I thought you might appreciate this.

Every age that has historical status is governed by aristocracies.
Aristocracy with the meaning - the best are ruling.
Peoples do never govern themselves. That lunacy was concocted by liberalism. Behind its "people's sovereignty" the slyest cheaters are hiding, who don't want to be recognized.

Speyside2 wrote:

My argument against that is clearly we're not putting our best in ruling positions.

ELON for president, 2024.

bgz wrote:

Hence why I thought you would find it interesting. It is a Goebbel's quote that easily could be modern day propaganda.

Speyside2 wrote:

We don't need any stinking rulers.
A president was never meant to be a ruler, although many come along and think their election is a mandate to be an omnipotent king.
You can say the same for many governors and mayors.

RayR wrote:

Was in the context of the op. We can change it to "leadership positions" if that's more palatable for you.

bgz wrote:

What's the definition of leader?
For some people, it is synonymous with ruler or dicktator.

RayR wrote:

Like most things, context matters. In the case of President of the United States, in my opinion, I would consider them to be a part of the rulership of the nation.

I know you would prefer no nations, but we as humans tend to build them, so it's just something you have to deal with.

bgz wrote: