The Necessity Of Meritocracy

We find ourselves living in an age and culture of entitlement which has significantly contributed to modern degeneracy: the undeserving are given responsibilities and positions which they don’t merit, leading to yet even lower productivity and standards. People are made to believe that they can do things which they actually might not be able to perform, because the collectivist liberal herd believes that they can.

The (often voluntary) failure to correctly determine a person’s ability in the name of social equality—and sometimes conscious disregard of a person’s potential and nature before handing over responsibility and authority—has often resulted in scenarios where the leaders of a people were the worst individuals from among them.

Feminism similarly trains women to believe and to do roles what they are not naturally suited for, and later makes them appear stupid when they can’t perform them. But at the same time, feminism expects men to stupidly avoid judging women in the name of gender equality. The same scenario can be seen in other walks of life. What we are actually witnessing today is the modern war on meritocracy.

A twisted war in the name of equality and justice

Humanity is indeed imperfect. True and absolute equality is technically impossible and rarely believed in, because of the uniqueness of every individual in both strength and weaknesses.

Thus the concept of meritocracy does threaten those who feel that they might not be qualified to receive its benefits. These individuals might then try to undermine and destroy the meritocracy, as well as the meritorious. This war has existed since antiquity itself.

An example can be found in religious scripture, the Biblical story of Cain and Abel being one – God chose Abel because of his moral merit, which led to Cain slaying him out of jealousy.

It could be interpreted that the first human murder recorded in religious history was actually borne out of an inability of the undeserving to accept spiritual meritocracy.

But keeping religious examples aside, meritocracy has always threatened the degenerate, for it often represents unemotional and cold-blooded qualitative justice which modern liberals might label as “cruel.” The desire to be equalized with the meritorious is commonly seen today: the undeserving (without producing effort or evidence of their merit) are vociferous in their demands for equality with those who are deserving.

But sprinkling gold dust on shit doesn’t make it gold, even if liberals might try to equalize both.

Furthermore, the common criticisms of meritocracy by its liberal opponents are: what and who defines merit (thus raising the question which standard is the best standard), the reliability of those who measure merit (free from favoritism), and the supposedly sluggish growth of people in a meritocratic society—supposedly exemplified by the Peter Principle.

Without meritocracy, degeneracy will eventually rule in the name of equality

Opponents of meritocracy often deliberately overlook the real goal of meritocracy, which is to inspire and propel humanity to strive against the natural flaws of human nature .

At the same time, meritocracy’s prime focus is the creation of quality and discovery of meritorious potential in a human society, leading to higher productivity. The quantitative creation of a “perfect” society of “elite individuals” due to it comes much later but only when every individual seriously undertakes the responsibility that meritocracy demands from everyone – that is of self improvement.

Human history has many examples of the rise of civilizations, military, and political powers due to the application of meritocracy. Meritocracy not only means a system which rewards talent and hard work, but also signifies a system that awards responsibilities on virtue of their potential and merit.

But what modern collectivists and liberals actually fail to understand is that civilization suffers more from the glaring hypocrisies and degeneracy created by modern liberal collectivism, than the the supposed “elitism” created by meritocracy.

When the meritorious are treated like idiots (as seen in this story), what incentives are left for a modern man to strive to evolve into the highest ideals of masculinity, when he would be subsequently treated like trash by a society which lacks gratitude to quality?

How would quality be created in a society, where the the meritorious are lumped together with the degenerate in the same herd in the name of social equality? Equality promoted by collectivism and feminism is a hypocritical sham, and is in fact a greater dysfunctional myth.

Since collectivism and social equality is gradually supplanting meritocracy, it’s no surprise to note the corresponding fall of moral standards. The one who disengages and breaks free from the collectivist liberal herd is shamed. As commonly seen, the modern man is taught to develop himself to the highest levels of masculinity, to invest it in sub-standard modern women today – more often due to a lack of quality options created by the slutty herd mentality of modern women.

When quality is shamed and shunned in favor of quantity, how could one expect to retain and create quality in such a degenerate collectivist civilization?

Conclusion

The truth remains that in today’s social decline, meritocracy still remains important—for it can and should be best employed as a necessary counterweight to the dysfunctional rise of socialist and collectivist entitlement.

Every noble system or ideal, even that of meritocracy, would fail as long as flawed human nature stands in the way of its implementation. Human nature is indeed imperfect, but to to strive for perfection and self-improvement is praiseworthy. Meritocracy often provides the necessary platform and impetus for that.

Read Next: Be Qualified, Not Entitled