How to Create a New Elite

Reinventing Aristocracy in the Age of Woke Capital: How Honourable WASP Elites Could Recue Our Civilization from Bad Governance by Irresponsible Corporate Plutocrats
Prof. Andrew Fraser
Arkos Media 2022.

Conventional conservatives have recently discovered the perils of “woke capital.” Meanwhile, Andrew Fraser has been writing about this issue for over twenty years. Back in January USA Today ran a piece explaining: “Why conservatives are fighting ‘woke’ corporations.” In the style of that publication the article reports: “Corporate is the target of right-wing America.” The story goes on to cite a report describing “American corporations [as] hyper-politicized and corrupt.” For example, “the nation’s top money managers – BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – are pursuing an ideological agenda at the expense of financial returns.” [1]  Professor Fraser believes he has a solution for the above problem.

Andrew William Fraser [b. 1944) has spent decades studying, teaching, and writing about law, government, and economics. The volume under consideration here, his fifth book, is a revised and expanded edition of an earlier work Reinventing Aristocracy: The Constitutional Reformation of Corporate Governance (1998).[2] He has also contributed articles to this journal as well as other publications. The Canadian born Fraser taught for many years in the Department of Public Law at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. He had previously earned a BA and LLB from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario; a LLM from Harvard; and a MA from the University of North Carolina. More recently, and in retirement, he earned a degree in theology. The author was one of the few academics with the temerity to publicly oppose non-White immigration to Australia. He was a presenter at the 2006 American Renaissance conference.

Fraser’s basic thesis is that a reconstituted corporate governance could be the genesis for a new aristocracy within the Anglo sphere. A mandated shareholders’ senate, self-selected among those with a certain level of ownership and a willingness to serve, would have the authority to guide corporate conduct for the common good. Eventually this corporate aristocracy could extend its influence to other social institutions. The author has admitted that such a scheme is, “to say the least, a bit off the beaten track” (xxxvii).

Fraser is rightly concerned about growing corporate power which he believes could be a larger threat to freedom than governmental authority. Certainly their increasing size, globalization, and use of technology has expanded corporate reach. For some the advantage of the author’s plan is that it would curtail corporate power without increasing state power. And malicious state power is a greater menace than malicious corporate power if for no other reason than the state’s predominant physical force. But it is difficult to imagine corporations reforming themselves without some outside entity intervening, and the state is the only institution with the potential to do so. In any case wouldn’t it be wonderful if the corporations were on our side.

The author traces the origins of the corporate problem to the division between ownership (shareholders) and control (management) which began back in the nineteenth century.  Fraser repeatedly criticizes the managerial class for failure to take responsibility for their actions. But isn’t the real problem the perverted way in which managers see their civic responsibility – witness the millions given to organizations such as Jesse Jackson’s PUSH and BLM. This largess is partly public relations/protection money, but the managerial class has largely bought into the new Left’s diversity and inclusion ideology. Certainly Fraser is well aware of this, evidence the term “woke capital” in his title.

The author’s goals are worthy, but his means are questionable. I remain unconvinced by his corporate approach. He sees the necessity of aristocracy, but within a republic. He even has some sympathy for monarchy. These forms may be compatible by resurrecting the idea of mixed or balanced government which dates back to classical antiquity and greatly influenced the Founding Fathers. Mixed government includes the rule by one – a king or president, the rule by a few – an aristocracy or senate, and the rule by many – the commons or the people. Today such a design is anathema to “our democracy.”

Leadership is key to historical change that is almost always brought about by a relatively small number of dynamic agents whether they be Hellenes, Puritans, or Bolsheviks. This is consistent with the iron law of oligarchy. So the fundamental change we seek requires a new elite. But not all elites are aristocratic, and aristocracies take decades, even generations to develop. A true aristocracy would be defined not just by authority, but by civic virtue. They would lead not just politically, but also culturally. An alternative to the corporate route sees a successful revolutionary cadre becoming the new governing class that would eventually evolve into an aristocracy of civic and cultural leadership.

Would Fraser’s corporate senates be the seed germ for a new aristocracy? He writes: “Denunciation of the managerial regime serves no useful purpose unless it arises out of a movement aiming to create a new ruling class” [emphasis in the original] (xxxiv). Thus his proposal can only be accomplished as part of a wider radical change. He reiterates that “the restoration of . . . a WASP ruling class will require much more than the stand-alone reformation of corporate governance” (xlv). Well, it is good to have a plan because the corporate may be the institution most resistant to change when change comes. The present globalized managerial elites of woke capitalism have “endowed the demonic power of revolutionary Communism with a new lease on life.” The Left is “now in bed with corporate oligarchies” (xxxviii). The combination of Left-wing fanaticism with cold-heart capitalism is a malevolent mixture.

The author believes Whites are now “the new kulaks in the global racial revolution” (xli).  The Kulaks, of course, were the more prosperous and progressive Russian and Ukrainian peasants who became scapegoats for the shortcomings of communism. They were wreckers and spoilers, the saboteurs of the socialist dream who needed to be crushed. This leads Fraser to the topic of biological Leninism or bioleninism, a relatively new and interesting term. To secure his revolution Lenin needed to dispossess, drive out, or kill the best Russians of his generation. The neo-Marxists of today may have similar plans for the White middle class because “White European-descended peoples” could “provide the biocultural seedbed for a rival counter-revolutionary ruling class” (xli). It’s good that, at least in the above passage, Fraser refrains from using the term Anglo-Saxon or the acronym WASP. He is an Anglophile which is fine, but those designations are too restrictive to be useful within an American context where the largest European ethnicity is German. Madison Grant, the great racial ecologist writing hundred years ago, had little use for the term Anglo-Saxon. Writing fifty years ago the prescient racial theorist Wilmot Robertson thought the acronym WASP was redundant and unflattering. There are no non-White Anglo-Saxons, and wasps are nasty buggers, especially if they are wearing yellow jackets.

Several pages later Fraser again narrows the parameters for his revolutionary strategy: “One indispensable prerequisite for a renewed WASP ascendency . . .  is the concomitant rebirth of ethno-religious spirituality in a post-creedal Anglican church” (xlvi). Okay, here is where the professor goes more than just “a bit off the beaten track.” But he is half right. Along with political change we desperately need a “concomitant rebirth of ethno-religious spirituality,” but I hardly think even a “post-creedal Anglican church” is the vehicle for this rebirth. True – a religion must have an element of faith, otherwise it is just a philosophical system or ideology. So we need faith in a higher power, but moving forward any spiritual rebirth should be largely naturalistic, based on science and the western aesthetic. Talk about cultural continuities of long duration as the Annales school does: Venus de Milo represents feminine beauty that can still be appreciated 2100 years later.[3]

The above discussion pertains to the Preface and Introduction of Reinventing Aristocracy. Much of the main text expands on issues previously raised. In chapter one Fraser restates his goal “to reinvent the theory and practice of aristocracy” (1), even if this scheme “seems utterly quixotic” (2). The author appears conflicted as to whether a reformed corporate governance will be the genesis of this new aristocracy, or just one of the manifestation of a new political-social paradigm. If it is the former than I agree the scheme seems “utterly quixotic.” Fraser believes that “civilizing capitalism is not a matter of subordinating the corporate economy to the state” (3) although this appears to be the logical solution. Let businesses tend to business. Corporations are economic organizations, so it is natural that they would have a strong incentive to maximize short-term profits and long-term corporate value. The problem is corporations have taken their eye off the economic ball and embraced the neo-liberal, neo-Marxist political agenda. Politics makes strange bed fellows.

In Chapter 2 – Corporations and the Economic Logic of Efficiency – the author returns to the subject of a mixed system of government.  The monarchy, the aristocracy, and the people constitute the “natural social orders of a mixed and balanced polity” (35). The division into threes brings to mind the work of the French philologist Georges Dumézel who saw a tripartite model as deeply embedded in western psyche. He dates this ideology back to Proto-Indo-European culture with its division of the sacral, the martial, and the material. Christianity was westernized with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The three orders – those who pray, those who fight, and those who labor – were central to medieval thought. Today we have the three branches of government – executive, legislative, and judicial – as well as three levels of government – federal, state, and local. The forms remain, though the content has become corrupted.

In Chapter 3 – Corporations and the Political Realities of Power- Fraser recognizes that “the modern business corporation is governed not just by the economic logic of efficiency, but also by the political realities of power” (75). Doesn’t this suggest that rather than self-regulation, government intervention will be needed to reform corporate governance? Shareholders are usually a large, diverse group, geographically dispersed, and often with limited interest in the enterprise beyond economic gain. Capitalism, a very dynamic economic force that is also capable of being socially injurious, requires strong government regulation, perhaps corporatism.

In Chapter 4 – Corporations and the Constitutional Genesis of Civic Authority – the author concedes that: “To propose that a class of bourgeois shareholders be transformed into a senatorial elite is to risk one’s political credibility” (123). This in view that “we face the ’coming tyranny of an economic regime of unaccountable rulers, a totalitarianism not of the political sphere but of the economic’” (126).[4] To me this evokes an image of masses of consumer wage slaves, without clear ethnic, cultural or even sexual identity, held in debt bondage to international capitalists.

Though radical, Fraser is essentially conservative. He points out that when formulating a governmental structure “we have the historical memory of countless untried and failed alternatives still available to us” (130). Sounds probable, but it would have been interesting to cite some examples of these untried or failed alternatives that may now work in new environment. The Right should always seek guidance and inspiration from the past, but present conditions and future aspirations need to be paramount in our thinking. A bit further on Fraser quotes Alain de Benoist: “The Right has lost its main enemy: Communism. The Left has chosen to collaborate with its own: capitalism. Having long since committed itself to uncontrolled capitalist development, the Right’s defense of the traditional values of family, patriotism, and authority has been confused, hypercritical and ineffective” (153).  Like an unrequited lover, the Right remains loyal to corporate capitalism, a system that has turned against it. Fortunately this uncritical attachment may finally be loosening as evidenced by the USA Today article cited above.

In the Epilogue: The Rebel in Paradise Ltd., the author indulges in some wishful thinking, as most of us do from time to time. He believes there are some “rebel capitalists ready to become the vanguard of a reflexive and responsible ruling class” (173). Who are they? Where are they? More musings: “It may be . . . that objective conditions for a spontaneous spiritual awakening are ripening in the old White Commonwealth countries” (176). Perhaps so, Fraser knows the old Commonwealth better than I, but I see little indication of this in neighboring Canada.

Reading Reinventing Aristocracy is a bit like panning for gold – you will find some valuable nuggets, but you’re going to have to work through a lot of granular material. This is partly due to repetition, and as mentioned above, some seeming contradictions. Is Fraser’s new corporate elite the catalyst for radical change, or merely one manifestation of that change? Capitalism is portrayed as both a hostile force and the source for constructive leadership. The process to go from the former to the latter is not entirely clear. On the plus side it is good that the author highlights the threat posed by international capitalism, and the fact that change comes from changing elites. I would like to learn more about ethno-religious spirituality and bioleninism. The book is most likely to appeal to those interested in business law, economic and legal history, and adjacent issues.

[1] Jessica Guynn, “Why GOP declared war on wokeness,” USA Today, January 6, 2023, B7.

[2] Also by Andrew Fraser: The Spirit of the Laws: Republicanism and the Unfinished Project of Modernity (1990); The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament, and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (2011); and Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to Christian Theology (2017).

[3] For a discussion of Western ethno-spirituality see: Nelson Rosit, “Ernst Haeckel Reconsidered,” The Occidental Quarterly, v. 15 no. 2 (Summer 2015) 81-96.

[4] Here Fraser quotes Gary Teeple, Globalization and the Decline of Social Reform (1995).

44 replies
  1. Weaver
    Weaver says:

    This is a very nice article. My understanding of “mixed” polities, from Aristotle, is they can include any two (or three) categories (needn’t always include all 3). I don’t claim to know what is ideal.

    GK Chesterton once wrote that if a people had a king who wouldn’t lead them (perhaps in war? I forget what duty this king failed to perform), those people would find themselves a new king. Chesterton had a very populist perspective, almost as if he wanted to argue extremes in order to open a reader’s mind to what’s possible. My point: the current King of England doesn’t deserve my loyalty. Nick Griffin defended the monarchy somewhat; he likely knows better than I.

    The author of this article recommends “science” as religious, but that seems dead to me. I’ve generally focused on survival, preservation as a partial goal. “Traditionalists” will argue that traditions must remain living, suggesting some change. Anyway, it’s a tricky topic to discuss and communicate on. I value Creation as the product of God’s hand.

    Sam Francis praised the Anglican Church as once having been racial. I can probably find the article; it’s one of his major ones at AmRen I think. I want to say he praises the US South and South Africa, also.

    Francis/Burnham wrote on the managerial elite, which tend to be type 1 (manipulative, weak in combat, individualistic, smarter, cosmo); we want type 2 (nationalist, religious, group oriented, honest, etc.) Burnham’s ideal might be a mix of 1 & 2, suggesting in our case a nationalist who isn’t an idiot.

    Switching to Bill Lind: We would seem to need spiritual inspiration within 4th generation warfare which would inspire whites to act for white interests on their own, wherever they might be. I very much like this focus (in this article and book) on creating an aristocracy.

    There’s a book called: “Aristocratic Souls in Democratic Times” which is probably good. I don’t have time to read anything, but I want to especially read Jerry Salyer’s article therein. The impression I got when the book came out is I would find it missing some of what I wanted.

  2. Joe
    Joe says:

    “But not all elites are aristocratic, and aristocracies take decades, even generations to develop. A true aristocracy would be defined not just by authority, but by civic virtue.”

    This is exactly what the National Socialists had set up… a meritocracy. It didn’t matter one’s station in life. If one had the potential and most importantly, a DEVOTION to the Nation, he or she was propelled in their gifted calling.

    • B. Rockford
      B. Rockford says:

      1. Anglo-Saxon “Christians” are not the only people to save.
      2. Eugenics will be needed, again.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      If “our” identity is northwest European, specifically including Germany as a vital component, then understanding NS might well be important.

      We could be multiple related identity groups. I don’t know how well that would work. Eastern Europeans fight currently. British groups fight or growl… etc.

      Unrelated: Many “leftists” seem to believe anarchy leads to a loss of nationalism, though we know their anarchistic aims would lead to either nationalism or a vacuum filled with a new state, possibly by external conquest.

      Their lack of political science could be useful. If they cut government payments, humans would depend on kin more. If they cut police, humans would police themselves, which would be kin oriented to some extent, also religious oriented.

  3. Barbara
    Barbara says:

    Our forefathers opposed corporations and warned that they would do to us just exactly what they are doing. Does anyone know how to go about breaking them up?

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      1. Libertarians say the corporate structure shouldn’t be legal. I assume they are fine with partnerships and not with LLC. Libertarians seem to have issue with:
      a. Indefinite lives of corporations
      b. Limited liability.

      2. Distributists have proposed coops to allow economy of scale.

      3. In Asia, I can look this reference up if wanted, state owned enterprises are a popular alternative to monopolies.

      4. Paul Craig Roberts recently (on his blog) defended the Bell System (before break up into Baby Bells) and monopoly, which surprised me.

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      @ Barbara,

      “Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country, and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bonds… I consider the class of artificers as the panders of vice, and the instruments by which the liberties of a country are overturned… I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural.”6
      —Thomas Jefferson

      If ‘OIL’ the lifeblood of our industrial civilization is in depletion mode as some argue see here:

      then haven’t we got a serious problem on our hands?

      Indeed if what some teach is true which I fear is highly likely nothing brings into view these words than the loss of oil and energy:

      For there will be trouble then worse than there has ever been from the beginning of the world until now, and there will be nothing like it again! Mathew 24:21

      Even if its not in depletion mode Gail argues the cost of the extraction will likely be the end game anyway? Affordability is the real issue! I actually see this at my place of work. Electricians who usually drove into the city for work desire to work as close to home as possible. One guy David told me 1000 a month in gas is a no go next to the rush hour traffic!

      As for those who control technology I couldn’t agree more. Martin Armstrong has a blog post up about crypto’s and the sham that it is. Love the paragraph:

      When I asked – Did you authorize Bitcoin? They just do not reply. Silence is golden. The launch of Bitcoin was just too damn convenient. That was standard operational political tactics – you float a balloon and see how the people accept it.

      If and when the electrical grid goes down you can kiss any crypto’s goodbye.

      And lastly, here is a wonderful quiz that reveals Dr. Fraser’s need for a new elite Big Time lol!!!!!!

      • Barbara
        Barbara says:

        Gerry – I don’t remember where I read this but it was Arnold Schwarzenegger’s own words. He said that after he got his hummer it cost a lot of money and took a lot of gas. He contacted a man whose name I don’t remember but he worked on the hummer and made it so that it ran on water.

        I can’t believe that congressmen out do the NBA and the NFL, that is incredible.

        • Junghans
          Junghans says:

          What’s not revealed in that “NBA-NFL” YouTube clip is that it is obviously the Congressional “Black Caucus” that’s the problem there! Will the real Maxine Waters stand up please!!

    • Swaytonious
      Swaytonious says:

      I know companies like black rock could get kicked in the nuts by counties laying a %10,000 tax on corporate owned single family homes.

      If they let farm land go fallow, the left has made eminent Domaine so easy that you could simply take it away from them and sell it to a real American farmer for $1.

      We have to use their own tactics against them and stop being ideologically limited.

  4. todd hupp
    todd hupp says:

    The WOK assumption is : races are of equal intelligence.This is not true however.The typical American black is 30% white with an IQ of around 85. Accordingly there is a much smaller pool of high IQ black persons vs white.Equity (outcome)thinking ignores the biological reality of the US situation.The recent Senate hearings on Biden’s selection for the FAA head position is very telling.(You Tube)

  5. Michael Adkins
    Michael Adkins says:

    And what are we to make of Damon T. Berry’s remarks concerning Mr. Fraser in his Christianity and the Alt-Right?

  6. SimpleMale
    SimpleMale says:

    The Ashkenazi plan of “Going Green,” their printing of a lot of money beyond what is backed up and supported by our GDP, their impeding of the local production/manufacturing of enough goods to meet local demand, their impeding of low cost imports of quality Chinese products, their impeding of Russian energy products, and their exporting of American fossil fuels to Europe has resulted in extreme levels of inflation in America.

    Americans are going to experience an extreme reduction in the “quality” of their lives. Now, the economic situation will not affect the Amish, since they live in separate communities and follow a pre-Industrial Revolution lifestyle. And, it will not affect the Ashkenazim, since they possess most of the wealth. However, the other American ethnicities – Europeans, East-Asians, Africans, and Browns – will become very unhappy. How will they react when they can no longer afford their recreational activities and products and services that make life comfortable?

    There will be no civil war since the Europeans, East-Asians, Africans, and Browns have either always been too genetically primitive to carry out such an act, or have become too genetically primitive due to years of dysgenics and mutational load, as described by Dr. Michael Anthony Woodley of Menie, Professor Richard Lynn, and Sir Francis Galton. So, the only option for these races are suicide or to become homeless and wait for disease, starvation, and/or weather extremes to kill them. Thus, people who would rather painlessly end their lives instead of facing a slow torturous death may want to start preparing for ending their lives, should the need arise, by securing a variety of ways to leave this world for the possible Next-Life.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      There’s still strength in the population. There are a lot of Americans.

      If focused on eugenics, I’d ask what historical events were positive in the past? Chinese testing seems to have been positive there, for example. But it is a much more difficult question than most realise. The Spartans did all sorts of things, assuming what we know about them isn’t all fictional.

      • Bob
        Bob says:

        Eugenics just means racism, I would gander. Notice how the targets are usually brownish … what can it all mean?

        • Weaver
          Weaver says:

          That is not what I mean by it. I’m an individual with my own positions.

          Anyway, the claim is that, lacking positive pressures, whites are accumulating harmful genetic mutations that need to be selected against. Additionally, white intelligence is supposedly on the decline due to lack of pressures.

          You can either choose to understand the topic or not, but you do not currently understand. My post has zero to do with race. I mention “white” to make this clear.

  7. Lord Snooty
    Lord Snooty says:

    Period dramas on film and TV retain their popularity, which suggests there’s a nostalgia for an ordered, hierarchical world.
    Strikingly, Jane Austen is still a favourite with women readers, despite – or thanks to? – her depiction of a culture in which ladies and gentlemen had separate and clearly defined roles, and a man’s bloodline determined his station in society.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      There is something to valuing the past, but I’m not sure the powerful are always the best.

      I question somewhat the “great” families of today who take all the official, respectable positions. I mean, what’s the point of having them if they don’t stand for anything?

  8. Drew Fraser
    Drew Fraser says:

    I thank Nelson Rosit for a generally fair and balanced review of Reinventing Aristocracy in the Age of Woke Capital. At the same time, I must take issue with his suggestion that it is a mistake to focus on the central role that could, indeed must, be played by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants in the republican reformation of corporate governance. He bases that judgement on the false premise that “the term Anglo-Saxon or the acronym WASP” are “designations…too restrictive to be useful within an American context where the largest European ethnicity is German.”

    It is with good reason that my book on The WASP Question concerned that past, present, and future of what I described as “the invisible race.” The fact is that “in the American context.” For generations now, Americans of English, or more broadly, British ancestry have shunned explicit manifestations of ethnocultural solidarity. Even on the micro-social level, those of English ancestry are not only more likely than members of other groups to “marry out” but the offspring of such exogamous unions are more likely to identify with their Irish, German, or Italian heritage than with their far less fashionable WASP heritage. Many fewer Americans tell the US Census Bureau that they are of English ancestry than one would expect to find as a result of the natural increase of the British colonists before and the British immigrants who came following the creation of an independent white republic.

    In sharp contrast, 4.5 million Irish immigrants between 1820 and 1920 somehow spawned a swarming multitude of 40 million descendants. This vast expansion of the Irish-American population reflects the “social increase” stemming from both high rates of intermarriage and the likelihood that someone will express their subjective preference for a particular ethnic attachment. This is a good example of the “social construction of race.” Similarly, the unexpectedly high numbers of Americans who claim German ancestry reflects a tendency among members of America’s founding race to disremember and disrespect the ethnic heritage of old-stock Americans who introduced English bloodlines into the families of later immigrant groups.

    In other words, according to sociologists Michael Hout and Joshua Goldstein, “a British ethnicity is somehow less salient to those of British ancestry than a German or Irish ethnicity is to those of Irish and German ethnicity.” This is a striking example of what I call Anglo-Saxon Anglophobia (see TWQ, 179-181) It is reflected in the 21 million fewer WASP souls that Hout and Goldstein found had disappeared in their analysis of 1980 census data. Forty years on, the demographic drain will have deepened even further in a slow-motion ethnocide.

    But, in one important way, it need not matter in the end if the remaining, self-identifying WASP populations throughout the Anglosphere, are fewer in number than those who claim German or Irish identity. Clearly, Jews (and in the tech sphere, even Indians!) are still even smaller ethnic minorities whose collective power and influence in corporate governance far outweighs that wielded by self-consciously WASP, German, or Irish elites in the upper reaches of the corporate realm. The resulting deficit in corporate legitimacy will not be solved by counting noses.

    A new aristocracy, or counter-elite, based in shareholder senates grounded in republic principles of civic virtue, must be capable of challenging the dominance of Jewish elites in the corporate governance of the media, finance, academic, and legal realms. This will require the ethnoreligious mobilization of honorable men descended from the very White Anglo-Saxon Protestant elites who created the modern American business corporation in the first place before allowing it to slip out of their hands. They have a civic duty to clean up the mess that others have made of their ancestral legacy.

  9. Birhan Dargey
    Birhan Dargey says:

    Utterly absurd we don’t need an new aristocracy..This is the problem the traidtional power hungry elite goyim that prefers seeks profits by cooperating and even being subsurvient to the jews. Remember that the birth of America was anti/monarchical/aristocracy..ALL men are created equal..and a quick reading of Toynbee may be helpful regarding American meritocracy/egalitarian/selfmade/exepcionalism..The key to rescue Aerica from the WOKE jewish globalists tyranny is REviving traditional Civic Cultural Fiber which is majority CHRISTIANITY..(Catholic/noncatholics) values such as: tolerance/assimilation/solidarity..etc. This is a down/up process building a critical mass movement of activists VOTERS that can REmake the GOP or make a new political option (Maga/Thirdparty). It is indeed a grass roots down/up populists movenet which core must be the traditional civic CHRISTIAN America first Working/poor/middle classes both urban and rural , Trump won with the crucial support of the Midwest farmers and the struggling urban working/poor middle classes. This is the key demographics to REMAKE AMERICA..For Europe the Ucranian war will be teh decisive war for their future. for America the 2024 elections will decidethe Future of our nation..t will come down to DEM WOKE globalism vrs MAGA/Merica first … ONE Nation under GOD/Christian ,,,with liberty and justice…for ALL.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      I’m from the US South. We didn’t believe in equality. We believed in obeying the Planter elite. There were conflicts between planters and small white farmers. I’m not claiming the planters were ideal, though they did seem to have some virtues partly for reasons European nobles seemed to have virtues.

      It might have been better without the planter class. However, there is always an oligarchy. That oligarchy needn’t be a plutocracy. Aristocracy is supposed to contrast with plutocracy.

      Anyway, partly why Americans gave so much power to Jews is this belief that “the people” run everything and are rational. If we had acknowledged that we are not rational, that it matters who runs the culture, the media, academia, then we might have defended ourselves.

      Specialization is a thing in society. If you’re working 40 or 60, even 80+ hours a week, then you’re not going to be able to follow events. For such a person, reading the NYT and blindly believing it becomes “following events.” The very idea that the NYT might not be trustworthy is anathema. Similarly, you might have your kids watch new Disney movies, send your kids to the local university, etc.

      Parents might get some of those things right, might realize some dangers, but nominee, almost no one maybe, gets it all right.

      No individual can be expected to create his own university, his own newspaper, his own movies and music, etc.

      If Thomas Jefferson truly believed in freedom, why did he try to weaken Haiti? The freedom stuff was partly propaganda.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      …” for America the 2024 elections will decidethe Future of our nation.”

      The future of USA Nordics/Whites has already been decided by globalist ILLuminati jewmasterss . It will be the end of the Nordic cultures unless they can somehow miraculously form financially robust and extensively networked political action groups to establish a WN ethnostate sanctuary for Nordics especially ( not likely to happen ) . Christianity is near the end of its run ; it has not , cannot , and will not “save” any race — neither Nordic nor any other .

  10. Barbara
    Barbara says:

    Possibly the elite already exists but we have a situation where a group of non-elite rich people have control over everything and everybody. There are plenty of really bright, honorable white men that I know of and none of them have any power to do anything. The smartest elites are people who are smart enough to know they wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance to run for the United States Senate in order to represent the welfare of the nation and people. What power does Kevin MacDonald have compared to the idiots who occupy our White House? We already have an elite.

    I want very much to attempt to get control of our public airwaves locally. There is no justification for somebody in NYC to have control of all of our public airwaves. The problem is that everything is centralized and controlled by the enemy within. Can somebody give me advice on how to do this?

    We should be talking about how to get such things done rather than pining away about our lost way of life from the past. The south used to have the Cavaliers and an aristocracy and way of life but that is lost and gone. Southern Italy also had such a way of life but it is gone as well. Any potential superior should be organizing the people for action and in that way rise to the top. That is how to create a new aristocracy and you are born to it and it is natural. You can’t create it.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” I want very much to attempt to get control of our public airwaves locally. There is no justification for somebody in NYC to have control of all of our public airwaves. The problem is that everything is centralized and controlled by the enemy within. Can somebody give me advice on how to do this? ”

      Superb observations .

      Start with organizing a financially robust political activist group to redistribute information media resources according to ___

      God’s Law of Distribution ;

      which is known to Catholics as
      [ The Universal Law of Distribution ] ;

      which is known to scientists by
      the mathematician whom discovered the law as [ A Gaussian Distribution ] ;

      which is known to the world public
      by the common slang label
      [ The Bell Curve Distribution ] ;

      where all of those identical Distributions
      clearly indicate
      there is NO JUSTIFICATION
      other than greed
      for inordinate accumulations of
      a rationally distributable and valuable resource
      into one central location
      that is frequently employed to
      co-opt outsider info , pre-empt outsider info ,
      and to refuse broadcast of
      politicly contrary and vital outsider info .

    • Bob
      Bob says:

      All they need is a Martin Luther type to rearrange the religious orders. That particular culture had become very decadent where you would pay a certain amount to commit sins with an official pardon for indulgences.

  11. Barbara
    Barbara says:

    The new elite is already being created.

    “According to the Transnational Institute in the Netherlands, “this ‘initiative’ proposes a transition away from intergovernmental decision-making towards a system of multi-stakeholder governance. In other words, by stealth, they are marginalising a recognised model where we vote in governments who then negotiate treaties which are then ratified by our elected representatives with a model where a self-selected group of ‘stakeholders’ make decisions on our behalf.”

    “the governmentalization of private industry”

    And they control the technology to do it. Millions of animals have been given mRNA. Millions of humans have been vaccinated with mRNA. They have the technology to vaccinate someone and that someone automatically vaccinates everyone they come into contact with. They are geoengineering the earth. They can create earthquakes. They can make tons of snow in California. They can dim the sun. Astronomers are now saying that technocrat Elon Musk’s satellites are making it impossible for them to do their research. They can increase the power of hurricanes and direct them where they want them.

    I don’t think a discussion of creating a new elite should be had until we get control of all new technology out of the hands of people like Kissinger and Klaus Schwab.

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      If that kind of tech exists to change weather and cause earthquakes why didn’t they use an earthquake to destroy the nordstream pipelines?
      And if what the Bible says is true that these natural disasters are the cause of God in relation to the pollution of sin then it behooves us does it not to ask some different questions?

  12. John
    John says:

    “White Britons” is a redundant phrase. British People r European, there is no need to say White. No wonder we r in this predicament, we r not thinking straight.

  13. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    02 Some group traced Alex Soros, SON OF GEORGE, repeatedly visiting his tribesman, the White House Chief of Staff; to the Head of the National Security Council; and ” the person responsible for vetting all upper level appointments “.

    03 All that raw power will be overcome by the creation of an ethically superior new aristocracy ! Which it would take generations to create. To repeat: only a professor with a guaranteed income can conjure up such bullshit.

    04 Every genuine or even perceived individual or organization pushing this idea would immediately be squashed underfoot like a cockroach by weaponized, predominantly enemy owned social media.

    05 All our saviors, thus far, over weeks, have been unable to ascertain the identities of those ” Western ” firms whose components were discovered on THAT balloon: WITH LABELS IN ENGLISH !

    06 Neither Garland nor Wray were even asked while on the hot seat in Congress, engaged in their mealy-mouthed non-replies.

    07 NB: Just moments ago on FOX: ” BlackRock [ Larry Fink ] was the greatest contributor to Shumer “; [ the self-described ‘ shoner ‘ or protector of Israel ].

    08 No ! Methinks, that the solution lies elsewhere ! Call me a wet blanket, but only AFTER you come up with doable changes !

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” Methinks, that the solution lies elsewhere ! ”

      Indeed it does .

      Ethics are important only because they inform cultures of the acceptable behaviors in their struggles to attain a goal . Ethics are special rules for cultural behavior where it is commonly known that rules “are meant to be broken” which is simply an acknowledgement that rules ( in particular , ethics which always and everywhere pertain to a specified or implied goal ) normally must occasionally be broken/adjusted/modified/discarded to better accommodate attainment of a goal .

      The ultimate Christian goal of being appointed , for high conformity to supposedly pertinent ethics and at least three days after you die , by JC to live in heaven forever is a religious fantasy and not a scientific reality or prospect .

  14. Barbara
    Barbara says:

    Another Jew rubbing it in – James Howard Kunstler – he should know

    ” If, however, as Pareto suggested… a governing elite is inevitable, then we are certainly under the wrong elites. Whether a circulation of elites can be completed in time to save the world economic system from ruin and the majority from destitution and veritable slavery is a question of no little urgency.” — Michael Rectenwald

    Imagine that on an April evening in 1912, the captain of the RMS Titanic had announced a grand ball at which the male passengers were asked to wear their wives’ clothing and vice-versa…. That was approximately the condition of Western Civ verging on springtime in 2023: preoccupied with silliness while the iceberg awaits.

    But who would have thought the sinking of civilization would occur with such fantastic comic ornamentation? Men, in more ways than mere costuming, pretending to be women… incompetence honored, feted, even worshipped… intellect reduced to anti-thinking… anything of value thrown overboard in some weird post-modern potlatch ceremony of twisted moral righteousness…? But the hour is late, the party is near its end, and the iceberg is struck. The rest of the story will be you holding onto a few valuables, including your life, while the lifeboats get lowered.

    From here forward, things get pretty interesting. And from here on, nobody is really in charge. The vacuum of leadership we’ve been living in becomes impossible to ignore, and nature (it’s rumored) hates a vacuum. For the moment, circumstances are in charge, not personalities.

    Look no further than the fiasco in Ukraine, engineered by geniuses of the US foreign service in some daft exercise to show the world who’s who and what for. And, remind me: what was the basic idea there? To hamstring and hogtie Russia so badly that her people would overthrow the only rational head-of-state in Christendom, a figure who makes the presidents, chancellors, and prime ministers of Western Civ look like a troop of gibbering mandrills, with painted faces and blue butts, the ass-clowns of geopolitics.

    Something tells me that this gang will not make it to the lifeboats. They’ll be left on deck gripping bottles of single malt scotch whiskey, singing Don’t Cry for me Argentina as the band plays, while the whole wicked colossus slides beneath the moonlight-tinted green waves. All of which is to say: these perilous and confounding times we live in are coming to a climax. Events are afoot now, choices must be made, truths will emerge, no one will be untouched, be careful who your friends are.

    We’re waiting for financial markets, banks, and monies to blow, as an engine will when submerged in water. It can’t not happen, though every known device has been deployed to keep up appearances. The credibility of finance was thrown overboard a long time ago. Capital was sloshing around in the bilges as the ship heaved and pitched in the angry waters, and it had to go somewhere. The next turn will be when you go looking for where it went and you discover to your nauseated chagrin that the capital is just… gone! Through some legerdemain of physics, it disappeared… turned into a kind of anti-matter… fell through a black hole (possibly ripped by that iceberg), or up the smokestacks, like it was never there at all.

    When that happens, our collective attention finally gets galvanized as by no shock before. When capital is truly gone, transmogrified into a whole lot of nothing, the time for standing by making faces and whining is over. By the way, this is the way the world ends for the vacuum known as “Joe Biden” and the Party of Chaos he is propped up to represent. Chaos, we will be astounded to learn, is not your friend, is not the solution to anything, least of all a polity that is floundering in lifeboats over cold, dark, deep water a thousand leagues from dry land. What’s more, there are no ships coming to the rescue. Guess why they put oars in the boats. Get set to pull, me hardies!

    Yes, we’re at sea now, without a compass. Yet the stars sparkle dazzlingly above, and some aboard can actually read what they say and what they point to. If safety and sanity will not find us, maybe we can pull together toward wherever they wait. My gawd, it’s going to be a long haul, but have a little faith — remember what that is? (It’s the conviction that all of us together stand in some meaningful relation to existence.) Even if you’re too mentally drained to believe it, act as if it is so. Or, in post-modern parlance, fake it till you make it.

    Didn’t think it would come to this when you signed on to the voyage? I guess so. You were comfortably ensconced one winter night in the mini-McMansion, on the overstuffed sofa, entertained by some Netflix inanity, scarfing down the microwaved cheeze morsels… when the wife said, “Hey, let’s book a cruise!” Seemed like a good idea at the time, which is what everything in the annals of history is and was. And now, look at where you are!

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      It is incredulous that all of the immanent calamity that awaits humanity could have been avoided except that no preacher , no teacher , no politician , and no cultural transmission to generational Nordics/Whites of this political truism first proclaimed by jewish author Ayn Rand in her 1950s book “Atlas Shrugged” and here paraphrased to clarify her intent ___

      You can ignore politics ;
      and you can ignore the consequences ;
      unfortunately ,
      you cannot [ avoid ] the consequences

      Perhaps it is time to consider a new religion that would acknowledge that truism , in order to possibly avoid a calamity that is politicly contrived , instead of a Christianity that assures such a calamity will occur regardless of any forewarnings .

      • Herbert Rolfe
        Herbert Rolfe says:

        @ moneytalks
        At least the POWER of a new “religion” is needed to overcome the decadent ideologies of wokism, state-communism, finance-capitalism and global mass-miscegenation.
        Synthesise the useful ideas from Francis Galton, Eugen Fischer, Ronald Fisher, Ruggles Gates, Carl Jung, Julian Huxley, Teilhard de Chardin, Bernard Shaw, Robert Klark Graham, Raymond Cattell, John Harris, Richard Lynn, Roger Pearson, William Pierce, and critics like Aurel Kolnai, Richard Weikart, Michael Burleigh, Christine Rosen, Robert Pois and the NHGRI.

        An aristogenic faith is HUMANITARIAN precisely because it reduces stupidity, disability and criminality in future generations, prevents the amalgamation of peoples into a static mongrelised mess, and improves creative production all round.

        “It is the universe – or nothing.”

  15. A. T. Carter
    A. T. Carter says:

    @ Herbert Rolfe
    Galton stated that we should rise to the moral conviction that it is our “religious duty” to further human evolution, an idea found in Nietzsche, whose development was frustrated by the pessimism of Spengler and Evola, and by the increased vilification of eugenics from the late 1960s.

Comments are closed.