The elites have become so arrogant that they think the system can run with the same output regardless of who works in that system. They think they can simply swap out the gears with no problems.
Either that or the Elites are so old and so wealthy that they don’t care what happens to the system as long as they have their money. With no concerns about material wealth, they are now endorsing this woke bullshit as a shallow way of making themselves feel like “good” people.
I've given this some thought and for me it boils down to the struggle between two psychological realities resulting in two separate hierarchical models. We exist either within a social strata built on a meritocratic hierarchy, or a popularity hierarchy.
While both types exist everywhere, the west has long been primarily a meritocratic society (rewards based on skill, experience, results, correct predictions, IQ, competence, mental resilience), while for instance most of Africa has been a popularity hierarchy (rewards based on who you know, your social status, closeness to the leader, nepotism, your looks, your charm, your ability to manipulate others, your EQ).
Identifying the hierarchy is however merely identifying a symptom. One doesn't choose one or the other to follow, rather one has evolved to percieve the world in such a way that only one form of the hierarchy narturally materializes as sensical.
This ontological experience is likely closely tied to evolutionary biology. Our experiences are hardcoded in our biology. And it's natural that these experiences shape us also on the macroscale.
Examining the models themselves, it's clear that one is more collectivist and the other is more individualistic. This fits well with that we know about gender differences, and in fact societies that tend towards popularity hierarchies are more matriarchal, as we see in Africa where women do most of the work, and are the upholders of tradition and thus rules. And vice versa, more marculin societies are meritocratic. Across the board.
So despite our observartions on the largest, cultural, scale being from different regions, it's more likely that these hierarchical models emerged from traits that are different between the genders rather than races, because the effects are similar across cultures, the results are recognizable instinctively across cultures, and both models exist in all cultures even if they're not the dominant one. And because the gender difference is the only other group difference that is significant enough and affects many enough people to be relevant.
The popularity heriarchy is thus likely a result of very high neuroticism (high value on social cohesion because the group is the protector, hyperawareness of social phenomena, hyperawareness of ones position in relation to others), high agreeableness (high value on staying attached to others, high value of caring and being cared for), and a high affinity for collectivism (a female trait as the result of evolutionary biology, high value on the need for collaboration to stay safe).
What does this look like in practice?
Boys are rewarded by their biology for merit. Friends will throw rocks and the ones that throw the farthest feel good about themselves, and the ones that "lose" the game feel bad.
Girls are rewarded by their biology for social status. Friends will stand around in a circle and the one who is the most popular gets to feel good about herself, and the least popular one feels bad.
Social status is measured in one primal way: when you speak who listens and agrees, and who doesn't or gives negative feedback. Standing in that circle, the least popular girl can say something factual - "the earth is over 80 times as massive as the moon", and she will be mocked and made to feel less worthy for being a nerd.
The least strong or smart boy would not - after all, what would be the point of that from a meritocratic perspective? He'd get at most "lol who cares" with a smile from his friends, or more likely a "cool". Noticeably there is no power play in this interaction between the boys, unless another boy decides to one-up with an even more amazing fact and a competition emerges.
The least popular girl can say something practical "I know, if we put the plank between those trunks, and the bucket on top of that thing, it could work" - and be riddiculed with something as nonsensical as "shut up Name, god you always have to yap yap yap". The point is simply to always pick on her, because it elevates the picker by signaling that they are higher on the social order.
The least competent boy can say the same, and will get praise and be rewarded with feeling good. "Oh shit, our little retard is right, haha, good job Name, let's try it".
One way to climb popularity hierarchies is to virtue signal. As agreeableness (compassion, nurturing, in-group empathy, tenderness) is high in girls, statements of this nature are the least likely to be mocked and put down, because that would reflect poorly on the person striking. So virtue signaling becomes a safe and effective strategy for being listened to and agreed with. And that feels really really good to people high on neurotisism and agreeableness.
So there are no real negatives to the virtue signal, and the more matriachal the society the stronger the positive.
Thus women often uphold the virtues of whatever is the leading ideology of a society in effect of this feedback loop. Today they are the most woke, but not long ago they were the most religiously pious, the most patriarchal even.
How does it work in practice?
Woman is hired in HR or Marketing or Administrator. She, nervous and wanting to be liked, makes virtuous observations and statements, the superiors nod. She comes up with an initiative - let's do this virtous thing, the superiors nod. She proposes change to the company based on some virtue correction, she's put in charge of implementing it. Repeat with each suceess fueling more deisre to climb using this strategy.
Across all industries. In a culture that's swiftly moving in this direction. With increasing social pressure to comply. Giving more and more power to virtue signallers.
As time passes this road to power becomes a highway. And once it's the most effective path to power; here comes the social climbers, the psychopaths, the sharks, the manipulators, the ruthless - and they are fierce and they will take over and all they will ever care about is feeding themselves.
Thus, the path to where we are today has not been a planned or nefarious one. Our reality is a consequence of a long series of butterfly effects, with the vast majority of intentions being benign or good.
This also explains the current longing towards black cultures. We're seeing our increasingly gynocentric western societies pull ever more towards shifting to be based on pupularity hierarchies. We're more than half way there already.
The longing for Africa is the woke feeling kinship with other cultures that are matriarchal. This is how we end up with hard work and competence and showing up on time being elements of whiteness.
When they say whiteness, they mean meritocratic, and when they oppose whiteness they are opposing everything that stands in the way of the great transformation from a patriarchal to a matriarchal society, with everything that entails, inc. a shift in our hierarchical structures.
The elites have become so arrogant that they think the system can run with the same output regardless of who works in that system. They think they can simply swap out the gears with no problems. Either that or the Elites are so old and so wealthy that they don’t care what happens to the system as long as they have their money. With no concerns about material wealth, they are now endorsing this woke bullshit as a shallow way of making themselves feel like “good” people.
Why is this happening. It's a great question.
I've given this some thought and for me it boils down to the struggle between two psychological realities resulting in two separate hierarchical models. We exist either within a social strata built on a meritocratic hierarchy, or a popularity hierarchy.
While both types exist everywhere, the west has long been primarily a meritocratic society (rewards based on skill, experience, results, correct predictions, IQ, competence, mental resilience), while for instance most of Africa has been a popularity hierarchy (rewards based on who you know, your social status, closeness to the leader, nepotism, your looks, your charm, your ability to manipulate others, your EQ).
Identifying the hierarchy is however merely identifying a symptom. One doesn't choose one or the other to follow, rather one has evolved to percieve the world in such a way that only one form of the hierarchy narturally materializes as sensical.
This ontological experience is likely closely tied to evolutionary biology. Our experiences are hardcoded in our biology. And it's natural that these experiences shape us also on the macroscale.
Examining the models themselves, it's clear that one is more collectivist and the other is more individualistic. This fits well with that we know about gender differences, and in fact societies that tend towards popularity hierarchies are more matriarchal, as we see in Africa where women do most of the work, and are the upholders of tradition and thus rules. And vice versa, more marculin societies are meritocratic. Across the board.
So despite our observartions on the largest, cultural, scale being from different regions, it's more likely that these hierarchical models emerged from traits that are different between the genders rather than races, because the effects are similar across cultures, the results are recognizable instinctively across cultures, and both models exist in all cultures even if they're not the dominant one. And because the gender difference is the only other group difference that is significant enough and affects many enough people to be relevant.
The popularity heriarchy is thus likely a result of very high neuroticism (high value on social cohesion because the group is the protector, hyperawareness of social phenomena, hyperawareness of ones position in relation to others), high agreeableness (high value on staying attached to others, high value of caring and being cared for), and a high affinity for collectivism (a female trait as the result of evolutionary biology, high value on the need for collaboration to stay safe).
What does this look like in practice?
Boys are rewarded by their biology for merit. Friends will throw rocks and the ones that throw the farthest feel good about themselves, and the ones that "lose" the game feel bad.
Girls are rewarded by their biology for social status. Friends will stand around in a circle and the one who is the most popular gets to feel good about herself, and the least popular one feels bad.
Social status is measured in one primal way: when you speak who listens and agrees, and who doesn't or gives negative feedback. Standing in that circle, the least popular girl can say something factual - "the earth is over 80 times as massive as the moon", and she will be mocked and made to feel less worthy for being a nerd.
The least strong or smart boy would not - after all, what would be the point of that from a meritocratic perspective? He'd get at most "lol who cares" with a smile from his friends, or more likely a "cool". Noticeably there is no power play in this interaction between the boys, unless another boy decides to one-up with an even more amazing fact and a competition emerges.
The least popular girl can say something practical "I know, if we put the plank between those trunks, and the bucket on top of that thing, it could work" - and be riddiculed with something as nonsensical as "shut up Name, god you always have to yap yap yap". The point is simply to always pick on her, because it elevates the picker by signaling that they are higher on the social order.
The least competent boy can say the same, and will get praise and be rewarded with feeling good. "Oh shit, our little retard is right, haha, good job Name, let's try it".
One way to climb popularity hierarchies is to virtue signal. As agreeableness (compassion, nurturing, in-group empathy, tenderness) is high in girls, statements of this nature are the least likely to be mocked and put down, because that would reflect poorly on the person striking. So virtue signaling becomes a safe and effective strategy for being listened to and agreed with. And that feels really really good to people high on neurotisism and agreeableness.
So there are no real negatives to the virtue signal, and the more matriachal the society the stronger the positive.
Thus women often uphold the virtues of whatever is the leading ideology of a society in effect of this feedback loop. Today they are the most woke, but not long ago they were the most religiously pious, the most patriarchal even.
How does it work in practice?
Woman is hired in HR or Marketing or Administrator. She, nervous and wanting to be liked, makes virtuous observations and statements, the superiors nod. She comes up with an initiative - let's do this virtous thing, the superiors nod. She proposes change to the company based on some virtue correction, she's put in charge of implementing it. Repeat with each suceess fueling more deisre to climb using this strategy.
Across all industries. In a culture that's swiftly moving in this direction. With increasing social pressure to comply. Giving more and more power to virtue signallers.
As time passes this road to power becomes a highway. And once it's the most effective path to power; here comes the social climbers, the psychopaths, the sharks, the manipulators, the ruthless - and they are fierce and they will take over and all they will ever care about is feeding themselves.
Thus, the path to where we are today has not been a planned or nefarious one. Our reality is a consequence of a long series of butterfly effects, with the vast majority of intentions being benign or good.
This also explains the current longing towards black cultures. We're seeing our increasingly gynocentric western societies pull ever more towards shifting to be based on pupularity hierarchies. We're more than half way there already.
The longing for Africa is the woke feeling kinship with other cultures that are matriarchal. This is how we end up with hard work and competence and showing up on time being elements of whiteness.
When they say whiteness, they mean meritocratic, and when they oppose whiteness they are opposing everything that stands in the way of the great transformation from a patriarchal to a matriarchal society, with everything that entails, inc. a shift in our hierarchical structures.