>tfw you realize only a handful of super intelligent individuals

the ultimate redpill
we are all plebs

>>2897541
Is this supposed to be sad or something

Imagine playing minecraft without knowing the rules. How long would it take to discover some random crafting recipe?

IRL is like that, there ae plenty of smart people, they just never stumbled across iron smelting or a better saddle that allows horses to breathe better or somesuch. Being smart improved their chances but chance had a lot to do with it.

Nah man, the world is built on the backs of an average guy.

Who feeds the king?
Who teaches the scientist?
Who births the generations?

Say 1 person is removed from history. What happens to his descendants? They are butterflied out. Say one of said descendants is someone who meets someone in a cafe and eventually births someone who is a low impact figure of history (e.g. 9th Century non-notable inventor). However, this inventor managed the economy of some European principality. What happens when this guy is gone? How do we know who our descendants will be? Even if we don't have descendants, maybe we influenced someone who will be important.

So who really contributed to history? Those who took glory, or those people who made it possible for the glory to occur

>>2897541
Who feeds you?
Who clothes you?
Who educates you?
Who protects you?
Who loves you? (That was a trick question; the answer is no one.)

'Common' people, that's who.

>>2897574
>Who feeds the king?
slaves who'll be forgotten by history

>Who teaches the scientist?
a privately hired tutor who'll be forgotten by history

>Who births the generations?
the success alpha males who mates who will be remembered by history

>>2897581

>Who feeds you?
My local grocery store.

>Who clothes you?
My local shopping store.

>Who educates you?
Youtube, Udemy, Coursera etc.

>Who protects you?
No one but myself.

Who loves you?
Your mum

File: SPONS.jpg (47KB, 500x395px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x395px

>>2897541
>responsible for all the inventions and technology

Not really. Every invention or discovery was built on previous inventions and contributions by others. Even individuals such as Einstein or Newton could not have achieved what they have without previous discoveries. And their discoveries would be worthless without others to advance them or to implement them (such as engineers and such).

We all collectively contribute, even how small your contribution might seem. Even if you're a small farmer, for example, your food will sustain the scientific advancement.

>>2897574
>muh humble salt of the earth workers
kill 100 workers and productivity is reduced 0.0000001%

kill 100 scientists and we are set back decades

Without science workers will just build pointless shit like pyramids.

>>2897588
So, you concede the point?

>>Who protects you?
>No one but myself.
Yes, I'm sure your magnificent Krav Maga skills and your M4 make the police obsolete.

>>2897599

This.

If we ever have AI and robot assistants to the level that that can do most jobs, there would literally be no need for billions of useless eaters on this planet anymore.

File: katter.jpg (36KB, 400x278px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x278px

The result of someone inventing something is mostly because it happened by accident, or a curious experiment proving to be useful at the right time, and an improvement on what already existed.

Inventions today are made for the sake of it by people who put in fucktons of time into a special subject.

>>2897614
Take for example fiberglass. A terrible teacher did some stupid experiment where he melted part of a glass rod, and fired it with a crossbow. Everyone in the class then realized that the threads were strong, then they began mass producing it because it happened to be useful.

>>2897614
>>2897618

Oh please. These "accident" backstories are just myths to make brainlets feel good about themselves, that "anyone can do it!"

File: 1473368833005.jpg (26KB, 524x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 524x400px

yes... and?

This is why we have nationalism/"muh herd". We don't remember ever soldier of Napoleon's army but each one of them took pride in being a part of Napoleon's army. Likewise, we can take pride in what great Europeans have accomplished because we are ourselves European, these great men rise out of us, as Excalibur rises out of the lake... The lady? destiny...

Nietzsche wrote, in no. 287 of The Will to Power: 'My philosophy aims at an ordering of rank: not at individualistic morality.’ and 'the leaders of the herd require a fundamentally different valuation for their actions.' Nietzsche is aiming at a return to aristocraticism. Guénon, at the beginning of the 20th century, would write of the union of hierarchy, where each social caste understand their position in the greater social order.

This relies on the deification of great men into demi-gods. Napoleon, Goethe, Caesar, etc. are such men. They have been mythologised, and were in their lives deified, into pagan gods. When we discuss these men we do not consider them merely men, but as something more, as forces of nature and history--- as gods. In a healthy aristocratic society, such great men are also seen this way. They are not simply "better men", but cease to be men at all. The great emperor, king, or nobleman, would become gods.

Countries are hypostatised on 4chan, and are treated as individuals. We talk of "Germany", "UK", etc. as individuals. The aristocrat was that which we call "Germany", "UK", etc. This is why aristocrats were spoken to as "noble Exeter", or "my good friend, Northumberland", etc. The aristocrat was the identity, and so the men of Exeter would die for Exeter, and "my Lord, Exeter". This is a healthy society. Just because 'a people is a detour of nature to get to six or seven great men' doesn't mean the people are unnecessary, it means they're a pre-requisite for greatness.

>>2897634
I think you're projecting your own values into Nietzsche's

>>2897634
>Nietzsche promoted slave morality

>>2897662
other way around

>>2897541

so what