1
The Dominant 5%.
The liberal view holds that it is an 'unjust' state of affairs for a minority to 'control' the majority.
Similarly it is 'unfair' that a minority 'own' the majority of resources etc.,
By this view also, religion is merely a means by which a minority [priests etc.,] control the masses.
But liberals miss the most important point of all, as usual;
It is the majority that WANT to be controlled; they WANT to be led and to have their decisions made for them.
In return, this majority reap the reward of community, identity etc., and are able to concentrate on the minutiae of their lives.
It seems that this is the natural order of things.
Even more, the majority DEMAND that this minority, who I'll call the 'dominant 5%' [D5%] lead them: it is almost as if this D5% evolved by some kind of evolutionary need and pressure.
This is the Necessity of Leadership.
The liberal notion that the majority are somehow 'oppressed' by the D5%, and that all they need to do is 'throw off their chains', is then very far from reality.
Of course, the D5% do take advantage: they do this because they are often 'Blond Beasts'. And even though modern societal organisations seek to safeguard against the D5% from 'abusing their position', it cannot be denied that the D5% are ALWAYS Necessary.
2
The Art of Being Ruled.
I say that there should always be a degree of DISTANCE between the minority who rule and those majority who are ruled.
This is so that the ruled can learn the Necessity and Pride of obedience.
If it so, that a roughly D5% always emerges from any group, then the larger the group, the wider the pool of potential Leaders.
This creates a problem in groups of large populations as there is ultimately only ONE top job.
Every Leader knows this.
So, in large groups, Collectivist ideals have naturally evolved. This in effect shrinks the percentage of possible leaders available and schools the majority in positive obedience.
So, in countries with traditionally large populations [obvious example is China] this collectivist ideal and will to obedience emerges.
Of course, excessive collectivism, as in China, is undesirable, and is as much against Arayanism as is excessive individualism.
A balance is needed.
This suggests that the reason for the USA's severe social problems are due to her complete lack of Collectivist Ideals - indeed, the USA has an extreme propensity for the opposite.
Because of the heightened Individualism of USA culture, her vast population gives out too many frustrated 'leaders', none of them able to nail the 'top job'.
Frustrated leaders malfunction and go bad - they aberrate; they also poison the whole atmosphere as idle hands.
Hence the proliferation of Cults, serial killers, criminal gangs etc.,
This is why Europe must always keep sight of its socialist aspects and balance them with individualism.
This was done in fascism/N-S, where the Leadership Principle satsified the D5% ideal, and the Folk tradition satisfied the social ideal.
Leader/Folk was the dynamic for European political evolution.
Of course, this was destroyed by the USA model which now tries to force Europe down its own road of inter-national atomisation.
If Europe is ever united along the USA lines, then its social fabric will be rent in a fashion even more nightmarish than that of the Americans.
Therefore, N-S still provides the basis for a future European Folk Community, with its Necessity of Leadership by the D5%, and its majority of obedient kindred.
![]()
Bookmarks