Oct 20, 2009

By | 11 Comments

Elite Status

athenaWho should rule?

Logging on this morning, I see that this has once again become a burning issue among the commentators. So far, I haven’t had much to say about the topic. I don’t aspire to rule over anyone. Becoming a politician isn’t a good fit with my introverted personality type. It is a task that I would prefer to leave to others. We have already had one commentator storm off the site because of a controversial turn in this discussion. It is better to discuss the matter now (in its own definitive blog entry) than to have it continue to spill over into unrelated threads.


As everyone here knows by now, NeoNietzsche is a passionate admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche and subscribes to a peculiar interpretation of his theories. He believes in a caste system (warrior, cleric, peasant) and sees himself as part of the elect few who should rule in a White Nationalist ethnostate. Following Nietzsche, NN believes everyone has an essential orientation, master or slave, dominant or submissive, and that different moral systems correspond to this primordial mammalian division. As an advocate of “master morality,” he would abolish liberal democracy and confer elite status upon the “higher types” who are naturally born to rule.


In the United States, Jeffersonians are the most numerous in White Nationalist circles. In their view, the best type of government is the one that governs least. These people don’t see anything essentially wrong with the American system. They believe in state and local government and instinctively oppose the consolidation of power in Washington. Jeffersonians like to attribute our racial decline to the corrupting influence of outside forces, namely the Jews, and argue that racial sanity would quickly return to America after the excise of this cancer. Under the Jeffersonian system, elite status would be conferred through local elections and the private accumulation of wealth in a capitalist economy.


Like the Jeffersonians, the Hamiltonians still believe in republican self government, but prefer a strong, centralized state to a weak one. Instead of free trade, they want an America First trade policy. Hamiltonians support a strong public sector and a regulated market economy to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth. They believe a few constitutional reforms will be sufficient to reverse our racial decline. In their ideal White ethnostate, elite status would also be conferred through elections and wealth accumulation in the private sphere.


The libertarians are a subset of the Jeffersonians who believe in a minimal state. They believe the only function of the state is to protect individual rights: military, police, courts. The libertarians would scrap the entire ediface of twentieth century progressive reforms in the name of liberty. In a libertarian White ethnostate, elite status would be conferred through participation in the market economy, as government would be hamstrung by a strict constitution.


The fascists (this includes National Socialists and related species of fascism) want an authoritarian state headed by a dynamic leader with near absolute power. They would dispense with liberal democracy entirely and replace it with a racialized bureaucracy. This concentration of power would be used to rid the fascist ethnostate of Jews and other undesirable elements. Elite status would be conferred through rising in the party and pleasing its established leaders.


For lack of a better word, the “Platonists” are White Nationalists who advocate rule by a Guardian caste or order. These Guardians would be chosen through breeding and merit. Exemplary Whites imbued with an unusual dedication to their race would enjoy rights and privileges that other citizens would not.

Christian Nationalists

The Christian Nationalists believe a strong, rejuvenated Christianity is a necessary component of a White ethnostate. In essence, they want an ethnostate based on Christian moral values. Some Christian Nationalists want a republic; some a monarchy; some a theocratic dictatorship. In all cases, elite status would be strongly connected to religious piety.


The monarchists want a king and hereditary aristocracy. Elite status would be conferred through the possession of royal blood.


The anarchists want to dispense with government entirely. In their proposed ethnostate, as there would be no government, politics would not exist and there would be no mechanism for selecting elites. In theory, everyone would be equal in this classless society.

Where I Stand

So, after all this, what is my answer to this question?

Politically, I stand between the Hamiltonians and Platonists. I think that government can be a force for good and that White Nationalists will need a strong central state to repel invasions by our multitude of enemies. The republican system is a proven model for ensuring continuity and the peaceful transfer of power. I think we would be unwise to dispense with it in pursuit of some of the more outré, untested ideas discussed above.

The worst aspects of republicanism can be dealt with through constitutional reforms. For one, I don’t believe in universal voting rights. In my ideal republic, the franchise would only be extended after certain conditions are met. Voters would be required to demonstrate they are intelligent, competent, and moral enough to enjoy the privilege of selecting our leaders. I also believe that the Guardian caste should have more sway than the average citizen. A real electoral college could be set up in which the Guardians could exercise a veto over bad popular selections.

Morally, Alasdair MacIntyre has been the major influence on my views. Like MacIntyre, I believe that morality is only logical within the context of established traditions. There are a number of moral traditions out there, each of them with their own history, each of them having different premisses as their starting point. It is impossible to properly reason across these incommensurate traditions.

I believe our moral discourse has been the victim of the catastrophe described by MacIntyre in the Preface of After Virtue: we only possess fragments of a coherent moral framework, terms which have lost the context which once made them plausible, and that rational people are diverted into nihilism by this disarray. There are no universal, objective moral principles analogous to the laws of science. Instead, moral philosophy is a practical science like Aristotle always claimed it was: it is a how-to guide for actualizing some given ideal. In other words, I believe that morality (at some level) is reducible to aesthetics. That’s a topic for another day.

These are only my answers. What are yours?

From Occidental Dissent, October 20, 2009


Related Posts

  1. Before we can answer who should rule, we should ask what is power, what is rule, what are it’s goals and methods? Now we have here confused alternatives sharing an imaginary cake, which none of them can bake.

    We could start like this:

    1. What is the proportion of liberalism and traditional conservatism in society? Liberalism commercializes, bureaucratizes and directs to ngos’ business everything that is in humans; needs, normal, abnormal, including perversions, all kinds of foreigners, strangers etc. The “good” part in this is that it generates a lot of commerce and clientilism, thus support jobs, but it degenerates, overtaxes, creates exogamy, depletes, atomizes and eventually destroys society. Traditional conservatism supports austere and dynamic work and public morality, protects Europeans/natives and gives society endurance, but when less of what is in humans is commercialized and clientilized, it produces less consumption in the home market. Thus it would have to export more or it would have to settle for slightly less (This is the price we have to pay for society’s endurance).

    2. System complexity. Large cities are complex systems, that require or spawn large numbers of specialized experts; water purification chemists, sewage system engineers, modern art producers, art critics, air ventilation experts for large buildings, tolerance bureaucrats, pet physicians etc. Existence of complexity in itself creates pressure towards liberalism. Also, because in big cities large numbers of strangers constantly meet and interact with each other, management of this creates pressure towards tolerance and liberalism (ensuring the productive uninterrupted flow of people, things, services and capital). In little towns systems are less complex, so less specialists are needed. E.g. compost outhouse toilet might be enough and modern art critics are a rarity. Small towns are also more independent of outside systems. Their inhabitants can more easily produce their own food, energy, housing etc. than big city residents. Unemployment is less threatening. In small towns often similar people who know each other meet in peaceful pace. Thus there is not need for nor pressure towards tolerance for strangers and liberalism. Conservative morality works well. The structure of areas decide much of it’s cultural content.


    P.s. No soft or hard dictatorship for me.

  2. I strongly object to the description of fascism. Fascism is not about building an enormous totalitarian bureaucracy. Fascism cannot be taken out of its context of medieval economic organization, which it tried to restore and modernize through the system of corporatism. Moreover, fascism is primarily a child of its time: A fusion between Catholic social thought, medieval and modern economy, nationalism/citoyen-patriotism, conservatism (That is, true conservatism: opposition to the ideals of French revolution), socialism, anti-communism, Catholicism, futurism and tradition, solve the antagonism between the industrialized north and the agricultural south.

    All in all, fascism is indeed a tribute to the diplomatic genius of Mussolini — he managed to stitch all this together and make a functional technologically modern Italy, without “modernizing” the morality of the people.

    It is ironic, but what is commonly viewed as “fascism” is actually Jacobinism — the very system against which the fascists reacted. The consequence of the French revolution was a complete destruction of previous organization forms and identity spheres such as working guilds, regional identities, ethnics/folk, Catholicism, tradition, allegiance to family, local nobility, the Monarch etc. — in the Freemason monstrosity Jacobin France there was only the citoyen (the individual) and the State. All other identities were removed. This was very good for Jews of course: previously they where not considered French; now they were elevated to citoyens. Their ethnic, religious allegiance were never questioned under the French revolution. No need to mention the Masonic and Jewish cooperation. They are inseparable.

    Typically, the first mass slaughter of civilians took place under the French revolution: The good people of Vendee were loyal to King, Church and country; for this crime against liberalism they were all slaughtered. All 300 000 of them, men, women and children. The liberal thirst for blood has never been quenched: from the French revolution via Soviet Union through the lust murders against civilians in Germany and Japan up until today where convenience murder of millions upon millions of unborn children are common place.

  3. My views are not included in the list provided by the author. A real, universal definition of morality is required before we can even think about government. I have said before that the reason people are driven to nihilism, despair, and away from religion and / or any coherent morality too, is because the way we think about these things is outdated. People pin morality on religion and faith, a shaky foundation by itself in the face of modern science. We have massive amounts of information from science which is staring us in the face and our moral and religious systems basically ignore it like heliocentrism in the middle ages instead of seeing that these things of science might be what humanity has been striving for all these long millennia in religion itself. Part of this is because Religion begins to look bad intuitively when it ignores what is written directly in the universe by the hand of a putative creator (which we read from science) for something filtered through the brains of men viewing these things from a position of much less knowledge so long ago.

    In my book The Textbook of the Universe: The Genetic Ascent to God I show that both religion and science come from the exact same impetus. The very first writing example we have is the “Epic of Gilgamesh” from 5,000 years ago — an epic poem about the search for the “flower of immortality.” In it, in seed form, we see the early patterns of both religion and eventually science. Both religion and science deal with patterns beyond the here-and-now — the timeless patterns behind the fleeting events of the present. Early man used “gods” as explanations for consistent patterns in nature, posited immortal souls which are affected by choices we make here-and-now, even the Hindu idea of reincarnation says that choices we make in life will affect our future — whether we become a higher or a lower creature in our next life. We must use our intellect to rein in our animal desires and appetites and think about the future, and make wise decisions to become like the ideal prototype man.

    It is amazing to look back at religious writings of the past and see such poetic echoes of Darwinian and even eugenic ideas in these various religions. It reminds me of the relationship of alchemy to modern chemistry. No knowledge we have today springs fully-formed into our brains, we must first feel the motivation to look for it. It is then a long, hard quest to find it. We truly began to understand heredity in an objective, empirical sense when the religious monk Gregor Mendel systematically studied the bean plants. Today we know with mathematical precision the hereditary details of flowers themselves.

    The forte of western man is that he is not content with just shadows on a cave wall, but is a natural explorer — ever moving toward the light. The light we have been moving toward, and still are, is objective, universal, immortal truth. Our faith in THAT alone has given us both great religions and things like the periodic table of the elements. Objective, universal truth is a much more powerful and effective (but much more difficult) basis for morality.

    Gather enough truth and you will have an environment where dangerous lies and politically-inspired misconceptions cannot easily survive. Everywhere in nature when we see organisms acting on accurate information they are more likely to survive. The more objective, accurate information we can gather, the better we can survive and the more different environments we can survive in. I believe THIS is the fundamental law of life, and evolution. The most powerful, universal, and accurate morality of all time comes naturally from this view. A morality that cannot be subverted by either selfish desire or political winds of the moment. A universal morality written into the textbook of the universe itself which we are now translating and reading with our science.

    Without going to far into it, it follows from this new view that genetics and eugenics should naturally become a primary concern of any legitimate government. Enlightenment, and the ability of individuals to reach it in a holistic and objective sense of having a working knowledge of the universe and the universal principles operating within it, should be the primary objective of any government. All other blessings would flow from this. Eugenics is the only charity which would offer permanent solutions, an investment which would only grow exponentially over time — but it would have to be eugenics which held unselfish truth as a primary goal and select for both IQ and MOTIVATION among other things. Morality without eugenics is like a church without people, or a government without laws.

    Morality itself actually is the eugenics of truth, of eternity, in most western traditions. It is easy to see the eugenic influence of legal and moral systems — criminals are taken out of breeding circulation, either by banishment, imprisonment, or execution depending on the crime. This is absolutely necessary because if you want a truth pattern to prevail in your society, people going against that can introduce a poison which can eventually lead to the complete destruction and dead-ending of this high pattern. Short-term selfish and greedy patterns can destroy the much more arduous and long-term patterns of the truth-seekers and accumulators even though the long-term patterns are clearly superior in the long-run.

    What is different about my view is that people chosen to lead would be aware of this all-important basis of morality. They would be directly religious about truth, directly passionate about the quest for truth, and therefore intimately knowledgeable about the principles of evolution, psychology, behavioral genetics, and how the structure of society favors some genes over others (and over time how this means everything). They would have eugenic incentives as well as just negative eugenic punishments. Basically it would be the dictatorship of an objective, universal ideal — all leaders would follow that. We have not lost a moral framework, we have made it massively better and more powerful but we are ignoring it. Imagine if we had decided to ignore modern chemistry and follow alchemy instead… not good, not MORAL.

  4. Well stated, Steven. While I consider myself a “Jeffersonian” White Nationalist I do see much merit in the ideas you have to offer. My only question is: Why does a government have to be the entity that provides the path, the means and the objective for our people? You write, “religion and science deal with patterns beyond the here-and-now — the timeless patterns behind the fleeting events of the present. Early man used “gods” as explanations for consistent patterns in nature.” Yet, what does a government have to do with any of these natural patterns? If a government got involved in these patterns wouldn’t it just screw them all up? I have always believed in a very minimalist Constitutional Republic like our Founding Fathers intended. A small extremely limited government explicitly created to protect a specific people, i.e., those of European descent. With this form of government in place it would be easier for us to shoot for the stars than it would be if a big federal bureaucracy kept meddling in our business. This is what I believe to be the problem right now. The more powerful a central government gets the more disconnected it becomes from the people who initially created it and organic defined it. In your opinion, where am I going wrong?

  5. Wow, excellent comment Mr Romer! There is so much to reply to there that I’m at a loss for words…for now.

    stacey:”A small extremely limited government explicitly created to protect a specific people, i.e., those of European descent. With this form of government in place it would be easier for us to shoot for the stars than it would be if a big federal bureaucracy kept meddling in our business….”

    I fully agree with your comment; however, to take it more literally, what about federal orgs like NASA and so forth? It would be mostly impossible without a mass federal org like that which literally ‘shoots for the stars’ unless it was funded by optional ‘donations’ from the general populace or some such system.

    But I agree with the rest of your post that the main function of the federal government should be in a security-related/protective role, not a hypercentralized overseer which concerns itself with the bureaucratic minutiae of everyday life.

  6. Keith Preston said:

    The most reasonable settlement to the race question in the U.S. would be something akin to the ASD plan:


  7. I find myself partial to the Jeffersonian, racial-libertarian tradition. That is, maximum freedom within the context of group fitness. Though I’m not quite sure how to reconcile this with my belief in low and balanced population size. I much prefer space and rural settings to concrete and traffic jams.

  8. Steven E. Romer wrote eloquently and in different times he probably would have been a priest. However, as it is so often with beautiful scientific ideas, at the last moment a fly flies into the teleportation machine with destructive consequences (The Fly [1986], Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis; directed by David Cronenberg). It is my unfortunate responsibility to humbly and shortly point to some of the problems with my slightly dyslexic English.

    * In essence, with minor eugenic variation, Romer is offering us the refrain of atheist liberals, Frankfurt School intellectuals, managerial “elites”, socialists, big government pseudo-conservatives, etc.; “Religion was a science in the old times. it produced progress and order to the human universe. Now we have advanced science, which surpasses and replaces the old religion. Come and join our atheist science religion, we, the elites, will micromanage you to the glorious future!”

    * Science can’t surpass religion. They are different entities. Although e.g. Christianity contained elements of old science (surpassed by the modern science, of course), it contains also poetry, norms, governing principles, history, mythic tales, community principles, ethnocentric and endogamy principles, etc.

    At the core of religion is the striving towards God. Our interaction with God and our understanding and interpretation of God will always be limited by our human inadequacies. 5000 years from now we will look like a primitive people. God accepts us with our limitations and errors, if our religious principles are sound and striving towards God sincere. Thus errors in the worldview of prophets doesn’t reduce their religious importance; they relayed and interpreted with their limited understanding and knowledge God’s messages to us.

    We will always fall short compared to God.

    * It is a false dichtonomy to present religion and science as substitutes to each other. They are complementary things. Atheist scientists sometimes try with religious fervor to destroy religion, because they see it as a block on the path towards their new scientific religion and obstruction to their ascendancy to pseudo god status.

    * Modern science is shaky foundation to ethics and morality. There is nothing in the atoms and molecules to give us obligations. E.g. if Romer posits that the purpose of life is to follow eugenic principles, a liberal can posit with equal justification that the purpose of life is to enjoy, party and have pleasure purpose sex as much as possible before we die, who cares about this or that position of a Dna molecule or what comes after us. Like Michel Foucault, mr. postmodern leftist said, particular psychiatric illness is not nothing ontogically, it is something, but we can manipulate it to express itself in widely diverse forms (thus in essence ignoring the present ontology [like ethnic and racial Dna differences] and creating the desired reality).

    * Materialistic, atheist, science is amoral, and it is an open invitation to insect eat insect -morality to the ruling “elites”. The practical consequences of this can be seen in the mass murders of communist regimes; intraracial slaughters in the European world wars; stealth, almost invisible super manipulation, deception and exploitation practiced by modern liberal “elites” in the Western countries (It is beyond the scope of this reply to describe the methods of liberal scientific system, but the basic principle is to make people believe in their freedom, while in reality they are micromanaged and exploited. Rat in a scientist’s labyrinth feels itself to be free when it is searching food placed there by scientist. The scientist knows almost everything about the rat, knows it’s statistical tendencies, instincts, needs, biochemistry, psychology, etc.. By manipulating it’s environment, time scales, food, water, obstacles, incentives, social interaction, stimuluses, punishments, expected and unexpected, rest, activity, etc. scientist governs rat although rat feels itself to be free. Scientist’s aim is to make the rat voluntarily to internalize to it’s own will what the scientist wants. At the same time that this cements the power of the scientist over the rat, it makes this power invisible); etc.

    * Science is a good servant, but bad master. If allowed to develop untrammeled, science has a natural tendency towards increasing stealth soft totalitarian micromanagement of people’s lives; bureaucratic big government resource wasting; bureaucratic interest formation, that separates scientists interests and loyalty from their own people; predisposition to increase the system complexity unnecessarily and wastefully (thus increasing the need for scientists), and liberalism and immigration (to increase all kinds of bureaucratic, commercial etc. consumption of their services); etc.

    * Science is divided between numerous fields. They have different symbols, formulas, languages, tenets, etc. They have lacking communication and coordination between them. This is made worse by bureaucratic territoriality and competition between them for resources, prestige, power, etc. This increases their selfishness and indifference towards their own people. Ethnic diversity among scientific groups further erodes the understanding of ethnic loyalty. The science as a whole is a reification. People created it, but it has become so complex that it can’t be properly managed as a whole. Unintended, the system has started to rule humans.

    * Here in the end I would like to point out that we have here one man, Romer, talking about universal morality of eugenic science (presumably compelling principles), but in the reality we see that as a result of societal evolution and competition liberal cosmopolitan morality, global capitalists, managerial “elites”, immigrants and swelling states has won in every Western country and they have infiltrated, incorporated and subverted other competitors. Clearly something is lacking in the inherent power of eugenic scientific universal morality and principles.

    Thus, a profound analysis of society is needed.

  9. LatinCelt625 said:

    Theoretically, I can see various ideological/philosophical stances as useful, although the Anarchist & Christian Nationalist I feel closest to home to in a schizoid manner of sorts. I believe the problem with the stances as I see the monarchist, Platonist or Nietzschean is that who defines what who the best & brightest are? The most brutal & violent or the most self-effacing & pacifistic? A good balance exists between the poles of Id (the Barbarian King) & SuperEgo (Monastic Saint). How shall that be defined?

    Obviously, no one sees themselves as a member of the lower caste and if traditional means do not recognize this (in a genetic sense for the Nietzschean or spiritual sense for the Platonist) then we will recognize ourselves for everyone and hence the National Socialist stance arises . . . and Hitler’s inner circle honestly was no brain trust or a group of Brad Pitts.

    One can assert that National Socialism-Fascism was at its core, ultrademocratic and collectivist. The Jacksonians believed that ultra-liberty & ultra-democracy could be achieved within their own context simultaneously. National Socialism just replaced ‘God’ with the ‘Party’ imitating their supposed enemies of the Marxist liberal democratic states who had did the same with the ‘People’ or whatnot.

    And monarchy in a sense in European history, from the Classical to Early Modern, far from being a consistent hereditary line was one ‘house’ of warriors seizing the title & position from another ‘house’ who would assert that Christ gave them one-up

    The Hamiltonian-statists & Jeffersonian-libertarians are in a love affair with capitalism, one regulated for the ephemeral ‘public interest’ & one de-regulated for the ephemeral ‘market.’ Modern economics does not realize that culture interprets what is public vs. private and hence gets caught in its own semantics.

    Hate to be long-winded but the fusing of anarchism with some variant of Christian nationalism sounds like the only creative organic solution to me. Plato, preceding Christ centuries, & Nietzche proceeding him centuries, were mere men. o reverse a slogan via Boyd Rice a la Ragnar Redbeard, it has been ‘Caesars’ both would-be & via birth, that come and ago but Christ lives Forever.


  10. Nordicreb said:

    I said out loud to myself (yes, I do that) “I guess I’m a Hamiltonian Platonist”, just moments before reading that paragraph… GMTA, eh?

  11. Good overview. With everyone in these separate camps, needless to say, there can be no unity. Interesting that democracy is not anyone’s choice. That is, after all, what we just came out of, societally speaking. It was not democracy, republicanism, capitalism, nor socialism that failed us, but only the Jews. Why? Because every state that has had them has failed demostrably by their hand. Before any of this it is necessary to win the hearts and minds of men. This statement had enough universal resonance with Americans as a rationale for tugging at domestic minds and hearts in rationalizing the Iraq war. Hearts and minds for what purpose? Well, as we know, that question had a lot of answers, although the perverse ones are the only ones abodong by any logic. The dispersed opinions will never lead to unity, power, and leadership. It will only be through the hearts and minds of men. It is not that people are the mob. I am saying the means is also the end, else, whatever the system, the salt will lose it’s savour. The hearts and minds of men.

Back to Top