Brilliant John Gray interview in the New Statesman.

I have read your post and the various replies and comments with a mixture of deep amusement and absolute horror. As a woman, the thought of returning to a patriarchal society makes me feel uncomfortable. As a mother and someone who was once a child, the thought of child labour also causes me to feel uncomfortable. It's one thing if a teenager actively wants to do a paper round, or take on a Saturday job to earn a bit of extra pocket money, but if you're suggesting child labour be compulsory, then it is not a view I share.

The only thing I possibly do agree with is your view of modern state education. There is much my parents were taught at school that I wasn't, and there is much I was taught that my adult son wasn't. It seems to have been the case for decades that if it's predicted that there will be a shortage of skilled employees in a particular profession, the education system will prioritise teaching the subjects required for those professions. This is all well and good for students who may wish to pursue a career in those professions and/or have have an interest in those subjects. For those who aren't suited to academia and/or have no idea what they think they would like to do job-wise when they leave compulsory education, it's a problem.

Even if I choose not to do so, I would hate to lose my right to vote. If I was faced with the prospect of having an unelected dictator that couldn't be held to account, I think I'd be wanting to flee the UK. For me, the kind of society you strongly appear to desire is my idea of a living nightmare. 

Cool username, I like it. I am not surprised by your reaction, I don't like my views in terms of the idea of them. I am opposed to the patriarchy and have been limited by it in my own life. I actually like and respect women, there intellect and emotions, in the patriarchy that is rejected often. In terms of child labor, of course I am talking about part time work for children like paper rounds or doing jobs with there family sometimes and getting paid for. I think children should be allowed to leave school at 13 if they have paid work or apprenticeships to go into. 

The problem with modern state education is that its based on DEI and equality, not on preparing men and women for death, that they may live a just and moral life. That was the purpose of the classical Christian education system, which should be implemented from the age of 5 until 15. With the less academically capable people going to work schemes at the age of 11 and the smarter children going into academic aspects of education. The problem is sex integration of education has been a disaster, having selection at 16 rather than 11 has been a disaster and the push for more people to go to university has ruining that entire sector of the economy. I myself with my autism really struggled in school because I like being by myself and other people dis-regulate me, so my brain struggled to function, but I am actually highly aware person. 

However my focus isn't on the minority aspect of society, but the majority of Neuro-typical people, what they need to function best and achieve positive outcomes for them. Lord Salisbury/Tesla/Newton were all autistic, in a deeply hierarchical High Aristocratic society and they achieved amazing things which changed our understanding of the world. 

I don't vote anymore because I don't want to consent to what the state is doing. We have never had a unelected dictator in Britain, apart from Cromwell who overthrew the High state. Its a non-sequitur in the case of Britain that we would have a dictatorship without universal voting rights. 

In WW1 the Liberal low state murdered 1,000,000 British men, conscripted and genocided them, it did the same thing again in WW2 to the tune of 400,000 men. In 30 years from 1990-2020 an estimated 100,000 English children were groomed, raped and sold into sex slavery by criminal gangs operating within the South Asian/Muslim community, dozens of children/family members were murdered by these gangs, this was covered up and denied by the Liberal state for decades in the name of anti-racism ideology. The Liberal state has bankrupt Britain 2 times, likely a third time soon. We have gone from the most powerful, richest, freest country on the face of the earth to a impoverish, weak fractured country since the 1906 general election. I am trying to come up with a way to end the Liberal state and replace it with something preferable. The best thing I can think of is to restore the old ruling class/structure of the state which is more honest and functions as intended. 

I hope you can understand where I am coming from here. Thanks. 

Be careful that you don't have an unrealistically rose-tinted view of the past. There are failings in the current system, but a simple return to the past is not the solution.

If you took the 600 richest in the country and put them in charge, with no way to remove them, would it be ideal? This is effectively what what the old aristocrat gentry were.

A rigid class system is unlikely to create a worthy meritocracy. Do you want your fortunes to depend on wealthy benefactors and their whims?

Newton got to Cambridge through the recommendation of an uncle. For the first 3 years he was a valet to help pay for it, before he got a scholarship.

Progress was based on who you knew, same as it always has been. How many other Newton's didn't, and still don't, have the right connections?

You can be justly frustrated with the current lack of social mobility, but that is something that isn't easily fixed.

There is a fundamental problem - people want things to be fair, but there is way to really achieve it because life is not fair. All people are not equal. Who, what and why you reward certain things is at the root of any system.

Be careful that you don't have an unrealistically rose-tinted view of the past. There are failings in the current system, but a simple return to the past is not the solution.

If you took the 600 richest in the country and put them in charge, with no way to remove them, would it be ideal? This is effectively what what the old aristocrat gentry were.

A rigid class system is unlikely to create a worthy meritocracy. Do you want your fortunes to depend on wealthy benefactors and their whims?

Newton got to Cambridge through the recommendation of an uncle. For the first 3 years he was a valet to help pay for it, before he got a scholarship.

Progress was based on who you knew, same as it always has been. How many other Newton's didn't, and still don't, have the right connections?

You can be justly frustrated with the current lack of social mobility, but that is something that isn't easily fixed.

There is a fundamental problem - people want things to be fair, but there is way to really achieve it because life is not fair. All people are not equal. Who, what and why you reward certain things is at the root of any system.

Thanks for that.

Having decided to unlearn the 'Second-Class Citizen' mindset us NI Catholics had imposed on us, I realise now, through research, that a Classical Society is the least-corrupt form of Governance. Prime Example being the Austrian Empire being a cultural and economic hub during the Classical era. Plus, Mozart composed Requiem Masses.

America tried to implement a Constitutional Republic, rather than a Democracy, at first. However, their initial French Allies became envious and sought to undermine attempts to reconcile America and Britain.

Everything fell apart once Academics sought to promote 'Anti-Colonialism'. The intent was to help poorer nations. However, it left them indebted to the World Bank. Nowadays, Philanthropy is usurped by Administration.

Well my view is the opposite to be honest, I look at the Aristocracy and I think, well that's just better than the Liberal democratic system we have now. It was the Aristocracy who ended slavery, who undertook the industrial revolution, the technological revolution too. It was them to made Britain rich, powerful, free. It was the Liberal state which destroyed all that. 

The Aristocracy we operating in a system where they were constrained by the Liberals and the Liberals constrained by the Aristocracy. In a unitary Parliamentary system, the common law, the Church and so on. Who invented High culture? Who formed Parliament and the common law? Who created the British civil service? It came from the Aristocracy, not from Liberalism. 

Meritocracy is a lie for two reasons 'who chooses what a merit is? and as soon as the first generation of grammar school children got into power they destroyed the grammar schools so they would remain in power. Who created the grammar schools in the first place? The Aristocracy. 

Indeed, Newton did that. I don't think there are other Newton's, I think that level of genius is incredibly rare and its only limited by a lower grade education system. I think doing things based on who you know is better for changing society than anything else. 

Social mobility was better under the Aristocracy than today, look at the level of public life today, its terrible. No debate is interesting on TV at all. Anyone worth anything is old like the man I made this thread about. Yet there are no old people in power now. And the English class system was never rigid. What I am frustrated by is the current system been worse on its own terms than the old system, and be act like the old system was some horrific reality which we can't go back to. 

I honestly think nepotism/hierarchy/hereditary succession is the fairest way to do things, at least within part of society to constrain the other ways people gain power/wealth.