The Problem of Intellicism, or Faux Intelligence by Association.

Intelligence is a much admired commodity in cultural circles. Though it is the biggest agent of inequality in society, even liberals and progressives who profess to be for equality love intelligence. Indeed, they take pride in being more intelligent than conservatives, even insisting that the difference is grounded in genetics, i.e. those with 'conservative genes' are less intelligent than those with 'liberal genes'.

Whatever the nature of intelligence may be, there is true intelligence and fake intelligence; there are truly intelligent ideas/statements and not-so-intelligent ideas/statements. Of course, something doesn't have to be true to be intelligent. Many brilliant scientists were brilliantly wrong about lots of things, and indeed science is a means by which intelligence hopes to arrive at the truth by the way of mistakes. Though intelligent  people can be wrong--due to misguided theories(however brilliant) or limited availability of data--, intelligence is a key factor that eventually allows intelligent people to arrive at the higher or deeper truth. Of course, intelligence alone can't accomplish this. It has to be intelligence wedded to courage, honesty, and integrity. Intelligence, after all, can just as easily be used to deceive, disguise, and trick people. Magic tricks and con-man tricks require intelligence, but that doesn't mean they express, reveal, or demonstrate truth. Advertising is run by intelligent men, but it's an industry of manipulation. And Bernie Madoff is no dummy, but he used his considerable intelligence to rob and rip off so many people--especially with the protection of his Jewish friends and enablers, that is until they had to throw him under the bus in order to save the bigger Jewish sharks on Wall Street.

Anyway, while there is genuine intelligence in search of genuine truth, the perception of intelligence isn't the same as the reality of intelligence. Untrue and unintelligent things can be perceived as being intelligent by the trickery of association and hype. This is a problem across the political spectrum. Among Christian conservatives, many are fooled by Creationism because of the 'intelligent'-looking 'scientific' package it comes in. Of course, most smart people are not impressed by any of this, but if you're a dumb conservative Christian, a Creationist 'science' display or book may impress you as being 'intelligent' and factually true.

But, the bigger problem of intellicism--the perception of something as being intelligent by association or hype--exists among liberals. If most smart conservatives are embarrassed by stuff like Creationism on their side and don't take that stuff seriously, many smart liberals are genuinely taken in by intellicism on the Left. Consider the bogus science of Stephen J. Gould. Though the man was a fraud, his association with Harvard, the hype by the Jewish-controlled media, and the fawning attention he's received from respectable people made his fraudulent ideas seem very 'intelligent'.
Another liberal who has gained tremendously from intellicism is Malcolm Gladwell, whose ideas are mostly embarrassingly bogus. But, he's been associated with fashionably sophisticated magazines like New Yorker, and he's been feted and honored by intelligent elites in NY and elsewhere. Therefore, even many smart liberals who ought to know better think Gladwell's ideas are full of brilliance and insight when, in fact, most of them are wishful fantasies of a fraudster.

Another problem of intellicism is the notion that liberal = intelligent. In fact, even if your average white liberal may be smarter than your average white conservative, the fact remains that most liberals aren't very smart. But they think they are smart simply because they are 'liberal'.
And since the not-so-smart liberals notice that very smart liberals support stuff like 'gay marriage' and 'open borders', they think espousing/embracing such issues and policies are truly intelligent and make them 'more intelligent by association'. But, this is really unthinking intellicism. Most liberals--who aren't very smart--came to embrace stuff like 'gay marriage' NOT BECAUSE they gave it much thought but because they came to believe it is the 'intelligent' thing to do. After all, the intelligent liberal elites seem to be pushing it.  How can such intelligent people be wrong? Thus, 'intelligence by association'.

As for James Watson's remark about black Africans, it doesn't matter if it's true or not in the liberal community. The fact is MOST intelligent people denounced him(for whatever reason), and therefore, his views came to be deemed as 'dumb and stupid', even though Watson has been among the most intelligent and more honest scientists in the world. As long as so many intelligent people denounced him, your average would-be-intelligent-but-not-so-intelligent liberal is bound to dismiss Watson's views as 'dumb and worthless' without any thought or investigation.

Liberals have this cachet of being 'intelligent', and this is why the liberal agenda has been such an easy sell to so many young people who want to feel insta-intelligent, or instelligent. Since real thought, real courage, and real integrity aren't easy to come by, they rely on intellicism and mindlessly agree with what the 'intelligent establishment' say. It's so much easier to be 'intelligent' that way.

Leftism's Edge in Attracting Intelligent People and How Liberal Egalitarianism/Universalism Justifies the Power of the Globalist Elite.

Crazy, radical, extreme, eccentric, and/or obsessive people may be dangerous or foolish, BUT interesting ideas arise from such people--just as most great art is made by 'crazy' artists.


Intelligent people may be drawn to leftism not so much for its truths as for its aura of excitement and revolutionism--commitment to New things, Bold ideas, Experimentation. Who gets more respect? A man who clings to established technology or a 'crazy' inventor who, despite countless mistakes, tries to come up with new gadgets? The left today may not be all that innovative--outside science and technology--, but the cache or conceit still remains. Young people are restless, and intelligent young even more so. They see the evidence of scientific, technological, economic, and social breakthroughs all around them. They are gonna gravitate to the side that stands for Change than for Constancy.
In addition, leftist egalitarianism combines moralism with radicalism. Left offers both the exciting bloodbath of revolution AND the sanctimony of saving mankind. Have the cake and eat it too--just like Che Guevara.
(To be sure, one could argue that conservatism is the real engine of progress since conservatives--at least the American kind--are conserving not so much the past nor how-things-used-to-be but the very engines--capitalism and individualism--that have brought about the greatest amount of change and innovation in American life and society. Conservatives could claim that they oppose liberalism or 'progressivism' for actually slowing down the pace of change in the name of 'social justice' or 'fairness'. Even so, many people see conservatism as seeking to preserve only the power and privilege of the rich or pandering to the ignorant populist passions of the unwashed masses. Liberalism/leftism has done a better job of marketing and promoting their ideas as progressive/revolutionary and in balancing this anxiety-ridden aspect--every call for change incites fear and apprehension--with promise of social safety-net. Left offers both fast and thrilling dive into the future and a cushion to ease the landing. This draws intelligent people fascinated in The New but also sensitive to socio-moral issues.)

In the scientific/technological fields, left and right are mostly on the same page. We all want MORE of it. But, people--even or especially those specializing in scientific or intellectual matters--are also creatively oriented, cultural, and moral beings. Love of Chemistry or Physics doesn't necessarily make a person liberal or conservative. Things OUTSIDE science/technology make people leftist or rightist. (There are anti-rationalist/anti-technology camps on both right and left, but they are negligible. Most people embrace science/technology). A smart liberal scientist most likely came to his ideology through arts, culture, or social ideas than through scientific controversies. Creationism and Intelligent Design notwitstanding, most conservatives are all for science--and the secular right is even scientifically minded than the secular left(especially in biology).

Why would a smart person aiming to specialize in fields unrelated to politics or social issues become liberal? Smart people generally have wide-ranging interests. Whatever their interest, they want to explore/discover NEW things. So, they naturally feel greater affinity with people with similar spirit in other areas. A smart scientific mind will likely identify with a ground-breaking avant-garde artist, a cutting-edge personality, or a radical intellectual as his counterparts. A smart chemist may have little in common with a radical intellectual but still sense a shared quality: passion to advance knowledge, to go the extra step.

Naturally, conservatism which apparently stresses allegiance to received wisdom may not appeal to the modern intelligent person. But, what about the modern right? Isn't it committed to science, the creative spirit, and new solutions to social problems? Modern right is not conservative in the old-fashioned sense. Even as it rejects the utopian illusions of the left, it seeks ever new and modern solutions to human problems and challenges. Also, its concept of hierarchy is based on nature than on tradition.


The modern right is open to new ideas, spiritual visions(beyond that of the established church), eccentricism, individual expression, and social experimentation by the state. It should be appealing to strong personalities, individually minded-people, crazy artist types, free thinkers, poets, and mavericks. But, there's one problem. The crimes of Nazism have forced the right to be moralistic, cautious, moderate, etc. These are not bad qualities in general but tend not to attract the most interesting people in arts, sciences, and other fields obsessed with being different, cutting-edge, contrarian, 'radical', etc.
The Left committed big historical crimes too, but they weren't as exposed nor stigmatized as the crimes of the Far Right. There's less taboo on the left, and so leftists can be as wild and radical as they wish, and this showmanship attracts smart 'cutting-edge' people. Since the right must behave well, it comes across as square and lame.

Irony: the Right is punished for good behavior while the left is admired for its bad or badass image. The Right must be good to be good. The left can be bad and still be good. 

-----------------------------------------

Isn't it funny that leftists/liberals tend to be elitist in practice yet egalitarian in theory?

Leftists and liberals are generally more ambitious for political power than conservatives. Liberal Ivy Leaguers are among the most competitive in the world. Silicon Valley is teeming with liberal geeks with dreams of becoming the next Bill Gates or Sergei Brin.
Hollywood directors wanna make the biggest blockbuster ever and win as many Oscars as possible.
Liberals and leftist compete for top academic and media positions. They are ruthless and pitiless in their drive to the top. In practice they are a bunch of Ayn Randians.
Or consider Warren Buffett or George Soros. They areny content with a few millions or even 100s of millions. Nor with a billion. They gotta have tens of billions.
Look at Hillary Clinton and Obama. They want Big Government so they can have MORE POWER. They want to rule us.

So, why are these profoundly hierarchical people so liberal/leftist/egalitarian in what they espouse? (And, don't forget the communists who grabbed all the power for themselves in actual practice.)
If liberalism and leftism are indeed egalitarian, the proof sure isn't in the pudding. Liberals and leftists want to rise above rest of humanity and become the best of the best and the highest of the highest.

And, that may be the whole trick or scam--though it could be these people actually believe in their own hogwash. Egalitarianism/leftism may simply be the most appealing moral rationale as to why certain people--the so-called 'progressives'--should be rich, powerful, influential, and have god-like power over us.

Right-wing hierarchy is more nakedly honest--whether it's from Ayn Rand or Adolf Hitler. It's 'we want power cuz we want it, and if you dont like it, suck on it.' It's a harder sell to the universal crowd than 'we want all the power and wealth in order to better serve you poor slobs.' Altruism may actually be an excuse for power than a relinquishing of power. Just look at Al Gore. For him to save the planet, it seems he must be the CEO of some multi-billion dollar company.

Leftism/liberalism is both egalitarian and universalist, therefore ostensibly on the side of the great majority of people around the world. But, consider the history of Christianity. It too was universalist, but that served as a rationale for Western Imperialism to conquer other lands and peoples for the purpose of sharing the Love of Christ with all of humanity. Globalism has often been justified in the name of bringing wealth, opportunities, and investments to nations around the world, but which group benefitted most? The global elite of course, or the global liberal elite.

Universalism and egalitarianism may also be favored since they make people feel better and lubricate social interactions on the global scale--like cocktails during lunch hour. Whether in business or politics, everyone feels better spouting the cliches about equality and universalism than about 'my race is smarter than yours', 'your race can kick my race's ass', or 'Muslims are gonna take over Europe.' Business and politics are games of interaction, handshakes, schmoozing, flattering, and deal-making. They are rarely about the naked truth. Cosmetic companies sell the dream that every woman can be beautiful rather than tell the truth that ugly women will always be ugly. People want to be beautiful--possess an elite quality--yet also believe that beauty can be accessed equally by all. A beautiful woman who honestly says "I'm beautiful and most women are ugly" will be hated. She will have to say--and even fool herself--that ALL WOMEN CAN BE BEAUTIFUL--like Oprah for instance! So, it could be that smart liberals want it all, but assuage their guilt and fear by telling us that ALL OF US can succeed like them IF ONLY we had the right social policies, which can only come about by all the power being in the hands of liberals/leftists; rich liberals feel better about themselves, and poor slobs feel less resentment if they swallow this horseshit.
 
The globalist liberal elite in the West may have to betray or abandon the interests of their poor racial/cultural/national brethren, BUT their goal is to boost their own power(and that of their children and associates)to the point where they become the new aristocracy.

Would the Right Attract More Intelligent People If It Hadn't Been for Nazism?

Suppose Nazism had been aborted and the modern(secular, spiritual, and/or socialist) right hadn't been tagged with a terrible taboo. Would there been lot more intelligent and creative people on the Right? Perhaps. The balance between the left and right in the sphere of intellectualism &creativity might be 70/30 than 95/5. 30% representation is solid and respectable.

Consider intellectualism and culture prior to WWII. Though the left was dominant, there were fertile thinkers on the right as well--and unburdened by taboos. Though the left had a decisive advantage over the religious right(with ever new discoveries in science) and over the privileged right(especially as WWI had been ignited by the aristocratic class and the Great Depression shook people's confidence in capitalism), the modern right was on the rise. Even prior to the perversions of Nazism, the mighty German universities were dominated by modern right thinkers. Many key artists of the time were on the Right--Yeats, Eliot, Pound, Henry Williamson, Celine, etc--or at least opposed to the Left(not least because of the horrors of communism). Many modern rightist ideas were so powerful that they came to define much of postwar culture; the twist is that since the modern right become taboo as a result of Nazism, the left appropriated most of its ideas.  Jean-Paul Sartre is considered one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, but a key influence on him was Martin Heidegger.  Michel Foucault was perhaps the most admired intellectual of the 60s/70s, but he owed more to the Nietzschean than to the Marxist tradition. Carl Jung's ideas were adopted by the 60s generation with its penchant for neo-pagan nature-worship. Mircea Eliade has a huge influence on the understanding of world cultures. Celine was one of the greatest inspirations for many modern writers--Philip Roth for one. Isaac Bashevis Singer was a great admirer of Knut Hamsun. Allen Ginsburg was a great admirer of Ezra Pound. Though Hermann Hesse was essentially apolitical and pacifist, the main inspirations for his art came from the right side of German culture--Nietzsche, German romanticism, neo-paganism, Jung, etc. His novels were read by many in the 60s counterculture. Joseph Campbell, a rightwing scholar of world cultures, exerted great influence on George Lucas and some hippies. Before revelations of his less wiser observations--such as 'they should put the Jews on the moon'--he was a favorite on PBS(with help of Bill Moyers).

Because the modern right was both materialistic and mythic, it had a certain organic advantage over the purely materialist left(at least in terms of theory). The Right had a better understanding of human psychology than the left for whom 'material reality determined consciousness'. Even leftist regimes would eventually gravitate toward rightwing ideas--nationalism, the concept of the sacred, reality of bio-social hierarchy and class divisions, etc--as time passed. The right understood that people lived with spiritual myth as well as material math. The modern right was both progressive but also realistic. The radical left was purely materialistic and idealistic.

Well, that was until Hitler came along and turned the modern right into a crazy radical ideology. Hitler did to the organic modern right what Sith and Vader did to Jedi-ism in Star Wars--mechanized, regimented, and poured concrete on what had been spiritually alive. Nazism cloned and genericized what had been eccentric, personal, and individual. Since then, modern rightist ideas became acceptable only when appropriated by the Left. Darwinism is okay as long as it's controlled by leftists. Paganism is okay as long as it's the flaky New Age kind. Socialism is good only when embraced by the left since liberals are frightened by any idea of the right holding control over Big Government and its vast powers/resources. (No problem if FDR or Obama makes government as big as possible but liberals shat bricks when they suspected George W. Bush of trying to set up a 'fascist order'.)

Even so, a survey of the post-war Third War indicates that modern rightism was a better formula for development around the world than leftism. Compare Franco's Spain with Eastern Europe, Pinochet's Chile with Castro's Cuba, quasi-fascist China since the early 80s with Maoist China from 1949 to 1976,  South Korea under militarist rule vs communist North Korea, Chiang Kai-shek's Taiwan vs Mao Zedong's China, Singapore with communist Vietnam before economic reforms, etc. Modern right succeed better but we simply can't say so.

The Difference between Constructive Conservatives and Status Quo Conservatives.

Shouldn't we make a distinction between the constructive right vs the status quo right? Think of Edmund Burke or the rightish-leaning Alexis de Tocqueville. Neither was opposed to change and indeed even welcomed it. What they opposed was radicalism--the idea that a bunch of smart men or firebrands could come up with surefire formula for creating utopia or the NEW MAN overnight. They weren't arch-reactionaries but men who believed that change must grow out of past achievements, wisdom, habits, and values tested over time and serving as the foundation of social stability. They were for cautious and thoughtful change as opposed to radical and violent change; they argued that tradition and/or past experiences were the crucial map for our trajectory into the future. People like this could be intelligent--both knowledgable about the past and open to new ideas and sensible progress.

But, there's another kind of conservatives who might be called "status quo conservatives". They generally tend to lack curiosity or knowledge of the past. Their mental life has little to do with reverence for past achievements or commitment to learn/remember/preserve. They may embrace certain SYMBOLS of traditionalism, but in many cases they lack real knowledge or interest. So, what they really want to preserve or conserve is their PRESENT privilege, advantages, or domination. They oppose change not because it's wrong or foolish but simply because it challenges or disrupts their own power or privilege. This is a purely selfish kind of conservatism, and it has existed in many communities. Certain white conservatives opposed anti-discriminatory laws simply because they threatened white privilege. And today, many blacks who benefit from Affirmative Action oppose any change or reform because it threatens their power. Whites may use the symbolism of glorious tradition and blacks may use the banner of justice(for past injustices), but it really comes down to preserving their CURRENT power.

The notion that conservatism is necessarily for the preservation of tradition or the past isn't really true. (Take the NPR vs Talk Radio Test. I'll bet NPR liberals are more curious about Western history, arts and culture--even of the West--than talk radio listeners are. Though liberals are caricatured as people who obsess romantically about non-Western cultures, the fact is that THE PAST IS A FOREIGN COUNTRY. Those with more interest in other cultures also tend to have more interest in their own past. Why else are most candidates for Ph.D in history liberals? Liberals are interested in matters beyond the HERE AND NOW.) For starters, many 'conservatives' throughout the ages have been ignorant and illiterate. In many third world countries, illiterate poor folks tend to oppose change more than the rich educated ones do. Is it because the poor and uneducated know more about the past and thus revere it? How much about the past or tradition can poor illiterate people possibly know? At best, they have a SENSE of the past and tradition-as-HABIT in daily life, but they have little or no real knowledge. Many people who claim to be traditional actually know very little about their own past, while many liberals who oppose tradition are very knowledgeable through book-reading and scholarly research. Maybe, we need to distinguish tradition-as-myth vs tradition-as-knowledge. The less you know, more mythic power it has over you. The more you know, the less magical hold it has on you--like getting closer to the Wizard exposed his bogusness in Oz-land.

A lot of liberal Bible Scholars are supremely well-read and knowledgeable about ancient and Biblical history. Some of the most passionate 'conservative' Christians mainly know the Bible through sermons, singing-and-dancing, and literal-minded reading of the text. The liberal KNOWS more about the tradition and 'believes' less, whereas a conservative knows less about the tradition but believes more. (At least that's the case with status quo conservativs as opposed to constructive conservatives like Burke who studied the past to fashion a better map for the future.)

A Response to "Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?" by Jason Richwine

http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives

"Who are smarter, liberals or conservatives? This is the kind of question that could spark fierce and endless debates between political opponents, but what if we could know, scientifically, that one side has the edge in brainpower? Should that change how we think about political issues?" -- Jason Richwine.

There are too many variables. As the article stated, there are more than one way to define a 'liberal'. Blacks vote for the 'liberal' Democratic party, but they are not liberal in the original sense. Blacks vote Democratic for narrow-minded tribal reasons than to extend their sympathy and understanding to non-blacks. If we include blacks and the underclass in general in the 'liberal camp', then liberals have both the most intelligent people and the dumbest people whereas conservatives largely occupy the middle. Most Jews are liberal but so are most NAMs(non-Asian minorities). Of course, one could argue whether Jews are truly liberal in the truest senses or liberal for tribal reasons--'is it good for the Jews?'

So, suppose we narrow down this debate by focusing ONLY on white gentiles. Are white liberals more intelligent than white conservatives? Even here, the 'liberal' or Democratic side will have very smart whites but also much of the less intelligent blue-collar class. Conservative whites will be dominant in the middle(above average IQ but not brilliant)--along with some super rich busisnessmen and a good number of Bible-thumping dimbulbs(and peckerwood KKK types).

Richwine is largely correct that smarter people are more likely to question authority, orthodoxy, or tradition, BUT this hasn't always been true. It is true ONLY IF society is essentially traditionalist and repressive, in which case smart people would indeed be thinking/acting against the conformist grain. But, suppose society is generally permissive, hedonistic, infantile, consumerist, and amnesiac where it takes no courage or intelligence to be 'different'? Look at most of our dumb young people; they lack a sense of tradition nor do they have respect for authority. Kids grow up with rock n roll, rebel-as-hero imagery(and even porn on the internet). In a permissive and amnesiac world, the person who seeks to preserve, maintain, and revive tradition may be the one going against the grain, thus more intelligent than the mindless dufuses into punkism, bad attitude, or 'radical' platitudes. Someone who eagerly reads about Thomas Jefferson, Catholic tradition, or the glory of Western Civ could well be more intelligent than a guy who wants to rock n roll, join silly protests at G-20 summits, or swallow every global warming cliche by Bono and Gore at Live Aid concerts. A college student with real passion for Dante and Shakespeare may be smarter than a PC drone who reads literature only as ideological texts(as his professors taught him).
Also, while every brilliant NEW idea or ism may have been the work of a high intelligent person, those following in his footsteps tend to be less intelligent. Marx was super smart, Lenin and Trotsky were very smart, but Marxists got dumber and dumber along the way. The early Marxists were pioneers, later ones were mere sheep--which goes to show every 'liberal' or 'leftist' idea eventually turns 'conservative'. By the 1960s, Marxists were the 'conservatives' in Russia.

There also seems to be a snowball effect that determines how certain people think and act. If word gets out that smart people are supposed to think so-and-so, smart kids will gravitate toward those ideas via intellectual peer pressure without much resistance or skepticism.

Nor can 'smart stuff' be disassociated from the politics of morality. Indeed, many smart people have been subtly bullied into liberal or leftist orthodoxy. Emotionalism colors or even overrides intellectualism. For example, PBS and NPR--'smart stuff' for 'smart people'--sermonize about slavery, discrimination, 'racism', 'sexism', etc and champion egalitarianism as a secular religion. Thus, Many liberals refuse to consider the reality of race--though science is proving otherwise--because they've been morally and emotionally pressured to embrace 'anti-racism', 'progressivism' & 'diversity' as moral imperatives(masquerading as intellectual ideas or scientific truth). So, even if liberalism may indeed attract more intelligent people, it doesn't necessarily permit the full-range of intellectual freedom. (Under Marxism, one could be as intelligent as he wanted--as long as he confirmed the scientific truth of Marxism. Under Nazism, one could be as intelligent as one wanted--as long as one rejected 'Jewish science'.) Indeed, intelligence + courage is often prohibited or censored on the Left. Edwin O Wilson, James Watson, and William Shockley were attacked or vilified not for their lack of intelligence but for their courage to say what they really believe. A liberal who believes in evolution may be smarter than a conservative who believes in creationism, but a liberal is allowed to understand and study evolution only in a way that doesn't violate EGALITARIANISM. Radical correctness, no less than conservative orthodoxy, can stifle or suppress true intelligence and truth-seeking.

Also, I'm not sure that intelligence alone accounts for a person's willingness to challenge authority, tradition, or orthodoxy. There are forces of personality and social context to consider as well. A not-too-smart person with a strong personality may be more willing to challenge authority than a smart timid person. A smart Asian student is probably more likely to obey the teacher than a wild but not-too-smart black kid who refuses to sit still and loves to upset the order in the classroom.

And, a lot of well-mannered bland white liberals are practicing only the CONCEIT of being skeptical and intelligent because, in fact, all they ever do is nod their heads to whatever PC central--media and academia--tells them to think and do. They've learned to put on the 'smart' label than to think honestly or courageously. Today, if you simply agree with Jared Diamond on everything, you're smart. If you agree with Jared Taylor, you're not only dumb but EVIL. Notice that a lot of 'smart' liberals pat themselves on the back by calling everything they don't like 'racist', 'sexist', or 'fascist'.

Intelligence must also be considered within the social context. The notion that a smart person must think original thoughts or make new discoveries is a Hellenic & modern European idea/ideal. In most civilizations throughout history, the most intelligent people were expected to uphold tradition, preserve cultural memory, and maintain the social order. Indeed, preserving tradition and sacred texts was extremely time-consuming and demanded complete devotion. Books were copied page by page by scribes. Just maintaining the existing knowledge and tradition was a full-time job. Since reading materials were precious before the rise of the modern printing press, there was a much greater sense of REVERENCE than rebellion against knowledge handed down through the ages. (The wily and individualistic ancient Greeks were truly an anomaly in this regard.) Smart people just accepted Aristotle's 'discoveries' to be true for centuries.

In Stanley Kubrick's SPARTACUS, the rich and intelligent Crassus maintains the social/political order. Roman society groomed smart people to defend the order as it were. The people who rise up against Imperial Rome in the movie are the illiterate gladiators. Spartacus may have been a naturally smart guy, but his reason for rebelling had little to do with intelligence but desire for freedom.

Smart Jews and Chinese were deeply conservative for 1000s of yrs. Their histories demonstrate that intelligence can co-exist with traditionalism. Both Jews and Chinese revered their ancient texts and read them over and over;  they contemplated and interpreted than rejected or rebelled against those texts. God or Confucius was not not be questioned nor challenged(at least not in a fundamental way)... but his wisdom could be analyzed, debated, given a new subtle twist here and there. Of course, Jews were better thinkers than the Chinese. Chinese saw social reality in terms of teacher and student, whereby the student was supposed to obey the teacher and memorize things by rote. Jewish rabbis, on the other hand, encouraged their students to not just read the Bible but also to argue and find their own interpretations--a teaching method shared by certain schools of Buddhism with the use of koans. The key relationship between the rabbis and students was more like Judge and Lawyer. The Judge was indeed supreme, but the lawyer could make his case before the judge--like when Abraham pleaded with God to save Sodom and Gomorrah. God demanded obedience, but He also preferred strong personalities like Moses and David who had the will to do things their way. God didn't just want his flock to follow his orders but undergo some inner turmoil--through mistakes and foolishness--to realize what was right/wrong and act according to genuine moral understanding than mere blind obedience.

For most of Jewish history, the smartest kids were expected to preserve the tradition and go into Talmudic studies. In China, the smartest were chosen to become scholar-bureaucrats whose purpose was to maintain the status quo than to change society. In this kind of rigid world, challenge to authority was more likely to come from unwashed elements or barbarian bandits. In Akira Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA, a poor thief starts out as a free soul cyincal of authority but turns more 'conservative' after he's brought into the high-n-mighty 'intelligent' world of the warlord clan. In old Japan--and even in new Japan to some extent--, intelligence is synonymous with learning and revering knowledge-as-it-exists than rebelling against it.