When I first posted this essay, I put it in a special directory, thinking that I would start a whole series. The series never happened, so I'm moving the essay to a more active directory.
I believe many of the white people who voted for Barak Obama in 2008 had grown weary of the surly, snarling behavior of many black people. But here was a black guy who seemed friendly and intelligent and who was being advertised as "post-racial." It was an appealing idea. Most white people deplore the filth, chaos and danger of the ghetto. Here was a chance for some white people to prove to themselves at least that they were not "racist."
It turns out that the Obama administration is not "post-racial" at all. It is hyper-racial. This year could turn out to be terrible. There is absolutely no way we can stop black people from being shot to death by police. When a black person attacks a police officer, lethal force is often the only was the officer can defend himself or herself. When a white person gets shot to death by a cop acting in self-defense, nobody cares. A black person shot to death by a cop acting in self-defense automatically becomes a civil rights hero.
There is probably nothing that white people of good will could do at this point to prevent a large-scale riot from breaking out some time this year. Obama and Eric Holder and the whole "civil rights" establishment have been actively encouraging the protesters, etc. Leftist activist types are and will continue to be hard at work preparing for a decisive moment, just as they were in Los Angeles in 1992. A week or two ago there was another shooting. I'm guessing that the officer will be formally exonerated sometime in June or July. That will be the trigger.
I wrote the following essay about seven years ago. 2008 seems like a golden age compared to how things are now in 2015. Even though we might have a "long, hot summer" after this long, cold winter, we need some kind of vision for a future.
If you think democracy is a good thing, just look at the current U.S.A. presidential election. If the best "democracy" can give us is McCain v. Obama, then what's so great about it?
For the above reasons, I'm in favor of making a clean rhetorical break. Today's society is run by an elite. The society I would like to see develop will also be run by an elite -- obviously not the same one! The key phrase here is "consent of the governed." You can sort of "consent" to be governed by some group even if you do not participate in the governing. I don't know who "really" governs the U.S.A., but none of us have consented to be governed by them.
I'm not going to fall back into old rhetorical and sentimental habits
by saying, "So, we need REAL democracy!"
No, we need a new elite. I don't call it a "ruling class" because
I think "rule" is too strong a word. American white people don't need to
be "ruled." But some aspects of any society need to be governed,
so I refer to the new elite as a "governing class."
The key question for this web log is: how can people help develop
this governing class?
There are movements for social change that follow other paradigms, but delving into them here would be seriously off-topic. I think it will be sufficient, at this point, to meditate on the above mass movement paradigm, especially on its inadequacies with respect to our current situation.
To begin, and to state the obvious, the Really Smart People who are concerned with the current deterioration of Western societies have wildly divergent ways of thinking in their interpretations of events and trends and in the remedies they propose. Consider me. (I admit, I like to think of myself as Really Smart, but I know I'm not really as smart as I think I am. Forgive me.) Anyway.... I say we need to develop a new elite. Some serious right-wingers would agree with me. I suppose many would disagree. I say this new elite should consist entirely of white gentiles, at least as far as the government of predominantly white gentile societies is concerned. I know there would be much disagreement with that point even on the part of many writers and thinkers whose work I value and respect.
This huge divergence of opinions makes the Right a really fun place to be,
but, right now, there is not a large enough core adhering to any particular
tendency that could serve as the leadership of a mass movement.
On the other hand, the most serious barrier to any kind of pro-white
mass movement is the well-conditioned, well-cultivated reluctance of
most white people to proclaim and act according to their identities as
white people. A coherent leadership, right now, wouldn't make much of a
One key aspect of contemporary American society is the incredible corruption of our educational institutions, especially of our universities. Leaders of universities speak and write as if they have found the One True Path to a better society: Diversity! Multiculturalism! These aren't just quaint notions that pop up from time to time -- they are ideological points that are deeply embedded in huge areas of study.
The corruption of all organs of social intelligence
is yet another major factor inhibiting the development of a pro-white mass movement.
The key feature of the new political order would be a governing class consisting of one fifth of the top fourth of the white population, or maybe one fourth of the top fifth. I'm speaking very loosely here. The members of this class would, first of all, be very interested in public affairs. They would be capable of reading serious (but not necessarily "scholarly") articles such as are published these days in magazines like The New Yorker, Harper's or similar publications. They would be open-minded enough to read and understand articles written from perspectives radically different from their own. For example, if you are a college-educated liberal and you can read and seriously think about articles posted on VDare.com, then I would want you to belong to the governing class.
Formal members of the governing class would be called Voters. How would a white person become a voter? Well, I'll just say, sure, this is a key question and it is a very difficult question. I believe workable (though imperfect) answers to it can be developed. If you want to bail out of this project because I can't give you a perfect answer right now, well, go ahead. Anyway, the difficulty of this issue is one reason the project might take a hundred years, not two or three.
The voters would stay actively interested in various aspects of regulation and public affairs. They would have long discussions with each other and with other citizens. They would acquire detailed knowledge in specialty areas.
Every year, the Voters would select Representatives. A Voter wishing to be a Representative would need some minimum number of votes (20 to 50, maybe). Each Voter could cast only one vote for Representative.
The Representatives would attend government financed retreats, maybe three to four weeks long, where they would take classes and have many discussions with other Representatives. Near the end of a retreat, the one or two hundred participating Representatives would select a single Legislator.
The Legislators, at some point, would convene at somewhat
more luxurious retreats, after which they would all
come together in a grand assembly and pass any needed
laws and rescind or amend any laws that have proven to
As preparation for some lines of work, colleges and universities are still useful. As vehicles for transmitting the knowledge and cultivating attitudes and relationships necessary for the continuation of a free, prosperous, essentially decent society, their value is negative. If you need a degree, fine, get a degree. But what do you do if you want an education? And, point two, what if you realize that "the continuation of a free, prosperous, essentially decent society" IS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE at this point, and that your education will have to prepare you (or your great-great grandchildren or whoever) to face the task of re-establishing freedom, prosperity and decency?
For any kind of humanistic studies -- psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, literature, philosophy and political science -- you need to create your own university. Maybe you will be a University of One. Read lots of serious books and think about them.
Having, say, three people working on this concept together would be much better. You would all have to agree on the ultimate goal: white gentiles being governed by white gentiles or whatever. These are, if I might digress a bit, the kinds of positions that people accept or reject. You can't change anyone's mind with a short (or even long) argument. I've come to my conclusions based on what I've read and heard and experienced and thought about for the last 20 years or so. Maybe some day you will agree with me, maybe not. It is OK to spend some time arguing fundamental questions, even if no one ever changes his or her mind. But beyond a point, it is better to discuss things with a few people who share your fundamental perspectives. Thus, the invisible university. A small group of at least three people who read lots of the same serious books and think about them and discuss them. Or who follow current events and interpret and discuss them according to some accepted framework.
This self-education and mutual education is the work of a lifetime. A necessary part of it is learning about education itself so that members of subsequent generations might have the same command of history and political affairs at age 23 that would be impressive these days if had by a person of 45. This would be accomplished through home schooling, cooperative schooling and similar arrangements.
The public "industrial style" classroom schooling is inefficient. A kid gets mixed up on some math issue in the 8th grade, and that's pretty much it for the kid's mathematical education. A fair amount of direct tutoring, as necessary, along with lots of individually paced drill, etc., would work much better and would lead to higher levels of mathematical skill for all students.
I could go on and on about how learning about different subjects
and different areas of life need different mixes of live lecture,
video, audio, drill, tutoring,
problem solving, demonstration of scientific principles
(often called "experiments," which they are not),
independent study, research projects, sports competition,
camping trips, field trips, formal discussion groups,
informal bull sessions, unstructured play time, organized social activities
and so on, but I won't. I'm not directly responsible for education anyone
so it would be a waste of my time and yours.
I'll just say, if you are responsible and reasonably intelligent,
you should be able to provide a much better education than
is available in most public schools, or even in most private schools.
The old radical feminists used to say, "The personal is the political." I guess they had a point. We are in a serious situation. If some critical number of people do not dedicate their lives to addressing this situation, well, I guess we're lost. But, on the other hand, too much self-sacrifice can really be a drag. I know. I'm getting old now, but perhaps I have a bit of wisdom that might justify some of the more dismal phases of my life I spent while gaining it: Just possibly, a life of dedicated struggle and purposeful activity can be a happy life. If you meet people who share your general perspective and your goals and your dedication and you are able to work and even live with these people, you can have power and happiness.
Let me give a small example of the power.
Suppose you and two other people are working low-paying jobs
but you're all chipping in on the rent so you have an OK apartment.
(And you're not leasing.)
Some big racial political controversy, like
the Central Michigan University 'Noose' Incident,
breaks out in a town that's easily within a day's driving distance of where you are
It would be within your collective power to relocate and do some serious
"on the ground" political work. Fliering, talking to people, organizing meetings.
That kind of thing can be very effective
WHEN THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON.
If you're just one person, well. . .
Hey, I do what I can, but I'm sure three people living in Mt. Pleasant
could accomplish more than what I can do through the Internet.
You educate yourself, form some close friendships, find a reasonably remunerative line of work, fall in love with someone or maybe just meet someone you really like, get married, have kids and bring them up to be intelligent, well-adjusted (up to a point...), open-minded, well-educated and aware of the Dogma, the Project and the Process. Some will accept these last three things, some will reject them. Don't worry too much about it. This isn't religion.
The Process will either grow to include more and more people, or it will die. Many factors will affect the final result. You have to do your best. But this is the point of emphasizing happy lives. We want as many white gentiles as possible to be part of the Process. If it's a grim, lonesome struggle, the only participants will be slightly whacked true believer types. Not that I'm knocking slightly whacked true believers -- their contributions will always be essential, especially in the early decades of the Process.
Anyway, suppose everything works out as we hope. After about a hundred years, there will be tens or hundreds of thousands of white American gentiles who support the Project. If the larger society is prosperous and well-governed, Project people (we need a better word here!) will simply be good citizens with somewhat non-mainstream viewpoints. A healthy America can tolerate and <cough> "include" them.
If America 100 years from now is being smothered by a huge
government and all citizens are at risk of being harmed in
low-level, persistent, violent inter-ethnic conflicts, then
the idea of an all-white gentile governing class might
become broadly appealing.
Thus, people who have been brought up and educated
according to the Process can
offer themselves to America
as governors in a new political era. That sounds ridiculous right now,
but if the U.S.A. is descending into serious chaos, then many Americans,
minority as well as white, might be willing to place the governance of
our country into the hands of a white gentile elite dedicated to
justice, ordered liberty and limited government. If we get that
"consent of the governed," then the Project will be fulfilled
But suppose the Process has not been underway for long and does not include enough people to consider effecting any large-scale social transformation. In that case, well-educated, serious but not brainwashed people who are part of some network of people with a great deal of collective knowledge and intelligence as well as culturally engineered styles of discussion, inquiry, argument, innovation, etc., will be like the people on Noah's Ark in the Old Testament. Suppose "Civil War Two" breaks out in the U.S.A. Would you rather be a Professor of Sociology at the University of Michigan at that point, or would you rather be part of a network that includes people you know, like, respect and trust and with whom you can have honest conversations about serious issues?
Once the flood waters recede or the conflagrations have subsided, the people in the "Ark" will have a much better chance of still being around.
Copyright © 2008, 2015
If you want to link to this article, try copying and pasting:
<a href="http://m3peeps.org/wfblog/aoi.htm">Ark of Intelligence: The One Hundred Year Idea</a>
[Go to index for White Future Web Log]
[Go to m3peeps.org home page]