and then the stuff about russians is a rant i guess not really pertinent

Rising up isnt pointless revolution although it may be useful

It was not to you it was to @Schutz

what is in **bold** are words that are not defined and require specification to properly understand the argument

Elite as in the rich and competent

the degenerate as in the poor and weak

inequality is the means to rise up, or the reason? you cannot use inequality to mount a revolution. inequality is a disparity between the rich and the poor, a divide which continues to grow as the state is used an institution to extract value and wealth from the working masses

perhaps equal operatunity is a must have but not equal outcomes

Inequality is the means and the individual reason.

If the revolution doesnt call for inequality then it is in vain

your definition of elite, are rich and competent always the criteria? are you implying to be rich one must be competent and if one is rich it is because they are competent

because inequality is inevitable

they are rich because they are the most competent in most cases

but in almost all cases they are competent in their own right and their own field, clearly

are the "degenerates" poor because they are weak, or are their competent among them

the degenerates are poor because they're weak

they must be thought how to grow strong

and if that fails then they are hopeless

weak... mentally? or physically?

One or the other or both

i understand

you believe our current society functions under the principles of meritocracy

those who are competent rise to elite status

Usually yes

does your belief include the event that the "elite" maintain their power, wealth (one and the same under neoliberal capital) etc., by preventing those competent in the poor to rise?

No, that doesnt happen

the 1% doesnt stay the same as proven by Ben shapiro

people rise through the ranks daily

curious

the 1% doesnt change?

Yes it does

ah, you mean the members of the 1% are in constant flux

they change, someone in the elite today may not be in it tomorrow?

Exactly

how does one leave the 1%

do they die?

do they lose their influence, wealth, power?

Tax sometimes and sometimes someone over takes them and sometimes they lose money too yes

if they were competent enough to rise to the 1%, how could they be so weak as to fall out of it? as a man of "facts and logic", how can you present this idea without recognizing its logical fallacy? Moreover, how could someone competent enough to best 99% of the populace, incentivised to maintain their power and wealth, not use that power wealth and influence (which they have the most of) to maintain their status?

competence doesnt mean perfect. People fall and people rise. Its just how people are.

And they do use their power and wealth to get richer and maintain their status