Orwell wrote:
Even among a movement intended for the masses, we do not put the hoi polloi in charge, but rather we desire the elites to stand up and take responsibility as leaders. Elitism in who would make an appropriate leader does not equate to elitism in who can be a part of the movement, and the failure to make such a distinction indicates a pervasive lack of logical thought. Do we need someone so irrational and logically challenged to represent us? I think not, my friends.
And yet, elitism going across every element of a person's attitude shows that they are out of touch with the people.
And yet, elitism that stands against the intellectual giants who have most stridently attacked these false ideas, and who have been successful leaders is brain dead. I mean, by Orwell's standards, even if Christopher Hitchens came up again to seek to be a leader for atheism, he ought to be rejected. Does this *really* make sense?
Finally, given that there are many significant atheists who do lack degrees, who do have degrees outside of science, and so on and so forth, my point isn't just membership, but rather leadership. Orwell's elitism stands against his recognition of the value of the atheists in the movement, and of people who are more literary, or who do not have college degrees for life-issues or financial hardship. Orwell runs a campaign on contempt for his voters.