Elitism often goes hand in hand with equalitarianism, as seen in Marxism and in Plato’s Republic, both of which deny the biblical view of man. Plato’s model called for rule by philosopher-kings, the abolition of property and family autonomy, and total control of education and culture, all to suppress individualism and enforce obedience.

Modern elitism continues this pattern through state control, claiming that man is infinitely malleable, denying original sin, and redefining happiness as service to social goals. The elite present themselves as reason incarnate: agreement is labeled rational, while dissent is treated as deviance. Though they profess love for the masses, elitists privately despise them and resent the independence created by free markets and social mobility.

This mindset dominates politics, academia, and even the church, where abstract “principles” and esoteric interpretations replace obedience to God’s concrete commands. Elitism is ultimately a religious system rooted in Greek abstraction rather than the authority of the triune God. Scripture calls not for submission to elites but for faithfulness to God’s law, reminding us that true wisdom begins with “the fear of the Lord.”

Aristocracy means “rule by the best,” but history shows that societies have defined “the best” in very different ways. From philosopher-kings and feudal nobles to country gentlemen, saints, and intellectual elites, true aristocracy has rarely rested on power alone. At its strongest, it ruled by moral authority, honor, service, and example rather than force.

When aristocracies abandoned responsibility or developed contempt for the people whether among feudal nobles, Marxist rulers, or modern cultural elites they ceased to be “the best” and became destructive. Jefferson’s hope for a “natural aristocracy” based on talent and service in America eventually degenerated into an isolated and arrogant clerisy, illustrating how pride marks the decline of leadership.

In the modern world, celebrities and political strongmen function as a hollow aristocracy, while respect for authority has largely vanished. The paper concludes that societies receive the rulers they deserve: when people reject moral responsibility, rule by the worst follows. True “rule by the best” can only exist where men and women submit themselves to God’s authority and govern their lives accordingly.

Rushdoony argues that memory personal and cultural is essential to being fully human: when memory collapses (as in senility), a person can remain socially polished yet be stripped of identity, continuity, and direction. He extends that to cultures: history is “social memory,” and when a society becomes present-obsessed and contemptuous of the past, it heads toward cultural senility barbarism because “people who have no past have no future.”

He warns that modern humanistic education and media intentionally warp or replace historical memory. Marxists (and “neo-Marxists”) understood that to create a “new man,” you must rewrite the past; and he claims the broader humanistic project does something similar by swapping history for “social science” a naturalistic, God-purged framework that treats society as an experiment shaped by experts. The result isn’t a higher civilization but a population of “barbarians” people detached from inheritance, meaning, and responsibility made easier to mold into whatever elite rulers want (echoing Orwell’s themes).

His proposed recovery is explicitly theological: history must be approached as a theological science because God not man is Creator and Determiner; therefore genuine cultural memory begins with conversion, Scripture, and seeing man’s story (creation, fall, redemption) rightly. Only Christ restores true freedom and human wholeness (“If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed,” John 8:36), whereas amnesia leaves societies vulnerable to manipulation, “newspeak,” and decline.