The question is nonsense though. To
become a member of the elite nowadays you have to be either human slime, or at least submit to human slime.
The "power corrupts" dictum rings true as always. Even if you were inherently good before, once in power you feel the pressure to keep it, there is more to lose so you take slights more to heart, you become a minority battling to keep his place above a minority, and so on.
One thing that has surprised me the most here though, is the tendency just to leave it at "the elites are bad". It smacks of a very zelcorpion-like "its all hopeless because the conspiracies are so vast and the elites so remote and powerful".
I forwarded this question to Roosh in his Q&A, and in spite of answering I think he'll admit he hasn't really come up with a clear reason:
Quote:Quote:
You constantly refer to the elites and the establishment (i.e. as a specific group of people) as the cause of the west’s ills. In your opinion, why is it that the elites of the 21st century west are destructive, whereas in the 17th,18th&19th centuries (i.e. enlightenment onwards until WW1) they were constructive
Constitution is everything. The elites of Saudi Arabia are the members of the Saud family's absolute monarchy. The elites of Sweden are the worst examples of democratic degeneracy known to man. Much better social examples have landed somewhere in between.
Constitution is the question of "who in a society has what powers". It is a question older than Aristotle (or for you young readers: "the bedrock philosopher of Cernovich's Gorilla Mindset"), who himself collected 150 constitutions of different states from around that period (300s BC).
Even back then, everybody will completely aware of good elites and bad elites. They had been aware of it for millennia. None of them spoke well of the Greek democracy (widely considered degenerate, as it is now just more so). They were well aware of tyrants too.
There will always be "elites" in the same way there will always be a "bottom 10%". The question of "would you be good if you were an elite" has more to with the constitution you would be operating in than your personal proclivities.
If the constitution was good, yes I'd be good, for two reasons:
- I'd have little incentive to be bad
- I'd get automatic push-back from other members of society if I was
As I've mentioned before, having "good elites" would practically involve:
- For unitary states (e.g. in Europe) => A return of the kings and the nobility, alongside a traditional electorate (land-owning men).
- For federations (e.g. US) => Increasing devolution of power to the states or other constituent parts (and adding constitutional mechanisms that prevent decay of that devolution).
And for everyone who thinks "its OK if Trump wins because he'll fix everything!". No, he'll at best do 8 years of reversal, before its back into it again.