Saturday, 13 May 2017

Renewing the British elite


The Brexit referendum renewed democracy in Great Britain in an amazing way. The British people proved they were lions, unwilling to be led any longer by donkeys.

What badly needs renewing now is the elite. It has been corrupted, undermined and badly educated, taught to believe in equality and making money instead of noblesse oblige. It is in danger of ceasing to be national and becoming international instead. Clever students study business but no-one reads the poets or cares that Wolfe took Quebec. Many don't know who Hengist and Horsa were.

Maybe it might be a start if the hereditary peers were once more allowed to vote in the upper house.

No-one talks about how to create elites, but they are vital to every country. The lack of cultured, public spirited and patriotic elites is perhaps the biggest problem in Eastern Europe.

We in Great Britain were in danger of having a business and political elite that saw things in internationalist terms first and in terms of the national self interest second. The referendum was a providential salvation. In 'A Tale of Two Cities' Eliot A. Cohen explains exactly what I mean.


  1. Paul the elite never read them either they were too busy First son running estates, second son running the regiment and third son, who might be the reader running the parish. Only aspirants in the middle classes did in an attempt to seem educated beyond their meager births, they remain in the colleges those dreadful
    Traa's with their affected accents and second rate shirts, harking back to an England that never was.The Elite was was European from 1066 and Global from Elizabeth

    1. King George VI told W.H.Auden: Abroad is bloody. Like King George III he gloried in the Name of Briton.

    2. King George V said "Bugger Bognor" followed by "How is the Empire?" His final thoughts not at home , but overseas.

    3. The better view is that he did not say "How is the Empire?" and his last words were "Bugger Bognor" but there is no contradiction between looking outwards to the world (one of the reasons for Brexit, after all) and loving your country, not being deracinated, or overly internationalist.

  2. Maybe it might be a start if the hereditary peers were once more allowed to vote in the upper house.

    Hereditary peers are an excellent idea. Life peers are a very bad idea. The whole point of an aristocracy (and a monarchy) is that they have an actual stake in the country's future and are (relatively speaking) difficult to corrupt.

    1. Difficult to corrupt? Tell
      that to the Spanish, British,Greek or Romanian Royal families...

  3. Yes, and the very concept of a life peer is a contradiction.

  4. This unfortunately is the sort of elite that Parliamentary democracy is intended to produce. By turning rulership into a stupid popularity contest, you get weasel-like schemers, windbags, effeminates, sycophants and perverts promoted to the top of society, while honest patriotically minded men have no chance of competing.

    If the rulers of a country are generally degenerate buffoons, it’s very easy for them to be manipulated, bribed, and blackmailed. This is why the neo-cons (neo-Jacobins) love liberal democracy so much and want it spread as many countries as possible. It’s an inversion of the natural order where the worst are empowered and the best are disempowered allowing the financial oligarchy to loot the country without opposition.

    Of course the best way of course to neutralise any effective challenge to plutocratic power is to elect a new people. Turn every civilised Western country into a brown mess like Brazil and give every third world primitive the vote so that the nation can never unite against the oligarchs. This has been the plan since at least 1925 when Coudenhove-Kalergi published "Practical Idealism" but probably predates this. The key instrument here is feminism. Increase the number of unmarried white women voters and you have a major constituency that will support the dilution of the nation’s ethnic homogeneity. As Roissy explains:

    “As women are wont by the essence of their sex to spread their legs for the dominant tribe’s men, they will wish to see tribal battles play out so that they may enjoy the luxury of choosing winners and their winning seed. The single White woman desire for open borders is nothing less than a desire for alpha male interlopers to test the mettle of their betatized male loafers. A massive civilizational shit test, if you will.

    For this reason, it was always a mistake to entrust the nation’s future to its native daughters, especially while in their pulchritudinous primes. Women are more xenophilic than men and this difference goes deep, all the way to the Darwinian pulses in the primal part of the brain that regulate reproductive algorithms. No logic, reason, accountability, or basic common sense can defeat such a primitive force.”