I agree that if we want to see renaissance, aristocracy is our only hope. But in your opinion
1) is our present-day aristocracy fit for the job of fixing the world?
2) are they interested in fixing the world, or do they enjoy it the way it is? That is - they living in elysiums with their families, while masses dwell cities where they are free to enjoy consequences of egalitarian delusions that were enforced upon them by their prole-mesmerizing governments?
Dutch aristocracy has been heralding egalitarianism to masses for a long time. Proles love them for that in return.
In Netherlands egalitarianism is compulsory in every aspect of your daily existence. First day of every new course at university is the day when you are told to form a group of 5 in which you will work on an assignment for the rest of the semester. Every such group typically consists of 2 high(ish)-performers and 3 free-riding half-wits. This way everybody can pass with an average grade while group dynamics will also ensure nobody can come up with anything radical. Half-wits will later find jobs where they will always work in couples (one can read, the other one can write), which is good for national employment rates, which is good for socialism. Teachers will see into it that in international classes, formation of groups is subject to rules of diversity. Otherwise, Dutch students would naturally stick together (and form groups of 5 high performers) which would disappoint other students' expectations of liberal, multicultural education they were promised on the university's website. It would also produce drop-outs (which is essentially a non existing phenomenon these days) and drop-outs would cause less government subsidies to the faculty. That would result into lower grade for the teacher at the end of the semester (generated by students' evaluations) which could mean no possibility for that teacher to teach in the next semester and perhaps no tenure in the future... All visiting exchange-students from other countries will get a "Dutch buddy" - a local student who will show them around the city, take them to pub-crawls and to the museum of wax figurines so that they can pay 25 bucks to see Obama and agree on how everything is great. Dutch students will get study credits (as if they followed another course) for providing the illusion of enjoying to spend their time around foreigners (which is something that never happens without incentivisation) and at the end of the day everybody's happy (like in Brave New World)
[sorry for the slightly unrelated outburst]
However, the social construct of compulsory equality is religiously upheld only among members of lower classes. You are constantly expected to manifest your consistency with liberalism at school and later at work as long as you are around the likes of yourself. Once you are about to approach members of aristocracy, however, your fellow ceremonial-position-holding proles will push you to address everybody accordingly and, in general, adjust your behavior to make sure you radiate subordination. That way aristocrats can maintain their benevolent easy-going, enlightened image and enjoy enormous prestige in this uber - leftist society. This will allow them to influence public opinion when needed.
Of course what's needed is that more questionable behavior is promoted by opinion shapers to the masses:
(Dutch queen posing semi-naked with a cigarette & a bottle of Jack Daniels in a 2013 issue of a life style magazine
targeted at wives of CEOs (a very broadly used term nowadays) & people who like to adopt luxury life style.)
So can we perhaps agree that the successors of aristocracy that escaped the guillotine had successfully learned how to adopt egalitarian rhetoric in order to stay alive AND later found out that actually liberalism can be effectively used in order to keep proles down?
If we can, to some extent, agree to that... can such aristocracy fix the world by the means of injecting "more of the same"? Or can that attitude in fact do more harm?
I for one find buying a bottle of whiskey for an alcoholic that I want to get rid of a very effective practice. However, is it moral - especially when heroism is one of the 5 points on the agenda? Or do we first need to redefine morality?