The Meritocracy of America: Why Steven Spielberg is more important than Barack Obama

The greatest failure, and largest misconception practiced by the human race in regard to politics is the old anti concept of a meritocracy.  When America put to practice many years of contemplation by the realm of philosophy, political science, and human psychology it was an experiment which quickly failed as Europeans wanting to become a part of this new ideal of personal freedom came to the shores of the growing United States to experience it.  Like many modern immigrants all well intentioned, yet bringing with them half-baked, mixed up, chaos in regard to political belief, those early Europeans settled the New England region with the garbage of their minds to be mixed in with the philosophy which started the American Revolution.   With them, and growing in importance over time through America’s education system where the essential importance of a meritocracy in human culture has been taught with the intention to level the playing field with a kind a wealth redistribution not of money, but of perceived personal power equating the man of ability with political rulers.  In essence the purpose of instructing society on the merits of a meritocracy was to associate the power of creative achievement with political power.  A good example of this would be to say the work of Steven Spielberg is equal to the work of Barack Obama.  Both have a college degree.  Both have won approval in the court of public opinion.  Both support democratic politics so in the world of meritocracy Barack Obama believes that he is equal to Steven Spielberg as opposed to someone who has not yet achieved those levels, such as a local school board member who may have a college degree, but has not yet moved up the political food chain of meritocracy yet.  They are still “lowly” local politicians not yet finding themselves on the cover of a popular magazine which are the gate keepers of modern meritocracy.

Meritocracy (merit, from Latin mereō: “earn” + -cracy, from Ancient Greek κράτος, kratos: “strength, power”) is a political philosophy that holds power should be vested inindividuals according to merit.^[1] Advancement in such a system is based on perceived intellectual talent measured through examination and/or demonstrated achievement in the field where it is implemented.

The “most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms of tested competency and ability, and most likely, as measured by IQ or standardized achievement tests.”^[2] In government or other administration systems, meritocracy, in an administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are assigned to individuals based upon their “merits”, namely intelligence, credentials, and education, determined through evaluations or examinations.^[3]

Supporters of meritocracies do not necessarily agree on the nature of “merit”, however, they do tend to agree that “merit” itself should be a primary consideration during evaluation.

In a more general sense, meritocracy can refer to any form of government based on achievement. Like “utilitarian” and “pragmatic“, the word “meritocratic” has also developed a broader definition, and may be used to refer to any government run by “a ruling or influential class of educated or able people.” ^[4]

This is in contrast to the term originally coined by Michael Young in 1958, who critically defined it as a system where “merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications.” ^[5]

Meritocracy in its wider sense, may be any general act of judgment upon the basis of various demonstrated merits; such acts frequently are described in sociology and psychology. Thus, the merits may extend beyond intelligence and education to any mental or physical talent or to work ethic.

In rhetoric, the demonstration of one’s merit regarding mastery of a particular subject is an essential task most directly related to the Aristotelian term Ethos. The equivalent Aristotelian conception of meritocracy is based upon aristocratic or oligarchical structures, rather than in the context of the modern state.^[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

To be put simply a meritocracy allows Barack Obama to believe he is equal to Steven Spielberg in value because the conditions of social merit generally agreed upon have been satisfied.  Spielberg is a spectacular example of a man of ability.  He’s made several motion pictures that have touched the hearts and molded American culture with art.  He launched the career of Opera, as well as most of the major stars in Hollywood.  Yet by the rules of a meritocracy because Barack Obama won the popularity contest of an American presidency, the creative achievements of a Steven Spielberg are equated with the political power of a Barack Obama.  It does not matter to a meritocracy if the President obtains his position through lies and manipulation.  All he has to do is obtain it, because once holding office, the merit of the position has perceived power.

A meritocracy has allowed scum bags, looters, social parasites, con artists, and power hungry liars to obtain power over vast portions of society by this insanely stupid belief—that by obtaining an office, or a name plate on a desk, automatically merit is created and importance to official titles respected.  This has led human society away from the needed achievements to obtain real value, but has led them to brown-nosing, cheating, and rigging elections to obtain the benefits of a meritocracy.  It is because of a meritocracy that so much money is spent on American elections, especially presidential elections—because the belief is that merit is up for purchase if a political candidate can raise more money than his opponent, buy more adds, and purchase from the voting public the merit of office.

Barack Obama is not as good of a person as Steven Spielberg—not in productive enterprise.  One man lied his way into a job to work on movie sets at Universal Studios then went on to shape the movie business to what it is today, the other lied his way into colleges, political circles, and eventually the presidency.  Both men lied to get where they wanted to go, but one was productive, the other was simply a social parasite.  But under a meritocracy both have equal value under their celebrity status and it does not matter to the world how they arrived at their stations.  The American media considers meritocracy of celebrity as their criteria and supports the ritual benefits in their publications which is accepted by the American public at face value.

The sin of a meritocracy is that it allows the unproductive to equate themselves with the productive.  It is the primary driver why personalities of moral deficiency seek political office when they realize they will become nothing in life under their own power of creative force.  So to gain power over others, and celebrity, they enter politics to win under any means necessary so they can enjoy the benefits of a meritocracy once they obtain an office.  They assume upon the creation of a nameplate which sits upon their desks that they are now members of the intellectual elite—and they falsely believe they are among the most creative individuals on the planet.  But they would be wrong.

  Their meritocracy does not give them the ability to make movies like Steven Spielberg, or behold the genius of a Bill Gates, or become a 10 time demolition derby champion at a local fair ground.  The elected politician is just another failed concept created under the terms of a European meritocracy that has no place within the rules of personal freedom and value of capitalism.  The believer of a meritocracy hopes to hide their personal worthlessness behind the veil of perception so that it will never be known to the public at large the real lack of worth a political office holder actually possesses.  The only value the politician actually obtains under a meritocracy is the wealth redistribution of merit from people who actually have it, to those who are empty to create a public perception of worth they would otherwise never obtain but through elected office.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!