Un;

Let me start out by saying this piece reminds me of some of my first drafts, somewhat incomprehensible; so I'm not criticizing Smith out of superiority, but out of familiarity. If this is part of a longer piece, or a series of essays that build on each other then it might make more sense than it seems.

We seem, in the body of the essay, to be equating elites and psychopaths. While I'm not prepared to argue that equation either way, our title should reflect that theme; "Why Elites are Useless to Society", then we should go on to make the case that all elites are psychopaths.

Next, power isn't power if it doesn't allow you to accomplish your desires. Ability to mold the (or your) world is probably a reasonable definition of "power", so paragraph 2 starts out a bit muddled and ends by positing the elites will be able to rule unopposed once we are soulless. Ever been in a group in which there is just one psychopath amongst the many with consciences? Ever seen a croc pit? The elites will find it much easier to rule a bunch of people with conscience than it is to rule a bunch of psychopaths. Once none of us have consciences it'll be the law of the jungle and the smartest, most vicious psychopath will win, again, and again, and again, as you see by taking a historical view of the world's many dictatorships.

That brings us to paragraphs 3 and 4, wherein we are told most of us are born with a conscience, reflected in various religious works from around the world. Having lived in a number of third world dictatorships, I am convinced the conscience is learned behavior, not inborn. I have observed varying behaviors exhibited by people living in different countries, but their behaviors are appropriate to their own cultures. Whereas Thais are taught to be polite to strangers, in much of central Africa Christians learn to kill those without the same tribal markings. These different behaviors aren't religious, but cultural, and appropriate within different cultures.

Paragraph 5, the rant about "they" has got to emanate from a previous essay, because it doesn't follow from what precedes it.

I could go on, but let me simply say; while I think some of the people trying to run our country are psychopaths this essay neither makes that case nor supports the authors assertions about elitism or psychopathy. (I think fearlessness is one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy, which has nothing to do with money.)

Ever heard the saying: "Writing is rewriting"? It's not unusual to find, after a great deal of time and emotion have been expended in writing something, there's no pay off because the something doesn't make sense to anyone but the writer. That's when it's time to chuck it, or rewrite until the piece can stand on it's own. Mr. Smith needs either an editor, or someone in his life willing to tell him he's written a muddled puddle of non sequiturs and circular arguments.