. None of them spoke well of the Greek democracy (widely considered degenerate, as it is now just more so). They were well aware of tyrants too.

There will always be "elites" in the same way there will always be a "bottom 10%". The question of "would you be good if you were an elite" has more to with the constitution you would be operating in than your personal proclivities.

If the constitution was good, yes I'd be good, for two reasons:
- I'd have little incentive to be bad
- I'd get automatic push-back from other members of society if I was

As I've mentioned before, having "good elites" would practically involve:
- For unitary states (e.g. in Europe) => A return of the kings and the nobility, alongside a traditional electorate (land-owning men).
- For federations (e.g. US) => Increasing devolution of power to the states or other constituent parts (and adding constitutional mechanisms that prevent decay of that devolution).

And for everyone who thinks "its OK if Trump wins because he'll fix everything!". No, he'll at best do 8 years of reversal, before its back into it again.

[sterling_archer]

(10-20-2016 02:41 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

And for everyone who thinks "its OK if Trump wins because he'll fix everything!". No, he'll at best do 8 years of reversal, before its back into it again.

Hear hear! That is one of most sane comments regarding Trump I ever saw. People don't realize, especially manosphere guys, that Trump is going against machine so huge and powerful that it is impossible to dismantle it. He only can just slow its progress, nothing more.
Also, if he becomes president, scenario will be probably like this:
He will be approached by some interesting individuals and basically told what to do.
He can then either say "screw you", and die from heart attack; he can play along, possibly profiting along the way; or he can play along and plot with his close associates some kind of "secret coup".

Stuff is much more complicated then "I am president and I'll do what I want".

[Phoenix]

^ Yes and that huge powerful machine is a degenerate constitution.

Duterte has the right idea, using his presidential position to move the Philippines towards a federal system. Trump should do the same if he wins -- campaign to invoke an Article V convention to gut the federal government.

[Ivanis]

(10-19-2016 08:10 PM)John_Galt Wrote:  

^

How are you going to be PART of "the elite", and yet be a "shadow"?

That doesn't make sense.

People such as the Koch brothers who are rarely mentioned in the mainstream media and are major donors in political parties?

What is your definition of the elite? I would define it as having power and wealth. Both of which don't require fame or public recognition.

If you define the elite as a recognized, wealthy, and politically powerful group that is widely covered by media outlets than we have very different definitions and my argument above would be considered counter intuitive.

[Edmund Ironside]

(10-20-2016 04:53 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

Trump is going against machine so huge and powerful that it is impossible to dismantle it. He only can just slow its progress, nothing more.

The media constantly harps on the "Trump is dangerous" propaganda ... and I know I'm not the target audience for that ... but really my sincerest realistic hope is that he IS dangerous, to them. I hope he's a bomb being dropped on the DC establishment and connections. I hope he's a bull in their f**king china shop. I hope he accidentally stumbles over and unplugs the power cord for the matrix.

[ScrapperTL]

(10-20-2016 09:07 AM)Edmund Ironside Wrote:  

(10-20-2016 04:53 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

Trump is going against machine so huge and powerful that it is impossible to dismantle it. He only can just slow its progress, nothing more.

The media constantly harps on the "Trump is dangerous" propaganda ... and I know I'm not the target audience for that ... but really my sincerest realistic hope is that he IS dangerous, to them. I hope he's a bomb being dropped on the DC establishment and connections. I hope he's a bull in their f**king china shop. I hope he accidentally stumbles over and unplugs the power cord for the matrix.

1st, I freaking love the "stumbles over and unplugs the power cord for the matrix" comment, PURE GOLD!

2nd, did you notice that last night Hillary basically and probably accidentally admitted everything on Wikileaks is TRUTH and not "Conspiracy Theory"

This is very interesting to me, because I remember that one of the Wikileaks stated George Soros made it rain 500 MILLION $$$ on the Mainstream Media (bribe) to be Pro-Hillary and Anti-Trump at every step of the way.

I believe this included but was not limited to - ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, MSNBC, CNN and even FOX.

[Cage]

Who wants to be an A**hole ?

[Brother Abdul Majeed]

(10-20-2016 10:46 AM)Cage Wrote:  

Who wants to be an A**hole ?

A**holes apparently.

[Rob Banks]

(10-20-2016 02:41 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

The question is nonsense though. To become a member of the elite nowadays you have to be either human slime, or at least submit to human slime.

The "power corrupts" dictum rings true as always. Even if you were inherently good before, once in power you feel the pressure to keep it, there is more to lose so you take slights more to heart, you become a minority battling to keep his place above a minority, and so on.

One thing that has surprised me the most here though, is the tendency just to leave it at "the elites are bad". It smacks of a very zelcorpion-like "its all hopeless because the conspiracies are so vast and the elites so remote and powerful".

I forwarded this question to Roosh in his Q&A, and in spite of answering I think he'll admit he hasn't really come up with a clear reason:

Quote:

You constantly refer to the elites and the establishment (i.e. as a specific group of people) as the cause of the west’s ills. In your opinion, why is it that the elites of the 21st century west are destructive, whereas in the 17th,18th&19th centuries (i.e. enlightenment onwards until WW1) they were constructive

Constitution is everything. The elites of Saudi Arabia are the members of the Saud family's absolute monarchy. The elites of Sweden are the worst examples of democratic degeneracy known to man. Much better social examples have landed somewhere in between.

Constitution is the question of "who in a society has what powers". It is a question older than Aristotle (or for you young readers: "the bedrock philosopher of Cernovich's Gorilla Mindset"), who himself collected 150 constitutions of different states from around that period (300s BC).

Even back then, everybody will completely aware of good elites and bad elites. They had been aware of it for millennia. None of them spoke well of the Greek democracy (widely considered degenerate, as it is now just more so). They were well aware of tyrants too.

There will always be "elites" in the same way there will always be a "bottom 10%". The question of "would you be good if you were an elite" has more to with the constitution you would be operating in than your personal proclivities.

If the constitution was good, yes I'd be good, for two reasons:
- I'd have little incentive to be bad
- I'd get automatic push-back from other members of society if I was

As I've mentioned before, having "good elites" would practically involve:
- For unitary states (e.g. in Europe) => A return of the kings and the nobility, alongside a traditional electorate (land-owning men).
- For federations (e.g. US) => Increasing devolution of power to the states or other constituent parts (and adding constitutional mechanisms that prevent decay of that devolution).

And for everyone who thinks "its OK if Trump wins because he'll fix everything!". No, he'll at best do 8 years of reversal, before its back into it again.

↑↑ This.

Excellent comment.

[ivansirko]

There is no way the elite would have me. I hate bullshit and enjoy making their "lets speak too many words at once to seem smart" into more practical meaning.