Again how can a cultural norm be fraudulent? There are no value claims in the norm itself. While agreed about the truth of inferiority comment on the base of demonstrable non-inferiority, the norm itself could not be fraudulent.
As you said in the second paragraph they are passed on like genes, or rather cultural memes, they also undergo cultural evolution and are changed, modified, or replaced wholesale with other norms that are just as arbitrary. The value of the norms are not in the norms themselves but in the people, as a people changes so does its culture's norms.
As for the other comment, Heirarchy in politics is simply disproportionate power becoming codified/institutionalized. Take an "egalitarian" society where there is no permenent "Big Man". Heirarchy is materialistically inherent in these structures by virtue of the manipulation of scarce resources. The best hunter, the best gatherer, the best healer are respected more and thusly make a disproportionate number of important group decisions. One would have to change human nature to try and somehow legislate away the respect given them and the heeding of their opinion they expect by virtue of their specialized occupations within the community.
Once again there is no way to avoid a heirarchy in a species that is hard wired for group living.
these misogynistic and racist sentiments, are they not fraudulent or are they not cultural norms
Like I said, I don't refer to any natural hierarchy of talent or any natural hierarchy of agreement as hierarchy when referring to political or other sociological topics. It would seem rather silly to rail against the matriarchal dominance of a queen bee, and just as silly would be railing against respected town elder.
Exactly that norms are sentiments, they are internally held, they cannot be fraudulent by their nature its like saying, "so you feel sad huh? LIAR!" I'm a follower of the cultural consciousness models, in other words that a culture has a dynamic consciousness that includes identity rules and norms. The actual biological equality between men and women is not really debateable they are different. Men do not Equal women. The socio-political right to equal treatment however, is debatable, under current standards men should equal women. It wasn't always so and isn't in many other cultures. Being that this is a culturally held opinion/feeling it has no value claim other than comparisons with historical norms and areal norms, which are also not truth claims but entrenched beliefs. It is for this reason any norm cannot be fraudulent as it does not hold an inherent truth claim or value judgment unto itself.
There is nothing about sentiments that disconnect them from justification, and simply because something is observed subjectively does not mean it cannot be untrue.
And again I do not see how any of this is relevant to whether a statement is justified as truth or not. Culturally entrenched beliefs can certainly be stand in accordance with reality, and that is how something is true.
In the end, if you are a moral realist, the elite can be established as liars, if you are not a realist, then the elite makes truth claims where they cannot be made. Either way they are propagators of misinformation.
Anyone can claim another person with a differing opinion is a liar, and anyone claiming anything elite or not to be the truth when there is no truth to be had is propogating misinformation. Where are we going with this other than "I don't believe X is valid because its not what I believe"?
Confucius suggested that farmers be at the top of the hierarchy as a food supply is the single most important thing for a society to have.
It seems obvious enough that it is the nature of every functioning society that it be composed of, at the very least, a ruling class or elite on the one hand, and a usually larger, mass or subordinate class on the other hand.
The elite class are those who wield the concentrated political and economic power and who set the general societal tone for what is considered right or wrong, good or bad; they standardize the cultural mores.
The mass culture of subordinate classes are largely dependent upon the elites who are, in turn, responsible for making the legal decisions of the society, and also the economic decisions and running the large bureaucracies.
Such a system -of elite classes and mass classes- seems necessary in order for a society to function at all. However, I believe that today in the United States, the masses generally do not recognize that such a scheme is necessary nor, more importantly, do they believe that such class hierarchy is at work, or in effect, in their own society and in their own lives. And this is because the masses have been wrongly taught from the elites that every 'individual' is soveriegn and special regardless of his or her identity.
Individuals within mass society, instead of being taught that class hierarchy is a necessity, have instead been taught that class hierarchies are immoral. The over-estimation of the status of the individual, therefore, serves to blind the people into thinking they are not part of the masses even while they all act and think very much like one another.
The problem lies with the ruling elite's insistence that, in order for the individual to garner a high estimation, he or she doesn't have to accomplish any measure of authentic societal achievement. The ruling elites, by automatically bestowing 'greatness' upon each individual no matter who or what the individual is or has accomplished, have prevented the individual from perceiving the fact that they are actually part of a growing mass of an ever more vulgar mediocrity.
One solution to this problem would be to remove self-esteem from the masses by pointing out that they are, in reality, a subordinate class who are generally indistinguishable from one another. And to teach that class hierarchies are not immoral and that the true immorality is for the elites to convince unsuspecting individuals that they are deserving of self-esteem when they are not.
But as long as we continue to accept the ruling elite's ideology that says that any individual is deserving of great self-esteem, then the more difficult it will be for the individual to free himself from the herd and to attain real independence. The more we believe in the ruling elite's culture, the more enslaved and blind we will be toward our own inadequacies as individuals and our own desires to escape the ugly confusion of the masses.
We must undertake a revaluation of elite values and tell the masses bluntly how naturally ugly and vulgar and repulsive they are and how hurtful that behaviour is for individuals who want to be better than that. Because, in order to be a truly free individual one must work hard and climb above the many.
--Pyth
It seems obvious enough that it is the nature of every functioning society that it be composed of, at the very least, a ruling class or elite on the one hand, and a usually larger, mass or subordinate class on the other hand.
The elite class are those who wield the concentrated political and economic power and who set the general societal tone for what is considered right or wrong, good or bad; they standardize the cultural mores.
The mass culture of subordinate classes are largely dependent upon the elites who are, in turn, responsible for making the legal decisions of the society, and also the economic decisions and running the large bureaucracies.
Such a system -of elite classes and mass classes- seems necessary in order for a society to function at all. However, I believe that today in the United States, the masses generally do not recognize that such a scheme is necessary nor, more importantly, do they believe that such class hierarchy is at work, or in effect, in their own society and in their own lives. And this is because the masses have been wrongly taught from the elites that every 'individual' is soveriegn and special regardless of his or her identity.
Individuals within mass society, instead of being taught that class hierarchy is a necessity, have instead been taught that class hierarchies are immoral. The over-estimation of the status of the individual, therefore, serves to blind the people into thinking they are not part of the masses even while they all act and think very much like one another.
The problem lies with the ruling elite's insistence that, in order for the individual to garner a high estimation, he or she doesn't have to accomplish any measure of authentic societal achievement. The ruling elites, by automatically bestowing 'greatness' upon each individual no matter who or what the individual is or has accomplished, have prevented the individual from perceiving the fact that they are actually part of a growing mass of an ever more vulgar mediocrity.
One solution to this problem would be to remove self-esteem from the masses by pointing out that they are, in reality, a subordinate class who are generally indistinguishable from one another. And to teach that class hierarchies are not immoral and that the true immorality is for the elites to convince unsuspecting individuals that they are deserving of self-esteem when they are not.
But as long as we continue to accept the ruling elite's ideology that says that any individual is deserving of great self-esteem, then the more difficult it will be for the individual to free himself from the herd and to attain real independence. The more we believe in the ruling elite's culture, the more enslaved and blind we will be toward our own inadequacies as individuals and our own desires to escape the ugly confusion of the masses.
We must undertake a revaluation of elite values and tell the masses bluntly how naturally ugly and vulgar and repulsive they are and how hurtful that behaviour is for individuals who want to be better than that. Because, in order to be a truly free individual one must work hard and climb above the many.
--Pyth
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely beleive they are free. -Goethe
An elite minority will always arise to dominate the majority; the question is what sort of ruling class it will be: hereditary, ethnic, meritocratic, etc. In my view the U.S. is currently under the yoke of powerful financial, mostly banking, interests and their asosciates, who manipulate the system of indirect representation to do exactly what the vulgar masses want; i.e. develop the welfare/paternalistic state.
The weak want feudalism in all but name and the stong are happy to oblige them. Of course, I really shouldn't say strong; these people seem to be more cunning, devious or nefarious than 'strong.' Now that we have redefined freedom, and have rights to a certain quantum of stuff, set annually by beaurocrats, anything goes.
An elite minority will always arise to dominate the majority; the question is what sort of ruling class it will be: hereditary, ethnic, meritocratic, etc.
It seems obvious enough that it is the nature of every functioning society that it be composed of, at the very least, a ruling class or elite on the one hand, and a usually larger, mass or subordinate class on the other hand.
The elite class are those who wield the concentrated political and economic power and who set the general societal tone for what is considered right or wrong, good or bad; they standardize the cultural mores.
The mass culture of subordinate classes are largely dependent upon the elites who are, in turn, responsible for making the legal decisions of the society, and also the economic decisions and running the large bureaucracies.
Such a system -of elite classes and mass classes- seems necessary in order for a society to function at all. However, I believe that today in the United States, the masses generally do not recognize that such a scheme is necessary nor, more importantly, do they believe that such class hierarchy is at work, or in effect, in their own society and in their own lives. And this is because the masses have been wrongly taught from the elites that every 'individual' is soveriegn and special regardless of his or her identity.
Individuals within mass society, instead of being taught that class hierarchy is a necessity, have instead been taught that class hierarchies are immoral. The over-estimation of the status of the individual, therefore, serves to blind the people into thinking they are not part of the masses even while they all act and think very much like one another.
The problem lies with the ruling elite's insistence that, in order for the individual to garner a high estimation, he or she doesn't have to accomplish any measure of authentic societal achievement. The ruling elites, by automatically bestowing 'greatness' upon each individual no matter who or what the individual is or has accomplished, have prevented the individual from perceiving the fact that they are actually part of a growing mass of an ever more vulgar mediocrity.
One solution to this problem would be to remove self-esteem from the masses by pointing out that they are, in reality, a subordinate class who are generally indistinguishable from one another. And to teach that class hierarchies are not immoral and that the true immorality is for the elites to convince unsuspecting individuals that they are deserving of self-esteem when they are not.
But as long as we continue to accept the ruling elite's ideology that says that any individual is deserving of great self-esteem, then the more difficult it will be for the individual to free himself from the herd and to attain real independence. The more we believe in the ruling elite's culture, the more enslaved and blind we will be toward our own inadequacies as individuals and our own desires to escape the ugly confusion of the masses.
We must undertake a revaluation of elite values and tell the masses bluntly how naturally ugly and vulgar and repulsive they are and how hurtful that behaviour is for individuals who want to be better than that. Because, in order to be a truly free individual one must work hard and climb above the many.
--Pyth
It seems obvious enough that it is the nature of every functioning society that it be composed of, at the very least, a ruling class or elite on the one hand, and a usually larger, mass or subordinate class on the other hand.
The elite class are those who wield the concentrated political and economic power and who set the general societal tone for what is considered right or wrong, good or bad; they standardize the cultural mores.
The mass culture of subordinate classes are largely dependent upon the elites who are, in turn, responsible for making the legal decisions of the society, and also the economic decisions and running the large bureaucracies.
Such a system -of elite classes and mass classes- seems necessary in order for a society to function at all. However, I believe that today in the United States, the masses generally do not recognize that such a scheme is necessary nor, more importantly, do they believe that such class hierarchy is at work, or in effect, in their own society and in their own lives. And this is because the masses have been wrongly taught from the elites that every 'individual' is soveriegn and special regardless of his or her identity.
Individuals within mass society, instead of being taught that class hierarchy is a necessity, have instead been taught that class hierarchies are immoral. The over-estimation of the status of the individual, therefore, serves to blind the people into thinking they are not part of the masses even while they all act and think very much like one another.
The problem lies with the ruling elite's insistence that, in order for the individual to garner a high estimation, he or she doesn't have to accomplish any measure of authentic societal achievement. The ruling elites, by automatically bestowing 'greatness' upon each individual no matter who or what the individual is or has accomplished, have prevented the individual from perceiving the fact that they are actually part of a growing mass of an ever more vulgar mediocrity.
One solution to this problem would be to remove self-esteem from the masses by pointing out that they are, in reality, a subordinate class who are generally indistinguishable from one another. And to teach that class hierarchies are not immoral and that the true immorality is for the elites to convince unsuspecting individuals that they are deserving of self-esteem when they are not.
But as long as we continue to accept the ruling elite's ideology that says that any individual is deserving of great self-esteem, then the more difficult it will be for the individual to free himself from the herd and to attain real independence. The more we believe in the ruling elite's culture, the more enslaved and blind we will be toward our own inadequacies as individuals and our own desires to escape the ugly confusion of the masses.
We must undertake a revaluation of elite values and tell the masses bluntly how naturally ugly and vulgar and repulsive they are and how hurtful that behaviour is for individuals who want to be better than that. Because, in order to be a truly free individual one must work hard and climb above the many.
--Pyth
