Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and

Civilization
eurocanadian.ca/2020/10/why-american-ruling-class-betrays-its-race-civilization.html

by Dr. Samuel T. Francis

Editor's Note: This is a shortened version of an article originally published in

American Renaissance. I have read a lot of articles about the plight of whites in the
Western world, but only a few days ago I decided to read this well-known article.
Samuel Francis offers an excellent answer to a question we often ask. His answer is in
the title of the essay: "why the American RULING CLASS betrays ITS race". He does
not blame the white race as such or everyday white people. He does not blame the
Enlightenment or Christianity or Post-Modernism or Socialism or Capitalism. He

1/15
focuses on the rise of a white "managerial elite" with interests that "extend across
many different nations, races, religions and cultures and are transnational and
supra-national, detached and disengaged from — and actually hostile to — any
particular place or group or set of beliefs that supports particular identities." He
acknowledges Kevin MacDonald's research in his answer, and the fact that non-whites
are primarily preoccupied with their own racial interests. Read this article and let us
know who/what group/ideology/factor is ultimately responsible for the Great
Replacement.

*****

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it ought to be obvious that the dominant
powers and authorities in the United States and other Western countries are either
indifferent to the accelerating racial and cultural dispossession of the historic peoples of
America and Europe or are actually in favor of it. Mass immigration imports literally
millions of non-white, non-Western aliens into the United States, Canada, Australia,
and Europe, yet the governments of those nations make no serious effort to halt or
restrict it, and cultural elites either decline to notice the transformation immigration
causes or openly applaud it.

Large corporations and their executives, the federal and larger state and urban
governments and their leaders, and the major academic, intellectual, artistic,
entertainment, publishing, and journalistic institutions and personalities — the
dominant culture of the United States — consistently support anti-white causes and
promote the myths, claims, and interests of nonwhites at the expense of whites.

The conventional accusation against the American Establishment from the political left
is that it is “racist” and fosters “white supremacy” in order to perpetuate the domination
and exploitation of the nonwhite peoples of this country and the world by the largely
white ruling class. That accusation is so brazenly contrary to the anti-white policies,
rhetoric, and behavior in which the most powerful forces in American society
consistently engage that it withstands little scrutiny. By playing on the guilt and fear of
establishment leaders, both of which reflect these leaders’ shared acceptance of the left’s
egalitarian values, it is an accusation that serves mainly to push the establishment ever
further and faster down the anti-white path than it is normally inclined to go. Fixated
on a nineteenth century model of “capitalism,” the Marxism from which this accusation
derives has managed to miss the realities of twentieth and twenty-first century power
that do in fact explain what must be one of the most significant and astonishing truths
of human history — that an entire ruling class has abandoned and in effect declared war
upon the very population and civilization from which it is itself drawn.

If Marxist theories offer no explanation of the antagonism of the American

Establishment to white racial identity, neither does conventional democratic political
thought. Mass immigration, affirmative action policies, blatant discrimination against
white identity and those who defend it, multiculturalism in education, anti-white
2/15
brainwashing in sensitivity training, support for non-white (and often anti-white)
political and cultural causes, and other manifestations of entrenched antagonism to
whites are not the results of democratic majority rule or popular consent. At best, whites
accept or “consent to” these onslaughts against them, their material interests, their
heritage, and their own psychic identity and integrity because “consent” has been subtly
manufactured and shaped by the institutions of the dominant culture. Not a single one
of the measures that threaten whites has originated among whites themselves at the
popular or grassroots level. Each and every one — mass immigration, the forced busing
of the 1970s, the civil rights rulings of the federal courts from the 1950s through today,
the affirmative action invented by invisible bureaucrats and upheld by unaccountable
courts, the mind control measures that now permeate our schools, workplaces, and
media, and the systematic repression and exclusion of those who question or challenge
these trends — has originated from and has been imposed and enforced by elites.

Neither Marxism nor the democratic theory embraced nowadays by both “liberals” and
“conservatives” is therefore of much use in understanding why the dominant elites of
American and Western society behave as they do. The model that does help explain
their behavior derives from what is usually called the “classical theory of elites,”
developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by a school of Italian and German
sociologists and political scientists, and from the application of that model to twentieth
century America, the theory of the managerial revolution as developed by James
Burnham.

The Classical Theory of Elites

The classical theory of elites was formulated principally by the social and political
theorists Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca. It holds that all human societies, at least
all above the primitive level, are ruled by organized minorities (“elites” or “ruling
classes”), that the majority in any society, even so-called democratic ones, never rules,
and that these organized minorities develop out of social-political groups that control
what are known as “social forces.” The term “social force” is an admittedly vague
concept that can include virtually any idea, technique, or institution that exerts social
importance — a religion, an ideology, a technology, a weapons system, control of
natural resources, etc. As Arthur Livingston, editor of Mosca’s classic work, The Ruling
Class, explains:

A “social force” is any human activity or perquisite that has a social significance —
money, land, military prowess, religion, education, manual labor, science — anything.
The concept derives from the necessity of defining and classifying ruling classes. A man
rules or a group of men rules when the man or the group is able to control the social
forces that, at the given moment in the given society, are essential to the possession and
retention of power.

If a social force is efficient at wielding power or control over other people, then the
group that controls the social force and other groups with which it is allied will
3/15
constitute a “ruling class” (Mosca’s term) or “elite” (Pareto’s term), and classical elite
theory assumes that normally a ruling class or elite will exercise power mainly for its
own benefits and in its own interests. It should be understood that the control of “the
state” or the formal apparatus of government is only one means and the state itself only
one instrument by which a ruling class exercises power, and the extent to which a
particular ruling class will rely on the state depends on its interests and the kinds of
social forces it controls. It will also make use of economic and cultural power based on
its control of economic forces, or what Marx called the “instruments of production and
exchange” (land, capital, technology, industrial plants, commerce, financial institutions,
etc.), as well as cultural forces that essentially regulate the production and
dissemination of information, values, and ideas within a society (in pre-modern
societies, this means principally religion, but also the production of art, literature,
music, scholarship, science, and entertainment through publishing, education,
journalism, broadcasting, film, etc.). The power of a ruling class or elite is therefore not
merely political power in the narrow sense of control of the formal state, elected and
appointive offices, the administrative agencies, and the instruments of force (the armed
forces and law enforcement services) but is structural — imbedded in the structure of
the society it rules. A ruling class will usually tend to rely on one or another particular
segment of the social structure — the state, the economy, or the culture — for holding
and exercising power, but those segments are never entirely separate and the particular
ones on which it tends to rely will depend on its own interests and beliefs as well as on
the level of technological and social development of the society and on the kinds of
challenges, problems, and enemies it encounters.

Although most mainstream social scientists in the United States today would not
endorse it, classical elite theory is useful in answering the question “who rules America,”
and its main application to American society, the theory of the managerial revolution as
developed by James Burnham, was concerned to deal with that very question.
4/15
The Theory of the Managerial Revolution

Emerging from Marxism in the late 1930s, Burnham formulated the theory of the
managerial revolution as an alternative to the Marxist claim that a “capitalist” ruling
class held power in the United States and would soon be displaced by a proletarian
revolution along Marxist lines. Although Burnham agreed with the Marxists that
traditional capitalism and its ruling class were dying and were on the eve of being
displaced by a social revolution, he rejected the Marxist claim that the society of the
future would be the egalitarian socialism the Marxists predicted. Instead, he argued, the
capitalist elite would be replaced by another elite, which he called the “managerial
class.”

As Burnham used the term “manager,” it included “administrators, experts, directing

engineers, production executives, propaganda specialists, technocrats” and in general
those who possessed the technical skills by which the institutions and organizations of
modern society are operated or “managed” — not only the large corporations of the
economy but also the increasingly massive governments and political and cultural
organizations of the twentieth century: public bureaucracies, mass labor unions,
political parties, mass media, financial institutions, universities, foundations, and other
organizations that were immense in size, scale, and technical complexity and dwarfed
their institutional ancestors of the declining capitalist era. “Management” in the sense
of the body of technical and managerial skills that enabled these large, complex
organizations to exist and function constituted a “social force,” control of which enabled
the formation of a new elite.

These mass organizations are far more powerful with respect to society than most of the
older, smaller scale, and simpler ones, and within them, managers possess the real
power because only they possess the skills by which the new mass organizations can be
directed and operated. With respect to corporations in the economy, the stockowners,
no matter how concentrated their ownership of company stock may be, simply do not
and cannot perform the necessary managerial and technical functions on which the
corporation depends, unless they make a special effort to acquire the needed managerial
skills through education and training, and not all that many stockowners from the old
capitalist upper class do so.

But the managers are by no means confined to the corporate elite; those possessing
technical and managerial skills are also dominant within the state itself as the
managerial bureaucracy and the mass cultural institutions, and thus they become an
increasingly unified and dominant class, relying on the same managerial skills and
sharing a common perceived interest and a common mentality, worldview, and
ideology.

5/15
The major common interest that unites the managerial class is its need to extend and
perpetuate the demand for the skills and functions on which its power and social
rewards depend. The managers pursue that interest by seeking to ensure that the mass
organizations they control, which require the skills and functions that only the
managers can provide, are preserved and extended. Large corporations must displace
and dominate small businesses. A large, centralized, bureaucratic state must displace
and dominate small, localized, and decentralized government. Mass media and
communications conglomerates and mass universities must displace and dominate
smaller, local newspapers, publishers, colleges, and schools. Moreover, the elites that
controlled these older and smaller institutions must also be displaced as the ruling class
of the larger society and their ideology and cultural values discredited and rejected.

The managerial revolution therefore consists in the protracted social and political
process by which the emerging new managerial class displaces the old ruling class of
traditional capitalist or bourgeois society. On the institutional level this process consists
of the replacement of the constitutionalist parliamentary or congressional form of
government favored by the old elite with the new centralized state controlled by the
bureaucracy of the new class. The new kind of state that emerges takes on new
functions that increasingly require the kind of skills only the managerial bureaucrats
and technocrats can provide — economic regulation, social engineering, public welfare,
and scientific, administrative, and cultural functions unknown to the older states of the
capitalist era. The political elite of the older state — the political class that dominated
the elected and appointed offices and their political organizations — is increasingly
displaced by the managerial bureaucrats of the new state and the political managers
who run the new, far more complicated political parties and organizations. The same
kind of institutional displacement occurs in the economy dominated by the mass
corporations, which also take on functions unknown to the smaller (or even the larger)
firms of the earlier era — “scientific management” of production, highly technical
economic projections and development, specialized management of personnel and
consumers, as well as social, political, and cultural functions not directly related to their
business activities and interests. And much the same process takes place in cultural
institutions as mass cultural organizations (universities, foundations, “think tanks”)
and mass circulation newspapers and magazines displace smaller, locally owned and
operated ones and new, nationally organized, highly technical mass media like film and
radio and television broadcasting develop.

6/15
 Robert Murdoch with globalist Asian wife

On the cultural and ideological level the struggle between the ascending managerial
ruling class and the declining bourgeois-capitalist class has taken the form of the
conflict between what emerged as the principal managerial ideology in the United
7/15
States and the Western world, which has generally come to be known as “liberalism,”
and the main ideology of the old capitalist elite, which came to be known as
“conservatism.” The political fulfillment of the managerial revolution occurred in the
early twentieth century, with a strong start under Woodrow Wilson but really
culminating under Franklin Roosevelt in the New Deal and World War II era, and the
struggle for social power between the new managerial liberalism and the old capitalist
conservatism is evident in the political and cultural literature of the mid-century. The
advertisements carried by virtually all conservative or right-wing magazines of the
1950s and 1960s were almost always from smaller, locally based, and individually
owned and operated enterprises. The ads carried by the liberal or what soon became the
“mainstream” magazines of the era were almost always from the Fortune 500 or similar
large, managerially controlled companies.

The conservatism of that era emphasized states rights, the power of Congress over that
of the presidency, loyalty to and identity with the nation and national interest rather
than international or global identities, and the interests of smaller, privately owned and
operated companies against larger, managerially controlled corporations. It also
championed traditional religious and moral beliefs and institutions, the importance of
the patriarchal family and local community, and the value of national, regional, racial,
and ethnic identity, as well as the virtues of the capitalist ethic — hard work, frugality,
personal honesty and integrity, individual initiative, postponement of gratification.

Like any new elite, the managerial class needed a political formula that expressed and
justified its group interests against those of its older rivals in the capitalist elite. What
has come to be known as “liberalism” performed that function for the new class,
although it has been known under other names as well (“modernism,” “progressivism,”
“humanism,” and what Burnham himself called simply “New Dealism”). Managerial
liberalism justified the enlargement and centralization of the state under executive
rather than congressional leadership, the primacy of the central rather than state and
local government, regulation of the economy by the central state, a foreign policy of
global interventionism and international organization rather than the nationalism and
isolationism favored by the older capitalist class, and the development of a new culture
that claimed to be more “progressive,” more “liberated,” more “humanistic,” and more
“scientific” and “rational” than the culture defined by the older social and moral codes
of traditional capitalism. The managerial ideology also demonized the old elite and its
institutions and values as “obsolete,” “backward,” “repressive,” “exploitative,” and
“narrow-minded.”

There was therefore an increasingly significant cultural and ideological schism between
the new elite and the old and their respective adherents. The old elite was more or less
rooted in traditional social institutions, which both served its material interests and
reflected its formulas and values. It passed on its property and wealth, the basis of its
power, through inheritance, and therefore it had a strong vested interest in maintaining
both property rights and what are today called “family values.” The family indeed, as
well as the local community, religious and ethnic identities, and the cultural and moral
8/15
codes that respected and legitimized property, wealth, inheritance, social continuity, the
personal virtues that helped people acquire wealth and property, and small
governments that lacked the power to threaten these things, all served as power bases
for the traditional elite and as major cultural and ideological supports for its interests.

The Managerial Disengagement

This was not the case with the new managerial elites. Depending on the technical skills
that enable it to gain and keep power inside mass organizations, the new elite possesses
a major structural interest in preserving and extending the organizations it controls and
in making sure those organizations are perpetuated. The moral and social bonds of the
old elite mean virtually nothing to managers, who are unable to pass on their
professional skills to their children in the way that the progeny of the old elite inherited
property and position. Hence, managers tend to depend on families far less than the
older elite and therefore to value the family and the moral codes that reflect and
reinforce it far less also. The culture the managers seek to build places more value on
individual achievement and “merit” (defined largely as the ability to acquire and
exercise managerial and technical skills) than on family inheritance, on sexual
fulfillment than postponement of gratification and the breeding and rearing of children,
on social mobility and advancement rather than identification with family, community,
race, and nation.

9/15
But in addition to the family, the managerial class simply does not need other
traditional institutional structures to maintain its power — not the local community, not
religion, not traditional cultural and moral codes, not ethnic and racial identities, and
not even the nation-state itself. Indeed, such institutions merely get in the way of
managerial power. They represent barriers against which the managerial state,
corporations, and other mass organizations are always bumping, and the sooner such
barriers are leveled, the more reach and power the organizations, and the managerial
elites that run them, will acquire. Corporations depending on mass production and
mass consumption need a mass market with uniform tastes, values, and living
standards that will buy what consumers are told to buy; diverse local, regional, class,
and ethnic identities impede the required degree of uniformity. The same is true for the
state and the mass obedience it requires and seeks to instill into the population it
governs and for the mass cultural organizations and the audiences they manipulate.

Journalist David Rieff has pointed to the similarities in interests and worldview
between “noted multiculturalist academics,” supposedly on the political left, on the one
hand, and corporate officers, supposedly on the political right, on the other:

Far from standing in implacable intellectual opposition to each other, both groups see the
same racial and gender transformations in the demographic makeup of the United States
and of the American work force. That non-white workers will be the key to the twenty-
first-century American labor market is a given in most sensible long-range corporate
plans. Like the multiculturalists, the business elite is similarly aware of the crucial role of
women, and of the need to change the workplace in such a way as to make it more
hospitable to them. More generally, both CEOs and Ph.D.’s insist more and more that it is
no longer possible to speak in terms of the United States as some fixed, sovereign entity.
The world has moved on; capital and labor are mobile; and with each passing year
national borders, not to speak of national identities, become less relevant to consciousness
or to commerce.

Samuel P. Huntington has discussed and documented in some detail the

“denationalization of the elites” into what he calls “Dead Souls” who “abandon
commitment to their nation and their fellow citizens and argue the moral superiority of
identifying with humanity at large,” a trend distinctive of economic elites with a strong
material interest in economic globalization as well as of academic and intellectual elites:

Involvement in transnational institutions, networks, and activities not only defines the
global elite but also is critical to achieving elite status within nations. Someone whose
loyalties, identities, involvements are purely national is less likely to rise to the top in
business, academia, the media, the professions, than someone who transcends these limits.
Outside politics, those who stay home stay behind.

Long before these writers, however, Burnham himself was quite specific about what he
called the “world policy of the managers,” their rejection of the sovereign nation-states
that had prevailed in the capitalist era as obsolete units that were simply obstacles to
their group interests and the needs of the global order they sought to create.
10/15
Just as the managerial ruling class rejects independent nationhood and national
sovereignty as organizational forms, so it will also reject ideologies such as nationalism
that justify and reflect national sovereignty, independence, and identity, as well as any
ideology or belief that justifies any particular group identity and loyalty — national,
regional, racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious. The managerial class therefore tends to
disengage from the nation state as well as from these other identities. Its interests
extend across many different nations, races, religions, and cultures and are
transnational and supra-national, detached and disengaged from — and actually hostile
to — any particular place or group or set of beliefs that supports particular identities.

Hence, the managerial elite has a proclivity toward as well as a material interest in
adopting and promoting ideologies of universalism, egalitarianism, cultural relativism,
behaviorism, and “blank slate” environmental determinism. As Rieff writes:

If any group has embraced the rallying cry “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to
go,” it is the world business elite. . . for businessmen, something more is at stake than
ideas. Eurocentrism makes no economic sense in a world where, within twenty-five years,
the combined gross national product of East Asia will likely be larger than Europe’s and
twice that of the United States. In such a world, the notion of the primacy of Western
culture will only be an impediment to the chief goal of every company: the maximization
of profits.

The new managerial elite therefore became closely wedded to the doctrine of social
environmentalism as a rationalization of its own role, power, and social rewards in the
system it constructed, and this powerful vested interest in environmentalist theory by
itself helps account for the persistent strong attachment of the elite to the theory and its
applications in social policy.

Academic theorists of environmentalist doctrines such as Lester Frank Ward, Charles

Horton Cooley, John Dewey, Franz Boas and his school in anthropology, and
behaviorist John B. Watson in psychology were essential ideological architects of the
new managerial system of social control. Watson in a famous remark boasted that if you
gave him an infant at birth, he could train him to become “any type of specialist I might
select — doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and, yes, even beggarman and thief,
regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his
ancestors.” By the end of the 1920s, Watson’s behaviorism, wrote sociologist E. Digby
Baltzell, “was not only the most fashionable school of psychology in this country but also
became the central theory of human nature upon which the great industry of advertising
was being built. . . Faith in conditioning became the basis of social control in the new
manipulative society, composed of citizen comrades in the U.S.S.R. and citizen
consumers in the U.S.A.”

Managerial reliance on what is now known to have been pseudoscience in state-

managed social engineering was paralleled in the managerial economy through
“industrial sociology” under the influence of Elton Mayo and reflected, as Daniel Bell
wrote, “a change in the outlook of management, parallel to that which is occurring in
11/15
the culture as a whole, from authority to manipulation as a means of exercising
dominion. . . the older modes of overt coercion are now replaced by psychological per-
suasion.” Watson himself, as historian Stuart Ewen noted:

provided psychological avenues by which home life might be supplanted by the

stimulation of the senses — a direction toward which business in its advertising was
increasingly gravitating. Pleasure that could be achieved by the individual within the
home and community was attacked and deemphasized, as corporate enterprise formulated
commoditized sensual gratification.

The ideological reconstruction of American society to suit the needs and interests of the
emerging managerial class thus involved a repudiation of the older values, codes, and
belief-systems of the old elite and a cultural conflict with those who continued to adhere
to them.

The Agenda of Dispossession

"Taking Out the White Trash" -- so says the globalist mag The Economist.

The rise to power of the new managerial elite in the United States (and in other Western
states as well) in the early and mid-twentieth century and the need of the new elite to
formulate a new ideology or political formula and reconstruct society around it provides
an explanation of why the dominant authorities in these countries today continue to
support the dispossession of whites and the cultural and political destruction of the
12/15
older American and Western civilization centered on whites and of why they not only
fail to resist the anti-white demands of non-whites but actively support and subsidize
them. These policies on the part of the new elite are not the result of “decadence” or
“guilt” but of the group interests of the elite itself, imbedded in and arising from the
structure of their power and position and rationalized in their consciousness by the
political formula of managerial liberalism. It is in the interests of the new elite, in other
words, to destroy and eradicate the older society and the racial and cultural identities
and consciousness associated with it (not race alone, but also virtually any distinctive
traditional group identity or bond, cultural, biological, or political). To those
(“conservatives”) who continue to adhere to the norms of the older society, of course,
managerial behavior appears as decadence, degeneracy, cowardice, appeasement,
pandering, or guilt, but what is an evil, misguided, or suicidal pathology to the
“conservative” forces who are still shaped by the older codes and institutions in fact
reflects the interest and the health of the forces centered around the creation and
control of the new society. The interests of the managerial elite, in other words, are
antagonistic to the survival of the traditional racial and institutional identity of the
society it dominates.

The emergence of the managerial elite promotes the dispossession and even the
destruction of whites in the United States in two major ways. First, as this essay has
tried to argue, it does so directly because the structure of managerial interests and
power is in conflict with any strong sense of racial as well as with strong national,
religious, or other group identity. These interests, entering into the very mentality of the
managerial class, push the leadership of the new society toward the rejection of the
racial and cultural fabric of traditional white Western civilization, and the new culture
they try to create is one that rejects and denies the value of such identities and values.

Second, however, because the new managerial elite rejects and destroys the
mechanisms of the old elite that excluded other ethnic, racial, and religious groups,
such groups are often able to permeate the managerial power structure and acquire
levels of power unavailable to them in pre-managerial society and to advance their own
interests and agendas by means of the managerial instruments of power. These ethnic
forces, articulating their own strong racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious consciousness,
invoke managerial liberal slogans of “equality,” “tolerance,” “diversity,” etc., to
challenge traditional white dominance but increasingly aspire to cultural and political
supremacy themselves, excluding whites and rejecting and dismantling the institutional
fabric of their society. Kevin MacDonald has documented in immense detail how
Jewish groups seeking to advance their own ethnically based agendas have
accomplished this, and since a central part of those agendas include the eradication of
the historic ethnic, racial, and religious barriers and beliefs that excluded Jews and
were perceived as leading to their persecution, the Jewish agenda and that of the
managerial elite are in this respect perfectly congruent with each other. Indeed, so
prominent have Jews become within the elite (especially its cultural sector) that it is fair
to say that Jews within the managerial elite serve as the cultural vanguard of the
managerial class, providing ideological justification of its structure and policies,
13/15
disseminating its ideological formulas to the mass population, formulating and often
implementing specific policies, and providing much of the specialized educational
training essential to the transmission and perpetuation of the technocratic skills of the
elite. In this respect, Jews perform a support function (in this case, a cultural and
ideological one rather than tax-collecting or money-lending) for the largely non-Jewish
elite similar to those they performed for various European aristocracies in the past (e.g.,
in early modern Poland). Thus the emergence of “neo-conservatism” in recent decades
reflects not only the Jewish interests and identities of its principal formulators and
exponents but also, unlike the older conservatism of the pre-managerial elite, the
interests of the managerial class as a whole in conserving the new political and cultural
order that class has created but rejecting and dismantling the pre-managerial order the
older conservatism sought to defend.

The managerial elite, however, also has allied with other ethnic and racial groups, most
of which share its interest in eliminating white racial identity and the cultural forces
that support it. Like the Jewish allies of the elite and the elite itself, these non-white
groups seek to eradicate white racial identity and its institutional expression, but unlike
the elite, they also often seek to promote their own racial consciousness and identity.
Thus, while explicitly white racial identity is virtually forbidden and strictly punished by
the managerial elite, institutions that reflect explicit nonwhite or anti-white identities
are tolerated and encouraged. Groups such as the NAACP, the Congressional Black
Caucus, the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”), and any number of professional,
student, and political organizations, the names, membership, and agendas of which are
explicitly racial, are not only tolerated but are often the recipients of millions of dollars
in grants and philanthropy from the managerial state and managerial corporations and
foundations.

In effect, the alliance between racially conscious non-white forces and the rising
managerial elite in the last century represents a managerial partnership with a historical
process that originally was entirely separate and different from the managerial
revolution, what Lothrop Stoddard called “The Rising Tide of Color,” the emergence of
racial consciousness and identity and the political aspirations shaped by race among the
non-white peoples of the non-Western world and the subordinate non-white
populations within the West. What Stoddard was describing is virtually identical to the
world-historical process that the late sociologist and historian Robert A. Nisbet called
the “racial revolution,” the replacement by “color” of “nationality and economic class as
the major setting for revolutionary thrust, strategy, tactics, and also philosophy.” While
the new elite rejected “white racism” and all vestiges of white racial and cultural identity
and heritage in order to displace its rivals in the older elite and to engineer and manage
a new, culturally and racially homogenized global social order that reflected its own
interests, the non-white racial forces with which it allied rejected white racial supremacy
and identity in part to revolt against and overthrow (“liberate” themselves from) white
domination (a phase of the racial revolution generally called by the benign label of the
“civil rights movement”) but in part also to pursue their own racial power and
aspirations. While for several decades there appeared to be a conjunction of interests
14/15
between the elite and its non-white allies in the elimination of all racial identities and
consciousness, today, as non-whites increasingly assert their own racial identities,
aspirations, and ambitions for power, serious conflicts between the elite and non-white
racial movements may occur, and such conflicts may eventually destabilize the
managerial elite or even displace it from power as a new social force — non-white racial
consciousness and the energies it mobilizes — challenges the social force of the
managerial class. As historian Paul Gottfried comments, “Hispanic racialists, Third
World patriarchs, and Mexican irredentists will likely eat up the present regime, if given
the demographic chance.”

But there is little sign of an emerging white racial identity capable of challenging either
the managerial power structure, its anti-white universalist ideology and agenda, or the
direct racial threat whites face from non-white and anti-white enemies. The new elite
and its non-white allies have weakened or destroyed the belief systems, moral values ,
cultural legacies, and social bonds and institutions that made whites conscious of who
and what they are and sustained within them a determination to survive and prevail.
Until such mechanisms can be rebuilt, there appears to be little prospect of whites
overcoming or even adequately recognizing the threats and challenges they face today,
and those mechanisms cannot be rebuilt as long as the managerial elite remains in
power, as long as its universalist and egalitarian ideology remains the dominant
political and cultural formula, and as long as the anti-white allies of the elite share
power with the elite. What whites must recognize, if they wish to survive at all, is that
the forces that have destroyed their civilization are the same forces that rule its ruins
and whose rule brought it to ruin. Not until those forces are themselves displaced from
power will the whites of the future be able to recover the legacy their ancestors created
and left for them.

15/15