––––––––––––
According to the above-stated, purposeful overcoming of crowd-“elitism” by revealing and solving problems generated by it demands neither creation of some “real elite”, nor revealing of some “positive persons” who would be erected in a rank of authorities for society, but personal self-development of many people with mutual help to each other in this task on the basis that for every human his own conscience is an absolute authority...
However it needs from many to find their conscience and will, to wake them up, to learn to distinguish the conscience and different prejudices and obsessions, and to control the will by the conscience…
––––––––––––
In a crowd-“elitist” society different “authorities” are not “locomotives” but obstacles for personal development of other people and, as a consequence, for the social development in whole.
It is objective reality, which concerns as “artificial” authorities, exaggerated by
PR-managers from nothing, and also authorities of those who have really made something significant in aspect of profit for society development and thus have deserved recognition as high professionals in certain spheres of activity.
If harm of “artificial”, inherently false, authorities is clear for majority, then harm of real authorities, well-deserved by deeds helpful for society, is much more difficult to understand.
The harm of real authorities consists of that others are so sure in efficiency of their deeds that express it not only in trust to authorities in some tasks, elaborating and making decisions or in more or less readiness to live and work under their control, but also in shifting off their part of responsibility onto real authorities and in conscious (or unconscious) recognition of right for carelessness and irresponsibility for themselves.
There is a widespread expression of this principle: “I’m a little man, it is no concern on mine and nothing depends from me”. But there is no understanding that with such relation to Life nothing will depend from him.
As a matter of fact this means that, erecting somebody in a rank of authority, crowd-“elitist” society dooms him to loneliness, thus refuses him for support.
It seems paradoxical at first sight, but people admiring authority and relying on him in all tasks actually refuse him in support. The reason is that nobody immunes against mistakes; many tasks can't be done by single man, but demand for collective initiative (but not only executive) activity. And having made someone to be an authority, having declined all responsibility and having refused from own initiative in task, coordinated by real authority, people make act of apostasy from him or her, whom they worship at and whom they feel high respect for (as they sincerely convince).
And the most dangerous is that:
near to authority there are many creeping toadies and probably fair but non-initiative executors;
but there are extremely few of those, who can check faultlessness of authority's actions and take the initiative in those aspects of common task, which authority has no time for or which appear outside of sphere of his world-perception, world-understanding and, as a consequence, out of his administrative competence (which is fraught with great troubles for a society).
––––––––––––
In essence, the told above lets understand, that not only Judas have given up from the Christ, but also other apostles have given up. Though they made it a little differently, instead of how Judas did.
Concerning Joseph Stalin “true Stalinists”, as a matter of fact, behaved in the same way. Peoples of ex-USSR already more than half a century have been disentangling consequences of that. And apparently they will do it for several decades more, in spite of someone has already paid attention to that after 1991.
Muhammad (Mohammed) moved away from his authority during lifetime. But after his death in historically real Islam the worship on prophet's authority changed that doctrine which was opened through the prophet: otherwise the leadership of Muslim culture in global civilization construction would proceed till now.
But to take admirers of authorities down a peg and to compel them to become responsible for themselves and initiative in a common task is not a simple problem, because admirers of authorities in a crowd-“elitist” society are more troublesome than blowflies. Frankly envious persons in comparison to them are less harmful in aspect of common task's damage and distortion, than admirers can be...
However, many former admirers, having disappointed on former idol-authority under influence of their (i.e. admirers) own incapacity, realize their envy to former authorities in becoming their slanderers and active opponents.
––––––––––––
But also “struggle against authorities” is yet one of specific features of crowd-“elitism”. It can proceed in different forms.
Nihilism expressed in slogan “I’m the enemy of all so-called ‘authorities’”. Finally it leads to groundless refusal of trust to other people on the basis of own biases concerning them and on the basis of circulating through society gossips - i.e. another’s fictions, extended and accepted as true, and also inadequate subjective interpretation of real events. Nihilism as a version of social idiocy[15] - dooms everyone captured by it on fruitlessness in deeds.
Competition with authority for its status possession in society. Inherently the competition is directed to dethrone the authority in minds of associates and to replace it by competitor himself or by those, in whose hands ambitious competitor is a pawn.
If competition is directed to dethrone of exaggerated authority, “artificially” created or arisen due to misunderstanding of someone recognizing somebody’s authority, – then this is inherently aimless work, which, in case of success, reaches following results: former barren is substituted for several time by another barren.
If competition is directed to deprivation of trust and respect of person doing something really socially useful, and reaches success, then society gets harm; if it doesn’t reach success, than “fighters against authority” discredit themselves in opinion of others. In any of two variants someone would regret with time about “swoop” on person making good deeds, if not initiators of “swoop”, then those who hold with initiators.