Leo's Perspective on Elites, Meritocracy, and Success

[Twega]

Leo posted on his blog recently, titled "Leftist-Populist Misunderstanding" in which he said:

"There is absolutely no way to get rid of elites. This is the Marxist/leftist-populist delusion. What they never understood is that every society on the planet since the dawn of time has been run by elites because elites are superior to the masses. Elites are physically stronger, more physically attractive, more ambitious, more intelligent, more talented, healthier, better educated, more responsible, harder working, and even genetically superior to non-elites. That's why they managed to rise to the top. They are not at the top by luck or accident, they are at the top because they were strong, ambitious, and egotistical enough to push their way to the top like bulls in a stampede."

I agree. However, there are some issues with this perspective. I'm interested to know how Leo (and anyone else) reconciles this perspective with the following information:

Wealth inequality: Leo made another post on his blog titled "Corruption Of Elite Education" where Daniel Markovits author of The Meritocracy Trap highlighted

• Our current system, far from being purely meritocratic, operates through self-perpetuating mechanisms that entrench privilege.
• The supposedly meritocratic system actually perpetuates and amplifies existing inequalities, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of privilege rather than genuine merit-based advancement.
• Traditional merit-measuring tools, including standardized testing and competitive education, have evolved into sophisticated barriers to entry rather than objective measures of capability.
• Affluent families can effectively "purchase" advantage through extensive investment in education, extracurricular activities, and social networking, creating an inherited rather than earned elite status.
• This system generates a widening socioeconomic divide that undermines social cohesion and distorts labor market valuations, favoring a small number of highly paid professionals while leaving many jobs underpaid and undervalued (not for lack of skill, value or complexity).

Both realities are true. The masses are ignorant. The elites did not become elites through merit alone, and many are ignorant too. Yes, wealth provides access to better education, healthcare, nutrition, and opportunities, which objectively makes people "better" equipped for success, regardless of whether this advantage is fair. But this raises a crucial question: how many of these elites are genuinely superior in intellect and capability, and how many are simply privileged mediocrity with prestigious degrees?

A Harvard Business School diploma doesn't automatically confer wisdom or genuine intelligence. University education tends to create specialized knowledge rather than holistic improvement - it makes you better at specific skills but doesn't necessarily develop broader understanding or judgment. The landscape is littered with well-credentialed individuals who lack basic common sense or deeper insight. Yet we can't ignore that statistically, well-educated people do tend to demonstrate higher cognitive abilities and better life outcomes.

 

Yes, compared to the average person, elites do tend to be smarter, more capable, and more driven. But they're just a tiny slice of society, being compared to the rest.  What about that chunk of people - maybe 10-30% - who are genuinely smart, love learning, read tons of books, really get deep into philosophy and big ideas, but never made it to the "elite" level just because the system worked against them? These people have real talent and insight but got locked out, not because they weren't good enough, but because the game was rigged from the start.

 

How do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory truths?

 

 

[Leo Gura]

52 minutes ago, Twega said:

What about that chunk of people - maybe 10-30% - who are genuinely smart, love learning, read tons of books, really get deep into philosophy and big ideas, but never made it to the "elite" level just because the system worked against them? These people have real talent and insight but got locked out, not because they weren't good enough, but because the game was rigged from the start.

Yes, this def happens.

But what you have to understand about society is that it is a filtration system which uses sheer ambition and tenacity to filter people. To reach the top you will not be given a red carpet, you will have to slit throats, crush spines, and stab hearts. It's not enough to be skilled or educated or developed, you need that killer instinct and supernatural will to success and power. You have to want it bad enough to endure hell. Otherwise you will just be average.

Edited Sunday at 11:36 AM by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

Only Marxists promise a flat hierarchy. Other Populist ideologies are looking forward to replace the elites, eventually. They don't hide this.

The Populists believe the elites no longer care about them. The first responsibility of the Elites is to make sure that the  bottom of the society is pacified enough. Else they will be replaced. Nothing new here. Power corrupts and crumbles eventually. Old Elites will be replaced by new ones. 

Edited Sunday at 11:32 AM by Bobby_2021

[Leo Gura]

The reality is that if you put ordinary plebs into the roles of elites they will either crumble under the pressure and fail, or they rise to challenge but become exactly like the old elites before them.

Because the role itself has a certain survival structure which cannot be overcome other than through development of oneself, which no one is seriously doing.

Politics is not a function of good guys vs bad guys.

Edited Sunday at 11:42 AM by Leo Gura

[Golem]

42 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, this def happens.

But what you have to understand about society is that it is a filtration system which uses sheer ambition and tenacity to filter people. To reach the top you will not be given a red carpet, you will have to slit throats, crush spines, and stab hearts. It's not enough to be skilled or educated or developed, you need that killer instinct and supernatural will to success and power. You have to want it bad enough to endure hell. Otherwise you will just be average.

Have you already made peace with your mediocrity? I’m asking because you used to seem like someone with big potential, but life seems to have settled you into something... average. I’m around the same age, living the standard Western life, and I’m wondering if I should still chase more or just embrace the reality of "nothing special." Or is it even possible to make myself "want it bad enough to endure hell"?

[Basman]

The issue has always been a lack of opportunity for the common person to live a comfortable and good life.

If afforded a high standard of living, do you care about being an elite or not ? I'd wager that most people are content being average socioeconomically as long as they enjoy a good enough standard of living, Scandinavian countries being top ranking in global happiness for instance. Nobody cares about wealth inequality granted that they live comfortably and society runs well.

[Leo Gura]

20 minutes ago, Golem said:

Have you already made peace with your mediocrity? I’m asking because you used to seem like someone with big potential, but life seems to have settled you into something... average.

Material success, power, and fame do not interest me, since they can never satisfy me.

What you regard as mediocrity I regard as one of the deepest minds on the planet.

Quote

I’m around the same age, living the standard Western life, and I’m wondering if I should still chase more or just embrace the reality of "nothing special." Or is it even possible to make myself "want it bad enough to endure hell"?

All depends on your values and what will satisfy you. Only you can figure that out.

Edited Sunday at 12:12 PM by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The reality is that if you put ordinary plebs into the roles of elites

I would say the established elites are more likely to appoint hollow plebs in positions of power who would be obedient talking heads for them while actual elites call the shots behind the curtain. This is why they can't really win in the first place. You can't outsource power, without significant chances of crumbling.

Regardless, appointing plebs in positions of power is a problem that plague either side. Not necessarily a "new elite" problem.

Either way no pleb would survive the intense stress in these positions of power. The stress/risk tolerance of Musk is superhuman. 

The elephant in the room is that all elites will eventually be replaced. Either you can gracefully step down or put up a fight. 

31 minutes ago, Basman said:

If afforded a high standard of living, do you care about being an elite or not ?

Most elites are from high standards of living. The will to power is in them. And they don't have to worry about paying rent while pursuing power moves. 

[Golem]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Material success, power, and fame do not interest me, since they can never satisfy me.

All depends on your values and what will satisfy you. Only you can figure that out.

I’ve actually proven to myself that I can just be. I quit my job 1.5 years ago purely to embrace that state of being- and, honestly, it’s been great. I am, I exist, and I’m not bored or restless. But lately, a thought has crept in (maybe it’s cultural conditioning, maybe it’s just bullshit from the outside)- is this really a life worth living? Is this a fulfilled life, even if it feels like one?

I’m with you- "material success, power, and fame don’t interest me". But when you think about it, "exploring consciousness" is just another damn layer within consciousness itself, no more or less real than the pursuit of material success. It’s all part of the same imaginary construct.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that the best strategy for life is to go balls to the wall on something, whatever the hell that may be? Whether it’s exploring the depths of consciousness or striving to become a billionaire CEO who steps on others to build their empire. In that sense, isn’t the life of a billionaire- one who fucks over millions of lives in the process- arguably "better lived" than that of someone like me, sitting "perfectly content" in stillness?

You're a millenian, you should be familiar with this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZOM6hOnEBE

Maybe it's better to be Butters than some blissed out "nobody", maybe the way forward is "will to power" and domination in this world.

[Vynce]

59 minutes ago, Golem said:

I’ve actually proven to myself that I can just be. I quit my job 1.5 years ago purely to embrace that state of being- and, honestly, it’s been great. I am, I exist, and I’m not bored or restless. But lately, a thought has crept in (maybe it’s cultural conditioning, maybe it’s just bullshit from the outside)- is this really a life worth living? Is this a fulfilled life, even if it feels like one?

I’m with you- "material success, power, and fame don’t interest me". But when you think about it, "exploring consciousness" is just another damn layer within consciousness itself, no more or less real than the pursuit of material success. It’s all part of the same imaginary construct.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that the best strategy for life is to go balls to the wall on something, whatever the hell that may be? Whether it’s exploring the depths of consciousness or striving to become a billionaire CEO who steps on others to build their empire. In that sense, isn’t the life of a billionaire- one who fucks over millions of lives in the process- arguably "better lived" than that of someone like me, sitting "perfectly content" in stillness?

You're a millenian, you should be familiar with this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZOM6hOnEBE

Maybe it's better to be Butters than some blissed out "nobody", maybe the way forward is "will to power" and domination in this world.

Dominating the world is a risky pursuit. Maybe you get dominated into life long prison for being dominant. 

Edited Sunday at 01:45 PM by Vynce

[Golem]

19 minutes ago, Vynce said:

Dominating the world is a risky pursuit. Maybe you get dominated into life long prison for being dominant. 

"at least I tried" ?

[Twentyfirst]

I found the more I learned about truth of how the world operates and the more others stayed ignorant then the more elitist I became

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Most elites are from high standards of living. The will to power is in them. And they don't have to worry about paying rent while pursuing power moves. 

Would you seek power if you didn't have to worry about rent? I'd wager most aren't interested. It takes a certain kind of narcissism and ambition to want power.

[nerdspeak]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, this def happens.

But what you have to understand about society is that it is a filtration system which uses sheer ambition and tenacity to filter people. To reach the top you will not be given a red carpet, you will have to slit throats, crush spines, and stab hearts. It's not enough to be skilled or educated or developed, you need that killer instinct and supernatural will to success and power. You have to want it bad enough to endure hell. Otherwise you will just be average.

I know some elites, and I don’t think they are consciously slitting throats or whatever (although they are on some level). For them it’s just professional decision-making and if people are vulnerable to the outcomes, that’s their responsibility. 
 

Most elites are smart, but not particularly deep thinkers. 

[Golem]

9 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

I found the more I learned about truth of how the world operates and the more others stayed ignorant then the more elitist I became

Nothing elite about being just an onlooker, even if your understanding is deeper and more informed. That’s the feeling I’m starting to get. The more you know, the more it becomes clear that just standing by and watching doesn’t make you special – it just makes you another spectator. What do you think?

[Twentyfirst]

12 minutes ago, Golem said:

Nothing elite about being just an onlooker, even if your understanding is deeper and more informed. That’s the feeling I’m starting to get. The more you know, the more it becomes clear that just standing by and watching doesn’t make you special – it just makes you another spectator. What do you think?

Sure. Except people who are very well informed usually learned from somebody. And that somebody is usually an elite with elite networks. These networks are hungry for those who have the ears to hear and eyes to see. You are the sum of the 5 people you hang around the most 

[Bobby_2021]

25 minutes ago, Basman said:

Would you seek power if you didn't have to worry about rent? I'd wager most aren't interested. It takes a certain kind of narcissism and ambition to want power.

I would. Regardless of rent. Would try to uphold Truth as much as possible in this journey too. Most people don't want that and it's okay.

[Apparition of Jack]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The reality is that if you put ordinary plebs into the roles of elites they will either crumble under the pressure and fail, or they rise to challenge but become exactly like the old elites before them.

Because the role itself has a certain survival structure which cannot be overcome other than through development of oneself, which no one is seriously doing.

Politics is not a function of good guys vs bad guys.

I don’t know Leo. I feel like in recent years you’ve become far too apologetic for the world “as it is”, if that makes sense.

Sure it’s good to always be conscious of one’s biases and there are limits to stage Green, but in an age where countless Americans are dying due to a lack of healthcare which totally has the potential to be remedied through concerted effort, talking about how lame progressive thought can be sort of feels like… apolitical “both sides suckism” to me. 
 

If I’m being honest man, this is something I’ve wanted to say for a while, but I honestly feel like you’re still dealing with some sort of toxic stage red / hyper masculine shadow. No one is denying your brilliant insights or commitment to consciousness, but a lot of your attitude towards the world at large seems to just be explaining why the world is shitty rather than imagining what the world could be. Of course there are dangers in trying to recreate society, but there’s also dangers in letting the corruption fester too long. 
 

I don’t know dude. I could be wrong. But it’s just something I’ve noticed and thought I might point out.

[nerdspeak]

20 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

I don’t know Leo. I feel like in recent years you’ve become far too apologetic for the world “as it is”, if that makes sense.

Sure it’s good to always be conscious of one’s biases and there are limits to stage Green, but in an age where countless Americans are dying due to a lack of healthcare which totally has the potential to be remedied through concerted effort, talking about how lame progressive thought can be sort of feels like… apolitical “both sides suckism” to me. 
 

If I’m being honest man, this is something I’ve wanted to say for a while, but I honestly feel like you’re still dealing with some sort of toxic stage red / hyper masculine shadow. No one is denying your brilliant insights or commitment to consciousness, but a lot of your attitude towards the world at large seems to just be explaining why the world is shitty rather than imagining what the world could be. Of course there are dangers in trying to recreate society, but there’s also dangers in letting the corruption fester too long. 
 

I don’t know dude. I could be wrong. But it’s just something I’ve noticed and thought I might point out.

I agree, there’s an element of the red/orange Owen Cooke bitter former drug dealer / incel worldview in a some of what Leo says about political stuff and dating. Not saying it’s wrong, but the framing is a bit negative and odd sometimes. 

Edited Sunday at 05:24 PM by nerdspeak

[Lila9]

Many of the comforts, freedoms, and values/concepts of the modern world, such as technology, social media, democracy, individuality, liberalism, equality, and human rights, are not exactly what they seem. Instead, they are tools used to make the masses believe they have received what they desire: the illusion of freedom and control over their lives as individuals. In reality, a lot less has fundamentally been changed during the history than we were taught to believe. These could be merely crumbs thrown by the elites to anesthetize the masses, keeping them too comfortable and asleep and complacent to be motivated to create change.

Without these crumbs, lies, and fabrications, people would likely be driven to rebel and overthrow the elites, as has happened a few times throughout history (and ended up tragically with more control wars and suffering). However, the elites appear to have realized that the most effective way to maintain their power and prevent rebellion is to convince the masses that they are already free and not enslaved. They made feudalism covert rather than overt.

Many questions arise such as, do humanity, billions of people need the elites? Can they live without the elites? Are the masses dependent on the elites? Are the elites dependent on the masses? Is this a symbiotic relationship or an explosive relationship?

Is there a replacement to the elites? 
Could elites be conscious and spiritually developed without losing their power? Or knowing and working in maintaining their power is so essential to them continue being elite that they compromise their individual, consciousness and spiritual development?

Can we ever transcend this order? If so, what humanity would look like? 
 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 06:11 PM by Lila9