Steve Sailer has an important article on the difficulty of reconciling majority rule with economic inequity when it is benefits an ethnic minority. This is important, because if the plutocrats are the same race as the proletariat, then the Horatio Alger idea becames more tenable as one can not tell by just looking at someone or knowing their last name that they come from a long-line of plutocrats who did not rise up from the poverty of the masses (though they might have risen up from the poverty of the elite minority, which often displays income inequality as well). Steve mentions the difficulty of keeping the majority pliant as in Latin America, and how it is fast failing because of mestizo and black ethnic awareness. But this New York Times Magazine article about Hindu nationalism shows a primary method for keeping the hereditary elite in power: find a scapegoat [1]. In the case of India right now, that would be Muslims, who the upper-castes use to create Hindu solidarity in the defiance of the fact that from a Marxist perspective low-caste Hindus and Muslims share economic interests (and until the rise of low-caste parties these two groups were part of the bedrock of the Congress vote that helped create that party’s near monopoly on power for 50 years) [2].
[1] I will address this article at some point if the idolaters do not demur.
[2] Most of India’s Muslim elite (and middle-class) fled to Pakistan. So India’s Muslims tend to share the same socioeconomic (and likely racial) profile as the Hindu lower castes.
Comments are closed.