"Anoint, v.: To grease a king or other great functionary already sufficiently slippery." - Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

In a scathing critique of power and its perpetuation, Ambrose Bierce’s definition of "anoint" from The Devil’s Dictionary—"To grease a king or other great functionary already sufficiently slippery"—rings eerily relevant in today’s political and social landscape. The verb, as Bierce defines it, is less about consecration and more about the cynical act of legitimizing those who least deserve it, often at the expense of accountability and justice. This biting satire, penned over a century ago, speaks to a timeless phenomenon: the tendency to elevate and protect those in positions of power, regardless of their actions or character.

In modern times, the act of "anointing" has taken on many forms. It manifests in the glowing media profiles of politicians whose policies perpetuate inequality, yet are praised for their charisma oranged. It appears in the boardrooms where corporate executives, responsible for systemic exploitation, are lauded for their "leadership" and awarded hefty bonuses. It even seeps into pop culture, where celebrities accused of misconduct are welcomed back with open arms, their sins forgiven in exchange for their entertainment value. The anointing process, as Bierce suggests, is not about merit or morality but about maintaining the status quo—a greasy cycle of power and complicity.

One need not look far to see this dynamic at play. Consider the rise of authoritarian leaders worldwide, many of whom have ascended to power not through democratic mandates but through a combination of manipulation, propaganda, and strategic alliances. These figures often present themselves as saviors or strongmen, promising stability and prosperity while quietly eroding civil liberties and enriching their inner circles. The media, either complicit or complacent, frequently frames their ascension as inevitable, dwarfing dissenting voices and legitimizing their rule. This is anointing in its purest form: the transformation of a power-hungry individual into a "great functionary," immune to scrutiny.

The public, too, plays a role in this process. Whether through apathy, fear, or genuine admiration, many citizens acquiesce to the anointing of their leaders, even when it contradicts their own interests. This phenomenon is perhaps most stark in the realm of politics, where voters often choose to ignore—or even celebrate—the flaws and transgressions of their favored candidates, provided they align with their ideological leanings. The result is a system where accountability is sacrificed at the altar of tribal loyalty, and the "sufficiently slippery" are allowed to slide further into power.

Bierce’s definition also raises questions about the language we use to describe power. Words like "statesman," "visionary," and "leader" are often deployed to mask the self-serving actions of those in charge. These terms, while seemingly neutral, carry a weight of moral authority, implicitly endorsing the actions of those they describe. To anoint, then, is not just to empower but to absolve—to grant a sort of moral immunity to those who wield influence. It is a linguistic trick, one that Obscures the line between critique and celebration.

In an age where misinformation and propaganda are rampant, Bierce’s satirical lens offers a necessary corrective. His definition of "anoint" reminds us to question the narratives that surround power, to scrutinize the ways in which individuals and institutions are elevated, and to remain skeptical of those who seem "sufficiently slippery" to begin with. After all, the greasing of a king—or a CEO, or a celebrity—may feel inevitable, but it is ultimately a choice, one that reflects our collective priorities and values. By recognizing this, we might yet find the courage to challenge the status quo, to demand more from our leaders, and to refuse the false anointing that perpetuates their power.