Stop Using the Term 'Elites'

Dictionary.com - noun 1. (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered  collectively, as of a group or class of persons.  

 

It's become fashionable to refer to the class of people currently at the helm in the western world as 'elites'. I'm writing this to voice my opposition, in the strongest possible terms, to the adoption of this descriptor, and humbly request that you never, ever, use it again in this context.   

 

Throughout most of human history, societies and states strove mightily to assure the crafting of a well-structured hierarchy, one in which the best and brightest in any given field would be promoted swiftly through the ranks, and thus attain maximum power and influence accordingly, to best guide, shape, and mold his culture and kin in the most effective and healthy manner possible.  To my eye and personal judgment, this is both healthy and just. Allowing certain individuals to act as the representatives of the collective will of the people as a whole, and taking great care to assure these representatives possess the traits and attributes the people prize most greatly, is a natural structure to be applauded. . . a meritocracy of sorts that served to 'reward' keen judgment, nobility, wisdom, utilitarian intellect, and leadership, insofar as bearing the burden of your entire nation/kin is a reward.

 

This human hierarchical structure also bore striking resemblance to the examples provided for us by nature, amongst those species that develop hierarchies of their own. This might best be described as 'survival of the fittest', with the significant caveat of insisting that the leadership not just be individually fit, but also most beneficial to the group as a whole. In other words, the fittest individual that also seems to have the groups best interests at heart.  

 

This was our winning recipe, for countless generations.   It wasn't perfect, but it was an efficient ordering mechanism, creating order.

 

Along came the French and bolshevik revolutions, and upended everything over the span of a few generations. Our leadership and governship has transferred from a bloodline arisocracy, in which a singular individual has ultimate personal responsibility for the fortunes of his people, to the rule of the merchant class, and one might even go so far as to say a merchant caste.   

 

A bloodline Aristocrat, under ideal conditions, would've been born and bred for rulership, and given a careful and comprehensive education accordingly, with the aim of creating the most broadly educated and well-rounded steward of ultimate power that the nation and its inheritance and traditions were capable of producing. The best minds of the nation would flock to the court, painstakingly tutoring the future king, attempting to cover every concievable eventuality, laboring to create a strong foundation capable of taking on any obstacle, hopefully with nobility and grace, and implanting within the young pupil the majesty and importance of the position he would soon take on.   

 

Our merchant class collective, of course, has been raised very differently. More often than not they do attend the most prestigious schools, and are educated and conditioned with the aim of inculcating an agility in handling a plethora of eventualities, twists and turns life might take. . but the similarities end here. The merchant class education is of a much narrower sort. It focuses not on leadership, nobility, and virtue, but rather shrewdness, cleverness, and leveraging intellect to maximize personal gain at the cost of others.   

 

With the Aristocracy dead and gone, it was only natural that the next most powerful force would saunter into their place, unrivaled and unchecked. However, the people were not (and are not still) quite ready to bend their knee to a mere merchant, after countless generations of Kings claiming divine inspiration by God himself. Shrewdly and cleverly, though rather organically, the merchant class instead chose to rule behind the scenes. Figureheads and puppets were thrust into the foreground, those that best managed to ape the chracteristics we'd come to expect from our leadership, and especially those best able to confidently read a well-written speech to a crowd, and these figureheads then acted as the conduit of power, the implementation arm of the merchant classes any and every wish.  

 

With each passing generation, the passing of this torch becomes more pervasive, and more complete. As I write these words, there is scarcely a single vestige of the old aristocratic class/caste with real and expansive power, to any meaningful degree. Those that remain have been almost wholly subsumed and/or made subservient to their new merchant masters, as failing to do so would spell the immediate end of their influence. The baton has been passed, and our world is now run, quite literally, by a merchant class.   

 

Have we gained, or lost, from this transition?  

 

In my view, we've lost, a great deal, and this shift has done immeasurable harm, much of which will likely take generations to unravel. Those currently manning the levers of power, speaking broadly, are not leaders. They are not born or bred or educated to be leaders of men, but rather to be shepherds, controllers, manipulators, and, yes, deceivers. Broadly speaking, these are men who seek self-interest above all else, and serve the almighty dollar far above and beyond any other man or culture or people. We've evolved from leaders that serve and aspire to the model of Christ, a figure who (regardless of your personal beliefs) we as a people attached every lofty adjective to: nobility, wisdom, grace, harmony, overflowing spirit. . . to a collective of 'leaders' that serve moloch, and are often motivated by generations of bitterness and ressentiment (used in the manner of the French) to all those in superior positions. More often than not they feel little if any national pride or sentiment, nor any attachment to family, race, state or nation, and consider such attachments to be naive or antiquated.   

 

This is a subject not discussed in public, certainly not in any objective or in-depth manner, and for good reason: the mere discussion itself, the mere giving voice and clarity to the situation, is an extreme threat to our new power brokers.   

 

I'll end with some bluntness, as I feel it practically screams to be written. We're currently goverened by middlemen, shopkeeps, and parasitic forces. Many seem to have a sexual prediliction for children.  To utter the word 'elite' in connection with these men is utter blasphemy, and the height of intellectual and linguistic laziness.   

 

Until we have clarity, our energies are dissipated, and making progress towards a better world is made infinitely less efficient because of it.   

 

I've come to use 'parasites' as my descriptor. initially I thought it too harsh, but over time I've found it to be just, and fitting. I don't mean to lecture others on word choice, but in this case I felt such a pressing need that I couldn't hold back any longer.  

 

Elites are superior, capable men, who climb hierarchies due to a relative excess of merit and leadership instincts. Our current leaders are largely usurers, middlemen, shopkeeps and deceivers, more than willing to fleece entire nations for profit, or to send our sons and daughters to fight and die for the slightest gain to their bottom line.  

 

Ignoble, petty, base, smarmy. . . these are not traits of 'elite' men. 

 

 

 

"The superior man understands what is Right. 

The inferior man understands what will sell."  

-- Confucius

 

 

 

"For, my brothers, the best should rule, the best also want to rule.

And where the doctrine is different, there the best is lacking."  

-- Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra