{"id":1813,"date":"2024-01-15T19:28:12","date_gmt":"2024-01-15T19:28:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/?p=1813"},"modified":"2025-04-22T17:18:48","modified_gmt":"2025-04-22T16:18:48","slug":"placeholder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/?p=1813","title":{"rendered":"A New American Leadership Model"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"1813\" class=\"elementor elementor-1813\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-73fa8349 e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent\" data-id=\"73fa8349\" data-element_type=\"container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"e-con-inner\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-57a3f197 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"57a3f197\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3><\/h3>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">It seems to be common knowledge that democracy is what built America. The media, the schools, and the politicians all agree that &#8220;one person, one vote&#8221; 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 <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">were given<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> the right to vote. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">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.<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The problem of the public voting in its self-interest.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> Wikipedia <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">quotes<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> the Scottish historian Alexander Tyler as saying, &#8220;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.&#8221; Tyler makes a good point, as this is <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">precisely<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> what&#8217;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. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> is the first significant problem with universal suffrage &#8211; the masses have become selfish, and nearly everyone votes only in self-interest. <br \/><\/span><\/li>\n<li><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The problem <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">of<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> the public&#8217;s inability to differentiate an honest candidate from a dishonest one.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> In short, the general public has little ability to detect a lie. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> is especially true when the candidate <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">in question<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> is more intelligent than they. 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.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The problem of special interest groups forming the pool of acceptable candidates. Two factors determine a candidate&#8217;s probability of winning an election: how well his campaign <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">is financed<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">So universal suffrage in America works like this: well-financed special interest groups \u2013 whose objectives might be utterly different from those of the public or the best interest of the country \u2013 create a pool of candidates the public is allowed to vote for, the general public then, with little ability to determine which candidates \u2013 if any \u2013 are telling the truth, and thinking only of themselves, proceed to cast their vote. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 \u2013 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">We<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> could solve <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">the problem<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> of special interest groups through campaign reform or legislation, <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">but<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> the first two issues <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">are just unsolvable<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">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.<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">[1]<\/span> 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 <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">of<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 1924, <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">which<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> restricted immigration so it could not change the country&#8217;s demographics. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> lasted for 50 years. In the 1960s, after being assured it would not change the country&#8217;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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Predictably,\u00a0 promises that the act would not change the country&#8217;s demographics proved to be false, and a decade later, to the chagrin of white America, the country&#8217;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&#8217;s racial makeup \u2013 not today, not in 1965, not one hundred years ago. But it happened and is still happening today. Nonwhites come pouring across the border \u2013 both legally and illegally &#8211; in record numbers every year. What does white America do about it? Nothing. What <\/span><em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">can<\/span><\/em><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> they do about it? They <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">are unable to<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> is universal suffrage in action.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Unfortunately, there are no real solutions here, as these problems <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">are endemic to<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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, <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">but<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> this is hardly the point. The important thing is that the point of no return \u2013 the point where white America cannot save itself even if it were united and determined to do so \u2013 grows near, certainly by the turn of the century, but likely sooner. The situation here is profound. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Fortunately, there are many more functional &#8220;republican&#8221; models than one person, <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">one<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> vote.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> Before we try to craft a solution, we should look at other forms of government.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Before the French Revolution, there were two forms of leadership in Europe \u2013 monarchy and Aristocracy. Monarchy is the rule of a single individual, either a king or queen. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The idea was that if<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> When it worked as intended <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">monarchy<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> had significant advantages, as a wise ruler would cut through all bureaucracy, and the country would move forward without friction. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The problems start when you end up with a not-so-benevolent ruler. These folks didn&#8217;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. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">In the future, it might be possible to use technology to see <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">into the minds of future monarchs<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> Virtual reality, maybe, could be used to stress test potential monarchs to &#8220;see&#8221; what we would be getting before we hand them power. One day soon, this might be possible.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">On the other hand, Aristocracy <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">is defined<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> as &#8220;the rule of the best,&#8221; where a small population(1-10%) has control over the country, and everyone else is along for the ride. Historically, the &#8220;best&#8221; have always been the victors in war. When one tribe conquered <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">another<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, they would claim all the land as their own and appoint themselves as nobles. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The advantage of Aristocracy is also apparent \u2013 if you could separate <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">the<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> most gifted and moral elements <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">in society<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> and put them in charge, they would do much better than the general public.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> Aristocracy also has significant disadvantages, which can be summarized as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The problem of selecting the &#8220;best&#8221;. In the past, the nobles were always the victors in war. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> worked well enough then, but surely we can do better today.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The problem of maintaining the &#8220;best&#8221;. Over time, an aristocracy can lose its quality through <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">a series of<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> bad marriages. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The problem of separating wealth from power.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> is where it stands today, with the financiers holding all the power and the English aristocrats being nobles by name only.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The problem of misalignment with the public good <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">due<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> to financial interests.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> It is possible, and likely occurred in the past, that a nobility, feeling insecure, might abandon the public good and pursue its economic interests.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">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, <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">and<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 a monarchy needs an Aristocracy as a stepping stone. The people choose an aristocracy because they want one. They realize a gifted class <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">of leaders<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> will better direct the country than the general public. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">An aristocracy<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, likewise,<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> might conclude that a monarch could do a better job of enacting their will than they could.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> Jumping straight from a democracy to a monarchy wouldn&#8217;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. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 a 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">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? <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">If one went to a doctor, for example, one would <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">not<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> want an average doctor who gives you 20 minutes of attention, <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">but<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> a team of doctors, the best doctors who are entirely devoted to your care.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> If one went to a <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">lawyer<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, one would want not just one average lawyer but a team of lawyers, the best lawyers who were utterly devoted to one&#8217;s case, even if one&#8217;s case did not merit such devotion. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">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. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> is not an easy task. But it is a task we must at least attempt. Finding gifted members is easy \u2013 getting them to behave graciously toward the population will be more difficult.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">A simple IQ test or series of tests could be the first step in choosing leadership class members.<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">[2]<\/span> 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 people, other species, or the environment, for example)would be preferable to a member concerned only with himself or, at most, his group. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">When looking at the different human races and searching for this &#8220;higher consciousness&#8221; quality, it becomes evident that the northern European or Nordic racial type has this quality <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">to a<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> much higher degree than other races. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">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 <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">features,<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> and put these members in a financial position where they have it made, their focus will shift from themselves to the population <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">and<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> they will behave graciously. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Mentally, the task is <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">fairly<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 disproportionate body.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Financially<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, making members the wealthiest people in the land would not be possible or desirable. They could, however, <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">be given<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 &#8211; they are not worried about their financial position or particularly ambitious for more. Second, the recipient <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">is not viewed<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> as a threat(the moment the recipient becomes a threat, the focus changes from the other to the self).<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">It can also be observed<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Again, the idea is that if you select the most gifted members of a group <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">pre-dispositioned<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">and<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> you will have a functional and benevolent aristocracy.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">With these ideas in mind, we can now speculate on what a new American aristocracy or leadership class might look like.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">REQUIREMENTS<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">SEX:\u00a0 Male only. Women&#8217;s brains <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">are geared<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> toward raising and nurturing children. In Western societies where women have few or even no children, they tend to <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">nurture<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> things that don&#8217;t need nurturing(like Muslim &#8220;refugees&#8221; in Europe, for example). Men are less prone to this and are better at using the logical side of their brains<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, so<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> the leadership class would be male only for this reason. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> does not mean women can not hold positions of power or even be elected president \u2013 it only means the decision to put them there is a man&#8217;s.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">RACE: \u00a0 When humans evolved from proto-humans, they did not <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">evolve<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> into different artificial divisions such as languages, religions, or cultures. They evolved into <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">different<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> races. Race is nature&#8217;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&#8217;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 masse, above the group level. While the <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">other<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> races of the world <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">are stuck<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> at the group (nation-state) level, the Nordic s&#8217; awareness has risen <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">to a global level<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> should be obvious from observing the politics of the nations he inhabits. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The Nordic is also more altruistic(willingness for self-sacrifice)than other races. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 <\/span><a class=\"editor-rtfLink\" href=\"http:\/\/transparency.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">http:\/\/transparency.org\/<\/span><\/a><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> researches corruption worldwide and publishes a &#8220;corruption perceptions index&#8221; 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">IQ: \u00a0 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">HEIGHT: \u00a0 Members should be taller than average by some measure. When selecting physical features, the object is to <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">select<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">DUTIES<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">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 \u2013 and in America today, they appear to be doing precisely that \u2013 they can determine what the masses view as <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">real<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> and thus control the country&#8217;s direction. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Who comprises these special interest groups that appear to be flushing white America down the toilet? The masses have no clue. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">They <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">just<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> don&#8217;t.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> They&#8217;ll blame anything from &#8220;globalists<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">&#8220;<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> to the deep state, Satanists, aliens from outer space, freemasons, or possibly even leprechauns. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">An aristocracy would remove all this obscurity. If an aristocracy were selected and handed the &#8220;brain<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">&#8220;<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 &#8211; that&#8217;s what they&#8217;re there for.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">VOTING:\u00a0 Members would be the only ones to vote in state or national elections. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Voting should <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">probably<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> be age-restricted, say 30-70.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">MEDIA: \u00a0 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. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">large<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> media conglomerates should be broken up<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, and smaller not-for-profit companies should <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">be formed<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> in their place. Here, members would have complete control, from management to producing and directing movies.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">EDUCATION:\u00a0 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 <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">be devised<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">FINANCE: \u00a0 Once CH. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Douglas&#8217;s<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> Social Credit Economic system is in place<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, members<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> will staff the National Credit Office. This office, along with the elected politicians, will decide the size and distribution of the national discount and national dividend.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">ADDITIONAL DUTIES: \u00a0 There may be many additional duties <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">required here<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">In addition to these duties, members could solidify their influence by passing a new law akin to &#8220;un-American activity by a person of significant wealth.&#8221; The purpose of this law would be to keep rogue billionaires in check. Upon conviction, the offender would <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">be fined<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> an amount equivalent to his net worth. You could still be wealthy in America, but only if your incentives aligned with the leadership class&#8217;s values.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">BENEFITS<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">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. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">To prevent conflicts of interest<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">SELECTION PROCESS<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">It is unknown how many members would be needed to fulfill these duties, but to start, let&#8217;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 <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">being inducted<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> and the same number retiring. To fulfill this, at age 18, all white males would <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">be given<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> a series of tests(a racial diagnostic, an IQ test, and a psychical diagnostic), the scores combined, and the top one percent selected. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Once selected, <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">new members should be prevented<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> from voting until they reach an older age, so let&#8217;s set the voting age from 30 to 70. Members&#8217; income would not depend on their working status but on the number of children they have. More children mean 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">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\u2014a 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">At the beginning of this essay, we listed three problems with democracy: the public only voting in their self-interest, the public&#8217;s inability to detect a lie, and the ability of special interest groups to form <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">the pool<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> of acceptable candidates. Our hypothetical new leadership class would solve the first two but not the last. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The third problem could be solved<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 &#8220;best,&#8221; the problem of maintaining the &#8220;best,&#8221; the problem of separating wealth from power, and the problem of aristocrats pursuing their financial interests.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 &#8220;brain<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">&#8220;<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> of the country, and the fourth by putting members on a career-long above-average salary and prohibiting additional financial ventures.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Ancient Greece may have been the only true democracy in history. Here, the citizens voted on issues directly, and most <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">of the<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> critical positions <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">were chosen<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 &#8220;representative democracy,&#8221; in which the population would elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">This<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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&#8217;s going down \u2013 and everyone knows it. So, change is needed here.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Our hypothetical leadership class would fall short of hereditary Aristocracy but would be somewhat stronger than the Founding Fathers&#8217; 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">The founding fathers, if around today, would likely approve of them. We can take Thomas Jefferson as an example here. <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">Jefferson seemed to think that the success of America would depend on its ability to separate the &#8220;natural <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">aristoi<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">&#8220;<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> \u2013 men with gifts and virtue \u2013 from the &#8220;pseudo <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">aristoi&#8221;.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> His primary method for achieving this was education. An extensive and <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">free<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> 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 \u2013 &#8220;May we not even say that the form of government is best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">aristoi<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> into <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">the offices of government<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">.<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">&#8220;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">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 <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">obvious<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> problems)but were 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.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-aee35b0 elementor-widget-divider--view-line elementor-widget elementor-widget-divider\" data-id=\"aee35b0\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"divider.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-divider\">\n\t\t\t<span class=\"elementor-divider-separator\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-111384d e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent\" data-id=\"111384d\" data-element_type=\"container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"e-con-inner\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-ecafc0b elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"ecafc0b\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">[1]<\/span> Richard Mcculloch, in his online book <\/span><a class=\"editor-rtfLink\" href=\"http:\/\/racialcompact.com\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">http:\/\/racialcompact.com<\/span><\/a><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">, defines an &#8220;inner nordish&#8221; racial group, which is his attempt to separate the northern European type from the eastern or southern type. In this group, he lists seven similar subraces: Tronder, Anglo-Saxon, Keltic, Borreby, Brun, Hallstatt, and Falilsh. Grant&#8217;s idea of Nordic was likely identical to McCulloch&#8217;s &#8220;inner nordish<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">&#8220;<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> group. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">[2]<\/span> Interestingly, <\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\">IQ tests can now be performed<\/span><span data-preserver-spaces=\"true\"> with an MRI scan, so the written tests may be a thing of the past.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It seems to be common knowledge that democracy is what built America. The media, the schools, and the politicians all agree that &#8220;one person, one vote&#8221; 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 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1815,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"iawp_total_views":22,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1813","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1813","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1813"}],"version-history":[{"count":185,"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1813\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3115,"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1813\/revisions\/3115"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1815"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1813"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1813"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anewamerica.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1813"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}