During Antiquity, those at the top were called citizens, those at the bottom slaves. Nowadays, those at the bottom are called citizens and those at the top no longer feel the need for a name.
This is a nice description, and I like Your style of putting it in words - but, is it actually true?
Yes, we know tha generally praised "first democracy in the world", the ancient Greek, included only a selected few of established Athens citizens, while lots of others, peasants and slaves, were out.
Rome had a clear distinction between the 'cives romanus' who would have rights, and any other who would have no rights.
So, anywhere is a kind of "establishment" - a group of people who would decide along which values a society is supposed to run, and which rules and taboos should be in place. And these groups have formal and informal means to secure their place, as well als means to decide upon the hierarchy among themselves.
You're also right that there was a kind of hiccup with the French revolution - and some say, this (and democracy in general) is just a great hoax of the Illuminati, in order to move the gentry out of sight so these could not be blamed anymore; and that way to establish their power even better, because the people, now due to the illusion of democracy, would have to blame themselves for all mishaps.
This is obviousely a conspiracy-theory.
So, the most asked question: who are the illuminati today? You say, they no longer feel the need for a name. But then, do they still exist at all?
What I see is just people who got into certain positions - for a variety of reasons: because of daringness, because of luck, because of inheritance, because of recklessness, because of being at the right place at the right time and doing the right thing, or whatever.
And then, these people gather with people in similar position, because that is natural, and everybody does. And so this becomes an "establishment", without there being any conspiracy at all - only some people doing what they think might suit them best.
This divide remaining so stable over time, beyond Newspeak fashion, means it is necessary - in other words, a constraint.
Yes. And I might suppose it is much simpler: it is just an attribute of the mind. There are not so many people who are willing to take responsibility and undergo risk. Many more do prefer to just hide among the masses and blame somebody else for their mishaps.
I am not sure if that is an educational matter, or just one of diversity. Anyway, entrepreneurship is not gifted to everybody. And obviousely, entrepreneurship does not guarantee one to rise into the establishment - but it's a prerequisite.