Leaderboard

As am I, in part. True. But dumb people are even more likely to overestimate their own capabilities. And as Jordan Peterson mentions most smart people are highly specialized. If I wasn't a writer I'd be useless. And therefore it is of course a healthy reminder that if it weren't for farmers, teamsters, businessmen, and builders I simply wouldn't be able to write in a city. However compared to them in my given area of expertise I am most likely superior to them. And while I myself may be highly specialized I can't say that's true of all writers. Heck some of the best were quite versatile and some were even warlords. Regardless stating everyone is equal is definitely not true and also very different from "smart people tend to overestimate themselves and undercount lesser people". Which is also true as I have known many smart people and by God can they come up with BS to justify their superiority over the dumb (without directly stating it) while simultaneously covering for the fact they can't do anything the dumb can ("I'm a math major!!"). However still people smarter than them I'd assume are more likely to be self-aware and wise and those people are most definitely superior over all for both their potential (or realized) contributions to society as well as their potential or realized ability to lead and shape others. The Shepherd may not be able to survive without his sheep yet by virtue of his position I think it's safe to to say he's superior to the sheep. Sure but can a tribe exist of semi-monarchistic AnCap Classical Liberal somewhat-White Nationalist Roman Catholic anti-Feminism anti-MGTOW anti-White Knight pro-life New Right aristocracy-inclined ever-evolving-with-new-information types? I have only met some of these but not all of them together. I sometimes wonder if I am "too individual" because if I meet any of these groups I find an irreconcililable different. AnCaps tend to live in Ivory Towers. Classical Liberals tend to be Civic Nationalists. White Nationalists tend to be anti-Semitic Socialists. Roman Catholics tend to be very mixed. Anti-Feminism tends to also very vague and tend to be MGTOW. Anti-MGTOWs tend to be White Knights. anti-White Knights tend to be MGToW. Anti-Baby-Killer is also vague. New Right is only another word for "alt-Light" but is better for focusing in on Stefpai and Petersen. Yet a self-identified member named Gavin McInnes openly states the West's history is more than just White people and yearns for the chaotic times of the 80's (which is not only anti-Trad but anti-West in the long run--Although I haven't seen much of Gavin beyond this so I don't know much about him or have a strong opinion). Other New Right tend to look at South Africa and want to coddle the blacks there rather than the victims of perpetual ethnic cleansing. So New Right is definitely not my camp though arguably closest to it though its leadership is divided enough that I can't call it a movement beyond its common anti-Far-Left and anti-Totalitarian position. And finally most people who have a thing for aristocracies are either fascists or socialists or something else self-destructive. As a result I tend to see myself as a tribe of one. Especially since I can't be sure my political opinions won't change given the constant flood of new information. I identify with the Right in general because I am Christian, anti-Republic/Democracy, a monarchist, and a huge Free Marketer. However I'm prone to change in most of these and also these alone is limiting enough to shrink any potential tribesmen I might have from half the country to maybe a few hundred thousand or less. Most of which being useless intellectuals like myself (whose only value is in entertaining people through words and texts. Otherwise we could never enact or really live our own ideals beyond our niche).