Reply #23: We all know that "elites" can't compete....

[WHAT]

otherwise there would be no need for hedging/hedgemony. A popular idea in the 60's was that if you kill the leaders you kill the group. This idea was reassuring to the "political elite, the "voting" class", because it assumed ascendency...whatever that means (personally specific advantage?). But, implicit in the idea of "elitism" is advantage synonymous with superiority. It's where language/definition directs concept...but, it ain't no mobius,,,it's an inflected/inflicted , stagnant, concept. Mother nature, not barbara bush or some other false diva, knows math and sic. mother nature...art, athletics, arithmetic don't lie. My heart says let the numbers play-out and if survival is defined as advantge specific to our world and culture that would trump specific advantage by personality or cult of persona (which is just egoism).

What is so frightenong about a level playing field? Is winning really more important than success. If you/one is so successful as to destroy humanity while furthering you and yous success, is that "succeeding"?

Pretty much all that is going-on now is a scam and that leaves us without god/grace in art, architecture, literature...and I'm kinda an athiest but I want beauty with an agenda in my life (and the life of my progeny...consangunial or not). I guess I want a better world and something to admire. In my world, the mediocre are too small to succeed...I mean Timothy Russert, et. al.

"scuse me for really wanting something to admire...