/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19169952]

Why do Jews look so out of place in the upper class?

[Anonymous No.19169968]

le hidden aristocracy

[Anonymous No.19169980]

>>19169952
They lack noble blood and are part of the upper hand due to deceitful wealth gathering
Thats why usually the upper classes werent divided by money but by family heritage
A improvished noble is still a noble compared to a rich pleb, in this case even a outsider

[Anonymous No.19170001]

>>19169952
They're deceitful chameleons who never truly assimilate, making them constantly awkward and looking to fit in

[Anonymous No.19170004]

>>19169980
What makes a noble a noble if not money? Muh genes?

[Anonymous No.19170010]

>>19170004
weak bait

[Anonymous No.19170017]

>>19170010
No, it's not bait. Really, what makes a noble a noble? Height? Beauty? Intelligence? That specific arbitrary genetic lineage?

[Anonymous No.19170031]

>>19170017
Did Himmler, Goebbels and Hitler become nobles when they held power in Germany?

[Anonymous No.19170034]

>>19169952
You ate enough redpills to raise your racial awareness stat high enough to notice.

[Anonymous No.19170057]

>>19170031
Yes

[Anonymous No.19170058]

>>19169980
>They lack noble blood
kek

[Anonymous No.19170061]

>>19170031
So is it just power? In that case you can become noble mid life.

[Anonymous No.19170095]

>>19170004
>What makes a noble a noble if not money? Muh genes?
If you look at Venice or other med medieval cities you will always find examples of the middle class, who would have great wealth, revolting against the noble class
The nobles are those who rule and who can trace their family roots back to the old rulers, kings and mythical founders, or who were ordained by their descendants. The patricians/rich middle class can only sway the noble class with their money, but ultimatively lack power and the right to rule

[Anonymous No.19170104]

>>19170058
>marries into upper class
Shouldn't be allowed at all originally, she still isn't a noble through blood but through marriage

[Anonymous No.19170107]

>>19170017
divine right

[Anonymous No.19170108]

>>19170095
So right to rule is dependent on genetic links?

Why? Why on Earth would that be the case? Can't a non related person be smarter, more beautiful, more kind?

This strikes me as deep arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.19170109]

>>19170017
Based sans-culotte

[Anonymous No.19170111]

>>19170095
>right to rule
lmao

[Anonymous No.19170116]

>>19170107
Why does the divine not grant the right to rule to smart, kind, strong, beautiful people unrelated to the "royalty"?

Braveheart and shit.

[Anonymous No.19170118]

>navy seal pin
Surely he wasn't actually?

[Anonymous No.19170120]

>nobilitatem (nominative nobilitas) "celebrity, fame; high birth; excellence, superiority"
Weinstein is a fugly, degenerate shtetl goblin. No amount of money can change that. Libs play dumb and pretend it's all just wealth because they're terrified of the reality of genetics and breeding but they'd recoil in an instant if you called Trump a noble man.

[Anonymous No.19170136]

>>19170104
>>marries into upper class
???
>she still isn't a noble through blood
???

[Anonymous No.19170137]

>>19170108
>So right to rule is dependent on genetic links?
Yea, there was a huge problem during the plague because city councils couldn't operate due to many noble families just getting wiped out
What are kings but just tribal leaders, and what are tribal leaders but the patriarch of a family, and his heir being the eldest son. I dont remember which part, but in the Bible the ruler of the tribe of Israel was the eldest son of Abraham, while the other sons got to rule less prestigious tribes; nobles are the sons of first sons for generations, while plebs are the sons of secondary sons
The "first son", the dedicated heir, was also usually groomed to rule, so he was expected to be the most beautiful, smartest etc

[Anonymous No.19170140]

>>19170136
Then why did you post her if thats not the case, idk who she is

[Anonymous No.19170149]

>>19170137
Elizabeth II does not descend from a first son
>The "first son", the dedicated heir, was also usually groomed to rule, so he was expected to be the most beautiful, smartest etc
You know what pic goes here.

[Anonymous No.19170155]

>>19170140
>Then why did you post her if thats not the case
Do you happen to have some mental deficit?
"muh noble blood" ---> full blooded noblewoman ---> disgusting goblin

Your argument is refuted.

[Anonymous No.19170156]

>>19170137
Well it may be the case that rule has been genetic ever since the conception of time, but that doesn't make it justified. Old practices are not necessarily good ones.

You sneakily justified the tradition by pointing out that the nobles tend to be the best groomed, but notice that there what's doing the work is not the genetic link itself but the qualities acquired because of it in one's life. But then I repeat the question? What if a non genetically linked agent has more of those virtues? Why are THEY not the ones with the RIGHT to lead?

Perhaps you want to claim outright that genetic link is all there is to justifying power. I would have to disagree, as I find this deeply implausible.

[Anonymous No.19170164]

>>19170149
Its symbolic speech and I was talking about the Biblical times and early tribes, of course you don't loose your nobility from being the second son
>>19170155
Being ugly doesn't make you less noble
>>19170156
I dont justify it nor agree with it. If anything I agree with Florian Geyers "There were no nobles when Adam plowed Eve"

[Anonymous No.19170174]

>The profound contempt with which the Christian was treated in the noble areas of classical antiquity is of a kind with the present instinctive aversion to Jews: it is the hatred of the free and selfrespecting orders for those who are pushing and who combine timid and awkward gestures with an absurd opinion of their worth.
>The New Testament is the gospel of a wholly ignoble species of man; their claim to possess more value, indeed to possess all value, actually has something revolting about it--even today.

[Anonymous No.19170175]

>>19170164
I see. I'm sorry. I misunderstood.

I know this is a convo you're having with someone else, but I think physical beauty does add or subtract from one's nobility.

[Anonymous No.19170184]

君子成人之美,不成人之惡
t. Confucius

[Anonymous No.19170193]

>>19170175
>I know this is a convo you're having with someone else, but I think physical beauty does add or subtract from one's nobility.

Thats what Schopenhauer believed, i remember reading somewhere his commentary about Petrarch and how even the little children could guess that he was smart and noble due to his looks. That was directed towards Hegel being ugly ofc

[Anonymous No.19170205]

>>19170174
>Nietzsche: I don't like thing and here's why
>adjective, adjective, adjective, adjective...
Why is this man considered a philosopher again?

[Anonymous No.19170209]

>>19170164
>Being ugly doesn't make you less noble
But everyone ITT says nobles are genetically superior, and plebs and jews are subhumans? Ugliness is genetically superior now?

[Anonymous No.19170212]

>>19170184
人之美 is both genes and breeding, not one or the other. when royals do dysgenic things (like turning into inbred freaks) or unvirtuous low-class things, they lose their nobility.

[Anonymous No.19170216]

>>19170095
>The nobles are those who rule and who can trace their family roots back to the old rulers, kings and mythical founders, or who were ordained by their descendants.
>They deserve to rule because their ancestors were competent, not because of their own merit
Good lord, the sheer cuckoldry inherent to supporting monarchism is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.19170220]

>>19170193
Yeah, I mean one explanation is that it is indicative of virtue, which is likely the case. And that's true, but I actually think it just straight up is a virtue to be good looking. Especially if you take into account that nobles are those who have to carry themselves in a certain way and have to produce a certain impact on those around them. Appearance seems decisive in such matters.

[Anonymous No.19170226]

>>19170004
Well, muh genes is a better answer than muh shekels, even though it is an incomplete answer. In every hierarchical order, the merchants and bankers were at the bottom--only a step above the slaves/untouchables. And the reason is simple: the priest caste and the warrior caste should be motivated by something higher than material gain (this would be the case even in a meritocracy). Just read the Republic. I haven't said anything new here.

[Anonymous No.19170233]

>>19170209
You should read The Kings Two Bodies by Ernst Kantorowicz-something polish sounding last name

[Anonymous No.19170237]

>>19170226
But there seems something better than genetic links, namely virtues like strength, smarts, kindness, beauty... I don't see why a "plebian" with more virtues than a noble is not a noble himself.

[Anonymous No.19170239]

>>19169952
what does this have to do with literature

[Anonymous No.19170252]

>>19170239
Everything, because it has to do Jews and Jews write books. And arguable some Jews who write books are upper class.

[Anonymous No.19170257]

>>19170205
Because he realized philosophy is just adjectives and he was skilled at stringing them together to seem profound. Philosophy is rhetoric and he was good at it

[Anonymous No.19170265]

>>19170237
beauty, smarts and strength are genetic, kindness is breeding. a poor person who possesses all of them is indeed noble, and vice versa of course
>>19170239
everything

[Anonymous No.19170268]

>>19170252
Jews decide largely what gets published, too

[Anonymous No.19170269]

>>19170257
Philosophy is not rhetoric and if you were a noble you would know that.

[Anonymous No.19170274]

>>19170268
Exactly. This should be a permanent thread if anything.

>>19170265
Okay, so then we agree.

[Anonymous No.19170275]

>>19169952
off topic

[Anonymous No.19170276]

>>19170237
I don't think virtue can be taught (i.e. it's probably heritable to some extent). And even if it's not heritable, this problem can be solved with meritocracy. The people who would want to be King are the last people that should be. And the people that want to be in the warrior aristocracy or the priestly aristocracy have to display some inclination towards asceticism.

[Anonymous No.19170312]

>>19169952
they have always been the inversion of nobility. in rome, they were even considered as guilty of crimes against nature itself. they are the origin of the most hateful forms of slave morality, chriatianity and marxism. they may like to play dress up but their ugly and degenerate figures form a disgusting contrast with the suits that ultimately represent their opposite - beauty, nobility, life affirmation.

[Anonymous No.19170472]

meanwhile upperclass wh*toids dress like hobos

[Anonymous No.19170483]

>>19170472
oh wait hes jewish too lol. still a lot of rich white people dress like shit

[Anonymous No.19170526]

>>19169952
What makes the so called elite the upper class besides their money? What the fuck have they done in history besides create more wealth for their selves?

[Anonymous No.19170569]

>>19170526
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWt8ZIgDA9I

[Anonymous No.19170593]

>>19170483
That’s because they are merchants just like the Jews.
They have no noble or aristocratic qualities, the slobs live just like plebs they go to nightclubs and pass out in their own vomit just like the average pleb just in fancier and more expensiveness surroundings.

[Anonymous No.19170598]

>>19170526
International bankers like the lizard in your pic have world domination as a hobby.

[Anonymous No.19170634]

>>19170156
>Well it may be the case that rule has been genetic ever since the conception of time, but that doesn't make it justified. Old practices are not necessarily good ones.
No. But it surviving even into the modern day, as is the case with many tribes, means it is a good one. Is it the best one? Could be. It depends on circumstances.
>You sneakily justified the tradition
That's pretty insulting, and I don't think he was being 'sneaky', he spoke his mind plain and clear. There's nothing wrong if he does believe in monarchism.
>What if a non genetically linked agent has more of those virtues? Why are THEY not the ones with the RIGHT to lead?
Because there must be order for a society to function well. If anyone regardless of genetics could lead and hold or take power in government, you'd have what we have today. Democracy, ethnic recession, capable, great nations falling over into anarcho-tyranny, unsafe environments, invasion as a norm, etc.
Anyways, noble families included within the feudal system are big enough that you can rest assured you will find someone with some genetic ties that will have all the qualities you could want in a leader.
>Perhaps you want to claim outright that genetic link is all there is to justifying power. I would have to disagree, as I find this deeply implausible.
And you'd be right. Virtue, Faith, Blood, Soil, Ethics, Wisdom, all qualities, spiritual or material, those quantifiable, demonstrable and real that you can think of, are used to justify the king's rule, and the lack of any of those characteristics are judged against their would-be replacements, and if they are doing great harm to a nation, the nobility would surely take notice and protest, hold councils, petitions, etc until it is fixed. And if those fail, for one reason or another, and they are unpopular enough with the nobles that enough people decide it is doing harm to theirs or their nation, and after weighing the damages and costs against the possible replacements, and the king is still found wanting, an ousting is sure to happen.