I am beholding to Jean Paul Sartre for a the bulk of this item. I bring it to your attention with the State of the world under a savage press intrusion that basically means to rise to the top one has to be a bloody good liar or a complete sociapathic narcissist.
The current state of UK politics is a case in point. We have a choice in the fortcomming elections of a Vicars Daughter who thinks its 1952 or a Raving Trotskite who wants to understand and talk to ISIS. Anyway, read this and make your own mind up why the first world will soon not be.
Many pundits have presented the case that society needs to reward the
achiever. It is argued that the most talented should attain positions
of authority, based upon their superior ability. The end result is the
formation of a power structure of Elites – making the decisions,
formulating policies and directing the organizations that carry out the
plan. It is most difficult to quarrel with the notion that talent is not
distributed equally, but it becomes a giant leap to conclude that the
very attribute of aptitude, is the sole criteria that justifies
positions of authority.
Democracy has failed miserably to ensure a Just society, but so has
rule by a cadre of whiz kids. The problem with ALL attempts to design
and implement social systems through central planning is that it ignores
the dynamics of the market place of individual needs, aspirations and
fears. Neither Government nor NGO Institutions have the ability to mold
humanity to their conception of paradise. Only the accumulative
interaction of countless individual dreams and nightmares, can set the
course on this ‘ship of fools’. Mankind, by the nature of its common
humanity, is unable to achieve perfection. Those who seek and scheme to
be the architects of paragon, and those who lust and plot to be the
regents of dominance, possess the same flaws.
‘Meritocracy’ attempts to establish a standard by which motivated
crusaders can achieve success. Well, that’s fine and commendable if we
could all agree upon the criteria for defining achievement. But society
has such a varied view of significance in collective accomplishment,
that consensus is virtually impossible.
In addition to this problem, the methods used to demonstrate and
constitute access to the reins of power, must be established. However,
this seemingly rational approach to test the merits of the prospective
leader defy our Nature, when a system of empirical formulas are solely
used. The parameters for merit must include the moral basis for
behavior. But the proponents of ‘Meritocracy’ accept situations ethics
as a substitute for principle. Their faith is founded in the belief that
Man is capable of reaching an ideal, that THEY define for all of
Mankind. Their rational is simple, who is more qualified to delineate
the proper social order, than the members of the ‘Meritocracy’?
This begs the real issue, for the conflict which is inevitable from
such reasoning has a dire record, when sincerely reviewed. Even if one
disagrees with the conclusion that the chronicle of controlled conduct
is replete with corruption and depravity; one can hardly concur that it
has been well managed. If those of influence, are really the best and
brightest, why are they so unsuccessful in the implementation of their
vision?
Again, we need not look very far for the answer. An examination of
HOW one becomes part of the ‘Meritocracy’, reveals its ultimate failing.
Advancement in the ranks of most organizations requires a conformity,
to the culture, of that particular gang of achievers. Bureaucracies
invariably place a premium on compliance and congruity to established
policy, practice and puissance. Independent initiative is suspect. And
individual action is soundly condemned. To the ‘Meritocracy’, conformity
is a virtue and autonomy is a vice. Isn’t it obvious that the very
entree into the ‘Meritocracy’ requires that one proves their superiority
by way of accepting the tenants of the enlightened?
But reality is much different from the myth. The
practice of
advancement dictates that ‘Mediocrity’ is the prime and indispensable
ingredient, to ensure acceptance. With acceptance comes admittance to
the clique. Yes, ‘Meritocracy is the clan of ‘Mediocrity’, and is
founded upon the principle of uniformity.
When Ayn Rand argues her ‘Objectivism’ as an alternative moral code
for a world that has doubts in a Creator, she attempts to establish the
truth that moral conduct is the ultimate standard for individual
achievement. The morality of the individual pursuit of happiness, is
achieved and justified by the very act of independent accomplishment.
But the ‘Meritocrat’ is opposed to her philosophy because it removes the
‘Mediocre’ foundation upon which their power rest. Why is it that so
often these protectors of the inferior are Harvard graduates? Might, we
not be better served with Crimson drop outs?
The core question rests upon the character of achievement. Is
advancement conceived in individual inspiration or does it require the
collective allusions of mediocre toadies? Absence of moral authority
leaves man equipped to ravage his fellow neighbor; in the name of ever
noble objectives, that can be reduced through the accumulated delusions
of the geniuses of amorality.
Irrational behavior becomes the norm when, the know it all, is
allowed to rise to positions of influence. Those who claim to be the
‘cream of the crop’ are buffoons in the circus of the absurd. If you
still doubt that this cannot be true, point out the last independent
mind of moral courage, to achieve a position of authority in this gulag
of unanimity? No Solzhenitsyn comes to mind!
The solution will not be reached through rational systems, devised by
Man. Rand said her guiding inspiration came from a forgotten sage, who
said: “I will not die, the world will end”. Too many of the
‘Meritocracy’ similarly accept this falsehood that the world will cease
without their wisdom. They are unwilling to acknowledge that they are a
mere cog in the plan of an ‘Existential’ reality. Unless one is ready to
humble themselves to accept revealed authority, all the pseudo
intellectualism from the ‘precocity of phantasm’, will be for naught.
Haven’t we all suffered enough under the normality of the chaotic reign
of the ‘Meritocracy’? Or are you content to be part of the ‘Mediocrity’?
SARTRE
Hi, hope you lasted the course? Sartre can be hard going, but he covers all the bases of that there is no doubt. I worry greatly that mediocrity will be the death of us all. For life is not equal and fair, neither is it ever going to be inclusive. More worryingly we need leaders and we need leaders who think outside the box and strictures of fascist Liberalism based on PC B/S that believes we can be all made equal.