How to Build A Durable Counter-Elite

The Fifth Crown that Soon Rebelled

Why We Need a Counter-Elite

An area in which the American right is severely lacking is in its ability to form a counter-elite that can broadly and sustainably push back against the race communist regime apparatus that has systematically denied opportunities to white Americans, particularly white men, for decades, while also providing patronage opportunities to those men discriminated against by our present system. This presents a major problem, as such a counter-elite (which really must be an upper class of sorts,¹ or at least aspire to be such) is generally necessary to displace even a despised regime of the sort we’ve long had.

That’s not to say there aren’t former members of the present elite who have defected from it. Elon Musk is one, though it remains to be seen if he grasps what getting to Mars will take, in terms of regime change. The JD Vance-Peter Thiel types are something of another and have been for some time,² though Thiel has left rather than fight.³ Similarly, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan spoke positively about many of Trump’s policies back in 2024.⁴

Still, those defectors do not a counter-elite make, at least yet. Rather, they are much closer to being miniature (and generally less courageous) versions of Tiberius Gracchus, much like Trump himself: desirous of using populist tactics to effect a restoration of the existing system by reversing some of the worst outgrowths of it, rather than reordering it substantially in an effort to cement their rule of a world that is better for those who follow them.

While not necessarily a bad thing ceteris paribus, that does mean the political movement they’re pushing lacks the legs to operate on a time horizon much longer than a few years. Indeed, it’s already fragmenting as those who are dedicated populists and those who are generally conservative but friendly to populism clash. That is a major problem, for the amount of change necessary to substantially reorder our system without things devolving into some Ragnarok-style reckoning are far more substantial than that which can be achieved in a single year.

Reshoring even the bare minimum level of industry necessary for the defense industrial base will take the commitment of a techno-nationalist elite⁵ operating in much the same way as the better elements (the Andrew Mellon types) of the Gilded Age industrial buildout of America’s rail and electrical infrastructure. Reversing DEI will be a generational Reconquista across every major company and surviving institution. Fixing our cities will require similar levels of investment and years of committed effort, as noxious elements have been allowed to build up and take over for generations.

On and on it could go. The basic problem is that while the worst excesses of our system can be ameliorated well enough for people to feel back to normal in a few years, the effort required to reorder our system around what can actually fix those problems—capital punishment, economic nationalism, meritocratic hiring without regard to disparate impact, and the like—will require multiple decades, multiple generations, even, of effort.

The solution to that is the development of a counter-elite that is gradually able to build power to effect such ends over multiple generations, remains committed to doing so over those generations, and does so successfully.

The most relevant example of this in American history is the rise of Virginia’s cavalier gentry, and its key role in beginning the American Revolution and making the Revolution an ultimate success rather than an egalitarian disaster as in France.

The creation of that counter-elite, one which rose from the muddy banks of the Chesapeake and primordial forests of the interior to eventually lead the effort to challenge the mightiest empire on Earth at the time, is what I’ll discuss today, along with some of the ways that this history is relevant to Americans who understand the importance of building a counter-elite.

A Note On Sources: The most useful books in preparing for this article were the section on the Cavaliers in Albion’s Seed, The Virginia Dynasties by Clifford Dowdey, The First Gentlemen of Virginia by Louis B. Wright, A “Topping People” by Emory Evans, and Tobacco Culture by Breen; these works will be referred to by the last name of the author when cited in the article. Also useful in thinking about this was the article “Vectors of Power”. I would also recommend you read my articles on Virginia’s Cursus Honorum and Embodying Excellence for my thoughts on how to think about some of the issues presented in this article at the personal level.

Listen to the audio version here:

[AUDIO] How to Build A Durable Counter-Elite

The Creation of the Virginia Gentry

Establishing the Foundation

Building the Wealth Foundation

Before John Rolfe, Virginia was merely a muddy hell full of malarial mosquitoes and Indians generally bent on exterminating the English. Rolfe, in bringing Spanish tobacco to Virginia and creating a precarious peace between the English and Indians by marrying Pocahontas, saved the colony and created the conditions for a substantial change.

Though impeded by occasional crises like drought or the Indian Massacre of 1622, what followed was a magnificent burst of prosperity that delivered much wealth into the hands of those who had been indigent, or at least of small means.

For some, this was no different than an oil strike. Like the residents of later boom towns,⁶ they paraded about in finery, failed to reinvest their winnings, and disappeared from history the moment conditions became a bit worse.

But there was also a different sort of man who arrived, represented by Richard Lee I, the dynast of the famous Lee family. Sent to represent his family’s mercantile interests in the colony in 1639,⁷ this first Lee had little money of his own but did have substantial family connections and resources that he could use to get ahead. Such is what he intended on doing, viewing his presence in the colony and the wealth that could be garnered in it as a long-term project from which he could become a landed gentleman like the Norman-descended Lees of Coton Hall from whom he (allegedly) got his name. Most of the other FFV dynasts arrived a few years later, but around the same time,⁸ and were of similar means, minds, and family connections.⁹

They used the open opportunity before them to gradually build immense wealth. They steadily used what starting resources they had, their reinvested profits from tobacco and mercantile activities, and their growing political connections to build great estates that could even survive dramatic drops in the price they earned for their tobacco crop, such as that brought about by the Navigation Acts.¹⁰ The post-Bacon’s Rebellion pairing of slavery with large acreage was particularly important in this,¹¹ and was still only possible for them to achieve because of their long-time horizons and prudent use of the limited but greater than average resources with which they started.¹²

Importantly, they did so not just with the goal in mind of becoming wealthy, but of building estates that would turn them into landed gentlemen.¹³ As the British gentry essentially ruled England over much of the 17th and 18th centuries,¹⁴ this was their attempt to use their acquisitive minds to turn their families into genteel, respected ones that had a hand in government. To be a landed gentleman was more than to simply be wealthy: it was to be one who could govern. The landed wealth served as the basis of that, not the end-all be-all of it.

By using generally mercantile means to become landed,¹⁵ these dynasts generally succeeded in turning themselves into a gentry of sorts, if a somewhat more acquisitive one than present back in England.¹⁶ Out of this combination of acquisitive mercantile tendencies and vast landed estates was born the Virginia planter, a distinctly American variation of the domestic aristocracy on which he modeled himself.¹⁷

Keeping the Foundation

The problem then became how to maintain the family in dignity after the first generation so that the family’s ascent could continue, and it could accrue more political power over generations.

In England, this problem was generally solved through entail: the main estate was passed to each firstborn son through succeeding generations, all of which agreed to keep the estate inalienable. It was held in a form of trust where the income could be used for whatever purpose and could be pledged as collateral, but the underlying estate could not be sold, pledged, or divided. Generally, much of the testator’s personal property went to the other male children, and some annual subsidy was paid to (or dowry given) to the daughters. This kept the estate—and thus the dignity of the family’s name—intact, while also meaning the non-heir children weren’t left penniless.¹⁸

In Virginia, this was not the preferred practice. Though entail and primogeniture were assumed in cases of intestacy,¹⁹ those testators who chose to write a will generally preferred to divide their estate amongst their children.²⁰ Generally, the eldest male would receive the main family seat and enough acreage to support it,²¹ while the remainder of the estate was divided amongst the other children.²²

Occasionally, this meant the downfall of the family because the property was too divided to support any members in dignity.²³ However, this was generally positive when new acreage was cheap in the early generations because it had the helpful side-effect of allowing family seats to multiply in a given area, adding to the public’s perception of the family’s size, power, and dignity.²⁴ As the families were sorted into competent ones that would remain landed for the long term and incompetent or infertile ones that would quickly flame out early on, this had the added benefit of increasing the chances that one branch of the family would prove a notable success that could keep the name going and add to its lustre. Allowing multiple different male branches to develop their own “habit of command”²⁵ by splitting the estates when there was enough land to do so increased the chances that at least one would be a political, social, and economic success. Such happened with both Thomas Lee and Robert “King” Carter, younger sons who became great dynasty builders in their own right.

In any case, after a few generations of this division of the estates, the land ran out and was no longer cheap, at which point the Virginia dynasties reverted to more traditional forms of English primogeniture and entail.²⁶ Always the focus was on the preservation of the estate²⁷ and, through it, the growth of the family’s wealth and power, as the establishment of such estates and power was the goal of the dynasts and remained the goal of their heirs, who became increasingly involved in politics.

Building Institutional Power As Families

Once a stable foundation of wealth had been built, the great families could begin using that wealth to become politically involved.

To some extent, this had been true from the beginning. Once men like Richard Lee I had built large enough estates to prove themselves worthy of Gov. Berkeley’s attention, he was drawn to them because they were a cut above most other settlers of the colony in terms of learning, education, and manners, all of which he prized.²⁸ Importantly, such men were not merely appointed to the Governor’s Council because they were relatively rich and liked by the Cavalier governor. In reality, he chose them because the large estates they had built and the command-connected skill with which they managed them showed him that they could be trusted with governmental power.²⁹

When the domineering Gov. Berkeley left the colony in 1677, it was this early experience in government that allowed the Virginians to gradually become a counter-elite: always they would remember that only he who could manage his estate well could be trusted with governmental power, and so plantation ownership and the successful running of it was seen as a sine qua non for even getting involved in politics. From there, one had to earn his way up each wrung, as the early dynasts had in effect done, going from the vestry council to the Governor’s Council. For those interested, I discuss this here:

Virginia's Cursus Honorum

Unlike when Berkeley ruled, it was not mere diktats from London that put such men in charge. The vestry council members and Justices of the Peace on the county courts had to be trusted enough to be appointed to those positions by their already successful fellows. If they wished to then ascend from there to the Burgesses, they had to be elected to the position by their yeomen neighbors,³⁰ and approved to run by the established elite.

It was easiest to do this when a given family controlled much of a county, as in such a case the established men could promote family members, and had long been dispensing patronage—such as minor governmental posts, minor favors, famous Virginia hospitality, and the like—in the name of the family. So, areas where past divisions of the estate meant a family had clustered,³¹ with each cadet branch holding enough land to keep it powerful, were areas where generations of wealth and political power building had allowed the family to effectively capture the institutions of a given place.

This was hugely useful to these families, as it cemented their rule and associated their names with power.³² High rates of intermarriage amongst each other helped with this, as it bound the political fortunes of multiple dynasties together in the same neighborhood, further aiding in institutional capture and creating a true upper class.

Adding to this was that these families, thanks to their multi-generational time horizons, were comfortable building manor homes like Westover, Shirley, and Stratford Hall that dominated the landscape, reminding all who saw them of their rootedness, prestige, wealth, and thus right to rule.

As they grew frustrated with London and moved away from the empire in the late 18th century, once they had become not just an elite within the British Empire but a counter-elite devoted to breaking away from it, this control of theirs of the political process meant the common people were more likely to trust and follow them than would otherwise have been the case. The years of good rule and general stability brought by their control of the process gave them that space to push back against the regime, and their long-term capture of institutional control as a set of ruling families gave them the experience necessary to lead and govern once the British were gone.

The remainder of this article is for paid subscribers. All those who are not yet paid subscribers: while some of this article is free, please subscribe for just a few dollars a month to support this project, get access to audio episodes, get ad-free versions of my history videos, and read this article in full.

Building a Culture In Their Image

This institutional power also allowed what became the Virginia gentry to build the state in their image, shaping a relatively monolithic culture of the sort they desired, one that was built to enshrine a traditional-style hierarchy and intentionally excluded Quakers and Puritans—subversives.