The idea that the ruling classes of this planet form in any way an ‘aristocracy’ is a notion based on a backwards understanding of what the word means. ‘Aristocracy’ means ‘rule of the best’, and if you mean to say ‘the best at hoarding money’ then you could make some allowances for this definition. However, since it is wealth rather than objective merit that is the source of influence and power in this society, it can be better described as a ‘plutocracy’ (‘rule of the wealthiest’) or, even more accurately, a ‘kleptocracy’ (‘rule of thieves’). Our world’s leaders have no right to rule as they have not been appointed by their people nor by God, but by their own machinations they have usurped power through extortion and usury.’Democracy’ is merely a sham that allows the masses to vote for puppets all controlled by a single entity in the form of the banks and corporations ruled by oligarchs. However, dictatorship is an easier method of extracting wealth, as maintaining the facade of ‘people power’ requires constant manipulation of the media and education systems, and even now the powers-that-be want us to prefer the sovereignty of bureaucratic dictatorship (as opposed to military dictatorship) in the form of the EU to our own national sovereignty.
Unfortunately, the rightful rulers of society, the aristocrats, disappeared from our land with the coming of the Normans and their feudalism, with the exception of the Highland clans. Among the Highlanders (and the Picts before them), chieftains were elected based on their abilities, though they were usually drawn from a particular family to ensure the hegemony of one lineage, without the need for the terribly flawed primogeniture (succession by first-born son) favoured in feudalism. The importance of the family in an aristocracy is based on the fact that traits are inherited through genetics; if one person shows certain capabilities such as leadership or wisdom, it is because they have inherited those traits from their parents. However, they may also lack the traits that are desired for their position if these traits are not shared by both parents. For example, if a chieftain has a son, he may not inherit his father’s leadership skills if his mother does not also have these skills. In this instance, the rule of primogeniture will produce an incapable leader, but another member of his family may be better suited to the task, as his father’s talents may be better reflected in someone else (this is why in pre-Norman times, kings and chieftains were frequently succeeded by their brothers).
In this regard, it is the gene pool of the extended family that is more important in succession rather than a single, nuclear family. The reason for keeping succession within one extended family is because it is more likely that if they produce capable nobles, then their descendants will continue this legacy, which also applies to all other classes in society. At the same time, another family may exhibit better capabilities if the one in power doesn’t maintain their duties and responsibilities, and so a chieftain may be succeeded by a member of another family who then replace them. This is why birthright alone cannot guarantee merit, but a honing of one’s talents and accepting the standards that have been set by your forebears to excel in your class. Noblemen were expected not only to perform well in martial-arts, athletics and leadership, but also in strategy, public speaking and problem-solving. Any slacking in these expected duties would result in a loss of prestige and power, even falling down to a lower class if the negligence was bad enough. In other cases, the son of a nobleman who performed better in spiritual matters and was not as physically powerful as expected would have been sent to train with the druids, or to a monastery in Christian times. Thus, social mobility is essential to a functioning society, provided that it is based on merit rather than wealth.
It is also essential that a chieftain is elected by all free men in a tribe, rather than simply the nobles. Bondsmen (serfs, servants or slaves) who had entered into debt with a nobleman could not vote because they would be obliged to vote in favour of their master and thus had no free agency. It is unfortunate that such a class came to exist in the past, and came as a result of the commoditization of resources and a profit-driven economy. They hold back a free society, as the economy eventually becomes dependent on debt and there is an increase in demand for slaves, leading to the institution of slavery through raiding and trading. A proliferation of people raised as slaves gives rise to a slave mentality, and leaves such people open to manipulation because they have been raised (and have inherited genetics) to make them ignorant and subservient. These types of people are only useful to abusive powers that seek to stifle human freedom and force others to do their bidding. To avoid this, a society must value independence and critical thinking to produce strong and intelligent individuals who will contribute to the betterment of their folk rather than be a burden or a source of exploitation by scoundrels.
‘Eugenics’ is a word which has come to be associated with the worst excesses of state coercion and social snobbery, and has become practically a taboo because of its adoption by the Third Reich. However, it is a good idea, simply because it functions on the basis of natural selection. ‘Eugenics’ means the active practice of producing ‘genetic health’ in individuals by pairing them with suitable partners, who will produce healthy children that will inherit the traits of their parents. The idea is to encourage the proliferation of children among genetically healthy couples, while discouraging such among unhealthy people with undesirable traits.However, this encounters problems when administered on a state level, because the desired traits become subjective when applied by an external force. Forced sterilization and laws against reproduction for certain people infringe upon the rights of an individual and cause resentment towards the concept of eugenics, which is why it is given no heed today and sick or low-functioning individuals are considered as viable and equal to healthy and intelligent people. The practice of eugenics is a personal choice, but one which should be given credence, as it is to ensure the capability of survival and to produce better humans.
This is one area where the concept of an ‘Aryan race’ in the Third Reich has been misunderstood. They did not assert that the German folk themselves constituted an ‘Aryan’ or ‘Master’ race, but that they could be moulded into one through the proliferation of eugenics, producing a people which excelled above all others. Though a noble goal, it also suffered abuses, as the state bureaucracy behind deciding who was and was not fit to reproduce could be subject to the arbitrary whims of members of the reigning National Socialist Party. Conversely, miscegenation is a form of ‘dysgenics’, which results in the production of less healthy and intelligent people if widespread. While it is important for a gene pool to be kept diverse (which is why xenophobia or chauvinism is not an option in the case of eugenics), the best results come from couples of the same race, as the various races of the world have genetics that make them suited to different environments. The lack of suitability for members of a particular race in the wrong environment can be shown through vitamin D deficiency among Africans in temperate Europe, whilst Europeans in tropical Australia have a higher risk of skin cancer.While some mixed-race couples may be lucky in having a child that displays the best qualities of both races, it may not; as those of mixed ancestry are more susceptible to addiction and other mental health problems, not least a potential identity-crisis for someone unsuited to their environment or local culture.
There are also more problems with birth and conception among couples of morphologically different races. This is not an issue in border regions, where people of different races are in close proximity to each other (such as in South-East Asia or North Asia), but has a deleterious effect on societies that are not close to borders and who have historically more racially homogeneous gene pools. So, while incest is also a form of dysgenics because the gene pool is too small (though this only really applies to members of the same immediate family), miscegenation draws from too large a gene pool and causes these other problems. There is also the fact that having parents with very different ancestry causes a disconnection in folk-consciousness, as mixed-race individuals will find it harder to integrate among folk with a shared culture and heritage, resulting in a less stable society. I do not advocate making laws to ensure that this is the case, as the state has no right to enforce morality on a population. However, the fact that not only miscegenation, but dysgenics in general (such as the encouragement to have more children among the unintelligent unemployed for the promise of more welfare) is socially acceptable is only causing damage through negligence. Mental maladies such as addiction or abusive behaviour and inheritable physical diseases are good reasons to question a relationship, even a lack of equality in intelligence or fitness between a couple can be cause for concern.
It is also important for healthy and intelligent individuals to have as many children as possible, as this will increase the chances of creating better rather than worse people for the future. We need now more than ever strong and capable leaders to see us through dark times and must be ready to herald the return of a true aristocracy. It only makes sense for the fittest and most intelligent (mentally and spiritually I might add) to have power, as long as they can acknowledge their responsibility and do not become overly proud of their own bloodline. It is not your genetics, but your ability to utilize them that makes for better leaders (or craftsmen, or priests or whatever calling is specific to your ancestry). In such a society, we can look up to our rulers and know that they are doing the best they can for everyone, rather than trust them to never do the right thing and only serve their own interests. Such people are not and can never be worthy of the title of ‘aristocrat’.