The Elite Know What Is Best For Us

The Elite Know What Is Best For Us

That old saw, “If you’re so smart how come you aren’t rich?” never goes out of style. Indeed, we measure success largely by the accumulation of wealth as if money and brains were the causes of success. We humans tend to be far more irrational than we like to admit. The human condition is not one of equality of outcome. We are uniform in our physical looks or capabilities, we are not uniform in our mental capacity, we are not uniform in our temperaments or personalities. That causes a few problems for those who believe in egalitarianism where everyone is exactly equal in all respects to everyone else. We can see the problems of believing that everyone is alike. We come up with concepts like the “Common Man” as if there really such a class of individuals. Therefore we can aver that the common man wants peace and prosperity even if we never find this person. We talk in law of the ordinary and prudent man as if such an individual really exists. We speak of how individuals in society should act and think, after all, isn’t that what the public schools are suppose to do, train us to think and act alike? And if you weren’t the “A” student if was not the teacher’s fault, it was yours or your parents or some other reason why your testing results are less than perfect. The problem with state run public education is that it rests on the premise that we are all identical educational units and there exists some body of knowledge and skills that must fit all students.

The enlightenment changed our view of the world for the liberal philosopher believed that royalty no longer held divine sanction by God. Indeed, Elizabeth I of England laid the foundation to the idea that kings and queens no longer ruled by divine right when she had her sister, Mary, Queen of Scots, killed. To be fair, Mary was just a eager to rid herself of her stepsister, a few decades later the Puritans would rid themselves King Charles. Apparently he was not deemed worthy of having been given divine rights having the wrong religious convictions. Future kings of England would rule by the consent of Parliament, which was composed of the nobility and some successful middle class business men. Today the idea that the United Kingdom really needs Charles II is tenuous at best and he may become the last King of England. Of course the Renaissance led to the idea that man is on a constant journey to perfect himself not only for entrance into heaven but as the general condition of mankind. If we, as humans, are not progressing to some ideal of perfection on this earth then we are guilty of being sinful. Now days we call it “Not Living Up To Our Potential” and shame on any human whop shies away from that progress. This, of course brings up a few questions, one of which is what constitutes perfection as a human being? Two or three hundred years ago it was to become godly in awareness and in deed. Today many believe that we must achieve equity, justice, and acceptance of any and all progressive ideals. I shutter at that thought.

So we endure a flatulence of ideals starting with intersectionality (let us call that one extreme individualism conjoined with acceptance of the need progressive creed), structural racism (another term that lacks true definition), and “White Privilege”, as if such a state of public recognition ever existed. We might mention in passing that Political Science was sup[pose to be a science as was Sociology (bless then Frenchies for that one). And lest we forget the theories of economics that has garnered scientific status due to the use of mathematical equations (some of which have a basis in statistical evaluation and many are just so much ado about nothing) but which tends to forget that economics is based greatly on human behavior which does not have a set of laws that describe how, exactly, humans act. You may by now have come to the conclusion that academia passes a lot of gas off as true knowledge. Science is the last bastion of logic and reason assuming you don’t drag Quantum Behavior into the discussion which few of us can know much about. The Arts, the Humanities, and the Social Sciences leave much to be desired as disciplines of any scientific thought. The best that these disciplines can do is to look through a dark glass and imagine what may be possible. I should not leave out Business Management from this account for that is about theories of how we manage individual in the business tormentor. It relies more on the psychology of human behavior than any scientific principles.

All of this begs the question of why should we examine these subjects? Ah, the study of authority rears its ugly head. If one wishes to know more about the human condition then one should study both small and large group behavior. For all those feminists out there, groups are based on hierarchy whether it be patriarchal or maternal. All vertebrae groups of animals order themselves into hierarchies. This is a natural development and also contrary to many leftist progressive theories of social organization. Intersectionality is suppose to flatten all human hierarchies but that contradict the natural order of human survival. The other problem is the thought that diversity leads to equality, it does not. We humans as many others in the animal kingdom do not value diversity of diversity’s sake. We do not tolerate outliers per se as they tend to constitute a danger to our being. We like a certain amount of homogeneity in our species. And we rank order individuals according to a number of ideals such as beauty, strength, masculinity, femininity, and even intelligence, though those who are too high in IQ are looked upon with suspension as are those whose IQ are much too low. One further note is that we look for leaders for our safety, so we tend to align ourselves to those who represent our ideals, our morals, and our goals.

All of this brings us back to the problems inherent in human behavior. We associate ourselves with those others with which we have common interests, common ties. We become aggregates of larger groups keeping our own self identity and while adding those identifiers of each successively larger group. Family, kinship, work group, fraternal group, political party, city, state, region, and country. This is the natural progression of identification and yet our elites now tell us that we must change this process. The state must become our true identity, all other levels must be destroyed. The state is to become our new religion and believe me it is a jealous god and will not tolerate any other god before it.

How did this belief of the elites come about? Education is a fine thing, it challenges our beliefs and our thinking. For the common man beliefs are taught from birth and rarely challenged, thinking is not a popular past time, besides, most men and women can barely engage in that process and most find no real need. We find it easier to follow the herd as it may be. But more than a few others challenge what they are taught, challenge the accepted way of living, and explore the world and universe for themselves. The very few take their exploration much further, become the statistical outliers in thinking for themselves. Thus the physical world is explored and science become their master. And we have those few who consider the world of philosophy, a study that attempts to make sense out of a physical and mental world that appears disordered. Mankind as a whole dislikes chaos and seeks order, This is a natural consequence of man’s being engaged with the world. We often call these few wise men and look to them for some guidance when things go wrong, otherwise we ignore them as being unnecessary to our daily living.

Leaders arise in out groups and societies usually according to ability but not always. Mother and Father are the natural leaders of our family and as they age they become our elders who may or may not possess much wisdom through experience. Leaders arise in our neighborhoods and at a higher level as neighborhoods are grouped into cities. And again as cities are grouped into states and then regions and finally nations. Such leaders are usually above average in mental ability as well as social ability. We do not vote into public office men and women we hate. But all leaders have vested interests and those interests may not include our well being as citizens. Politics is the art, not science, of governing others. Decisions must be made for the groups, that’s why we have leaders. Groups have boundaries and as one may be member of many groups these boundaries overlap. A leader either leads by physical might or by persuasion and sometimes by a combination or both.

Our current flock of elites are really no different from any of us save the fact that they usually gamed the system and become wealthy and powerful. If one inquires into the private lives and histories

of our billionaire and millionaire class we would see that none of them are true geniuses IQ wise but are what can be called talented or about two standard deviations above the norm. Bill Gates did not invent a computer operating system, he worked for a software engineer who invented it and essentially stole that system. He was a dropout from Harvard and never took a computer engineering course of software development course in his life. His road to wealth was on of great luck, not skill. Along the way other individuals who ran computer companies made the mistakes that enabled Gates to amass a great fortune and his was able to hire talented individuals to do most of the heavy lifting while he remained the ‘Idea” man, the one with a vision. But visions have short life spans even with the great marketing ability of a Steve Jobs. Leaders organize situations and opportunities but they all may not be successful. Leaders often fail, some many times before finally discovering what is successful The great danger in being a leader is committing the “Sin of Hubris”, or believing in your own bullshit. Well that is a crude way of saying infallibility, but true enough. Henry Ford almost killed his motor company, the same can be said for other great innovators such as Edison.

On the political level we see much the same results. Adolf Hitler is still the greatest example of the Sin of Hubris and some twenty million Germans died for that sin. He was the Piped Piper of stupidity. Today we have the “New Economic Forum” attempting to create the new world order. Hubris is infectious for now I see that mama’s boy Macron calling for a one world government of which he expects to run with the complicity of other elites. Of course these elites know what is best for us, just ask them. Is world hunger a problem, let the people eat insects, no need to keep a can of Raid in the house. Their visions can be measured in sure stupidity. They may be above average in intelligence but tend to below average in common sense. We will own nothing and be happy while they will own everything and be happier.