Au contraire! They are educated, but in different things. "Things" have substance and make all the difference in the real world. Aesthetics are strictly the product of the particular world YOU live in.
Even Charles would make sense in an anarchistic world where people want order. After all, there can only be one king of the hill. His way is the way of the trinity, or as we in the U.S. might call it, a Mexican Standoff. He just doesn't realize it for what it is, and that's the beauty of it. Sooner or later, the ignorant get a piece of you. Even if you were one of the metaphorical gunslingers, you are always vulnerable to the up and coming because you can't keep your focus on that whole pointless pursuit of power.
So the question is, when you're "playing the game" how will that game invariably shape you? As Friedrich Nietzsche said, "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
Now, I COULD assume moral inversion on your part. We're coming close to the Depression era attitude where mobsters and rogue gunmen were made into heroes for defying the Revenuers, but those things pass and usually in a messy way. Moral inversion is anarchistic. No sane person really wants to be evil.
Just accept that the "Alexander the Great" fantasy you had as a kid isn't going to happen, and when you think about the cost, you're probably better off for it. You can't win this debate. You can only survive and adapt.