ARE WE PROBABLY BLAMING THE ELITES TOO MUCH, WHEN MOST OF US ARE ASPIRING ELITES?

So, me included, do we not just love to blame the elites for all or most of the wrongs in the world? Do we not like to contend that they are responsible for the mess the world is in at present? That it has always been and will always be in; probably atleast until the rest of us, the 'non-elites', take more responsibility for improving the conditions of humanity?

Yes, it is so easy and effortless for us to blame this and that world leader - its Obama's, its Putin, its Assad's fault - this and that multi-billionaire, blame that country, that dictator for all or most of the misfortune which has and is besetting the world. If only they had not done that, or if only they had done that instead, or would do this, things might have been as bad as they are, and probably would have been better.

 There would not have been that war, there would not have been that busted dam or oil pipeline which has now laid waste to to vast areas of land, and has poisoned the livelihood of so many people. Had it not been for the greed of the 'elites' or budding 'elites', these people would not have had to be forced out of their homes and ancestral lands.  

So that it could be raped and deforested and transformed into cash crop palm oil plantation, or soya been plantation, or hydro dam to meet the rapacious needs of the urban population for electricity.

The Native Americans would not have to be fighting, effectively with one hand tied to one leg, trying to prevent ancestral lands being despoiled and destroyed by mining conglomerates.

And so on and so on, the reasons for which we blame the elites are, as they say, legion. And of course there are justifiable reasons why the elites should be blamed for misfortunes for which they are undeniably responsible. It is not a fallacy to say the West - and yes, this is something I often cited - destroyed the integrity of the Libyan nation and sovereignty, or that its leaders have conspired to destroy the integrity of Iraq and Syria and Yemen, for geopolitical reasons, without any real thought for their people. 

Inspite of their nauseating refrain about the 'humanitarian' needs of the people, which are the direct outcome of their policies.  There is this adage which says, rather than giving a poor or hungry person a meal, it is better to provide him/her with the means of growing his own crops and feeding himself and his family.

Not so with the elites interventionist policies, which dictates that it is better - for the elites' interests - to bomb the countries of the poor and make them homeless, livelihoodless, refugees and dependent on the charity of the West's aid givers. Yes, it really is as strange as that, even if the outcome might not have been the intended one.

But, never mind, as you can then resort to blaming the leaders of the countries you have just decimated several times over. Such is the attempted 'teflonised foreign policies' of the west.