[FRIAM] Globalism in the age of populism? .. & Open Source Software

[glen ☣]

I remain confused by the concept of "elites".  Each one of those listed in the article is "anti-establishment".  Is that what "elites" means?  And if so, then what does "establishment" mean?  To be clear, I'm not asking for any one person's opinion of who is or is not "elite" or what defines the class according to that one slice.  As I've already explained, I believe all of us are elite in some sense, even if by the simple historicity of evolution and ontogeny.  E.g. I'm much more me than you are me.  Or to wax philsophical, the only person I know is conscious is me.  Likewise, anyone who can, say, type is elite.  Anyone who can weld aluminum is elite.  Etc.

I'm asking for the archetype these people (some of whom are here on this list) are referring to.  It must be a _complex_ of attributes... those not only with power, but with the Machiavellian ability and motivations to use that power... the smoky back room negotiators ... the 12 Freemasons who run the world... etc.  As Black Sabbath describes: "Treating people like pawns in chess."

There's got to be some way to coherently define what they mean by "elites".

On 01/27/2017 09:01 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> I'm presuming this sort of globalism will not be easy to disrupt, even with the new culture of populism. But it is why I find populism, 10 powerful versions of it (see original post and skim/read the article), a bit threatening. And not just Trump .. there are 9 more given the article.

-- 
☣ glen