#elites

2 spaghetti

Hi res

That vagueness is intentional.

Be wary of people who habitually use this word, it is used to manipulate by bad actors on both the far right and the far left.

[Signal > Noise : Short Lessons in Media Literacy]

"Elites" is meant to trigger suspicion and resentment. It implies that someone is corrupt, powerful, disconnected from the public, and screwing you.

Those who use the word usually neither clarify what kind of power elites hold, nor how such elites use it. They rarely identify specific individuals or institutions.

See, "elite" functions as a label that can be applied to anyone the speaker wants to discredit.

This can include billionaires, journalists, scientists, elected officials, academics, or students because the term adapts to fit the needs of the argument.

"Elites" can refer to one or more of the following:

Economic elites - People and institutions with significant financial power, such as billionaires, major shareholders, corporate executives, and large donors.

Political elites - Individuals with formal power in government, including elected officials, senior staff, party leadership, and agency heads.

Cultural elites - Individuals with strong influence over public discourse, such as journalists, editors, academics, celebrities, and non-profit directors.

Technocratic elites - Experts with institutional authority who influence decisions through credentials and specialization. This includes scientists, public health officials, economists, and regulators.

These groups have different roles and interests, and do not form a single coordinated structure. Describing them as a unified category prevents any accurate or meaningful analysis of how power actually operates.

Political actors across the spectrum use the term "elite" in different ways and to different ends...but always through the same rhetorical framework.

The far left often applies it to individuals or institutions that control capital and accumulate wealth. This includes billionaires, landlords, banks, and multinational corporations.

The far right often uses it to refer to individuals with institutional or cultural influence, especially in education, media, and government administration. This includes journalists, professors, agency officials, and liberal public figures.

In both cases, the speaker identifies a target group, asserts that the group is powerful and unaccountable, and suggests that the group's values or authority are illegitimate.

This approach is about framing, not analysis.

It treats position or background as disqualifying, without examining actions or evidence. It is common in political speech, especially in media segments that rely on emotional response.

When someone uses the word "elite," ask yourself these questions my to clarify what is actually being said:

Who is being referenced? - The speaker should be able to name individuals, roles, or institutions.

What kind of power is involved? - Economic, political, cultural, or technical power should be identified.

What is the concern about that power? - The speaker should explain what actions are harmful or unjustified and why.

What is the proposed alternative? - The speaker should explain what kind of authority or structure would be preferable.

If they don't? You're looking at propaganda.

One of the goals of media literacy is to understand how language shapes perception and attention.

Vague terms like "elite" are used to guide feelings without establishing facts.

The term often pretends to invite scrutiny, while actually discouraging it, because effective analysis requires specificity.

Power must be described in concrete terms.

Motives must be supported with evidence.

Proposals must be evaluated on their merits.

If a speaker refuses to define who they mean by "elite" or what power they are criticizing, their argument cannot be evaluated.

In that case, their purpose is not to inform but to influence.

Critical thinking can help protect you from propaganda.

Did I do something here..

However, The Banished don't. They're unique among Covenant separatists groups in a lot of ways, including not believing in The Great Journey. So, why aren't the elites from The Banished just in Sangheili space? I asked that and then started to realize something. The Arbiter didn't create an independent Sangheilios. He started reforms. Including making doctors a respectable career among the sangheili and allowing women to serve in the military. Effectively, Thel Vadam created universal healthcare and started a feminist reform on his home planet.

So, I'm now wondering if The Banished elites are just the chud sangheili. Like these guys took one look at all the social progress and said "NO! WE DON'T LIKE THIS WOKE NONSENSE! WE WANT TO BE COOL SPACE CONQUERORS AGAIN! So we're gonna go join space Genghis Khan (Atriox)! Fuck you Cuckbiter!".