The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Fraser Archive
On Reinventing a Ruling Class
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This essay serves as the Introduction to a book which has just appeared, entitled Reinventing Aristocracy in the Age of Woke Capital (London: Arktos, 2022); it is available at Arktos and Amazon.

The proudest boast of the transnational corporate welfare state is that it has rendered obsolete the political hegemony of traditional ruling classes. Achievement, not ascribed or hereditary status, is said to be the key to material success and political influence. The open society promoted by transnational corporate capitalism has become the template of social progress. Accordingly, in the USA, only a few decades ago, a complacent WASP establishment was sidelined by a new class of brash outsiders. At the highest levels of American society, WASPs simply ceased to dominate.[A1]See, e.g., E.Digby Baltzell, The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy & Caste in America (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1987); and Eric P. Kaufmann, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004). In the media and entertainment industries, in banking, the law and academia, they were replaced, most visibly and dramatically, by Jewish parvenus.

Harvard University, America’s oldest university and long-time gateway to the ruling class, is emblematic of that transformation. Founded as ‘a schoale or colledge’ in 1636 by the first wave of Puritan settlers in New England, Harvard received its corporate charter from the Massachusetts General Court in 1650. By the nineteenth century, the college had become the intellectual bastion of an increasingly secularized, or, perhaps more precisely, deracinated, WASP Ascendancy.[A2]Ronald Story, The Forging of an Aristocracy: Harvard & the Boston Upper Class (Middletown, CN: Wesleyan University Press, 1980) To all appearances, it remained a predominantly WASP institution until the mid-twentieth century.

Since then, however, Harvard has been almost completely detached from its ancestral ethno-religious identity. The once Anglocentric college was rebranded by cosmopolitan managers and well-connected overseers as a globalist multiversity. As a consequence, American ‘whites’ (a statistical category which includes Jews and non-WASP, European-descended, ethnicities) presently account for only about 42% of the entering class each year. In a striking sign of the times, there are now more Jews than WASPs among Harvard undergraduates.[A3]https://datausa.io/profile/university/harvardunivers...t_race ; see also, Ron Unz, ‘The Myth of American Meritocracy,’ at: https://www.unz.com/runz/meritocracy-appendices/#3 .

In the received narrative of capitalist modernization, the rags-to-riches story of American Jewry is not about ethnic rivalry. Rather, the astonishing upward social mobility enjoyed, inter alia, by American Jews is typically attributed to the economic dynamism, technological prowess, and managerial and professional opportunities created by the modern American business corporation. In industry, education, the law and government, the rise of the managerial class was grounded in the progressive principle of careers open to the talents.

Orthodox Marxist historians emphasized the revolutionary role played by the bourgeoisie in undercutting the authority of established aristocracies.[A4]Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Revolution:1789-1848 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962). But the social character of the bourgeoisie was very different from the professional and managerial class spawned by the expansion of corporate capitalism. The eighteenth and nineteenth century bourgeoisie was, formally or informally, an estate of the realm. Unlike the relentlessly materialistic, performance-driven, goal-oriented managerial class, the bourgeoisie remained grounded in the status hierarchy of traditionally, and still predominantly Christian societies. In late nineteenth century, England, its Empire, and Europe, generally, authority could be justified credibly, if not exclusively, by reference to its origins. The genetic legitimacy of traditional ruling classes was based upon custom and social convention or in a presumptive divine right. Apart from any other justification, the right of conquest could be invoked. Like slaves captured in war, conquered peoples were fortunate to be allowed to live under the thumb of a victorious ruler.

The old, landed nobilities of Europe did not simply fade into the background amidst the satanic mills of bourgeois capitalist society. They continued to play a prominent role in social and political life until the Great War of the early twentieth century. In fact, ‘it was the rising national bourgeoisies that were obliged to adapt themselves to the nobilities.’ Even the most successful bourgeois merchants, bankers, and industrialists aspired to positions on ‘the high social, cultural, and political terrain’ occupied and controlled by the nobility.[A5]Arno J. Mayer, The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War (New York: Pantheon, 1981), 80-81.

Even so, Anglo-American society provided fertile soil for the growth of a free market society. The English jurisprudence of liberty had deep roots. Britons had long vowed that they never, never, would be slaves. The ancient British constitution married the authority of both the king and patrician parliamentarians to primordial notions of popular consent. The Protestant Reformation rocked the foundations of ecclesiastical authority by licensing the freedom of every individual conscience. Then, in the mid-seventeenth century, the simmering resentment of English commoners towards their aristocratic and ecclesiastical rulers boiled over as Puritan revolutionaries executed the king in the name of parliament and the people. The Puritan struggle for religious liberty not only produced a civil war which upset the traditional balance of the ancient constitution; it also gave great impetus to the rise of capitalism in both England and colonial America.[A6]R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study (New York: Mentor, 1946 [orig pub. 1926]), 164.

By the 19th century, Anglo-American political authority was no longer justified primarily by reference to its origins. Leading legal thinkers came to scorn the Lockean obsession with social contract no less than the common lawyer’s veneration of musty precedents. A new ruling class appeared, basing its title to political power on its ability to achieve results. From then on, the source of constitutional legitimacy ceased to be genetic; it became goal-oriented or telic instead. Utilitarianism became the political leitmotif of an erstwhile bourgeois, now professionally managed corporate capitalist regime promising to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

Corporations in the Early American Republic

Just as the rise of the bourgeoisie did not entirely eliminate aristocratic élites, the mental shift toward a goal-oriented view of politics overshadowed but did not entirely eviscerate traditional forms of genetic legitimacy. Indeed, in England, the aristocracy and landed gentry actually performed the economic role of the bourgeoisie as they pioneered new forms of agrarian capitalism. By the early nineteenth century, the result was ‘an open aristocracy based on property and patronage.’[A7]Harold Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780-1880 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), 17. While the aristocracy and gentry classes were open to new forms of enterprise and political organization, the English bourgeoisie tempered its progressive ethos with a respect for traditional social, political, and legal institutions. The culmination of every truly successful business career was the acquisition of a substantial landed estate and, ideally, a hereditary title of nobility, both of which were then passed on to heirs expected to carry on the erstwhile bourgeois, family’s newly-invented traditions.

In both England and the American republic of the early national period, a patrician ruling class emerged which owed its wealth and social standing to the productive use of property. English common law had developed uniquely extensive and concentrated forms of individual proprietorship over land, which facilitated private, purely economic, ‘capitalist’ modes of appropriation. Elsewhere, in France for example, the state was much more important as a means of appropriating surplus labour from direct producers, as were other forms of politically constituted property, such as corporate privileges. Agrarian capitalism on the Anglo-American model helped to consolidate the distinctively bourgeois hegemony of civil society over the state. It came as no surprise, therefore, when foreign observers characterized the early American republic—sometimes even England—as ‘stateless societies.’[A8]See, especially, Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 3-8.

As a matter of constitutional form, early nineteenth century England was a monarchy. In reality, however, like the newly independent USA, it was a patrician republic in which a rising bourgeoisie made up of merchants, professionals and manufacturers constituted a natural aristocracy. By comparison with the continental regimes familiar to Alexis de Tocqueville, the patrician élites in Anglo-American societies favoured a minimalist state, confident that they could deliver the greatest good for the greatest number through the productive use of their private property. This view presumed that the people-at-large would continue to defer to their betters among a natural aristocracy, respecting the constitutional liberty of the latter to do as they chose with their property.

Tocqueville was among the first to warn that radical democratic disdain for aristocratic privilege was bound to give greater weight to popular demands for equality than to inherited traditions of constitutional liberty, much less the political prerogatives of property ownership.[A9]Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 2 Vols [original edition, 1835 and 1840] (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945). It was not long before the rising tide of democratic politics in America displaced the patrician Standing Order that had ruled colonial New England. In Britain and the American South, where the aristocratic ethos of the gentry was more solidly rooted than in New England, the process took longer, but there, too, the writing was on the wall.

The democratic radicalism spawned by the American Revolution trans- formed American society and politics, extending the principle of equality into every aspect of public, and eventually even into private life. Every branch of government now owed its existence to ‘the people.’[A10]Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Vintage, 1993). As they began to lose control over the newly constituted state and federal governments, patrician élites, especially in New England, began to experiment with new forms of politically constituted property intended to restore their traditional hegemony. They sought and obtained a massive expansion in the number of special corporate charters granted by state legislatures, not just to business enterprises, but to schools, colleges, hospitals, and churches.

For a time, the creative deployment of chartered corporations helped to shore up the sagging social prestige of the old patriciate. But that defensive strategy could be sustained only so long as corporations retained their traditional legal identity as ‘civil bodies politic.’ This concept seems altogether alien to the modern mind, accustomed as it is to think of the corporation as little more than a legal and organizational form designed to facilitate the pursuit of private profit. We take for granted the separation of ownership and control. But, for a patrician élite, the classical republican concept of property was understood as the material foundation of civic virtue. It applied not just to landed property but was embodied as well in the personal rights and responsibilities of the corporate shareholder.

At common law, property, especially landed property, had been conceived as ‘that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual.’[A11]William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England, Vol II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979 [orig. pub. 1766]), 2. Possession of a landed estate ensured not only the economic autonomy of the household but its political independence as well. With the property owner as its head, every household became a little school of self-government. Property was thus directly linked to the responsibilities of rulership. Something like the same result was achieved by the special charter regime that effectively constituted the corporation as a ‘little republic.’

Corporate charters were granted by state legislatures, on a case-by-case basis, to achieve both public and private purposes. The constitutional principle of ultra vires operated to prevent any corporate enterprise from acting to achieve objects not authorized by its charter. Moreover, shareholders were responsible for the uses to which their common property was put. Consequently, limited liability was not an automatic and universal corporate privilege. Shares in a joint-stock enterprise therefore carried an associational element along with a proprietary interest. Shareowners were members of the corporate body politic; in effect, they were citizens of their own little republic. If the corporate charter did not specify the voting rights attached to share ownership, judges sometimes held that, prima facie, the rule should be: ‘one voice, one vote’ (i.e., not ‘one share, one vote’). Such civic concern for the integrity of the corporate body politic also led many to take a dim view of proxy voting. The practice was widely condemned as an abdication of shareholders’ political responsibilities.

It was not long, however, before the corporation as a civil body politic came under sustained attack as a bastion of ‘aristocratic privilege.’ A radical anti-charter movement arose, most notably in New York and Pennsylvania, to demand general incorporation laws and the extension of limited liability to all shareholders. The ‘democratization’ of the corporation did widen investment opportunities for small shareholders, encouraging widespread use of the corporate device as a means of securing firm central direction over the enterprising use of assets.

But precisely because small investors were least likely to value the associational element of share ownership, corporations ceased to be conceived as bodies politic. Soon the law began to treat corporations as private, economic instruments of capital accumulation. Republican resistance to the ‘one share, one vote’ rule became pointless. For the same reason, from being a sign of civic corruption within the corporate body politic, proxy voting became a simple convenience. Both developments may have owed their origins to the democratic rhetoric of the anti-charter movement, but their most important consequence was to entrench the plutocratic principle in corporate governance.

The Managerial Revolution and Corporate Plutocracy

Ironically but logically, the rise of corporate plutocracy signalled the imminent decline of the bourgeoisie. By the end of the American Civil War, the collapse of the corporation as a civil body politic was pretty much complete. Consequently, the patrician bourgeoisie could no longer function as an informal third estate within the civil constitution of Anglo-American society; it was displaced by an increasingly impersonal system of corporate capitalism. Membership in the body corporate became little more than a legal fossil, altogether divorced from patrician norms of honour and responsibility.

Such a change implied a fundamental transformation in property ownership. Marx was among the first to realize that the joint-stock company effectively abolished private property. Share ownership created a novel form of collective or social capital. From being a form of absolute dominion exercised over an autonomous landed household, proprietary interests were disaggregated into a variable bundle of claims to a share of the wealth or income generated within a complex, interdependent process of production, distribution, and exchange. Property ownership lost its civic significance; it no longer served as a school of self-government. Stripped of its patrician role within the body politic, the civic role of the corporate bourgeoisie was replaced by the self-interested avarice of fickle investors, ever on the lookout for the chance to buy on the dip and sell at the peak.

The moral decline and civic irrelevance of corporate shareholders as a class was a consequence of both the democratic and the managerial revolutions. Even a putatively natural aristocracy was ill-placed to compete with organized political machines employing the rhetoric of egalitarian democracy to license the growth of an impersonal public administration. Nor could wealth alone provide its owners with the managerial skills necessary to run a complex, multi-unit, modern business enterprise.

But the haute bourgeoisie in America and elsewhere in the Western world was not forcibly deprived of decision-making authority in the corporate realm. Rather, given the opportunity, moneyed interests were more than willing to abandon the notion that property ownership should carry with it the sort of public responsibility and civic obligation associated with the aristocratic ideal of noblesse oblige. By and large, the bourgeoisie simply abdicated the responsibilities of rulership.

The public burdens of property ownership came to count for much less than its private benefits, nowhere more obviously than in the sphere of corporate governance. Once the ‘one voice, one vote’ principle was replaced by the ‘one share, one vote’ rule, share ownership became a means of systematically negating the civic significance of property ownership. All shares, not all persons, were created equal. Not surprisingly, wealthy investors soon became quite comfortable with that interpretation of democratic equality. The voice of a shareholder with one hundred or one million shares now carried one hundred or one million times the weight of a member holding but one share in a common corporate enterprise. Votes came to be valued, not as an incident of membership in a corporate body politic, but rather for their tactical importance in securing effective control over a valuable bundle of economic and financial assets.

So long as their business was organized as a family firm, a partnership or a close corporation, an entrepreneurial capitalist could remain in control of his own enterprise. But, having chosen homo economicus as their role model, capitalist entrepreneurs became hostages to fortune in the public realm, where a new class of professional politicians and bureaucrats was expanding the state’s administrative capacities. Indeed, even in the economic sphere, the spectacular success of entrepreneurial capitalism spawned a vast network of hugely complex business enterprises organized and run by professional managers with highly specialized technical and administrative skills. More often than not, the most successful enterprises became public corporations whose shares and bonds were traded in national financial markets. Before long, entrepreneurial capitalists lost control over the corporate sector to a rising class of professional managers. By the early twentieth century, the separation of ownership and control had become the default position in the modern business corporation.

Managerial élites are now in the driver’s seat, not just the corporate sector, but in the state as well. Democracy no longer implies that the government will be ‘owned,’ much less ‘controlled,’ by the people of any given nation. The only legitimate form of democracy, according to the multiculturalist mullahs of the managerial state, is cosmopolitan democracy. The state may still claim to act in the name of the people, but the demos has expanded to include the whole of humanity. By virtue of their presumptive enlightenment, the managerial and professional classes now present themselves, or, rather, the global system which they administer, as the virtual representatives of humanity at large.

Corporate capitalism has expanded to become a global system of organized irresponsibility. Precisely because it is a system, it has become a form of no-man rule. No-one can be held responsible for the operation of the system; it has a life and logic of its own. At most, individuals can be held accountable for a failure to behave in accordance with the norms governing the effective management and orderly administration of sub-systems. Entrepreneurial activity, capital investment and managerial oversight have all become specialized functions, no longer united in a single figure responsible for the uses to which property is put. Those who variously own, manage, or regulate the corporate economy generally escape political responsibility for its social costs, much less for the moral hazards and spiritual emptiness that are among its most obvious by-products. Within a global economy detached from and destructive of local communities, the ruling class has disappeared behind the corporate veil.

In these circumstances, the restoration of a ruling class prepared to accept responsibility for the fate of the common world would be a welcome relief. Unfortunately, political, economic, and cultural élites throughout the Anglosphere are steeped in dishonour; they have privatised the privileges of high social status while socialising the public burdens of responsible rulership. The ideology of ‘democratic capitalism’ allows them to dissimulate their actual role as a ruling class, thereby evading personal liability for the adverse consequences (described antiseptically as ‘negative externalities’) of their corporate decisions. Political imagination is surplus to requirements in a bureaucratic corporate hierarchy. Behind the corporate veil, the civic virtues of honourable conduct and personal responsibility have been translated into impersonal standards of accountability for results achieved. The managerial overclass presents, successfully so far, its globalist program of perpetual economic growth as humanity’s highest achievement. In the absence of a noble ruling class, old-fashioned notions of noblesse oblige lose their functional significance.

Resurrecting the Corporation as a Civil Body Politic

Denunciation of the managerial regime serves no useful purpose unless it arises out of a movement aiming to create a new ruling class. This is not an impossible dream. Indeed, given the accelerating crisis of confidence in the corporate sector, it is becoming an urgent practical necessity. In principle, the goal of such a movement is clear: those who nominally own the corporate sector must recover a measure of control over the uses to which their property is put. To make that possible, the public corporation must be reconstituted as a civil body politic. The best citizens among substantial shareholders in public corporations must be allowed, indeed encouraged to become a civic élite within those corporate bodies politic. Reinventing the aristocratic principle of rule by the best and applying it to the governance of the public corporation could help to cope with the multiplying risks generated by a global society of perpetual growth.

When the major task of capitalist development was the conquest of scarcity, it made good sense to privilege the private benefits of corporate share ownership over the public burdens and civic challenges associated with membership in a corporate body politic. It is now high time to tilt the constitutional balance within the corporation away from civic privatism by creating a political role for the active investor. A new emphasis on the political character of membership in the corporate body politic would re-attach civic responsibilities to the proprietary rights of share ownership.

This would mean an end to the plutocratic principle of ‘one share, one vote,’ which did so much to hollow out the civic significance of corporate governance. Only under conditions of political equality can any significant number of share- holders hope to overcome the formidable collective action problems facing activists within the realm of corporate governance. For that reason, all shareholders who hold a substantial threshold stake in an enterprise should be entitled to participate in a process of deliberative decision-making based on one voice, one vote. Property ownership could, once again, serve as a school of self-government.

It may well be that only a relatively few individuals among millions of widely dispersed investors in thousands of firms are ever likely to enrol in such a course in practical civics. Not everyone is moved by the joys of public happiness. But all those who do take up that civic challenge should stand on an equal footing in the corporate body politic. Those who demonstrate by their actions that they value the privileges of membership should bear final responsibility for the good governance of their joint enterprise.

The problem with the governance of corporations as they are presently constituted is that only money talks. At a general meeting, those who hold a majority of the (voting or proxy) shares, even if they are only a small minority of those present, have no need to either to speak or to listen to their fellow members. Even the best corporate citizen is bound to be discouraged by a voting regime that systematically devalues the power of reasoned speech in favour of the sheer dumb weight of proprietary interest. This would not amount to a constitutional issue if corporate decision-making affected only private economic interests. But corporations now exercise powers that are governmental and political in nature.

The constitution of the public corporation must be reconceived as a novel sort of mixed polity in which private ownership interests are balanced against the public responsibilities of governing a body corporate that creates both economic wealth and political power. Corporate governance should be reconstituted to provide a political theatre in which bourgeois investors keeping a sharp eye on their financial interests can also take on the role of citizens striving to distinguish themselves in the service of the common good (and vice versa).

By treating a senatorial élite of shareholders as political equals in fundamental corporate decisions, a reformed constitutional law enables the bourgeois and the citizen to learn the art of corporate governance from each other. If the public corporation is to survive and prosper while doing business in an enlightened and responsible manner, a coalition of interests must learn to balance the economic imperatives which call the business corporation into being against the responsible exercise of its inherent governmental powers. The consequence would be the re-emergence of a patrician bourgeoisie, the very model of a modern natural aristocracy.

Part II

New forms of corporate governance designed to produce not just power and profits, but legitimate constitutional authority as well are desperately needed. Corporate governance need not remain forever a domain ruled in the name of passive investors by their all-powerful managerial surrogates who listen only when money talks. By embedding the property interests of owners in a civic process of decision-making open to all active investors meeting a basic property qualification for the corporate franchise, a balance could be achieved between the self-interested pursuit of long-term share value and the responsible management of socially shared risks.

The reform of corporate governance cannot succeed without a political theory extending beyond the limits of state action. The reconstitution of the corporate sector must balance conformity to the laws of economics with a rebellious politics that creates new spaces for political action. Shareholder senates would become genuinely voluntary associations in the civil constitution of a modern republican society. If all those with a significant stake in a joint enterprise could gain entrance, on the basis of equality, to the corporate body politic, a new civic aristocracy could be selected or, as Hannah Arendt put it, ‘would select itself.’ Whatever authority members of the shareholder senates acquired would rest ‘on nothing but the confidence of their equals.’ The self-selecting membership of those governing councils would not support an attitude of mindless activism or knee-jerk opposition, but they would incite rebellion against managerialist norms of politics and business as usual.

The managerial revolution has subverted the constitutional principles of limited government. The survival of any form of republican government worthy of the name now depends on the ability to institutionalize modernized schemas of civic action within the supposedly sub-political corporate entities straddling the blurred boundary between the state and civil society.

Now that governmental powers have become detached from the formal constitutional structure of the federal polity and are lodged instead in formally ‘private’ forms of corporate enterprise, the constitutional guarantee of republican government should follow in their wake. The original understanding of Anglo-American republicanism is clearly ill-adapted to the operating constitution of the managerial regime. The vital question is whether the idea of the republic can be injected with fresh constitutional meaning in the sphere of corporate governance.

When the first edition of Reinventing Aristocracy appeared in 1998 such an argument was, to say the least, a bit off the beaten track.[B1]Andrew Fraser, Reinventing Aristocracy: The Constitutional Reformation of Corporate Governance (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998) To my surprise, however, several legal academics in Australia and the UK responded to the book with long review essays, praising the originality of its thesis and the “stylistic flair” with which the argument was presented. My reviewers were somewhat mystified by the book’s radical break from the conventional wisdom about corporate governance. Certainly, they did not see any immediate need, much less practical possibility, for a radical, republican reformation of corporate governance.[B2]See, e.g. Joellen Riley, ‘Review of Reinventing Aristocracy,’ (1999) 21 Sydney Law Review 328; and Sally Wheeler, ‘Fraser and the Politics of Corporate Governance,’ (1999) 26(2) Journal of Law and Society 240.

Like most academic specialists in corporate law twenty years ago, those reviewers were not enamoured of the credo of ‘greed is good’ openly celebrated within the corporate sector. But most reformist proposals involved little more than tinkering at the edges of an immensely powerful corporate system. No-one dared to upset a managerialist regime seen to be delivering on its promise of perpetual prosperity. Even the edgiest corporate law scholars at the time confined themselves to calls for the representation of ‘stakeholders’ on corporate boards of directors. [B3]See, e.g., David Campbell, ‘Towards a Less Irrelevant Socialism: Stakeholding as a “Reform” of the Capitalist Economy,’ (1997) 24(1) Journal of Law and Society 65.

My reviewers probably agreed with the author of one popular critique of corporate power when he declared that ‘realism dictates presuming that the corporation’s constitution will remain much as it is: self-interested to the point of psychopathy.’ The most that progressive reform could achieve were improvements in ‘the legitimacy, effectiveness, and accountability of government regulation.’ [B4]Joel Bakan, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (New York: Free Press, 2004). Having myself taken such a long step outside the managerialist consensus, within and without the legal academy, it was not easy to find a publisher for Reinventing Aristocracy.

In the end, the simplest solution was to have the book published by Ashgate, a niche academic publishing house whose business model was based primarily on sales to university libraries. Little effort was put into marketing the book elsewhere. Indeed, there was little incentive for general readers to buy such a book in the late nineties. Almost no-one then took seriously the possibility that the unreformed model of Anglo-American corporate governance could precipitate systemic crisis and collapse on a global scale.

In the current annus horribilis, it is all-too evident that times have changed. The globalization of the managerial revolution has endowed the demonic power of revolutionary communism with a new lease on life. Progressives are now in bed with corporate oligarchies. Woke capital co-opts the insurgent energy of the left in the service of its own nation-destroying goals.

Having proposed a morally reasonable and spiritually compelling path of virtuous resistance to irresponsible corporate power, Reinventing Aristocracy has at long last become relevant to the most pressing and immediate concerns of the dissident, or, better, restorationist Right. For whites throughout the Anglosphere, the reformation of corporate governance has become a matter of civilizational, even demographic survival; our already abject dependence on globalist corporate élites threatens to become absolute. Let us pray that just such a constitutional crisis will help whites throughout the Anglosphere transcend the conventional left/right divide in political discourse.

Politics is grounded in the existential conflict between friend and enemy.[B5]Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political trans. George Schwab (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1976), 26. That being so, it is well past time for my own people, the WASPs, to recognize that we have enemies securely ensconced among the upper reaches of the plutocratic managerialist regime. Someone needs to tell the eternal Anglo that our rulers plan to absorb his progeny into a rootless, multiracial multitude of wage slaves and debt-ridden consumers, all held in perpetual bondage to a world-wide network of interlocking corporate fiefdoms.

Woke Capital as Corporate Neo-Communism

In the first edition of Reinventing Aristocracy, I emphasized the dangers of corporate neo-feudalism. No doubt re-feudalisation remains the preferred end state or goal of the globalist managerial revolution. But corporate neo-feudalism is not necessarily at loggerheads with a novel program of corporate neo-communism.

Until 1991, Soviet communism represented itself as more authentic, centrally planned alternative to both Tsarist aristocratic feudalism and the Anglo-American, corporatist model of modern managerialism. Having achieved absolute power, the party-state ruled through a modernized network of organizational fiefdoms. Eventually, the Leninist regime failed to deliver on its utopian promise of freedom and abundance. Instead, a top-heavy, increasingly decrepit, command economy erratically steered by a geriatric party élite simply sputtered to an ignominious standstill. Such stagnation was neither accidental nor unpredictable. After all, absolute power, not permanent revolution, was the true objective of the Soviet model of the managerial revolution.

The collapse of Soviet-style communism, removed the major obstacle to the expansion of the Anglo-American globalist system, driven as it was by an interlocking network of post-national corporate welfare states. Strangely enough, the corporatist drive to re-feudalise the global economy now styles itself as a progressive revolutionary movement striving to unite the whole of humanity under the banner of equality, diversity, and inclusivity. All races, religions, and gender identities (with the probable exception of white heterosexual men) are promised a share in the conspicuous consumption made possible by a borderless economy of perpetual growth engineered by the modern business corporation.

We are now well into the Age of Woke Capital. The business corporation is not simply a legal device to maximise shareholder wealth. Instead, the interlocking structures of corporate, governmental, and media power now pursue an ostensibly ‘humanitarian’ strategy. The crass credo of ‘greed is good’ has been replaced by novel forms of corporate neo-communism. The Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat has morphed into the cult of the Other. ‘Socialism in one country’ as managed by the party-state has been superseded by a globalist system of corporate capital upon which the wretched of the entire earth are to be rendered utterly dependent.

Even at the height of the Cold War, progressive American intellectuals such as John Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. often remarked on the underlying convergence of the managerial mind-set shared by corporate and governmental élites, whether in charge of Soviet communism or of American corporate capitalism. In our own time, we can see a clear similarity in the long-term developmental trajectory of both regimes.

The first Leninist revolution was led by a radical party élite promoting unceasing cultural change and social upheaval to achieve their goal of absolute power. But, once Stalinist power was consolidated, the state became the servant of the party; stability was restored and enforced by a cohesive party oligarchy whose status depended upon the party leader.

At this point, the global hegemony of the Anglo-American corporate system is far from secure and unchallenged. Apart from geopolitical rivalry with China, corporate oligarchs clearly worry about the potential re-emergence of self-conscious racial and ethnic-national identities among the Anglo-American and European peoples.

To head off any such possibility, globalist media corporations openly stoke racial animosity towards whites among so-called ‘people of colour’. White people have been cast as the new kulaks in a global racial revolution. This time around, those charged with the management of the revolutionary process incite their dependent followers to attack the interests and even the persons of ordinary working- and middle-class whites. Corporate oligarchies ally themselves with the lower orders to squeeze the middle ranks of the status hierarchy. White European-descended peoples are still deemed to be capable of resisting globalist hegemony. Indeed, they provide the biocultural seedbed for a rival, counter-revolutionary ruling class.

We have been here before. An anonymous blogger, known as Spandrell, suggests that Soviet communism represented a crude caricature of the more sophisticated Anglo-American managerial revolution. True, American managers employ philanthropic foundations and the transnational corporate welfare state, rather than a totalitarian party apparatus as their primary organizational vehicles. But it was the Soviet party-state which pioneered the organising principle that is now being re-deployed by the hyper-modern, techno-financial forces of globalist, increasingly Woke, corporate capital. Spandrell describes that managerial technique as ‘biological Leninism,’ or ‘bioleninism’.[B6]http://bioleninism.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/ ;Kerry Bolton provides much-needed flesh for the bare bones of Spandrell’s catchy ‘bioleninism’ label. See, especially, Revolution from Above: Manufacturing ‘Dissent’ in the New World Order (London: Arktos Media, 2011); and Babel, Inc.: Multiculturalism and the New World Order (London: Black House, 2013). It was and remains a means to an end; namely, absolute power.

In its original incarnation, bioleninism aimed to ‘exterminate the natural aristocracy of Russia and build a ruling class with a bunch of low status people’. Candidates aplenty were found among workers, peasants, Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians. In fact, ‘Lenin went out of his way to recruit everyone who had a grudge against Imperial Russian society. And, it worked, brilliantly’! Like the corporate plutocracy of our own time, the Bolsheviks of the ‘early Soviet Union promoted minorities, women, sexual deviants, atheists, cultists and every kind of weirdo.’

Bioleninism 2.0 enables the managerial overlords of the transnational corporate welfare state to deconstruct the traditions, mores, and folkways of every once-proudly white Anglo-Saxon Protestant society. Those who seek to replace the founding people of every White Anglo-Saxon nation have deployed the weapon of mass migration as a central feature of the current cultural revolution.[B7]Kelly M. Greenhill, Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010) Globalist élites tear down every barrier to the rising tide of colour. It is on the ruins of the WASP Ascendancy, wherever it once held sway, that Globohomo strives to construct its own dystopian system of corporate neo-feudalism.

The contemporary corporatist model of bioleninism has adapted to the circumstances of the modern Western world. Western societies in 1960 were very different from the society of 1860 in which Karl Marx plotted the communist revolution. His prediction that the proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries would unite to overthrow the bourgeoisie foundered in the affluent Western societies of the mid-twentieth century where most people worked only 8 hours a day, had cars and TVs, and girls who put out pretty easily. There was always a party on somewhere. Communist revolution just wasn’t much fun in the consumerist ‘society of the spectacle.’[B8]Guy Debord, ‘Society of the Spectacle,’ (1970) 4(5) Radical America. Eventually, however, leftist groups wised up and, more or less openly, allied with the commanding heights of the corporate economy in support of revolutionary social and cultural change. Their joint modus operandi is to agitate among low status people, life’s losers of all sorts, offering to enhance their status, at the expense, of course, of the middling ranks of more successful white people; particularly, white men.

Black Lives Matter this year; lower-case white lives never do. Trannies, fat-shamed feminists, even ‘furries’: who can keep track of the rapidly multiplying marginal identity groups (composed largely of ‘spiteful mutants’[B9]See, Edward Dutton, Race Differences in Ethnocentrism (London: Arktos Media, 2019), 221.) included within the progressive stack? In 2020, we came to expect one unpleasant surprise after another amid lockdowns, the prospect of mass unemployment and, perhaps, another great depression. We may or may not be experiencing a deliberately engineered reset of the globalist system. Either way, it feels very much as if we are entering the early stages of what James Howard Kunstler calls ‘the long emergency.’[B10]James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the 21st Century (London: Atlantic Books, 2005). Almost day by day, the globalist phase of the managerial revolution becomes more irrational, if only because its systemic end-state, the absolute concentration of global power, remains, frustratingly, just beyond the Inner Party’s reach. Their problem seems insoluble in the absence of a woke Stalin empowered finally to freeze the fully consummated New World Order.

But all is not lost. Nobody really seems to know how to determine just what the ‘new normal’ will entail. It remains possible, therefore, to imagine a different future. The embryonic spirit of a new, counter-revolutionary, ruling class might already be stirring in our hearts and souls. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants can and should redeem themselves by playing a leading role in the reincarnation of a corporate bourgeoisie. As a people reborn, WASPs can derive inspiration from the principles and practices of their ancestral, distinctively Anglo-American republican tradition.

Any such palingenetic project entails much more than just another political campaign aiming at the recapture of state power. The goal must be to create public spaces for republican modes of civic action in both the corporate sector and civil society generally. Of course, the republican reformation of corporate governance will remain pie in the sky unless and until the wheels of the Woke capital juggernaut begin to wobble. But who knows? Multiplying catastrophes could converge, engulfing Globohomo in a systemic crisis.[B11]Cf., Guillaume Faye, Convergence of Catastrophes (London: Arktos Media, 2012). In such circumstances, the reformation of corporate governance will become an urgent necessity. So, take heart: while the idea of the corporation as a little republic is now beyond our ken, it most definitely represents the rational structure of actual political reality.

The Restoration of a WASP Patriciate

Clearly, any such ‘idea of reason’ is far from the minds of contemporary WASP men of property. Unlike the Jewish moneyed élites who bested them in the struggle for corporate control, WASPs are not yet ready, willing, or able to act in defence of their collective ethnic interests. Until Anglo-Saxon men reconnect, consciously and deliberately, with their ancestral aptitude for republican modes of civic activism, the republican resurrection of a patrician corporate élite must remain a nostalgic pipe dream. Anglo-American élites gave birth to the organizational Frankenstein monster known as the modern business corporation. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that their descendants recognize a collective duty to undo the damage done and limit the risks imposed upon the community-at-large by an irresponsible corporate plutocracy.

Just how can WASP men be roused from their slumber, awakened to a renewed consciousness of their collective ethno-religious identity and readied to assume their rightful political responsibilities? Needless to say, the restoration of anything resembling a WASP ruling class will require much more than the stand-alone reformation of corporate governance.

Clearly, the republican reformation of corporate governance can never become a practical political reality unless accompanied by the revival of WASP identity politics. No other race or ethnicity has such an in-born affinity for civic republicanism. Certainly, when the movement known to historians as ‘the Atlantic republican tradition’ first flowered between the seventeenth and early nineteenth century it was pretty much an exclusively Anglo-American phenomenon.[B12]J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975). Republican modes of civic action came naturally to white Anglo-Saxon Protestants in both England and America. Republicanism runs in the blood, as it were.[B13]In support of that biocultural claim, see, Andrew Fraser, The Spirit of the Laws: Republicanism and the Unfinished Project of Modernity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990); idem., The WASP Question: The Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament, and the Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (London: Arktos Media, 2011); and idem., Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to Christian Theology (London: Arktos Media, 2017). Insofar as WASPs will be competing with other racial, religious, and ethnic groups in struggles for corporate control, they may even possess a distinct evolutionary advantage. After all, we live in a corporatist society that earlier generations of WASP lawyers and businessmen conceived, created, and set in motion.

WASPs today should work within civil society to multiply modern public spaces open to the sort of natural aristocracy that their Anglo-American ancestors fostered in the early republic.[B14]See, e.g., Andrew Fraser, ‘Beyond the Charter Debate: Republicanism, Rights, and Civic Virtue in the Civil Constitution of Canadian Society,’ (1993) 1 Review of Constitutional Studies 27; available online at: https://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/Review1.1.pdf If only WASP men of property today were to recognize in-group solidarity as a virtue associated with nobility, they could restore key elements of the world we have lost.

Nowhere is it written that we are bound morally to accept the revolutionary transmogrification of the successful white Anglo-Saxon Protestant nations created by our ancestors. Globalist corporatism treats society as a soulless, polyglot perpetual innovation machine, populated by hybridized androids, and presided over by rootless and irresponsible corporate plutocracies.

One indispensable prerequisite for a renewed WASP ascendancy, therefore, is the concomitant rebirth of ethno-religious spirituality in a post-creedal Anglican church (and in its dissenting cousins). For far too long, the Church of England and its Anglican offshoots in the British dominions have sacrificed the spiritual and temporal interests of the Anglo-Saxon peoples on the altar of a fictive Universal Church. By contrast, churches in colonial and post-revolutionary New England belonged to a particular time, place, and political community; they received special corporate charters by legislative grant. Similarly, the European university was also conceived as a corporate entity, originally created by the church. The church and the university served as the intellectual and spiritual seedbed of the various European ruling classes.

In our own future, the restoration of a WASP patriciate will be inseparable from the corporate reformation of the Anglican church. University corporations, too, stand in need of reform. Whether founded by the state or by the church, almost all the oldest universities throughout the Anglosphere have ceased to serve the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant peoples in whose name, and for the sake of whose posterity, they received their corporate charters. Harvard University, as discussed earlier, is a prime example. Universities incorporated in the past seventy-five years are, of course, altogether devoid of any distinctive ethnocultural identity. Instead, universities and churches, alike, have become little more than arms of the managerial therapeutic state.[B15]Paul Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002).

To reverse the wholesale corruption of ecclesiastical and academic institutions, the corporate bodies of WASPs who pray must set out to establish rejuvenated, explicitly white Anglo-Saxon schools and colleges. Such autonomous ethno-religious institutions are essential to the growth and development of a WASP patriciate. Only when a cohesive, self-consciously Anglo-Saxon, élite holds modern business corporations responsible will global capital serve the collective well-being of British-descended peoples, at home and throughout the diaspora. Such a fusion of spiritual strength, ancestral identity, and temporal interests, embodied in a governing class drawn from their own kinfolk, will—at long last—empower deracinated WASPs to rediscover and reshape their shared destiny.

Notes

[A1] See, e.g., E.Digby Baltzell, The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy & Caste in America (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1987); and Eric P. Kaufmann, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).

[A2] Ronald Story, The Forging of an Aristocracy: Harvard & the Boston Upper Class (Middletown, CN: Wesleyan University Press, 1980)

[A3] https://datausa.io/profile/university/harvarduniversity/#enrollment_race ; see also, Ron Unz, ‘The Myth of American Meritocracy,’ at: https://www.unz.com/runz/meritocracy-appendices/#3 .

[A4] Eric Hobsbawm, Age of Revolution:1789-1848 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962).

[A5] Arno J. Mayer, The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War (New York: Pantheon, 1981), 80-81.

[A6] R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism: A Historical Study (New York: Mentor, 1946 [orig pub. 1926]), 164.

[A7] Harold Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780-1880 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969), 17.

[A8] See, especially, Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 3-8.

[A9] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 2 Vols [original edition, 1835 and 1840] (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945).

[A10] Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York: Vintage, 1993).

[A11] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England, Vol II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979 [orig. pub. 1766]), 2.

[B1] Andrew Fraser, Reinventing Aristocracy: The Constitutional Reformation of Corporate Governance (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998)

[B2] See, e.g. Joellen Riley, ‘Review of Reinventing Aristocracy,’ (1999) 21 Sydney Law Review 328; and Sally Wheeler, ‘Fraser and the Politics of Corporate Governance,’ (1999) 26(2) Journal of Law and Society 240.

[B3] See, e.g., David Campbell, ‘Towards a Less Irrelevant Socialism: Stakeholding as a “Reform” of the Capitalist Economy,’ (1997) 24(1) Journal of Law and Society 65.

[B4] Joel Bakan, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (New York: Free Press, 2004).

[B5] Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political trans. George Schwab (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1976), 26.

[B6] http://bioleninism.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/ ;Kerry Bolton provides much-needed flesh for the bare bones of Spandrell’s catchy ‘bioleninism’ label. See, especially, Revolution from Above: Manufacturing ‘Dissent’ in the New World Order (London: Arktos Media, 2011); and Babel, Inc.: Multiculturalism and the New World Order (London: Black House, 2013).

[B7] Kelly M. Greenhill, Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010)

[B8] Guy Debord, ‘Society of the Spectacle,’ (1970) 4(5) Radical America.

[B9] See, Edward Dutton, Race Differences in Ethnocentrism (London: Arktos Media, 2019), 221.

[B10] James Howard Kunstler, The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the 21st Century (London: Atlantic Books, 2005).

[B11] Cf., Guillaume Faye, Convergence of Catastrophes (London: Arktos Media, 2012).

[B12] J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).

[B13] In support of that biocultural claim, see, Andrew Fraser, The Spirit of the Laws: Republicanism and the Unfinished Project of Modernity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990); idem., The WASP Question: The Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament, and the Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (London: Arktos Media, 2011); and idem., Dissident Dispatches: An Alt-Right Guide to Christian Theology (London: Arktos Media, 2017).

[B14] See, e.g., Andrew Fraser, ‘Beyond the Charter Debate: Republicanism, Rights, and Civic Virtue in the Civil Constitution of Canadian Society,’ (1993) 1 Review of Constitutional Studies 27; available online at: https://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/Review1.1.pdf

[B15] Paul Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002).

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 75 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. FKA Max says: • Website

    An absolute tour de force!

    Someone needs to tell the eternal Anglo that our rulers plan to absorb his progeny into a rootless, multiracial multitude of wage slaves and debt-ridden consumers, all held in perpetual bondage to a world-wide network of interlocking corporate fiefdoms.

    Ironically and paradoxically, Jewish “corporate raider” Carl Icahn has (very vocally) been doing exactly that since the 1980s through his (very public) “shareholder activism” campaigns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist_shareholder#Notable_investors

    “Some people get rich studying artificial intelligence. Me, I make money studying natural stupidity.”https://archive.ph/9mbuC#selection-149.60-149.160

    Recommended viewing; topics of discussion “An Anti-Darwinian Corporate America”, “Activist Investing in the Real World”, etc.:
    15. Guest Lecture by Carl Icahn by YaleCourses
    This course was recorded in Spring 2008.

    Additional recommended reading and viewing on the topic:

    [MORE]

    Why the Hereditary Peers should Stay in the House of Lords, 25th November 1998 by Sean Gabb
    https://www.seangabb.co.uk/flc024-why-the-hereditary-peers-should-stay-in-the-house-of-lords-25th-november-1998/

    On the whole, people of intelligence and integrity do not nowadays stand for election in England.
    The Lords have avoided this degrading fate because they are not “democratically” accountable. A Earl or a Baron can stand up and speak his mind and vote as conscience dictates. There is no pressure that can be placed on him—no orders sent out to a constituency association, no newspaper campaigns to discredit him before the electors. He owes his position to accident of birth and nothing else. This may sometimes throw up legislators who are mentally subnormal or even insane, but it will also throw up men of incorruptible honour.
    And that is why the hereditary Peers are being expelled from the Lords. It is their independence, not their birth, that makes them so objectionable. Arguments about democracy are an excuse, not a motive.

    https://archive.ph/0KHkh#selection-3957.748-3965.148

    Sean Gabb “The Case for the Landed Aristocracy” (Libertarian Alliance)
    Recorded Feb 1o, 2014

  2. Cook-ie says:

    We are now living under the Jewish empire, they were able to lie and promote each other into position of power with words such as affirmative action and meritocracy but not practicing what they preached.

    First came the take over of Universities filling the next generation full of baloney and getting them to turn against their elders and traditions, once this generation was trained the Zionist slid in with their agenda on the boomer coat tails.

    Well the Jewish empire is now…but like everything built on lies…I don’t think it will last long.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
  3. Cook-ie says:

    It looks like Germany has had enough of U.S/Zionist rule…it looks like a well organized Beer Hall Putsch has been uncovered and thwarted, this is just the beginning, sooner or later a group inside Germany will succeed.

    The Empire is over…Germans have to either eject the occupiers or perish. Look at Germanys football team…a laughing stock now…where is the next Klinsman coming from…multicultural Germany?

  4. ‘On Reinventing a Ruling Class’

    Are you implying that blacks, sexual perverts, and Jews are proving unsatisfactory?

  5. @Cook-ie

    FKA Max says:

    An absolute tour de force!

    And I agree. A magisterial essay, though I feel constrained to add that the analysis which forms the bulk of the article is more trenchant and persuasive than the schematic project which follows it.

    Cook-ie says:

    Well the Jewish empire is now…but like everything built on lies…I don’t think it will last long.

    And this touches upon why the project described above is utopian at best. Our Jewish overlords in commerce, media, academe, government etc are first and foremost occupied with the “production of truth” and they have become very skilled at it.

    What they have figured out is that with enough control of the apparatus, they can decide what truth is, and with their saturation coverage of the culture they can easily bring the masses to heel.

    The evidence is everywhere. ‘Inconvenient facts’ get erased. Inconvenient voices get silenced. The number of people who see through the propaganda is relatively miniscule. I’ve learned that many who claim to be independent thinkers actually aren’t.

    A relatively trivial example in the present essay: Harvard’s student body is now down to around 42% white, but nearly 30% Jewish (as it has been for years). The increasing POC contingent always comes at the expense of goys, not jews.

    That would seem to leave around 12% whites (mostly recruited athletes at this point) but many of them are southern european, middle eastern, latinos and other catholics, etc. So the actual “WASP” contingent is well under 10% and males are even less than half that.

    What’s the point here? Simple: jewish media still pretends that Harvard (and Yale, Princeton, Stanford etc) are ruled by these WASP males. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Our society in microcosm.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  6. Bro43rd says:

    All that to say a return to Christianity is needed. I don’t see it that way at all. Christianity is just as easily co-opted as government is. Why do we need rulers at all? Parasites are to be gotten rid of, there’s no reforming a tapeworm. Voluntarism is a better way, remove coercion & force from the equation.

    • Replies: @Irish Savant
    , @JR Foley
  7. @HammerJack

    The number of people who see through the propaganda is relatively miniscule. I’ve learned that many who claim to be independent thinkers actually aren’t.

    You are on the right track.

    If you look back on all of human history the elites have always known this and have ruled by lies.

    The only reason any of us are noticing is that they made shifts so quickly and so radically that they were harder to ignore.

    Some poor corporate middle managers are in danger of going on vacation for a couple of weeks and returning to the office to utter some newly prohibited speech and getting fired before lunch-time.

  8. anon[411] • Disclaimer says:

    blah blah blah…what’s the new aristocracy?

    correct answer: the best don’t rule anymore if they ever did. they avoid interaction with people unlike themselves as far as possible.

    what the best never do: beat around the bush.

    nietzsche was rabble.

  9. Franz says:

    Or, simpler, the Weimar Republic was reborn in the 21st century on an imperial scale.

    Pre-1933 Germany did everything Woke Capital is doing now, for the benefit of the same group. Only the Weimar people could only DREAM of the scale and insanity we’re seeing here.

    As with all empires, they can only be defeated or displaced by something bigger, stronger and more cohesive than what rules us now.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Charles Carroll
  10. Charles says:

    The principal purpose of marriage was for a father to be able to pass on property to his legitimate heirs. It is difficult to overstate the importance of families owning, not renting, property. The eradication of property ownership is of course one factor among many in our decline.

  11. IronForge says:

    Author lacks perspective.

    There’re no “New Aristocracy” to define, nor a WASP Culture to rejuvenate.

    Western/European Aristocracies(and their supportive Monarchies) have been eviscerated and replaced by a Masonic-Zionist Plutarchy with Vassal_Oligarchs and Vassal_Ochlarchs running the West-led Hegemony. Their Hegemon are the Network of “Power” Cities that host them in WashingtonDC, WallSt/NYCMetro/FEDRSV, City of London, WEF-Davos, Brussels, and Jerusalem.

    Those “Corporates” Author refers to are amongst the Oligarchs. The Woked Masses number amongst the Hired Flash Mob Ochlarchs.

    IIRC, Harvard and the other Ivy League Schools had 20+% of Undergraduate Seats taken up by the Jewish – in some Schools more than by WASPs. Expect Top Tech/Engineering Schools to display the trend towards similar Demographics.

    Murica have been taken over decades ago; and Masonic-Zionists have been slowly tightening the screws. Non-Masonic/Non-Zionist Whites have been “Blocked Off” from ever running anything critically important in the Country without the Consent of Masonic-Zionists.

    Add to those – OpenBorders Migration Demographic Shifts favoring Hispanics will flip Red States Blue – very soon – as Murica Mandate English/Espanol Bilingual usage.

    These are reasons why I’ve recommended Non-Masonic, Non-Zionist, Non-Catholic Whites and Asians in Murica – if they don’t like their present+future predicaments – to either Secede into the Northwest/AK or Emigrate.

    *****

    Here’s the GeoPolitical Big Picture:
    *The Plutarchy and Vassal_Oligarchs operate the Hegemony;
    *There are 8 Core “Nation-States” that enable the Hegemony – ISR+GlobalDiaspora(Jewish living outside of ISR) and the Vassal_G7(aka, Group of Seven);
    *The Vassal _G7 and their Subordinates are ALL Expendable;
    *Murica are the Lead Alpha Vassal badgering the other 6 of G7, NATO, €U, and other Colonial Vassal States (AUS, NZL, PHL, KOR).

    These are the Masonic-Zionist Hegemony.

  12. Karl1906 says:

    Learn from history. Don’t repeat the mistakes. Apply consequently and without exception. And, most important, make corruption a capital offence – on BOTH sides.

  13. anonymous[312] • Disclaimer says:
    @Cook-ie

    Those ‘raids on German coup plotters’ recently, were an establishment farce to discredit the ‘right wing’ opposing the anti-Russia Ukraine war machine

    The ‘plot’ seems to be a stitch-up of German & Nato intelligence agencies … 3000 police officers conducted the raids … and found 3 guns

    Suggesting that the ‘coup plan’ was make-believe, is that major German media knew in advance, with stories instantly ready to roll

    Prince Heinrich is said to be a harmless eccentric. His movement, the ‘Reichsbürgers’, claim that no German government since 1918 – not Weimar, not the Nazis, not the post-war Republic – is legitimate, because all were imposed, with no referendum. Reichsbürgers sought a national referendum vote to legitimise a new German government.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  14. @Bro43rd

    “Christianity is just as easily co-opted as government is. ”

    It already has been.

  15. My grandfather, a wealthy man and one ahead of his time revealed the secret to sure-fire business success: Diversity: an enriching combination of different races, languages, religions and sexual orientations administered by a huge HR department staffed by women.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @profnasty
  16. No need to sweat and try to outdo geniuses. Marx and Lenin wrote things 100+ years ago and it is more then relevant. BTW, those who equal modern wok movement and so called leftists with Marxism should think twice. Marxism never was about race or gender but about ownership of the means of production, expoloitators and exploited working classes. Lenin wrote this piece 100+ years ago as if he had time machine. You guys live in this and cannot see a thing.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

    • Replies: @Anonymous12890
  17. After two millenniums of Western civilization, millions upon millions of dead and with the economy and the world destroyed by white greed… no one can think of more of the same.

    • Replies: @Bro43rd
  18. Anon[113] • Disclaimer says:

    Why corporate capitalism, why not corporatocracy?

    What does greatest good for the greatest number got to do with capitalist?

    By treating a senatorial élite of shareholders as political equals in fundamental corporate decisions, a reformed constitutional law enables the bourgeois and the citizen to learn the art of corporate governance from each other. If the public corporation is to survive and prosper while doing business in an enlightened and responsible manner, a coalition of interests must learn to balance the economic imperatives which call the business corporation into being against the responsible exercise of its inherent governmental powers. The consequence would be the re-emergence of a patrician bourgeoisie, the very model of a modern natural aristocracy.

    Stakeholder “capitalism”?

  19. USian (and their EU subordinates-lackeys) narratives are extremely powerful, are rooted in questions of identity that go back to an early age in a child’s life. For these jokes dressed up as humans (aka: USians and Co), and their audience, to consider shifting from neoliberalism or even greenwashing to de-growth would involve something nearing a psychotic break. This is why all of these woke joke, capitalistic hu$tlers, and climate change CONferences are baloney: people, nations, want to change without changing, so the resolutions are either cosmetic, lip service, or have no teeth to enforce genuine, lasting change.

    US-ers and co wd rather be ruined than changed, as Auden says. Faced with admitting that the whole American Dream/expansionist project was a terrible mistake, vs. dying, and letting America and the entire planet go down the drain, 99% of the American public will choose the latter (and are doing so). Faced with opting for an authentic life, declaring “I’m a total jackass,” vs. living a blind, self-destructive life, any random American plucked off the street will choose the latter.

    • Replies: @Bro43rd
  20. Anon[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    Provide them with something bigger, stronger and more cohesive on a silver platter?

  21. Ruling Class? Is there also a Working Class?

    We hear about (not from) the White Working Class. We hear that they are deplorable. They are the scum MAGA who threaten Our Democracy. Is there a Black Working Class? A Female Working Class? A Gay Working Class? Is there a Woke Working Class? Is A.O.C. Working Class?

    As long as there is no class consciousness, no solidarity among the working classes, they will always be indentured servants. The Jew says “lets you and him fight”. Have you taken the bait?

    • Replies: @Anon
  22. Anon[259] • Disclaimer says:
    @WorkingClass

    …threaten Our Democraty.

    ?

  23. profnasty says:
    @Irish Savant

    Would like to water the flowers on his grave.

  24. You should see the crowds of Japanese (and now Chinese) parents who swarm the Harvard campus each year before the term begins. They put me in mind of new landlords surveying their tenements of renters, even though they make perfect fools of themselves in selfies at the John Harvard statue.

    Nevertheless, the observation “Achievement, not ascribed or hereditary status, is said to be the key to material success” explains why there is an independent USA rather than the British Commonwealth of North America. By the mid-1700s, a new provincial aristocracy had taken control of the colonies. They chafed under the humiliation of being rejected as equals by their counterparts in Merry Olde, as they had earned rather than inherited their wealth, and would always be spurned as mere pretenders. That that wealth came from swindling Indians out of their land and buying and selling African slaves further degraded them in the eyes of their English superiors, as it does again to a new generation of judgmental Puritans. This also explains why they so quickly tossed out the egalitarian Articles of Confederation for an elitist republic that placed all real power in their circle, where it obstinately remains to this day, proof to all reform attempts.

    What we are seeing today is that when the pie gets smaller, the perennially hungry ones at the top demand a bigger slice. That’s a constant pretty much all throughout human history, because it’s a fundamental character trait of an aggressive primate species. It’s also the classic symptom of addiction to the most dangerous addictive agents there are, money and power. The rest of us have been so thoroughly conditioned that we believe the proven solution to this problem will only make it worse. Whadda ya gonna do? Running around blind with our heads up our asses while waving the flag and praising imaginary deities is a pretty popular human pastime as well.

    • Replies: @Anon
  25. But all is not lost. Nobody really seems to know how to determine just what the ‘new normal’ will entail. It remains possible, therefore, to imagine a different future. The embryonic spirit of a new, counter-revolutionary, ruling class might already be stirring in our hearts and souls. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants can and should redeem themselves by playing a leading role in the reincarnation of a corporate bourgeoisie. As a people reborn, WASPs can derive inspiration from the principles and practices of their ancestral, distinctively Anglo-American republican tradition.

    Any such palingenetic project entails much more than just another political campaign aiming at the recapture of state power. The goal must be to create public spaces for republican modes of civic action in both the corporate sector and civil society generally. Of course, the republican reformation of corporate governance will remain pie in the sky unless and until the wheels of the Woke capital juggernaut begin to wobble. But who knows? Multiplying catastrophes could converge, engulfing Globohomo in a systemic crisis.[B11] In such circumstances, the reformation of corporate governance will become an urgent necessity. So, take heart: while the idea of the corporation as a little republic is now beyond our ken, it most definitely represents the rational structure of actual political reality.

    The article is too wordy and has the fault that most either pseudo or actual acacademic papers have: using repetitive, obvious and known facts and believes. Since I trained myself as a speed reader, It makes no difference to me.

    The above paragraphs are a flight into fantasy and armchair speculation. The author is obviously another pontificator and emits generalizations and abstractions as if they are within arms reach. I’m put off by such child-like puffy idealizations.

    This bird reminds me or is analogous to someone who works in “Personnel Management”, or “Human Resources”, and has not idea of what and how the corporation provides services or products. As Steve Jobs once said, “These people suck”.

    • Replies: @Rev. Spooner
  26. Anonymous[380] • Disclaimer says:
    @FKA Max

    Cut to the chase – dictatorship by the monied class can and must be defeated by increased taxation of the rich.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
  27. Bro43rd says:
    @Liborio Guaso

    Uh yeah “white greed”, because the whites are doing so well currently. What a doofus!

  28. Bro43rd says:
    @Gary Sudder

    An intellectual makes statements without ad hominem. Does it make you feel better about yourself to cut USians down in blanket statements. Sad.

  29. Emslander says:

    But, for a patrician élite, the classical republican concept of property was understood as the material foundation of civic virtue. It applied not just to landed property but was embodied as well in the personal rights and responsibilities of the corporate shareholder.

    The life of a refined cultural America took its most damaging wounds in the early 1960’s with the “one man, one vote” Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr. Political power was vested in the swarming mobs of the cities in place of productive geographical places. A county in the richest agricultural region of the world was equated politically with a precinct or two in the Chicago inner city.

    The roots of civilization in work, family, land and wisdom have consistently disappeared since that time.

  30. Miro23 says:

    The problem with the governance of corporations as they are presently constituted is that only money talks.

    It has to be this way for Jewish power. If corporate influence was excluded from democratic government they would be out. They’re only 2% of the US population.

    At this point, the global hegemony of the Anglo-American corporate system is far from secure and unchallenged. Apart from geopolitical rivalry with China, corporate oligarchs clearly worry about the potential re-emergence of self-conscious racial and ethnic-national identities among the Anglo-American and European peoples.

    To head off any such possibility, globalist media corporations openly stoke racial animosity towards whites among so-called ‘people of colour’. White people have been cast as the new kulaks in a global racial revolution.

    Agreed that they’re employing a Bolshevik style analysis where entire classes (for example Anglos) are labeled “Enemies of the People”. IMO, tinkering with corporate control would be highly unlikely to work given entrenched interests.

    It would need the definition of the US as the national home of Anglo-Americans with all other races (other than native Indians) converted to foreign residents (actually substituting residence permits for passports). Politically very difficult to do, and it would be nearly impossible to sort out the hopeless mess of Anglicanism.

    One indispensable prerequisite for a renewed WASP ascendancy, therefore, is the concomitant rebirth of ethno-religious spirituality in a post-creedal Anglican church (and in its dissenting cousins).

    The only possibility would seem to be a return to the simpler ethical roots of early Christianity – prior to the establishment of the medieval Christian bureaucracy with all its strange add-ons and freakiness.

  31. Anon[259] • Disclaimer says:
    @Observator

    What’s the proven solution?

  32. Was it not the British who let the Jews and banking around Cromwells time or shortly thereafter?

    Was it not the Americans who let the Federal Reserve system to enter?

    The more difficult question:

    Either the WASP-Anglo-British-American (hard to differentiate) rebelled at one point and failed to stop the Jew
    or at the top they were always working together.

    Now we are all doomed.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
  33. @Сергей Гончаров

    Your comment might make sense in some regard…

    However, you will have to answer why it was RussianSSR or USSR
    which first legalized abortion, feminism and homosexuality about 100 years ago.

  34. Catherine Austin Fitts.
    U.S. Government in Full Scale Implosion Because of Corruption.



    Video Link

    • Thanks: Agent76
  35. @FKA Max

    I’m definitely getting the article author’s book! The historical development of the Corporation to the point we find ourselves today should be required reading for all students (but of course they are learning about how many genders there are instead).

    In the 90s when I worked at Boeing, I was walking through the factory one day and it hit me really hard how Corporations could very well be the destruction of our Western societies if not kept in check. Back then nobody was really worried or could fathom what we are facing today, and that was only about 27 years ago. Most people were still doing well and felt their future was set for the most part.

    We’re at a massive crossroads; if we don’t do anything most of us will be serfs within about 50 years time (most of us will be dead by then but our descendants will still be here suffering) as this continues to “reset” and wealth continues to transfer to the small Global “interlocking corporate Fiefdoms” ran by a Bureaucratic-Technocratic self-appointed elite.

    • Replies: @FKA Max
    , @TheJamesRocket
  36. katesisco says:

    Aren’t we wasting energy detailing adjustments to the big picture?
    The reason we have undesirable cities is that we have removed ETHNIC NEIGHBORHOODS for vehicle traffic ease. ETHNICITY IS DESIRABLE AND COOPERATIVE. We decided 1 person/ 1 car decades ago and now the only profit lane is changing the car to electric car. We have narrowed the profit future by choosing to erase neighborhoods for traffic cloverleafs. We decided no buses or passenger trains, just cars.
    We decided not just two sexes but multiple sexes. We decided no retirements for workers, no family 50 year gatherings, nothing that smacks of ethnicity or long term connections, we decided isolation over neighborhoods, we decided a prescribed life of Pharma drugs, war for the collection of intelligence assets and economic evisceration. What’s left except rants over who is to blame?

  37. Agent76 says:

    How many Corporations Control the World?

    A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use? It’s a Small World at the Top.

    http://www.internationalbusinessguide.org/corporations/

    Mar 24, 2016 America: Freedom To Fascism

    A documentary that explores the connection between income tax collection and the erosion of civil liberties in America.

  38. The Natural Fact is, there is nothing whatsoever to “ownership” except responsibility. So last-ditch efforts to sort of tack some of that on as attempted partial amelioration of the “negative externalities” inevitable under the dominant zero-sum regime, look from here in Indian Country to be much too little and far too late.

    Similarly, the “natural aristocracy” conceit itself is an admission that the “civilized” peoples are already so disconnected from the Natural Order, that their feeble half-measures meant to bring a bit of it back into the day-to-day workings of their half-lives is doomed to futility. As hard as it may be to accept, it is not possible for Humans to actually live and breathe in the make-believe world of their fevered collective imaginations.

    So the proffered “choice” between “the metaverse” and Earth’s Living Arrangement is just another false promise put forth by the same crazies who are trying vainly to highjack Her periodic purification, with their “great reset.” They want to drive it down the same DEAD END alley where they’ve long-since been trapped by their own selves, in pursuit of their “better idea.”

    For the “general population” of the burgeoning global gulag, it is one of those unwelcome either-or situations. They can, by getting over the organically crippling sickness that is their very own too-precious “self,” escape the increasingly suffocating confines of Plato’s Cave….to be in-effect reborn into the biological actuality of Earth’s Living Arrangement. Otherwise, they will to-all-intents-and-purposes cease altogether to exist, when the artificially-generated “wave-form” carrying the grand illusion itself collapses into oblivion.

    No “moral hazard” attaches to any of this, contrary to popular belief. It’s just basic Biology. So what’s your druthers, tame Sisters and Brothers?

    • Thanks: CelestiaQuesta
  39. The alleged “managerial elite” is not a real thing. It’s the same old bourgeoisie. They have always been trash.

    The true solution is revolution and elimination of the rich.

  40. @Poupon Marx

    Just another example of ” I know obtuse terminology and will use it to show how intellectual I am.”
    Orwell advises that if you have 4 words, select the most common one that conveys what you want to say.

  41. I’ll trade you my $1,000,000,000 Zimbabwe bank note for a $100,000 US bank note.

    I’m tied of living like a trillionaire negro who eats donated food from white peepooz.

  42. @Cook-ie

    They do not have a natural base. They are not loved by anybody. They must rule by deception. That can only last so long.

  43. Pablo says:

    Excellent commentary by Andrew Fraser. II the path to Power is blocked one way, those who want Power will seek another path. The Anglo Saxon Class tried to maintain its privileged position by being exclusionary. Hence the rise of the Jewish Class of Capitalists and others by the Anglo Saxon Class. Another force leading to a decline in the Anglo Saxon Class is its insularity. There was no Standard based on Merit to pick their Rulers; it was mostly all about who your Parents were and/or who you knew. Inbreeding and a sense of Entitlement led in part to the Anglo Saxon decline. And the ‘Transnational Capitalists’ correctly identified a Power Source they could tap in to: Congress. All one has to do is view the list of to Political donors for BOTH the GO and the Democrats: Jewish Billionaires. Note as an aside just how many Members of Congress enter Congress as non Millionaires and leave Congress as multimillionaires. Nancy Pelosi is an excellent example. Those who fell left out by this “System” of Power MUST intrude on the “Party”. This intruding grou must demand their voice(s) are heard.

    • Replies: @Hulkamania
  44. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    I disagree. A couple of month ago (Click [MORE] button below for details) I laid out the case why, in my opinion, “a/the stock market is a way for ordinary citizens/workers to own a part of the means of production“, and therefore it is still the best, fairest and most utilitarian mechanism for wealth (re)distribution, creation and the most efficient and productive vehicle for profitable/compounding capital allocation and value/price discovery, that “will produce the greatest good for the greatest number“: https://www.unz.com/runz/resurrecting-americas-minimum-wage/?showcomments#comment-5301706
    People just need to become more financially literate in order to be able to more actively and democratically, as Andrew Fraser correctly diagnosed and suggested, participate in capital markets as responsible, empowered “corporate shareholder citizens”: Capitalism is the superior political and economic system in terms of distributing wealth as productively, equally and evenly as possible, it is just that many folks even in wealthy nations are not sufficiently financially literate/educated yet, unfortunately, to take advantage of these opportunities https://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-dollar-devours-the-euro/?showcomments#comment-5288373

    [MORE]

    The stock market is the non-violent, productive and most efficient solution to this problem. I just recently had a lengthy discussion/debate on this very topic, in the following comments thread: https://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-dollar-devours-the-euro/?showcomments#comment-5290808

    Excerpts:

    a/the stock market is a way for ordinary citizens/workers to own a part of the means of production and thus participate in the profits hopefully generated by the companies they are invested in, without the state having to redistribute wealth violently and/or inefficiently/unproductively.
    […]
    Studies have also shown (see below) that in stock market-centric, capitalistic economic systems there is a lot of churn among the richest families and individuals in relatively short periods/amounts of time, so power can never be concentrated and consolidated in the hands of just a few individuals and families for too long, which usually helps to deal with wealth inequalities more effectively than in feudalistic and communistic economic systems, which are usually controlled over many generations by only a few elite bloodlines

    https://www.unz.com/runz/resurrecting-americas-minimum-wage/?showcomments#comment-5298982

  45. Anon[167] • Disclaimer says:

    Meritocracy (“careers open to talent”) is a lie. The reason it leads ineluctably to plutocracy, aka Woke clown-world, is that “making it” (money-getting) is no measure of merit. Crooks and rappers get money; the latter are even “producers.”

    Meritocracy is merely a scheme whereby jews grab a society’s money and then continue to act like jews, all the while patting themselves on the back for their “dynamism,” “grit,” and merit. The Ayn Rand ethos is the self-flattery of locusts.

  46. FKA Max says: • Website
    @freedom-cat

    We’re at a massive crossroads; if we don’t do anything most of us will be serfs within about 50 years time

    Thank you for your feedback. Ron Unz has done yeoman’s work in order to prevent such a dystopian future scenario from (hopefully) becoming a reality, highly recommended reading or listening:

    Resurrecting America’s Minimum Wage
    https://www.unz.com/runz/resurrecting-americas-minimum-wage/

    The notion of individuals and businesses carrying their own weight seems just as alien to the sort of present-day Republicans whose perspectives are welcome within the confines of the elite media. For example, a long New York Times column by Prof. Gregory Mankiw, a former top economic advisor to President George W. Bush, suggested that it was unfair and morally wrong to expect businesses to cover the costs of their own employees since the responsibility was obviously that of our society as a whole. Whereas Hillary Clinton famously declared that “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child,” the sort of thinkers who will probably be advising her Republican opponent in 2016 are suggesting that “It Takes an Entire Country to Run a Business” (or at least to pay the business’s employees). Back when I was younger, I think this notion was called “Communism,” but these days it’s considered Mainstream Republicanism.

    Ron Unz: The Paradox of Government Subsidizing Low-Wage Work
    Aug 29, 2013 by The Aspen Institute

  47. Dumbo says:
    @anonymous

    Thanks. Yeah the whole thing sounds completely fake, ridiculous. Another supposed “plot” of the group was to kidnap the German Health Minister because they are anti-vaxxers too. And they had the help of Russians… Right…

    Meanwhile, the German government is putting a 97 year old typist in prison because… She typed letters in a concentration camp??

    • Replies: @HdC
  48. @FKA Max

    An absolute tour de force!

    Sort of and not really. The writer makes some great points but he overlooks the one overarching issue. For example most obviously:

    The managerial overclass presents, successfully so far, its globalist program of perpetual economic growth as humanity’s highest achievement.

    Perpetual economic growth is a physical impossibility. And honest accounting might well reveal it is already over with. What you got now is robbers and barons fighting over a fixed and ultimately shrinking pie. You want to know who knew what was going on?

    Bill Cooper, Behold Pale Horse, Silent Weapons Quiet Wars.

    https://ia800100.us.archive.org/5/items/SilentWeaponsForQuietWarsOriginalDocumentCopy/Silent%20Weapons%20for%20Quiet%20Wars%20Original%20Document%20Copy.pdf

    • Replies: @HdC
    , @FKA Max
  49. @Anon

    Ah Jaysus, did I really have to put /s?

  50. @Pablo

    The Anglo Saxon Class tried to maintain its privileged position by being exclusionary.

    This isn’t true. The negro-saxons welcomed the Jews into the oligarchy with open arms.

  51. E_Perez says:

    Interesting theory, full of insights, but by far too WASP sided.

    The Anglo-Saxons and their aristocracy were among the first, easiest and most complete Jewish conquests. Even the Spaniards resisted better during the Inquisition.

    Expecting the salvation of our corrupted political system from Anglo-Saxons, who did more to establish it than other white tribes, is like asking an alcoholic to support prohibition laws.

    • Agree: HdC, Hulkamania
  52. Is the white replacement a theory or a fact?

    You decide: https://bitchute.com/video/MzuR9IWmhYSy

  53. @Cook-ie

    Germany? …first clean your home…who is the master in the USA? And don’t fuck the others in the world

  54. ANON[307] • Disclaimer says:

    my own family n sheeeit…

    dad harvard…

    grand-dad princeton…

    etc…

    the author suffers from AIDS…

    SAD!

    me?

    rejected by ALL JEW-Us DESPITE HIGHER SCORES ON EVERYTHING!

    like my HARVARD dad told me…

    if you’re smart, you know the sdhools are FUCKED!

  55. Cal State Long Beach with its noted intellectual, MacDonald, will in time supplant Harvard. Go Beach!

  56. For those who think that the WASPS will get their act together, I have some sad news. Biology is destiny and if you have no children your ethnic group will disappear. I have dated four WASP women all of whom were graduates of elite colleges. None of them wanted to be married or have children and all of them are now alone in their 60’s and 70’s with only their cats to keep them company. I concluded that they believe all the anti WASP propaganda and that they suffer from low self esteem.

    • Replies: @HdC
  57. HdC says:
    @Dumbo

    I think the 97 year old “convict” got a 2 year suspended sentence.
    Just waiting for the Jewish caterwauling now.

  58. HdC says:
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    “…Perpetual economic growth is a physical impossibility. …”

    I used to believe this also, but no longer.

    Agreed that if economic growth were to be based on making more and more of the same old stuff, then indeed there are definite limits to economic growth.

    However, making new things better, cheaper, faster, provides limitless growth opportunities.

    Case in point are television sets, personal computers, cell phones.

    In 1981 or so a 40 inch television set, the largest one made at that time, cost $4000.00, say $20,000 in today’s dollars.

    Today a 75 inch flat screen TV can be purchased for what? $750 or so, or $150 in 1981 dollars.

    Then there is value added to commonplace material. Who would ever think that a hand full of silica sand would sell for $1000? Yet in the value added form of a good note book computer, people line up to buy them. To say nothing of cell phones, of which I do not own one anymore.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
  59. HdC says:
    @Abbott Hall

    Indeed.

    My son married a young lady who was a lawyer with a very high end law firm. Law firms flog their young lawyers mercilessly to such an extend that these have very little time for a private life.

    On their wedding day I said to the bride the following: “Throughout all of mankind’s economic history, there is not a single recorded instance where a business type lamented on their deathbed: “Gee, I wish I had spent more time at the office”.

    Yet many have rued the fact that they had not spent more time with their wives, children, friends, stamp collection, etc.

    The young lady quit her high powered job and found employment in the legal department of a major firm, with regular hours.

  60. Dutch Boy says:
    @Anonymous12890

    The WASPs handed the country over to the Jews and now that lily-livered bunch is going to take it back? Not on your tintype!

  61. JR Foley says:
    @Bro43rd

    Christianity sold out when Barabbas was said ” to have had issues” and was not guilty. You can NOT blame the Jews for Christ being executed—Reason: Jews are God’s chosen people ( but how many times did Christ lose his temper with the Jews in their synagogues and warned them their conduct was unbecoming of heaven? Forgot –Jews do not believe in an afterlife—).
    NOW things are Clear —all is fair now –the Jew is captain of the Jungle Conflict with No later consequences —it is the Almightly DOLLAR —NOW —-study them Zylanskyy Musk Sam Bankman Fried —-all con men….

  62. But we already do have a new ruling class.

    Criticizing them lands you in jail in several countries now.

  63. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:

    How many pure Anglo-Saxon descendants are there in the world outside of the British isle? If you simply went back to merry old England and kicked out all the non-whites, you would be better off because your prescription doesn’t include salvation for lesser whites, i.e. Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc.

  64. katesisco says:

    https://navigate.visa.com/europe/purpose-and-impact/the-hidden-value-of-remittances/
    Making money off the poorest of the poor by bank usury. A researcher should look at these figures which I believe hid the true facts that the REMITTANCES are a key to global power.
    https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-formalizes-guidance-allowing-personal-remittances-flow-afghanistan-2021-12-10/
    https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/remittances-mexico-hit-new-record-high-july-2022-09-01/
    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2022/09/19/cf-the-unexpected-rise-in-remittances
    The US goes to war, the enemy’s economy is crushed, the US opens migration and VIOLA! the country becomes dependent on the west and REMITTANCES.

  65. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    What you got now is robbers and barons fighting over a fixed and ultimately shrinking pie.

    Thanks for your feedback as well. According to Carlo M. Cipolla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla your described current state of our society might actually not be the worst imaginable outcome, “The society as a whole is neither better nor worse off. If all members of a society were perfect bandits the society would remain stagnant but there would be no major disaster.
    What he is really concerned about is “When stupid people are at work, the story is totally different. Stupid people cause losses to other people with no counterpart of gains on their own account. Thus the society as a whole is impoverished.

    If you are correct, our society is currently merely in stagnation and not (yet?) in decline.

    I feel though that we could be at risk of moving into Cipolla’s worst case scenario, if things deteriorate further to the downside and the “stupid” elements and fraction (social justice warrior types on the Left and evangelical religious types on the Right) within our societies and elites gain more power and influence (again):

    In a country which is moving downhill, the fraction of stupid people is still equal to σ; however in the remaining population one notices among those in power an alarming proliferation of the bandits with overtones of stupidity (sub-area B2 of quadrant B in figure 3) and among those not in power an equally alarming growth in the number of helpless individuals (area H in basic graph, fig.1). Such change in the composition of the non-stupid population inevitably strengthens the destructive power of the σ fraction and makes decline a certainty. And the country goes to Hell.https://archive.ph/x9H05#selection-585.0-589.337

    That would be a kind of highly undesirable “Idiocracy” scenario/outcome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

    However, I’m naturally an optimist, and I hope that we can create Cipolla’s best case scenario/outcome for our societies, at least in the West:

    Whether one considers classical, or medieval, or modern or contemporary times one is impressed by the fact that any country moving uphill has its unavoidable σ fraction of stupid people. However the country moving uphill also has an unusually high fraction of intelligent people who manage to keep the σ fraction at bay and at the same time produce enough gains for themselves and the other members of the community to make progress a certainty.https://archive.ph/x9H05#selection-581.0-581.445

    What gives me reason for hope and optimism are relatively recent advances and discoveries in neurobiology that have led to breakthroughs and the exponential optimization of so-called “flow states” in the field of “human potential” research and development, that I briefly discussed here https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/how-the-races-got-that-way/?showcomments#comment-5716211 and that are currently utilized/”enlisted” by the intelligent elements or “smart” fraction of our elites to “produce the greatest good for the greatest number.”

  66. Mr Andrew Fraser’s over-valorization of the Anglo-Saxon skanks is repulsive, especially at Christmas time.

    The two best presidents the USA ever had were an Anglo-Norman, George Washington, and a Scotch-Irish guy named Andrew Jackson.

    The Bush Organized Crime Syndicate represents the sordid treason of the WASP turds oh so well, and the only thing I can nicely say about them is Jebby’s appreciation for guacamole dip is somewhat amusing.

    People of the Daubney bloodline say piss on the Angles and the Saxons.

    Saxon Skunk at top of Senlac Hill to Norman Frog at bottom of hill:

    “You Frenchies ain’t nothing but no good Frogs.”

    Norman at bottom of Senlac Hill to Saxon at top of hill:

    “Enjoy your Saxon skull while you can, because we’re going to break your shield wall and smash some Saxon skull soon enough.”

    Thomas Hardy nailed the Saxon race damn well when he had a Saxon richboy skunk — whose family changed their name from the Saxon Stoke to the Norman D’Urberville — horribly assault and mistreat and rape a beautiful young Norman lady named Tess.

    We remember what that Saxon did to our lovely Tessy!

    RULING CLASS REMOVAL IS THE HEROIC DUTY OF THE AGE

    THE EVIL AND DEMONIC JEW/WASP RULING CLASS OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE MUST BE POLITICALLY DECAPITATED

    MERRY CHRISTMAS!

  67. Phuck the WASP treasonite turds! The WASP turds can go screw off! In 2015 and 2016, Trump bashing all kinds of Hell out of Jebby Bush and the Bush Organized Crime Syndicate was a joy to watch and listen to!

    Attention all Americans of English ancestry: If you ain’t an evil treasonous scumbag like those in the Bush Organized Crime Syndicate, then you are an American of English ancestry and not a WASP.

    The term WASP — as defined by Digby Baltzell as the ruling class type people of New England — is a narrow description of the Bush Organized Crime Syndicate types and the money-grubbing turds from the private schools and the Ivy League.

    Apparently, regular people misunderstand Baltzell, and they think every sonofabitch with Angle or Saxon ancestry is a WASP. Wrong! WASP is only about 2 or 3 percent of the Americans with old stocker Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

    The stirrings of the Flight From WASP are let loose upon the Anglosphere with Farage and the resurgence of English nationalism. Let us talk of England and not Britain, and let us now talk about Americans of English ancestry instead of WASPs.

    How about the WOP Italian bastard TALIAFERRO bunch who helped settle Virginia in the 1600s?

    Taliaferro is also anglicized as Tolliver or Toliver.

    The internet says Taliaferro means iron cutter in Italian.

  68. @HdC

    You gotta be kidding me.

    We are supposed to have moon bases, flying cars, fusion energy too cheap to meter. Didn’t you pay attention to 2001 Space Odyssey?

    • Replies: @HdC
  69. HdC says:
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    The examples I cited are from the real world.
    What you talk about are scientific/technological fantasies, which may or may not be achieved.

    “…You gotta be kidding me…”

    OK, please point out where my examples are in error.

  70. @freedom-cat

    We’re at a massive crossroads; if we don’t do anything most of us will be serfs within about 50 years time (most of us will be dead by then but our descendants will still be here suffering)

    The key problem is that while increasing numbers of people are aware of the great reset scam, none of them seem able to organise into groups to resist it. The ruling Elite are destroying society, but no one wants to do anything about it. Nobody wants to stand up and fight them. People would rather just keep struggling, day in and day out, while getting poorer and sicker.

    The Americans didn’t fight during the Capitol protest, and the Canadians didn’t fight during the Trucker protests. They made alot of noise, then dispersed peacefully, like sheep. The Elites saw this and were emboldened. They knew they could get away with their monumental scam.

    • Agree: Old Brown Fool
    • Replies: @FKA Max
  71. I posted this by mistake under another article. This is the right place:

    Ruling classes evolve out of every situation, and elites too. There were ruling classes and elites even among the refugees and prison inmates. It is a sort of inbuilt mechanism in us, it seems. Jane Goodall uses terms like “high class” when describing chimps! So it is highly likely humans have this trait innately. Problem is to have clear and accepted paths for anyone to get into this ruling class, and also to get out. In fact the problem of a declining ruling class family to get out of the ruling class and into working class is more complicated than the problem of an upstart to get into it. After examining it from several angle, my conclusion is, the best way to resolve these problems is to keep the doors open, the rise short, and the fall even shorter. If a chief understands that his good-for-nothing son will get a sinecure, like in the old USSR, he may be content; but if a chief understands his family may be exterminated when he falls from power, he will try to kill the competitors. The stakes just become larger. The best way to avoid that is making sure there is no much to lose if you lose the status of a ruling family. And that means there should not be much to gain, except prestige, that goes with public posts. Old English aristocracy achieved this by making itself independent of king’s pleasure; its power was derived from its wealth, not vice versa. A society should not be too hierarchical, nor the gap between the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless too wide.

    Modern governments need large manpower to run, it is no use trying to curtail it – the bane of modern society is that many services must be provided as public services – fungible and commodified. The experience with the tech giants has shown why it is unwise to leave these services solely to the private markets – people, not governments, must have a say in how these services are run, therefore a certain minimum bureaucracy is unavoidable; it would be unwise to make a social class out of these bureaucrats, as Chinese and Indian histories have shown. Any group that is in politics, and that has clear cut identity and interests, will eventually become selfish and work against the interests of the people. Therefore, it is equally undesirable to create a hereditary aristocratic class in a modern society; it will have ruling class, ruling families, influencers and elites, but all these need to be amorphous. A ruling family may beget a son who is not as talented; it is better for him, his family and the whole society to let him not get into public life. That was what the WASP families of America achieved, in their period of ascendancy. And any aristocratic class should be ready sacrifice itself for the benefit of the society – that means not only mounting a horse in armour and charging at the enemy, but also to be ready to give up its status and privileges for the common good. When the whole society becomes one, aware and interspersed, ruling class will be a profession just like any other profession, carrying more prestige but less benefits, getting into which should be open anyone adequately talented and adequately unselfish.

  72. FKA Max says: • Website
    @TheJamesRocket

    Real, successful political revolutions or reforms are rarely seen through by the working classes, but usually by dissatisfied/disenfranchised or marginalized intellectuals and the upper-middle class of a society. Ruling elites aren’t afraid of proles, but of their politically lower-status equals in terms of education, wealth, networking, etc. That’s also why the original, intellectual Alt Right (Richard B. Spencer, et al.) was seen as a much bigger threat than the co-opted/astroturfed, retarded Alt Lite (QAnon, etc.) by the PTBs.

    Any hierarchical society can only tolerate a very small percentage of high IQ individuals in relatively humble social positions, because such individuals represent always, in view of the limited number of leading positions, a potential threat to the ruling elite. In economically dynamic societies there is always periodic turbulence, and the antagonism between ruling and powerless high IQ-individuals, i.e. the struggle for leadership of the majority, is the most potentially destabilizing factor, not the direct challenge to the ruling elite by the low IQ majority itself. All societies have to have a hierarchy with a relatively fixed ratio of leading to nonleading positions.

    https://archive.vn/blV7b#selection-3721.365-3721.1046

    For example, in the 2016 Republican primaries relatively well-to-do, white-collar workers disproportionately voted for Donald Trump and made him the party’s nominee, against the wishes of the RINO elites.

    GOP gained ground in middle-class communities in 2016
    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/08/gop-gained-ground-in-middle-class-communities-in-2016/ or https://archive.ph/ftjg1
    Image Source: Where Donald Trump’s support really comes from https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2016/04/20/where-donald-trumps-support-really-comes-from or https://archive.ph/cONEA He does not have a majority of the “rich vote”. The race is split. But the idea that it is mostly poor, less-educated voters who are drawn to Mr Trump is a bit of a myth.

    By the way, to bring this discussion full circle, Carl Icahn was also a big and early supporter of Trump, publicly endorsing him in late 2015: Billionaire Carl Icahn backs Trump and talks up middle class frustration https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/29/news/carl-icahn-donald-trump/ or https://archive.ph/BnHz9

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Fraser Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?