In a previous essay, this author explored the possibility of creating a new Aristocracy or leadership class in the United States. There were many advantages, and they centered around the idea that a country is most functional only when its most gifted citizens are in charge. Not just theoretically in charge but have actual hands-on control of the country’s brain(e.g., movies, publishing, voting, etc.) The article was all theory and short on the constitutional changes needed. This article’s subject is to examine the mechanics of installing such a class more thoroughly.
One of the primary duties, and possibly the most important one, of our hypothetical leadership class is voting. Our current practice of letting almost everyone in society vote is an obvious dead end. This dead end though, has a long list of constitutional amendments and laws backing it up. The foundation of American liberal democracy is probably the 14th amendment to the Constitution and is the primary obstacle in the way. America is pretty much doomed as long as it is standing. The 14th was adopted as one of the reconstruction amendments after the Civil War. It is made up, among other things of the Citizenship Clause, which grants citizenship to all persons born in the country, and the Equal Protection Clause, which is the legal basis for all the forced equality of today. In addition, we also have the 15th (giving African Americans the right to vote) and the 19th (giving women the right to vote). The 24th (dealing with pole taxes) and the 26th (dealing with voting age) may also need adjustment. As for laws we have the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, plus various state amendments and laws. To remove voting rights from the masses three amendments and two major laws would have to be rescinded. No easy task—but not impossible either.
Another major duty of our new leadership class is media management. The news and entertainment industry has a huge influence on how the average American views the world. Positive media could inspire Americans to reach new heights while a negative one can inspire white Americans to commit suicide—as is currently happening. For a highly functioning country, the entire media (news, entertainment, publishing, online platforms, even professional sports, etc.) would have to be in the hands of the country’s most gifted citizens. There could be many possible ways to achieve this. One idea would be for the government to strip all media companies from their parent corporations and re-form them into groups of nonprofit corporations. Initial estimates suggest this would result in 100 to 200 nonprofit corporations that collectively consist of almost the entire US media—though this number could be, and maybe should be larger.
Each non-profit would likely hold a hodgepodge of assets and would be overseen by a board of directors of approximately 10-15 men selected from the leadership class. The duty of this board would be to oversee its assets and ensure the final product is suitable for an American audience. The point of these non-profits would not be to make a profit but to create a final product that has a positive effect on the American population. (Recall leaders would be on a dividend for life and would be forbidden income from additional sources, so they would be unconcerned with profits). These non-profits could do whatever they wanted with their assets like trade them with other non-profits or even shut them down entirely (Eg. a porn site). Collectively these board members, maybe three to five thousand men, would determine the content and direction of the US media. At this point, there does not seem to be any better way of selecting these board members than random selection from the leader population. Since it is the 1st amendment that grants freedom of the press, and this arrangement limits freedom of the press only to the leadership class, the 1st amendment would have to be modified.
A related industry that is equally problematic is the advertising business. Today advertising is so offensive and full of propaganda that the entire concept may need to be rethought. There are four large and maybe 40,00 small advertising agencies employing about 280,000 people in the United States. How is the leadership class going to supervise all this? One way would be to seize them and hand them to the non-profits above. The threat of doing so, however, might be enough to keep these companies in line. The non-profit directors could establish guidelines for ad agencies to follow. Repeated violations would have them seized and handed to the non-profits. This would likely keep ad agencies in line without overburdening the non-profits. As with media, the 1st amendment would have to be modified.
Jury duty would be another issue addressed by the leadership class. Small cases could be judged by the general public but important cases—criminal cases with the likelihood of prison, or civil cases where the amount disputed is large—would only be judged by leaders. The 6th and the 14th stand in the way here.
Education is another thing that would need guidance from the LC. In the US each state board of education determines the curriculum for that state’s education system. The state’s board of education is run by a superintendent or commissioner who is appointed directly by the state’s governor or occasionally elected by the general public. In either case, the LC would exercise its influence by voting. In the former, it would have to vote for a governor who promised a wise education system. In the latter, it would vote for the superintendent of education directly. Textbooks are another matter. If every textbook a state board of education reviews is full of propaganda then it has little choice in what it teaches. The publishing houses that write the textbooks, however, fall under media and they would be an asset of one or more of the non-profits discussed above. The LC then, by determining the content in textbooks and electing each state’s board of education, would have effective control over the country’s education system.
As discussed in previous essays, C.H. Douglas was a Scottish engineer whose main finding was that the industrial capacity of Scotland, at the time, was more than sufficient to meet the needs of the Scottish people. If there was unmet demand, it was not a lack of capacity to meet it, but rather a lack of money in the system. All the government needed to do was print the needed money and hand it to the population, and suddenly everyone would be happy. Does this hold today? Yes, even more so than in Douglas’s time. The industrial capacity of the United States, and of course China, is more than enough to keep Americans swimming in stuff. All that’s needed is the money to buy it. This begs the question—is it wise? Is it smart to turn the industrial machine on full speed and print the money to purchase its output—just to satisfy Americans’ lust for cheap junk? That depends on the details. Seems any national dividend would best be used to beautify the country or create higher quality goods rather than more of them. At any rate, Douglas’s Social Credit Economics is such a valuable tool, under wise leadership, that it will need to be made law. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 will have to be repealed and the appropriate legislation giving the government the sole right to print money drafted in its place.
As with education, the LC would have no direct control over environmental policy—none would be needed as they would have indirect control through voting, media, etc. While it would not be possible to state what a future environmental policy would look like it would be fun to guess. With that in mind, we can start with two assumptions: First, leaders would give more value to nature than would the average citizen. Second, if there were a conflict of interest between human population growth and the environment (and there is such a conflict), they would favor the latter over the former. Let’s clarify American population growth for a moment. America’s founding stock racial type, Nordic or mostly Nordic, has been procreating at just below the replacement rate ever since the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Their numbers have been getting fewer and fewer every year. The enormous population growth of the past 60 years has been entirely non-white population growth—either through new immigrants or the high birthrate of non-white citizens.
If we combine this stat with the fact that many conservation biologists are moving toward a new concept called re-wilding we can get an inkling of what a future environmental policy might look like: reducing the non-white population(1) and using the space generated to re-wild the country. Re-wilding is the concept that the species extinction crisis is best mitigated by connecting wildlands. In place of a patchwork of disconnected forests, as we currently have, there would be larger wilderness ‘cores’ connected by a series of wilderness ‘corridors’. Where roads crossed these cores or corridors special wildlife crossing areas would be constructed. The whole idea here is to construct a wildland system where large carnivores or herbivores could roam the country unimpeded by man or his obstructions. This would reduce or even halt the species extinction rate in the US. Re-wilding is growing in popularity among ecologists and conservation biologists. (2)
One unique idea that might increase the acceptance of re-wilding might be the suspension of state services in the wildland areas. There would be no police or rescue services available in these areas. Crimes against nature would need to be enforced but other than that no crimes committed in the wildland areas would be prosecuted. “Frontier” style justice would be the only justice available. In many ways it would be a recreation of the old West with only one rule: please respect nature. Other than that humans entering the wild-land areas would be free as a bird. Structuring things this way might gain support from Americans who otherwise would be opposed to re-wilding.
This is, of course, just fun speculation on what a future policy might look like. Legally there do not appear to be any major hurdles to accomplishing this.
In a 2022 article in the Occidental Observer titled “Reinventing the Ruling Class,” Professor Andrew Fraser examines some of the problems with corporate misbehavior. The crux of the problem, says Fraser, is the current corporate voting policy of “one share one vote” which allows a tiny handful of top shareholders to set the direction of a corporation—even if that direction is against the will of the majority of shareholders. The solution, according to Fraser, would be some sort of voting power equality among top shareholders. This new “senatorial elite” would then guide the corporation in an “enlightened and responsible manner.” Fraser does not seem to contemplate the possibility that the senatorial elite could end up just as degenerate as the top shareholders. Legally, the suggested changes seem fairly simple.
There may be another, more direct way of addressing corporate misbehavior. This would be a charge akin to “anti-American behavior by a man of significant wealth.” Instead of restructuring American corporations, this law would target wealthy individuals directly. The punishment, upon conviction, would be a fine up to the individual’s entire net worth. This would effectively force the wealthy to conform to the will of the LC. Any significant divergence would put them at risk of financial ruin. Much would have to change for such a law to stand. The 1st amendment would have to be modified and the 14th would need to be repealed.
In summary, our new aristocracy—or leadership class—would require several constitutional amendments to be implemented. These changes include the following:
FIRST AMENDMENT The First Amendment should be modified to clarify that the ultra-wealthy and large corporations do not have the absolute right to freedom of speech or freedom of the press. The leadership class can limit these rights.
SIXTH AMENDMENT This amendment gives citizens the right to an impartial jury of their peers. It should be modified to state that a jury selected from the general public only applies to minor cases. For more serious cases, members of the leadership class will judge.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT The Fourteenth was an emotional overreaction to the Civil War and is the cornerstone of America’s current suicide. There is almost nothing good about it and it should be repealed.
FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT The Fifteenth gave the right to vote to African Americans. It should be repealed.
NINETEENTH AMENDMENT The Nineteenth gave women the right to vote. It needs to be repealed.
There are two more amendments involved here; the 24th and 26th dealing with poll taxes and voting age respectively. These may have to be modified or removed. In addition to modifying or removing these amendments, one or more amendments would have to be drafted describing the leadership class and its duties.
When it comes to ratifying new amendments and repealing old ones there is no easy way to do it. First, either two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of state legislators must propose an amendment be repealed. Then, three-fourths of the states(38 out of 50)must agree to ratify the proposal. Only one amendment has ever been repealed—the 21st repealed the 18th Amendment, which established prohibition.
That’s it. Many readers will scoff and say the changes are impractical or impossible. What they don’t realize is that the political will for such changes already exists—it’s just unfocused. Many, many Americans are unhappy right now. If Americans could focus their attention on the above changes—and be assured these changes are a moral solution to today’s problems, as morality would be key here—then the suggested changes would not be impractical at all.
(1) Methods for lowering the non-white population were discussed in a previous article and consist of paying non-whites to repatriate, relocate, or reduce their birthrate.
(2) Current rewilding theory gets even more interesting–namely the idea that ecosystems would benefit by replacing extinct North American species with their closest living relative(EG. the extinct North American cheetah with the African cheetah, the extinct North American camel with Arabian camels, and the extinct woolly mammoth with African elephants!).