THE ELITES AND VIRTUE SIGNALING

On the similarities between Marie Antoinette and current elites.

(Virtue Signaling - John and Yoko waiting for the maid to make their bed so they can continue protesting against the system, 1969)

Unlike the Bourbons and Romanovs who displayed their wealth and status throwing lavish parties and building sumptuous castles, the elites today display their status by virtue signaling. They live at the expense of everyone else, the difference is that the royals did not pretend otherwise. Today’s elites, particularly those on the left, love to pretend virtuousness and engage in moral lecturing. Marie Antoinette call to “let them eat cake” is no different than Bill Gates today promoting and funding bugs-based food to help climate change. What people want and need are not virtue signalers but leaders who walk the walk and leave everybody else alone (as Ricky wisely suggested).

Oh, how history rhymes! Cycles and patterns, they repeat themselves, they are right there to see, for anyone willing to pay attention. After all, what has been will be again, what has been done will be done again, for there is nothing new under the sun.[I] And so it is with Marie Antoinette, the Romanovs’, and today’s elite. While the French suffered from food shortages, Marie Antoinette strolled throughout her gold covered palace coated in diamonds followed by no less than a dozen ladies-in-waiting, she spent her weekends either throwing lavish parties or resting at her hameau while pretending to live a “simple country life”. Similarly, while the Russians labored under the direst of conditions in order to barely make ends meet, the Romanovs’ built sumptuous palaces where the most extravagant of feasts and balls were hosted for the Russian crème de la crème, who arrived by the Imperial custom-made trains of velvet interiors and gold trimmings. Again, there is nothing new under the sun. Today’s elites show much of the same disconnect with reality and the average Joe’s woes, as once did these Royals.

Today’s elites show not a dissimilar disconnect, or perhaps disinterest, with reality as once did the Bourbons’ and the Romanovs’. Elites appear, once again, unconcerned about the struggling lower and middle class. There is one blatant difference, however. As George Washington said, the ground has been so often trod, that a place hardly remains untouched. The main difference between elites of the past and today’s, lies in the portrayed pretense and false interest about those in need. Unlike Marie Antoine who willingly prescribed the masses to eat cake when food shortages were widespread (whether she actually said it is irrelevant for the current discussion) and the tzars who continued to organize huge celebratory parades while their people starved, today’s elites feign compassion and empathy towards those "beneath” them. Rather than being genuinely virtuous, they stage uninterrupted shows of virtue signaling, which is not without its consequences.

Had the Bourbons ‘and Romanovs’ showed some compassion, genuine interest, had taken action to ensure their people prospered, or had at least been discreet about their excesses, their tragic ends might have been avoided. That they cared about their own wellbeing was not their fatal flaw, that they did so at the expense of others without concealing it, was. This lesson has at least been learned by some. The elites have learned that by showing charisma and public engagement, however unauthentic, they can extend their lavish lifestyles while avoiding the guillotine (virtual these days). The problem today, as it was back in the day, is not one of inequality, as the left loves to suggest, but a problem of wealth accumulation by those who govern, and their friends (cronyism), through illegal or immoral means. Furthermore, the problem has been magnified by the consequences of virtue signaling and the support of luxury beliefs by those at the right tail of the income distribution. The problem lies in the members of the elite who pretend to care for others, while actively supporting and advancing destructive policies, disguised as “progressive”, that only hurt those from the lower and middle class.

The difference between the Bourbons and the Romanovs and Obama and Beyoncé is that the former did not conceal their intentions, while the latter pretend to be men (women) of the people. Mass media has made it increasingly easy for them to do so. Mass media, especially social media, has enabled virtue signaling by hacking into our biological mechanisms. Our bodies are programmed to seek pleasure. When we do, our brain secretes dopamine, the “feel-good” chemical. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter (chemical messenger) in the brain that plays a major role in motivation, pleasure, and reward. Whenever we engage in pleasurable activities, our brain releases dopamine, which makes us feel good in the moment. With time, dopamine is released in anticipation of a pleasurable action, which motivates us to engage in such activity. While this mechanism is incredibly useful, it is not perfect. One of its imperfections is its naivety.

The dopaminergic system can be easily cheated as it unable to judge veracity. When it comes to being virtuous, for example, it has no capacity to distinguish between being virtuous or signaling virtuousness. It is unable to tell, and therefore releases dopamine, whether we are donating our own money to charity or are merely talking about it. We feel good regardless, we get a rush out of virtue signaling without having to be virtuous. In other words, our brain can be hacked through pretense. This mechanism has been made all the worse by social media, which has allowed us to pretend morality without the need to be so. Worse, we have become unable, or perhaps too lazy, to distinguish between a virtuous person and one that merely signals virtuousness. We also get the “feel-good” chemical by accepting and encouraging those who signal virtue, as it cheats our brain into believing that by supporting the cause, we are just as virtuous.

Today’s elites are exploiting social media to get a dopamine kick at the expense of the lower and middle class. Through social media, they promote luxury beliefs, a term coined by American writer Rob Henderson. Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class, while often inflicting costs on the lower class. Elites promote destructive ideas disguised as moral or “progressive” to appear virtuous and stave off a Bourbon or Romanov style tragical end. By appearing empathic and compassionate, they elicit sympathy, while getting a dose of “feel-good” chemicals. A luxury belief, for example, is the top 1% support to defund the police as they can afford the luxury of living in safe and often gated communities, it is the Davos participants promoting the taxation of air travel as they can afford the luxury of flying private, it is politicians endorsing gun control as they can afford the luxury of hiring bodyguards and private security, it is celebrities endorsing the body positivity movement as they can afford the luxury of paying exorbitant medical bills derived from obesity or get instant access to Ozempic if they so choose, and so on. The promotion of luxury beliefs is usually an attempt to signal virtuousness, to avoid the perception that brought the destruction to several royal families, all the while brining disastrous consequences to those of moderate means.

“The elites, especially those on the left, are being revealed for what they are: virtue signalers who believe they are morally superior, who believe have the wisdom to know what is best for all of us and impose their beliefs by force, while living the exact life they appear to condemn. They seek to gain approval and power by feigning compassion and empathy towards those they deem to be below them.”

The problem with today’s elites is their unceasing attempt to appear virtuous while constantly promoting destructive policies, knowing they are shielded from its consequences. Whether intentionally or naively, the consequences are just the same. Perhaps, as I mentioned in a previous Substack, this virtue signaling and ignorant promotion of luxury beliefs is why the left has been losing so much ground. The elites, especially those on the left, are being revealed for what they are: virtue signalers who believe they are morally superior, who believe have the wisdom to know what is best for all of us and impose their beliefs by force, while living the exact life they appear to condemn. They seek to gain approval and power by feigning compassion and empathy towards those they deem to be below them. Because they pretend virtuousness, they get a dopamine hit without actually having to be virtuous. Unfortunately, the end result for the people is no different from that of the tzars’ and royals,’ disastrous.

While such tactics can work temporarily, they eventually become tiresome and even bothersome. Hence, the elites should either become virtuous (in case they are not) or stop pretending and instead fade into anonymity to avoid the public eye. The worst thing to do is get caught in the pretense, because then sympathy quite rapidly evaporates, at least by those paying attention to reality. It has become quite bothersome, for example, to pay CO2 taxes for eating steak because celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio promote policies to tackle climate change while he himself vacations at a $190 million super-yatch with his own helicopter to avoid the troublesome 318ft ride to the beach. It is quite bothersome to have men in women’s bathrooms and tampons in men’s bathrooms because retarded stars like Taylor Swift endorse the rainbow agenda while she has no kids to protect and is not obliged to share spaces and change clothes with men pretending to be women , to have to listen to Oprah talk about oppression and the evils of “the privileged” while she charged the Harris campaign a million dollars for an interview to “protect democracy” despite her bank account having more zeroes than an iPhone calculator can fit, to listen to liberal schools promote diversity and inclusion while they employ almost only democrat supporting professors, or Pope Francis condemning the U.S.’ immigration policies while he lives inside a walled city in a Palace where entry is prohibited unless previously invited. Unlike the tzars and royals who displayed their status and wealth by throwing lavish parties, today’s elites display their status and wealth by promoting “progressive” ideas whose consequences they are shielded from.

Just as it must have been with Marie Antoinette’s whims, it is incredibly annoying today to see celebrities like Selena Gomez crying about ICE deporting illegal immigrants from the comfort of a well-guarded 34,000sq ft at a time when shoppers have to wait for a Target rep to open the locked doors guarding the toothpaste because crime is up, or Jennifer Aniston getting covered in oil to promote climate change activism while wearing a $32,500 Cartier gold watch at a time when the population is struggling to fill up their gas tank, or to see Meghan Markle and Prince Harry sign a $100million contract with Netflix so they can whine and complain about the hardships of royal life while an average parent works two jobs to provide a decent lifestyle to their children. It is annoying because most people are concerned about making ends meet, about their children’s well-being, about being able to purchase a home or live in a decent apartment, about having access to good education and healthcare. Most people care about being able to provide the best for their families, while being able to spend time with them. Thus, at times of economic hardship where the American Dream appears unattainable to a large percent of the population, the virtue signaling of the top 1% becomes not only annoying, but insulting as well. When billionaires talk about “the rich” and millionaires talk about oppression, it triggers the emotions as lavish parties and royal castles one triggered.

The situation becomes worse when we forget about celebrities, who actually worked to build their wealth, and instead look at politicians who are supposed to watch after their people but are instead focused on their personal image and riches. Then, the situation appears much more similar to that of the Tzars. For example, having to hear the Obama’s speak about oppression and point fingers at the “rich” while they own three multi-million dollar homes, to hear Senator Warren attack the “rich” and advocate for socialism while she built a $12million dollars net worth while on a ~$175k salary, or to see Senator Sanders shift his attention to billionaires because he himself is now a millionaire. It just as maddening to see the 1% of the 1% supporting socialist candidates and causes because they themselves will not suffer the consequences that such destructive policies will bring. It is maddening to see people like Bill and Melinda Gates whose combined net worth approximates $200bn, Michael Bloombergwhose wealth amounts to $105bn, George Soros who has at least $7.2bn, Reed Hastings who has accumulated $5.7bn, and Sheryl Sandberg whose estimated net worth is around $2.4bn, amongst many many others, voting for leftist quasi-Marxist policies because they not only will not be affected by it, but will benefit from it. It is upsetting because they have no issue buying groceries, purchasing homes, sending their children to private schools, living in safe neighborhoods, having a private car, sharing bathrooms with opposite-sex people, and every other basic need the average person has. They are shielded, just as the tzars were, from reality, from the struggles of the average Joe and so they can afford to have and promote destructive ideas.

The problem is not that they have built such wealth, the problem is that they insist on lecturing the rest of the people about the evils of capitalism, while they themselves have benefitted enormously from it. The problem is that while they can afford to have luxury beliefs because they are shielded from the consequences, most people are not. Thus, just as the Tzars and Royals lived at the expense of everyone else, so today’s elite virtue signal and promote policies at the expense of everyone else. The issue is not of wealth, but of believing such wealth gives you power over others and gives you the right to lecture against the precise system that allowed you to be privileged in the first place. The issue is that socialists make us believe money is evil, thus, those who have it must pretend not to have it or not to want it to avoid the evil eye that comes with the envy promoted by socialists. The issue is that the 1% of the 1% fear the evil eye brought about by envy, thus, they shield themselves from it by pretending to be virtuous through the promotion of luxury beliefs that appear popular and compassionate at any given time.

Unless a person has been brainwashed by socialists, somebody else’s economic success should not be an issue. The problem is being lectured and governed by people who do not walk the walk. That is a reason why so many people have become disenchanted with the left, because they do not live by the tenets they preach. They do not actually care about being virtuous, but about appearing virtuous. Once the intentions are revealed, the sympathy towards them and their cause evaporates. We saw it in the 2024 elections, and we are seeing it across multiple countries across Europe as well. Just like the people got fed up with Marie Antoinette and Alexandra, so people today are getting annoyed by the left’s virtue signaling and their promotion of destructive policies. What people want is to be left alone, what they want and need are leaders who walk the walk, who avoid the all-too-easy dopamine kick of faking virtuousness but who are actually virtuous or at least avoid the moral lecturing, as Ricky Gervais very wisely recommended.