A New American Leadership Model

It seems to be common knowledge that democracy is what built America. The media, the schools, and the politicians all agree that “one person, one vote” is the best and, therefore, only acceptable form of government. America, though, was never intended by the founding fathers to be a universal suffrage type of democracy but rather a republic where only the more responsible citizens were given the right to vote. In their time, this usually meant white male property owners who comprised maybe 20-25 percent of the population. America has come a long way from this original idea of a republic. Has this trend of letting more and more of the population vote positively or negatively affected the country? To answer this, we must take a critical look at universal suffrage. Looking closely at democracy, we can find at least three significant flaws.

• The problem of the public voting in its self-interest. Wikipedia qotes the Scottish historian Alexander Tyler as saying, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.” Tyler makes a good point, as this is precisely what’s happening in America today. When it comes to founding stock white Americans, some of them might be voting for what is in the best interest of the country, but most are not. Regarding nonwhite Americans, almost all vote in their self-interest – as individuals or groups. This is the first significant problem with universal suffrage – the masses have become selfish, and nearly everyone votes only in self-interest. 
  
• The problem of the public’s inability to differentiate an honest candidate from a dishonest one. In short, the general public has little ability to detect a lie. This is especially true when the candidate in question is more intelligent than them. Because the truth does not constrain the dishonest candidate, his policies will seem more attractive to the masses. They will almost always elect a dishonest candidate over an honest one.
• The problem of special interest groups forming the pool of acceptable candidates. Two factors determine a candidate’s probability of winning an election: how well his campaign is financed and the amount and tone of media exposure he gets. The general public has no say in these factors, but well-financed special interest groups determine them. Candidates with agreeable policies have well-financed campaigns and get significant and positive media coverage, while disagreeable candidates are stiffed and ignored. Special interest groups do not determine the winner of elections but create the pool of pre-selected candidates the public is permitted to vote for. In this way, they win no matter what the outcome.

So universal suffrage in America works like this: well-financed special interest groups – whose objectives might be utterly different from those of the public or the best interest of the country – create a pool of candidates the public is allowed to vote for, the general public then, with little ability to determine which candidates – if any – are telling the truth, and thinking only of themselves, proceed to cast their vote. This is the definition of confusion and is hardly what the fathers had in mind when they framed the Constitution. So the answer to the above question is no – the trend of letting higher and higher percentages of the population vote has not had a positive effect on the country but has led to extreme disorder.

The could solve the problem of special interest groups through campaign reform or legislation but the first two issues are just unsolvable. Let the general public vote, and they will always vote for a dishonest candidate who ignores them and immediately goes to work for the financiers who put him in power. We can see evidence of the ineffectiveness of one person, one vote, in how immigration policy has led to demographic change in the US against the will of the American people. According to Madison Grant, in his 1920s book, Conquest of a Continent, in 1860, the United States was around 90 percent Nordic in its makeup.[1] In the early 1900s, many southern and eastern Europeans entered the country. Founding-stock white Americans disapproved of this. They felt these people had nothing to offer the country and were unassimilable. Under pressure, congress passed the immigration act of 1924 which restricted immigration so it could not change the country’s demographics. This lasted for 50 years. In the 1960s, after being assured it would not change the country’s demographics and against the will of the American people, congress passed the 1965 immigration act, which allowed large numbers of nonwhites to enter the country under the pretenses of uniting families or helping refugees.

Predictably, the promises the act would not change the country’s demographics proved to be false, and a decade later, to the chagrin of white America, the country’s demographics started rapidly evolving. White America has been unable, since the 1960s at least, to elect any politician to do their bidding. Although white America generally supports immigration, they never wanted to change the country’s racial makeup – not today, not in 1965, not one hundred years ago. But yet it happened and is still happening today. Nonwhites come pouring across the border – both legally and illegally – in record numbers every year. What does white America do about it? Nothing. What can they do about it? They are unable to vote themselves out of the mess they voted themselves into. They throw their hands in the air and give up – utterly oblivious to the possibility that the special interest groups that preselect the candidates might support this. This is universal suffrage in action.

Unfortunately, there are no real solutions here, as these problems are endemic to universal suffrage. If America continues this path, it will lose its first-world status and eventually descend into third-world conditions. Admittedly, this trend will take a long time to complete but this is hardly the point. The important thing is that the point of no return – the point where white America cannot save itself even if it were united and determined to do so – grows near, certainly by the turn of the century, but likely sooner. The situation here is profound. Fortunately, there are much more functional “republican” models that one person one vote. Before we try to craft a solution, we should look at other forms of government.

Before the French Revolution, there were two forms of leadership in Europe – monarchy and Aristocracy. Monarchy is the rule of a single individual, either a king or queen. The idea was that if you took a man of good breeding and gave him absolute power and everything he could ever want so that he could not possibly envy anyone else, his focus would shift from himself to that of others, and he would become a benevolent ruler. When it worked as intended monarchy had significant advantages, as a wise ruler would cut through all bureaucracy, and the country would move forward without friction. The problems start when you end up with a not-so-benevolent ruler. These folks didn’t usually step down voluntarily, and historically, the most realistic way of removing them was to behead them. So, the apparent problem with monarchy is separating the good from the bad. In the future, it might be possible to use technology to see into the minds of future monarchs. Virtual reality, maybe, could be used to stress test potential monarchs to “see” what we would be getting before we handed them power. One day soon, this might be possible.

On the other hand, Aristocracy is defined as “the rule of the best,” where a small population(1-10%) has control over the country, and everyone else is along for the ride. Historically, the “best” has always been the victors in war. When one tribe conquered another they would claim all the land as their own and appoint themselves as nobles. The advantage of Aristocracy is also apparent – if you could separate the most gifted and moral elements in society and put them in charge, they would do much better than the general public. Aristocracy also has significant disadvantages, which can be summarized as follows:

• The problem of selecting the “best”. In the past, the nobles were always the victors in war. This worked well enough then, but surely we can do better today.
• The problem of maintaining the “best”. Over time, an aristocracy can lose its quality through a series of bad marriages. This is what happened in France. The French nobles had degenerated themselves through a series of bad marriages into a band of French buffoons that became the laughingstock of France, and the french revolution was the result.
• The problem of separating wealth from power. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the English merchant class started taking power and influence from the English Aristocracy. This trend continued unabated until, eventually, the English nobility found itself irrelevant. They went down without a fight. This is where it stands today, with the financiers holding all the power and the English aristocrats being nobles by name only.
• The problem of misalignment with the public good due to financial interests. It is possible, and likely occurred in the past, that a nobility, feeling insecure, might abandon the public good and pursue its economic interests.

So, are either of these outdated forms appropriate for America today? Interestingly, a 2013 CNN poll found that 13% of Americans would be open to having a royal family and a 2023 yougov.com poll found that 12% would support a monarchy. These numbers are surprising given the level of pro-democracy propaganda in the United States. This author could find no similar polls on Aristocracy. Monarchy, however, is not practical for the US at this time. The reason is that monarchy needs Aristocracy as a stepping stone. The people choose an aristocracy because they want one. They realize a gifted class of people will better direct the country than the general public. An aristocracy, likewise, might conclude a monarch could do a better job of enacting their will than they could. Jumping straight from a democracy to a monarchy wouldn’t work, and any attempt to do so would resemble a democratic election with the flaws listed above. That leaves us to look at Aristocracy, with all its apparent flaws. America has no history of Aristocracy. This is both positive and negative. Since America has nothing to fall back on, convincing the masses of such a move would be more complicated than in the typical European country. On the positive side, since America has no history of Aristocracy, one would have to design from scratch, and it might be possible to create one that works better than any in the past.

At this point, we must ask the big question. What, exactly, would an ideal government look like? What would the population ideally want from a leadership or aristocratic class? What would one ideally wish from any professional class? If one went to a doctor, for example, one would not want an average doctor who gives you 20 minutes of attention but a team of doctors, the best doctors who are entirely devoted to your care. If one went to a lawyer, one would want not just one average lawyer but a team of lawyers, the best lawyers who were utterly devoted to one’s case – even if one’s case did not merit such devotion. In short, you would wish for giftedness and grace. So, the ideal government would take the form of an aristocratic class consisting of the most gifted individuals in the land entirely devoted not to their well-being but to that of the general public – even though the public has done nothing to merit such devotion. This is not an easy task. But it is a task we must at least attempt. Finding gifted members is easy – getting them to behave graciously toward the population will be more difficult.

A simple IQ test or series of tests could be the first step in choosing leadership class members.[2] Ideally, you would not want a class of simple men but members with higher consciousness or sentience – which we can define here simply as a willingness to extend care. So a member aware of the world beyond his group(such as other peoples, other species, or the environment, for example)would be preferable to a member concerned only with himself or, at most, his group. When looking at the different human races and searching for this “higher consciousness” quality, it becomes evident that the northern European or Nordic racial type has this quality to a much higher degree than other races. This should be self-evident. So, IQ and Nordic racial features would be two criteria for membership into our ideal Aristocracy. Would these two simple criteria result in a leadership class that behaved graciously toward the population? No, not if they suffered from envy.

It is impossible for those who suffer from envy to behave graciously or compassionately towards those they envy. When put into power, the envious almost always try to drag down those they envy. The idea is that if you start with a racial type that has an instinct for altruism(the Nordic), select only the most gifted members both in mental and physical features, and put these members in a financial position where they have it made, their focus will shift from themselves to the population and they will behave graciously. Mentally, the task is fairly simple, as an IQ test can separate the intelligent from the masses. Physically, you would need to select members who were taller than average, better looking than average, and lacked physical flaws such as obesity or a disproportioned body.

Financially, making members the wealthiest people in the land would not be possible or desirable. They could, however, be given an income, guaranteed for life, that would put them in a position so they would not suffer from financial envy. If you look for examples of gracious behavior in the real world, you will usually notice two factors. First, the benefactor is generally content with what they have – they are not worried about their financial position or particularly ambitious for more. Second, the recipient is not viewed as a threat(the moment the recipient becomes a threat, the focus changes from the other to the self). It can also be observed that the benefactor is often of Nordic racial type or acting under the influence of Nordic culture as the Nordic has a predisposition for altruism. Again, the idea is that if you select the most gifted members of a group pre-dispositioned towards altruism, and put them in a position where they do not have to envy anyone or view the population as a threat, their focus will shift from themselves to others and you will have a functional and benevolent aristocracy.

With these ideas in mind, we can now speculate on what a new American aristocracy or leadership class might look like.

REQUIREMENTS

SEX Male only. Women’s brains are geared toward raising and nurturing children. In Western societies where women have few or even no children, they tend to nurture things that don’t need nurturing(like Muslim “refugees” in Europe, for example). Men are less prone to this and are better at using the logical side of their brains, so the leadership class would be male only for this reason. This does not mean women can not hold positions of power or even be elected president – it only means the decision to put them there is a man’s.

RACE When humans evolved from proto-humans, they did not evolve into different artificial divisions such as languages, religions, or cultures. They evolved into different races. Race is nature’s unit of division among humanity. Each race is considered a proto-species and will evolve into a different species if left isolated for long enough. It is not, therefore, unethical in any way to differentiate people by race. Of all the world’s racial types, the Nordic is the most fit for leadership – both nationally and globally for many reasons. Here are a few: The Nordic has higher consciousness or spiritual awareness than other races. He is the only type whose members think, en mass, above the group level. While all the other races of the world are stuck at the group (nation-state) level, the Nordic’s awareness has risen to the global level. This should be obvious from observing the politics of the nations he inhabits. The Nordic is also more altruistic(willingness for self-sacrifice)than other races. This makes him especially suited for membership in an aristocracy, as you would want members focused on others rather than themselves. Nordics are also more honest than other races. The website http://transparency.org/ researches corruption worldwide and publishes a “corruption perceptions index” map. The map makes it clear that the more Nordics there are in the population, the less corruption there is, strongly suggesting Nordics are the most honest race on earth.

IQ Members should have higher than average intelligence by some measure. The reason is obvious. High-IQ people also have an increased ability to detect lies, so the typical politician will find himself unelectable with a high-IQ electorate.

HEIGHT Members should be taller than average by some measure. When selecting physical features, the object is to select men who have no reason to envy any other man, so a height requirement is necessary here. Selecting for other features such as good looks or physique might also be a good idea.

DUTIES

The masses primarily view the world around them with the information they get from the media. The media, the schools, the advertising agencies, what the politicians tell them, etc., all play a significant part in what the masses view as reality. If these sources want to act in unison – and in America today, they appear to be doing precisely that – they can determine what the masses view as real and thus control the country’s direction. Who comprise these special interest groups that appear to be flushing white America down the toilet? The masses have no clue. They just don’t. They’ll blame anything from “globalists“ to the deep state, Satanists, aliens from outer space, freemasons, or possibly even leprechauns. An aristocracy would remove all this obscurity. If an aristocracy were selected and handed the “brain“ of the country, its members could not hide from their actions. The masses would know the names of all aristocrats, what they looked like, where they lived, who they voted for, and likely where their children went to school. Its members and their actions would be completely transparent. Unlike the present, Americans would know who to blame if things went wrong. And, if, in the end, they failed or became corrupted, Americans could rely, as a last resort, on their firearms – that’s what they’re there for.

VOTING Members would be the only ones to vote in state or national elections. Voting should probably be age-restricted, say 30-70.

MEDIA The news and entertainment industry plays a significant role in what the public believes and how they think, so it will be necessary for members to have control from the top down. The large media conglomerates should be broken up, and smaller not-for-profit companies should be formed in their place. Here, members would have complete control, from management to producing and directing movies.

EDUCATION Members would have complete control over the curriculum taught in schools from kindergarten to college. They would not necessarily have to be the teachers. The best way to implement this has yet to be devised.

FINANCE Once CH. Douglas’s Social Credit Economic system is in place, members will staff the National Credit Office. This office, along with the politicians members have elected, will decide the size and distribution of the national discount and national dividend.

ADDITIONAL DUTIES There may be many more additional duties required here, such as jury duty. Members might want to create a professional juror class that decides cases with significant outcomes or set up a church policy review board that would determine which churches/religions are suitable for media exposure.

In addition to these duties, members could solidify their influence by passing a new law akin to “un-American activity by a person of significant wealth.” The purpose of this law would be to keep rouge billionaires in check. Upon conviction, the offender would be fined an amount equivalent to his net worth. You could still be wealthy in America, but only if your incentives aligned with the leadership class’s values.

BENEFITS

The sole benefit of being a member would be a higher-than-average share of the national dividend. This amount should be enough to make the members comfortable without additional income. To prevent conflicts of interest, members would be prohibited from accepting income from any other source but the dividend. If a member wanted to start and run a business, it would have to be a not-for-profit business.

SELECTION PROCESS

It is unknown how many members would be needed to fulfill these duties, but, to start, let’s estimate one percent of the white male population or approximately one million members. If we estimate a working age of 20-70, then each year, we get around 20 thousand members being inducted and the same number retiring. To fulfill this, at age 18, all white males would be given a series of tests(a racial diagnostic, an IQ test, and a psychical diagnostic), the scores combined, and the top one percent selected. Once selected, new members should be prevented from voting until they reach an older age, so let’s set the voting age from 30 to 70. Members’ income would not depend on their working status but on the number of children they have. More children means more income. Members must have a high birthrate. A high birthrate enables this class to improve itself every generation. So, if members double their population every generation, the next generation can be twice as selective.

For this reason, if traditional marriage is not enough to achieve a high birth rate, additional methods could be used, like polygyny or even sperm donation. A high birthrate would have the additional benefit of regenerating white America from the top down—a process that is sorely needed. At some advanced age, say, 60-70, members would be retired, and they would become regular citizens with no additional duties or privileges.

At the beginning of this essay, we listed three problems with democracy – the public only voting in their self-interest, the public’s inability to detect a lie, and the ability of special interest groups to form the pool of acceptable candidates. Our hypothetical new leadership class would solve the first two but not the last. The third problem could be solved through campaign reform or legislation though. We then touched on the historical issues of Aristocracy. We found at least four of them – the problem of defining and selecting the “best,” the problem of maintaining the “best,” the problem of separating wealth from power, and the problem of aristocrats pursuing their financial interests. Our new hypothetical leadership class solves all four of these. The first with a clear definition and selection process, the second with a high birthrate and reselection every generation, the third by giving members complete control over the “brain“ of the country, and the fourth by putting members on a career-long above-average salary and prohibiting additional financial ventures.

Ancient Greece may have been the only true democracy in history. Here, the citizens voted on issues directly, and most of the critical positions were chosen by lot. The founding fathers realized this only worked because of the small size of the Greek city-states and would never work with a larger population. So, they opted for a new form of government, a “representative democracy,” in which the population would elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. This worked well enough initially, but it has failed today, 250 years later. Plain and simple. If America follows the path of one person, one vote, it’s going down – and everyone knows it. So change is needed here.

Our hypothetical leadership class would fall short of hereditary Aristocracy but would be somewhat stronger than the Founding Fathers’ original plan. Instead of the people electing representatives themselves, they would create an intermediary class that would elect the representatives for them. It would be different in structure, maybe, but not in spirit from what the founding fathers originally planned. There is nothing here that is unconstitutional. Every one of these changes is possible by repealing certain constitutional amendments and proposing and ratifying others. It is within the Constitution to make these changes.

The founding fathers, if around today, would likely approve them. We can take Thomas Jefferson as an example here. Jefferson seemed to think that the success of America would depend on its ability to separate the “natural aristoi“ – men with gifts and virtue – from the “pseudo aristoi”. His primary method for achieving this was education. An extensive and free education system, thought Jefferson, would identify these natural aristocrats, wherever they lurked in society, and prime them for public life. Jefferson once even remarked to John Adams – “May we not even say that the form of government is best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government.“ Jefferson was a busy man, though. He never really completed his ideas on natural Aristocracy. One wonders what Jefferson would think if he were around today. Most of the founding fathers were similar to Jefferson. Their political ideas fell short of hereditary Aristocracy (with its obvious problems)but well above the madness of one person one vote – which they never even considered. One thing is sure, however, if the founding fathers were around today and given a choice between universal suffrage and creating a professional leadership class – as outlined above – they would, without doubt, choose the latter.