Many people think meritocracy is something vague, but it couldn't be simpler. What it does straight away is to remove the right of everyone over 18 to vote. People no longer have an automatic vote. Instead, a new voting system is established in which people are permitted multiple votes related to subjects in which they have demonstrable ability and knowledge i.e. by virtue of academic qualifications or work experience. Instead of voting for a politician in your geographical area, you vote for experts in your own fields of expertise. So, for example, if you have an economics degree then you are allowed to vote for which people should be running the economy. Anyone who doesn't have an economics degree or doesn't work in an economics job or can't otherwise demonstrate their expertise in economics, doesn't get a vote regarding economics. If you want to vote, get qualified (citizenship exams will be provided in all major subjects; they won't be as advanced as degrees, but they will allow citizens to demonstrate that they have meaningful knowledge of a subject). Otherwise, you will be deemed ignorant of the subject, hence it would be absurd to give you a vote regarding a subject about which you know nothing. You can have as many votes as your areas of evident merit. If you have no merits, you get no votes.
In a meritocracy, politics based on geographical constituencies and on political parties vanishes. All people standing for elections are independents. Their tasks are restricted to their own areas of merit. The only restriction applied to the policies they devise is that those policies must be consistent with the Meritocratic Constitution. For example, if economists are mandated to ensure that the economy is to be run for the good of the Commonwealth and to ensure that no cartels or elites are allowed to come into existence, any policies they enact that contradict the Constitution will be reversed, and the Meritocratic Supreme Court will fire them. New elections will then be held to find a new set of economists to run the economy meritocratically.
This is a simple system. It abolishes politics as we currently experience it (and endure it). It places merit at the core of the new politics.
How did the rich manage to stay in control of the world after the introduction of democracy? Simple. They created an all-powerful entity outside of the political process and gave it a neutral name so that no one would recognize it for what it was. Their ingenious creation was THE MARKET.
Have you ever voted for the market? Have you ever influenced it? Have you ever got rid of anyone from the market? Do you even know what the market is? Do you know who runs it? Do you know what its agenda is? In truth, you are totally ignorant about the market and that's exactly how it's intended to be. No one must ask any questions of the market. It's designed to be a kind of free-floating, anonymous abstraction with Godlike powers that no one dares to challenge.
"You can't buck the market!"
Yet there's no mystery at all about the market for anyone with eyes to see. It's comprised of private corporations, private banks, private insurance companies, private entrepreneurs, private lawyers, private accountants, private economists, private lobbyists, private super rich, private elite dynastic families of supreme privilege.
Only extremely rich right wing people play a central role in the market. We might as well call the market "Wall Street" ... and Goldman Sachs in particular. Why is a Zionist right wing entity allowed to control the economy and the political process? Genuine left wing governments are an impossibility in market-driven nations, and that's the whole point.
The market has no left wing players and rejects all left wing ideas. If you accept MARKETOCRACY - rule by markets - you have guaranteed never-ending rule by the rich. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians are those who want to destroy government and the State completely and have everything run by markets. Their Bible is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, the sickening right wing hymn to greed and selfishness. All anarcho-capitalist libertarians are on the far right of the political spectrum. They are the friends and allies of the super rich elite. They are all ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE. No decent society should tolerate these people who actively despise society.
"There is no such thing as society." ~ Margaret Thatcher, heroine of the far right.
The market MUST be brought under complete political control, under the complete control of the PEOPLE. Unelected and unaccountable private individuals cannot be allowed to control public politics according to their own self-serving, right wing ideology: "Greed is good; selfishness is divine."
"The market" is the most cunning and sinister political takeover in history. It is how the rich bypassed democracy and ruled regardless of who was in the White House.
Wall Street must be defeated. It's time for Main Street to be in charge. Or are the people too scared to assume responsibility for their own destiny?
Meritocracy must replace privilege. Equal opportunities for all must replace rigged systems run by omnipotent cartels of the rich. The disgusting and evil anarcho- capitalist libertarians must be defeated.
What's it to be? Wall Street or Main Street?
Can anyone seriously believe that the Founding Fathers intended that unaccountable markets should run America? Of what worth is the Constitution if markets completely ignore it, or bend it exclusively to their own interests? Of what value is the Republic if it's a sham and actually a Plutocracy? - the impregnable citadel of the super rich.
It's time for a new politics. It's time for true democracy. It's time for real People Power. End the phoney war. Put the people in charge.
The Meritocracy Party is the new face of Democracy. It's all about "meritocratic democracy", as contrasted with "plutocratic democracy" (the current system where rich elites pull all the strings).
We are the supreme DEFENDERS of true democracy because we are determined to give the people real power, rather than the Wizard of Oz's illusory version of power.
The people are NOT in charge in current democracy. Corporations, banks, lobbyists, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, the privileged elites and markets run nations, not the people or their elected representatives.
Democracy is PEOPLE POWER, and power is exactly what the people are forbidden from having by the markets and the rich!
It's time for "government of the people by the people for the people" rather than "government of the people by the rich for the rich".
Destroy the power of Wall Street. Destroy the privileged elites. Destroy the markets that have stolen power from the people and then sold it back to them at an exorbitant interest rate as slavery to the Ownership Class of the super rich.
Ever feel like you've been conned? Ever feel that you're one of the suckers? You are if you let your political system be controlled by markets over which you have ZERO say.
Stop being a dumbocrat and become a meritocratic democrat. Free-market democracy is ANTI-DEMOCRACY. Wake up! See what's really going on.
Join the Meritocracy Party.
The rich owe their allegiance to no nation states, only to each other. The rich will go wherever the "price is right". They will transfer factories and jobs from America to China without hesitation if it will increase their profits. They have no loyalty. They couldn't care less about America or Americans. The whole world is the rich man's stage.
The rich are a global superclass who see themselves as rulers of the world and masters of the universe. They intend to use "the market" to dictate to every government on earth. Soon, they will have TOTAL POWER (if they don't already), and not one of these people is elected by the people or accountable to the people. No government has the power or guts to stand up to them. When the American government bailed out the financial institutions and saddled the taxpayers with enormous debts, were the people consulted? Or was it a case of a group of rich people sitting around a table deciding what was best for the market? Whatever happened to No taxation without representation? You can be sure that in every matter that counts, the people are never consulted, but have to pay the taxes anyway.
Globalization is the means by which the Old World Order are becoming the dictators of the world: a super rich dynastic privileged elite that can never be voted out. They are establishing a hereditary ruling caste.
Do you understand how clever they have been? When any politician talks about having to be friendly towards "business" and "the markets", what they mean is that they must do the bidding of the rich.
Rich = Business = the Market.
It would cause a revolution if politicians said that they were deliberately acting against the interests of the people in order to help the rich, so they never do say any such thing. The rich are referred to in such abstract terms that no one knows it's them. To the average person, "the market" seems like something floating in the ether. They don't associate it with groups of rich people doing everything in their power to maximize their profits, no matter how much damage is done to everyone else.
Goldman Sachs plays a huge role in the market. Therefore, when governments talk about having to "help" the market, what they mean is help Goldman Sachs and increase its profits. Virtually every government in the world is advised by Goldman Sachs in one way or another. Who elected Goldman Sachs? No one. But, of course, the market is OUTSIDE political control. The whole point of the market is to give the rich control of the world without being in any way subject to the will of the people.
Everyone unwittingly plays along. No one wants to challenge the markets or undermine them.
The situation is now crystal clear. Is politics about serving the people or serving the market (the rich)? Can there be any conceivable doubt that every politician in the capitalist West works for the rich and would never seek to bring the markets under government control?
The rich have hijacked the political system and made it work for them. All political parties are a joke and all politicians are a joke. They simply act as the front men for the rich. They create the illusion that the people have a say. It never matters who's in power because the world is run by the market and the market is deliberately kept separate from the political process so that the rich can rule without interference.
That is what "democracy has delivered" - rule by the rich. Isn't it time for meritocratic democracy where the smartest people in the world will design a brand new system that makes the market accountable to the people and thus brings to an end the rule of the rich?
Join the true democrats. Join the Meritocracy Party.
Some political commentators have written in favour of meritocracy and suggested that this should be the big idea that our political leaders rally around. These commentators are right, but not in the way they think. This is indeed the time for meritocracy, but there's one straightforward reason why democratic politicians would be mad to accept the challenge. Quite simply, meritocracy and democracy are incompatible.
Meritocracy is just a new way of saying a very old word: aristocracy - rule by the 'best'. If democratic politicians were not the best individuals to be running our country - i.e. those most deserving by virtue of their talents - what right would they have to lead us in a meritocratic environment? As soon as the meritocratic genie is released from its bottle, the legitimacy of democracy itself is called into question. The democratic voting system - a system in which the only qualification required is that you should have achieved the astounding feat of surviving in this world for at least 18 years - is, and never has been, consistent with any principle of merit. If it were, voters would have to pass exams to demonstrate their merit before being allowed to participate in elections. It's meritocracy's revolutionary challenge to democracy that should become the focus of political debate.
And why shouldn't democracy be forced to justify itself? As disillusionment with politicians grows inexorably, hasn't the time come to try something new? Is it possible to construct an entirely new political system based not on democracy but on meritocracy?
We are bombarded with so much rhetoric promoting the virtues of democracy that people have been brainwashed into thinking there's no alternative. Apart from extremist fringe parties, no one spends any time considering a radical reshaping of our political institutions. Yet through history few intellectuals have spoken supportively of democracy and most have been openly contemptuous of it. The American journalist H. L. Mencken said in 1916, 'Democracy is a form of religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.' One of his alternative definitions was: 'Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage.' He considered democracy actively hostile to free thinking: 'Democracy is grounded upon so childish a complex of fallacies that they must be protected by a rigid set of taboos, else even halfwits would argue it to pieces. Its first concern must thus be to penalise the free play of ideas.'
In this regard, democracy has surely succeeded in its aim - there is little discussion in modern intellectual circles of replacing democracy. That said, a book has just appeared that accuses voters in democracies of being irrational. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies (2007) by Professor Brian Caplan advocates that a nation's economic decisions should be taken by councils of economists insulated from the vagaries of democracy.
There are two central problems with democracy. The first is that the electorate by and large are grotesquely ill-informed about the issues upon which they are voting. They are usually guided by emotive arguments, glib sound bites and crude, scare-mongering propaganda. A careful, considered analysis of complex issues never occurs. If I were to ask a typical voter to write a four-page essay on the pros and cons of joining the Euro, or on any other significant issue for that matter, they wouldn't have a clue. In other words, democracy, at heart, is government by emotion rather than reason, which is why it's associated with so much ineptitude.
The second problem is that democracy constantly provides the proof of its own inadequacy. Mencken says, 'Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.' If a democratic government were competent, what would be the point of an opposition? We are supposed to regard the opposition as keeping the government on its toes, but the opposition's unending carping simply erodes confidence in both the government and democratic institutions in general.
Imagine a constructive opposition: one that praised the government at least as often as it criticised it, and only ever censured it in the interests of genuinely better government rather than petty politicking. Such an opposition is inconceivable in a democracy. How could the farce of Prime Minister's Question Time continue if, on a regular basis, the Leader of the Opposition actually supported the government's policies? Yet why shouldn't he? Surely, if the government were performing well, it would be perverse not to.
Why is it that people find it so hard to conceive of alternatives to democracy? Is it laziness, brainwashing, lack of intellect? Even prominent democrats have acknowledged democracy's flawed nature. Winston Churchill declared, 'No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.' In other words, Churchill viewed democracy as the least bad option. Is that really the best we can aim for? - the least bad.
Aristotle defined six different political systems: monarchy, aristocracy, constitutional government, democracy, oligarchy and tyranny. He was no fan of democracy: 'A democracy is a government in the hands of men of low birth, no property and vulgar employments.' The best political system, he said, was rule by a single wise ruler, followed by aristocracy (rule by a group of wise people), then constitutional government (a stable mixture of democracy and oligarchy). The worst forms of government were the mirror images of these three. So the worst political regime of all was a tyranny, where a single bad person wielded absolute power. Second worst was an oligarchy where a few corrupt individuals governed in their own interests. The third worst was the type of democracy which Aristotle regarded as practically the same as ochlocracy (government by the mob, the rabble).
In the modern age, the idea of a great, benign, kingly ruler is absurd. Tyrannies, on the other hand, are sadly not uncommon. What we call democracy is probably closer to the constitutional government Aristotle described, where the interests of oligarchs are well served. (No surprise that we have so many rich foreigners coming to our shores to benefit from the safe tax haven the UK now provides!)
Ludicrously, you sometimes hear the likes of Tony Blair declaring that they are meritocrats. If they had a shred of philosophical decency they'd never dare to mention meritocracy. 'Meritocracy' is merely the politically correct new name for old-style Aristotelian aristocracy. It has nothing in common with democracy, which is rule by the people regardless of their merits.
What shape might a meritocratic regime assume? Meritocracy is a non-sexist, non-racist ideology seeking to ensure that every citizen can rise as high in society as their individual talent allows. People are judged on what they can do; not on the identity, wealth or influence of their parents. "It's what you know" takes over from the currently all-conquering principle of "It's who you know". Meritocracy opposes nepotism, cronyism, and inherited privilege. The House of Commons, currently filled with 646 MPs from various political parties, will instead be populated by independent MPs with no political allegiances. Each independent MP is selected on the basis of merit relating to their field of expertise. So, for example, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is selected from amongst practising economists (and will be elected only by other economists). The Secretary of State for Health will be someone who works in the health field (and is elected only by health workers); the Secretary for Defence will be from the armed forces; the Foreign Secretary a serving official in the Foreign Office; the Secretary for Education a serving teacher/ headmaster/ lecturer. In other words, every MP in the House of Commons won't represent a political party or a geographical constituency, but a particular field in which they have demonstrable experience, expertise and merit; and their constituents/ voters will be people in the same field who can make an informed decision about their ability.
The Prime Minister will be elected by the MPs from amongst their number. Every four years, there will be a general election in which every MP again has to seek the endorsement of their voters, or be replaced. There are of course no opposition parties, or indeed parties of any description (meritocracy is in this sense apolitical; there is no set agenda, no manifesto, that must be slavishly followed). The House of Lords is abolished as a revising chamber. In fact, in the absence of party politics there's no need for a second chamber at all. All critiques of government policy are provided by select committees of MPs. Special committees comprising scientists and philosophers may also be used, chosen because of their critical-thinking abilities and their expertise in challenging assumptions. Committees of artists, designers and entrepreneurs might also be called upon. Pressure groups will be given a prominent voice too since meritocracy welcomes close and searching scrutiny.
The monarchy is abolished since, being based on a hereditary principle in which the identity of one's parents is all that matters, it inherently contradicts the Meritocratic Principle. By the same token, inheritance tax will be raised to one hundred percent (!) since no one can be allowed to use the wealth they have acquired to transmit a posthumous anti-meritocratic advantage to someone of their choosing. As the great Scottish-American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, once the richest man in the world, said, 'By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of the rich man's estate which should go at his death to the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell.' Carnegie was strongly of the opinion that enormous legacies to children were harmful to those children. More importantly, they are harmful to the state because they provide an unfair, anti-competitive advantage to some people, thus transgressing the Meritocratic Principle.
Meritocracy actively promotes the arts, science, mathematics, philosophy, architecture, design etc. It's contemptuous of celebrity culture, and particularly those who are famous for being famous. It's anti-materialistic. Whereas oligarchs are consumed with their desire for material wealth and conspicuous spending, meritocrats are obsessed with culture and the experiences of the mind. An excess of money would be vulgar for a meritocrat, and all meritocrats would bear in mind Andrew Carnegie's warning, 'The man who dies rich dies disgraced.'
Tony Blair's Labour government was put in power thanks to the votes of a mere 21.6% of the total electorate, barely one in five. Is this democracy or an elective dictatorship? Isn't it the case that democratic rhetoric is a smokescreen for inherent incompetence? Meritocratic government would give us the main advantage of democracy (the means to vote people out of office) and none of the drawbacks. Surely it's time for the birth of meritocracy. If you don't like it, think of something else, but at least learn to see beyond the dubious merits of democracy.
The scientific method is the most successful technique humanity has devised for achieving organised, systematic progress, so why isn’t it applied in other arenas? In particular, why is politics allowed to revolve around inconclusive moralistic debates instead of the tried and trusted steps of the scientific method?
Think of a typical political debate. Politician X stands up in the House of Commons. He moralises, postures, distorts the arguments of his enemies, employs the most transparent rhetoric, appeals to the ‘good sense’ of the people, thanks his voters, and tries to find a suitable soundbite so that he can appear on the evening news and rise up the pecking order in his party. Politician Y gets to his feet on the other side of the House and does exactly the same, except he’s coming at it from the marginally different angle favoured by his party.
This is, we are told, how a healthy democracy operates. Through some miracle it will achieve wonderful policies that will improve the lot of everyone in the country. Nonsense, of course.
The political theorist Jean-Jacques Rousseau explicitly warned that political parties were a threat to true democracy because instead of expressing the General Will of the people, they express their own narrow interests. Isn’t this exactly what we see over and over again with the petty bickering between the main parties and their refusal to reach a sensible consensus?
So why not turn instead to how scientists do things? The scientific method involves four steps: 1) observe and describe a phenomenon; 2) formulate a hypothesis that explains the phenomenon; 3) use this hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to provide quantitative predictions of the results of new observations; 4) perform experimental tests of the predictions by several independent teams, using properly conducted experiments. In short, observe, hypothesise, predict and verify. If a hypothesis has been rigorously tested and still proves valid then it takes on the status of a theory, and can be used with a high degree of confidence (though certainty is never attained).
As an example of how the scientific method could work in the political arena, we might consider the debate over the legalisation of drugs. The opponents of legalisation usually contend that such a step would be a disaster: drug use and rates of addiction would soar; lives would be devastated and many abusers would die; NHS bills would grow astronomically; there would be serious policing issues, and social services would be required to get involved with many families that had fallen into desperate straits. But is there any evidence that these claims would be borne out?
Those who advocate reinforcing prohibitions against drug use, redoubling police efforts to crack down on suppliers and users, using good intelligence to stop drugs coming into the country etc. are little different from the proponents of America’s Prohibition policy of the 1920s and '30s, a policy that ended in disaster. Gangsters made fortunes out of supplying illegal liquor, and the law was flouted by millions of previously law-abiding citizens.
Those of a scientific mindset might make the following observations and hypotheses. 1) When popular drugs are declared illegal, people do not stop using them; 2) If the government does not supply drugs, criminals will meet the demand; 3) recreational drug users will have less regard for the law if they are regularly breaking it on a casual basis; 4) if the manufacture of recreational drugs was performed by legal companies, there would be a high standard of quality control (criminals on the other hand aren’t motivated by quality issues); 5) many drug users will die if the drugs they take are poorly manufactured (perhaps containing an excess of active ingredients, or toxic substances that have been mixed in to bulk them up); 6) the involvement of criminals in the supply of drugs leads to even more criminality, and a thriving black economy (more police are required to attempt to control it).
So, the legalisation of drugs might be expected to lead to the following results: 1) A reduction in criminality since the criminals' main source of income has been denied them; 2) A reduction in the size of the black economy; 3) greater respect for the law and law-enforcers by recreational drug users 4) formerly illegal drugs will be manufactured according to the same quality standards as legal pharmaceuticals, leading to fewer deaths (and the government can levy taxes and profit from the use of the recreational drugs; at the moment only criminals profit).
Whether or not overall use of recreational drugs would increase after legalisation is debatable. Cigarettes are legal and yet their use has been falling over many years because of the health risks they pose.
Rather than encouraging an ineffectual debate, a scientific approach would demand that controlled experiments be carried out. In one part of the UK (Scotland, for example), drugs would be legalised. In another part of the country (Wales, perhaps), police efforts would be intensified in an effort to eliminate drug abuse completely. After a suitable period (five years, say), all the data gathered from Scotland and Wales would be compared and contrasted. An informed debate could then be conducted, with solid data and a proper evidential base.
Every significant issue could be handled in the same way. All credible hypotheses regarding any political issue could be gathered and then tested in different regions of the country. After the agreed test period, the results could be analysed and the best-performing hypothesis implemented all over the country. At last, we would have a credible means for testing hypotheses, identifying best practice then rolling it out everywhere.
But once that process begins, what need is there for politicians? Isn’t it time to get rid of them and rely on the appliance of science? All debates could become data-based, and run by academics according to the scientific method. The method could be applied to health, education, crime, even taxation.
Nowadays, most people would be hard-pressed to identify any real differences between the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Squabbles between them tend to revolve around minor details of policy implementation. So, if politicians are no longer arguing over anything substantive, what’s the point of them? To use their own jargon, aren’t they part of the problem rather than the solution? And isn’t the scientific method the real answer?
There was a time when the kings of England paid protection money, known as Danegeld, to Danish Vikings to stop them raiding the country. Arguably, the modern welfare state serves a similar function. Its purpose is to give just enough money to society's underclass to prevent them from turning violent. The French and Russian Revolutions are famous examples of what happens when the underclass becomes so large, so agitated, that it can sweep aside everything that opposes its interests. Had Louis XVI and Nicholas II had the sense to introduce an elementary welfare state, they might have saved themselves and their regimes.
Normally, the welfare state is characterised as providing a safety net for those going through temporary difficulties, or as a grand gesture by a benevolent government towards the less fortunate in society. Yet it’s easy for benevolence to mutate into malevolence. Approximately five million households of Britain – some twenty percent of the total – are heavily in the embrace of the welfare state. Those who begin their lives in this dependency culture often end it in the same way. There are millions of British citizens who have rarely, if ever, been employed. Does it suit the government simply to pay out Danegeld to these people rather than offer them any serious chance of succeeding in life?
Surely the social contract between the government and the governed should, above all else, be about giving everyone an equal opportunity. There’s no such equality in this country. The children of the upper class have vastly better life chances than those of the underclass. Why is this tolerated? For the most simple of reasons – it suits the middle class. Ours is a government fit for purpose in relation to a powerful sectional interest within society – the middle class. The last thing the middle class want is to have to face a level playing field, where their ability to rig the market in their favour is removed. They proclaim the virtues of competition while secretly despising it. They believe in privilege, in using their money to buy advantage. They send their children to private schools to secure a better education than is available to others. In effect, they pay for their children to be placed above others in society. How can the state claim to be serving all of its citizens equally if it’s actively supporting the ability of some citizens to pay for better treatment, and buy better opportunities for themselves?
Isn't it time to bring two iniquitous systems to an end; to stop allowing rich citizens to rig the market in their favour, and to stop maintaining a welfare state whose sole function is to keep an underclass permanently suppressed?
The work of the radical Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing points to the way forward. He discovered that he could ‘cure’ severely disturbed patients, but when his patients returned home, all of their old problems soon manifested themselves again. His startling conclusion was that it was their family environment that was making them ill. When they were removed from it, their condition improved; when they were returned to it, it deteriorated. The most sacred cow of all – the family – is a primary cause of dysfunction. In most cases the damage it does is outweighed by the benefits it confers, but in a minority of cases, the family home is a catastrophic environment in which to bring up children. The state has a responsibility to intervene, but it only does so in the most extreme cases. Its intervention should be on an altogether different scale.
The underclass is what is created when large numbers of families fail. Using the welfare state to support them isn’t the answer. Instead, the solution implied by Laing’s work should be implemented. This is nothing less than to remove children from the environment that’s destroying their life chances. The state ought to step in and take the place of dysfunctional families. The state should build huge campus boarding schools, to which all children brought up in deprived areas should be sent. They should still be allowed to see their families, of course, but on a much more restricted basis – at holiday time only. Their parents will be freed from the burden that has proved too much for them of bringing their children up well. The children will be saved from the unintentionally malign influence of their parents. The state, by providing far superior educational facilities, will render private schools obsolete. For the first time, the UK will have created a truly meritocratic society where everyone has a realistic chance of leading a prosperous life.
Conventional political parties trumpet the virtues of the family. They promote 'family' values, and insist that the family can cure all of society’s ills. Social problems are caused when the family is undermined, they say. Not once have they ever considered Laing's hypothesis that the family may be the heart of dysfunction, the ultimate form of child abuse for millions of vulnerable kids. The state, far from pronouncing the family sacred, has an obligation to act against the family at the slightest sign of trouble.
No one should forget Philip Larkin’s bleak assessment of the family environment provided in This Be The Verse:
This is a perfect summation of Laing's findings. Strangely, Laing himself had eight children despite his episodic alcoholism, clinical depression, and the severe abuse he suffered as a child. Given his background and opinions on the family, it's remarkable that he chose to have so many children.
The Tories in particular like to portray the state as malevolent, and are always calling for a reduction in the size of the state and the extent to which it interferes in people’s lives. In the eighty percent of families that function reasonably well, the state should indeed steer well clear, but for the twenty percent of failed families, state intervention should be on an unprecedented scale, to the extent of effectively replacing the family. The Tories’ position is inherently stupid because it treats all families as the same, when in fact there’s no comparison between a nice middle class family and a chaotic underclass family. Any family-directed policy that doesn't draw distinctions between different types of family can’t be taken seriously.
The family is a tiny unit with a narrow range of qualities and skills. The state is a vast enterprise that can call on the skills and qualities of millions. There’s only one sense in which the state isn’t invariably superior to the family, and that’s in its inability to provide deep-rooted love to children. This is a family’s most important function, and it should be encouraged and harnessed as much as possible. It’s for this reason that even underclass parents shouldn’t be cut off from their children.
The state must also fill the discipline vacuum that’s emanating from families. In sink estates, the children of the underclass have no discipline at all, to their severe detriment. Discipline is even breaking down in middle class families. Discipline is the bedrock of the state and all forms of serious endeavour, and it should be near the top of any sensible state’s list of priorities.
At the moment, the government largely ignores twenty percent of the population (the underclass) and focuses on the other eighty percent. It provides the welfare state as a life-support system for the underclass, but many of them are perilously close to the vegetative state, and others are on the verge of total lawlessness, Danegeld or not. If this twenty percent could be properly addressed by the government, the whole of society would be transformed for the better.
The state spends a fortune on the underclass for all the wrong reasons. Apart from benefits and tax credits, the state has to squander a fortune on police, the criminal-justice system, and social services – all of which would scarcely be required if there were no underclass. This money – the cost of failure – should be used instead to break up the underclass once and for all by weakening the harmful link between the parents and children of the underclass.
It’s time to stop paying Danegeld to the underclass, and instead welcome them into the mainstream.
If you have doubts about the existence of the Old World Order, they ought to vanish when you read Taibbi's article.
You will see how an organisation makes itself so powerful (and is allowed to do so) that it effectively becomes a global government and bank, shaping the world's economy and politics for its own selfish ends.
If Goldman Sachs were attempting to create a New World Order that would raise humanity to a new, higher level, its mission might be welcomed and embraced. But it is doing the opposite. It is the Old World Order seeking to maintain a rich, privileged elite in perpetual wealth and power, with everyone else reduced to humiliating roles in a supporting cast of hangers-on, suckers and slaves.
As Taibbi says, "The bank's unprecedented reach and power have enabled it to turn all of America into a giant pump and dump scam, manipulating whole economic sectors for years at a time, moving the dice game as this or that market collapses, and all the time gorging itself on the unseen costs that are breaking families everywhere - high gas prices, rising consumer credit rates, half eaten pension funds, mass layoffs, future taxes to pay off bailouts. All that money that you're losing, it's going somewhere, and in both a literal and a figurative sense, Goldman Sachs is where it's going. The bank is a huge, highly sophisticated engine for converting the useful, deployed wealth of society into the least useful, most wasteful and insoluble substance on Earth - pure profit for rich individuals."
Taibbi is absolutely correct. Goldman Sachs is an engine for generating obscene profits for the super-rich. Why is such an engine allowed to exist?
No nation on earth would explicitly entrust its armed forces - its defence - to a powerful commercial company with rich shareholders that, independently of government, could declare war. In such circumstances, the army might be sent off to fight ridiculous wars that would enormously boost the value of companies in the military-industrial complex, handsomely reward the shareholders and do nothing whatever for the benefit of the nation. Think about the Vietnam War. Cui bono? Think about the American and British armies in Iraq. What were they doing there? Were they defending America and Britain? Or were they carrying out the will of a commercial organisation and its wealthy shareholders, all of whom profited massively from the war?
If a government declares a war that isn't necessary for the defence of the nation then you can be certain that forces behind the scenes that wish to engineer war for their own private interests are manipulating the government. The Iraq War is the classic example, a war that has proved disastrously counterproductive for America and Britain. Goldman Sachs was behind that war.
Goldman Sachs is a Zionist organisation and one of its great aims is to secure the defence of the state of Israel. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to Israel and so had to be removed. Control of Iraq would give Goldman Sachs access to plentiful cheap oil. Goldman Sachs wanted to seed the Middle East with western capitalist democracies over which it could then extend its dominion. It anticipated a "domino effect" - first Iraq would become a model of western values amongst the Arab nations of the Middle East and then, one by one, the other Islamic nations would adopt the same model. As each domino toppled, Israel would become safer, Goldman Sachs would get more oil, more influence, and more power. Its reach would extend further than ever before. The Iraq War was perfect - for Goldman Sachs. And that was why George W Bush, a puppet of Goldman Sachs, declared war and dragged the American people (and the British thanks to Bush's poodle Tony Blair) into an idiotic war that has achieved nothing.
Now consider the Credit Crunch. During the height of the crisis when banks were on the verge of collapse because of the irresponsible and reckless gambles they had taken, what happened? Did the world debate what needed to be done? Were ordinary people consulted? Did everyone implicated in the financial meltdown get fired? Or did a tiny group of elite, privileged bankers, economists and politicians - the very people who had caused the Credit Crunch in the first place - gather in a cabal, far from cameras and public scrutiny, and decide what actions to take? Did the people appoint these bankers and economists? Were the bankers and economists carrying out the people's will? Like hell they were. They were members of the Old World Order, protecting and advancing their own interests. Business as usual.
The biggest scam in history has taken place right in front of our faces and we have done nothing. Already, huge profits are flowing again through investment banks like Goldman Sachs and they are once again paying outrageous bonuses to their greedy staff. Not a single thing has changed. Not a single demonstrator is out on the streets to protest. Such is the power of the OWO. Such is the weakness and cowardice of the people.
While the British taxpayers were being ordered to bail out the banking leviathan RBS from the financial catastrophe it had brought on itself and the nation, Sir Fred "the Shred" Goodwin, the discredited chief executive, instead of being fired on the spot without any compensation, was sitting in a luxury boardroom working out the terms of a highly lucrative severance package, including a fabulous pension that he could enjoy immediately despite being only 50.
If the ordinary people were allowed into that boardroom rather than Goodwin's friends, allies and cronies, he would have been unceremoniously thrown out without a penny. But that never happens. The people are never consulted. They are never represented in the boardrooms of power. The Old World Order would never tolerate their presence. Their entire game is to ensure that the people are always excluded.
Ask yourself this question. Are the interests of rich bankers the same as those of the nation? Are bankers committed to doing what is best for the nation or what is best for themselves and their shareholders? The latter is self-evidently true. Do the bankers have a decisive influence over the economy? Unquestionably yes. Banks are the core of any nation's economy, providing the lifeblood (money) that flows through the system and keeps it alive. Are any bankers elected by the people to represent the people's interests? The answer is no. Therefore no one can deny that the economy of a nation is allowed to be in the hands of individuals unaccountable to the people who have different interests from those of the people. Whatever happened to "no taxation without representation"?
Does it make any sense for any nation to permit its economy to be outside the direct control of the people? Bankers serve their own interests, not those of the people. To allow them to run the economy is as ridiculous as allowing Coca Cola to run the US Army. You can't have unelected, private corporations dictating to the people. The entire basis of the banking system is wrong and contrary to the healthy functioning of the economy.
The financial meltdown would never have happened if the banks were tasked with serving the efficient running of the economy in the interests of every citizen. The meltdown was caused by a few greedy people taking enormous risks to bag themselves vast profits beyond the dreams of Midas. And no one stopped them. Why? Because these unelected individuals are the true power in the land. The government does their bidding. And when disaster comes along, the government turns to them to decide what to do next. It's as insane as asking Jesse James's gang to become security consultants at Fort Knox just after performing the biggest robbery in history.
No taxation without representation is the most ironic statement ever. The American people are, to all intents and purposes, entirely unrepresented when taxation decisions are being taken. The Old World Order - the fat bankers of Wall Street, unelected and contemptuous of the public - are the people who decide taxation policy. And Goldman Sachs is at the heart of the evil cabal.
When will the people wake up? Banks must be brought under the nation's direct control just as the army (supposedly) is. The army defends the nation and the banks support the economy. What could be simpler? No one should vote for any political party that is not committed to making banks accountable to the people. The banks' CEOs should be appointed in the same manner as Supreme Court justices, with a remit to serve the public interest. Their salaries and bonuses should be comparable to those of government officials, namely good but far from spectacular.
According to the International Monetary Fund, the global credit crunch has cost governments (and hence taxpayers) more than ten trillion dollars. Why is no one in jail for causing that amount of damage to the economy? If terrorists had caused a fraction of that damage, they would be hunted until doomsday. Yet no one lays a finger on the big, fat bankers, other than sacrificial offerings like Bernard Madoff, the Jewish super con man whom no one could possibly defend.
"There will be no whitewash at the White House," said disgraced President Richard Nixon. In fact, that's all there is at the White House. No real decisions are taken there. Go to the boardroom of Goldman Sachs if you want to be present at where American and world policy is actually decided.
There should be a Supreme Economic Council - analogous to the Supreme Court - which explicitly sets out the nation's economic policy and the role of the banks. Imagine the latest crazy derivatives product, or the latest whizzy idea to sell sub-prime mortgages to people with no money, having to be okayed by Nobel Prize winning economists on the Supreme Economic Council. All of the mad money-grabbing schemes would be killed at birth.
Imagine a Council with a complete overview of everything every bank is doing. The Council would immediately see if any bank were acting in a destabilising manner. The Council would tightly regulate the salaries and bonuses of finance staff. Sober, risk-averse, modest individuals aware of their responsibilities to the nation's economic health would replace cowboys, "masters of the universe" and "big swinging dicks". Financial stability would be the onus of the Council's remit. With effective regulation of remuneration packages, you could be sure that boom and bust would vanish forever. But that's never going to happen, is it? The Old World Order will brook no interference in the extravagant amounts of money they pay themselves. Unless we stop them. They often refer to their financial package as "compensation", as though they are enduring some terrible trauma in horrific conditions, for which vast amounts of money are the only way to make their nightmare tolerable. They should try working down a coal mine, or in any minimum wage job. Then they will discover what a nightmare really is.
Never again during a financial crisis should a cabal of unelected individuals be able to conspire behind closed doors to "fix" the disaster that they themselves engineered. How stupid are we to allow them to get away with it? How long will we endure this situation? When will we do something about it? The economy, like the military, is too important to be left in the hands of groups and individuals outwith the nation's control.
A government-controlled banking system can still be competitive and innovative. In the same way that military chiefs - without being paid stratospheric salaries and enormous incentive payments - can compete and innovate to produce more effective tactics and strategies, so can banking bosses. The military should be the model for the banking system: public servants serving the national good, people for whom duty and service to their country are far more important than personal profit. Generals and admirals are comfortably off, but don't belong to the ranks of the super-rich. Why should it be any different for bankers? Why can't they serve the nation rather than themselves?
To bring a single organisation - Goldman Sachs - to its knees would deliver a fatal blow to the Old World Order and finally liberate humanity. Every time another fat cat banker grabs another vast bonus from the enormous money trough, it is a nail in the coffin of the ordinary people. We can't allow ourselves to be treated this way any longer. Isn't it time we set to work to pull down the temples of money where the high priests of Mammon hold sway?
The Meritocracy Party campaigns to replace democracy with meritocracy. Democracy has become the single biggest obstacle to the rise of the most meritorious. In the USA, no matter your talents, you cannot become President unless you have access to vast wealth to fund your campaign. In Great Britain, social mobility - the opportunity to improve your social standing - has gone into reverse. If you are born into a poor family you are statistically almost certain to remain poor, regardless of your merits. If your parents are rich, you can start looking forward to a prosperous future, again regardless of your merits.
The Meritocracy Party seeks to remove the link between parental wealth and children's outcomes in life, and to eradicate nepotism and cronyism, the dual drivers of privilege. The Meritocracy Party is "viral". You don't need to join anything, seek anyone's permission, go to any meetings or pay any money. If you're broadly in tune with the meritocratic ethos, all you have to do is go out and spread the word.
The world can be changed: conversation by conversation amongst intelligent people.
This webpage concentrates on the British political system, but the same arguments apply in every country. The idea is to have a Meritocracy Party in every country, all of which are affiliated to create the first global political Party. With global capital forcing down costs (people's pay) while increasing their own profits, only a global political response will suffice. Whatever country you are in, start building the meritocratic future.
1) NO NEPOTISM
It's not who your parents are, it's who you are.
2) NO CRONYISM
It's not what others can do for you, it's what you can do.
3) NO DISCRIMINATION
Sex, race, religion, age, background are irrelevant. Talent is everything.
4) EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
You start from the same point as everyone else, and you go as far as your talents take you.
5) REWARDING MERIT
The highest rewards for the highest achievers.
1) To implement the five Meritocratic Principles.
2) To abolish the monarchy since it contradicts the first Meritocratic Principle. In a monarchy, the only thing that matters is the identity of your parents. In a meritocracy, your parents are irrelevant. The advent of meritocracy is accompanied by the automatic abolition of the monarchy. No meritocrat would seek the 'permission' of a monarch to govern.
3) To abolish the House of Lords (the House of Cronyism), which contradicts the second Meritocratic Principle since it's the product of patronage. In a properly constituted meritocratic system, there is no requirement for a second House.
4) To abolish Party Politics. Political parties are irrelevant in a meritocratic system. Parliament will be populated entirely by independent, meritocratic MPs with no set political affiliations (other than their commitment to meritocracy).
5) Each independent MP is selected on the basis of their merit relating to their field of expertise. So, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is selected from amongst practising economists (and will be elected only by other economists). The Secretary of State for Health will be someone who works in the health field (and is elected only by health workers); the Secretary for Defence will be from the armed forces; the Foreign Secretary a serving official in the Foreign Office; the Secretary of State for Education a serving teacher/headmaster/lecturer. In other words, MPs in the House of Commons won't represent a political party or a geographical constituency, but a particular field in which they have demonstrable experience, expertise and merit; and their constituents/voters will be people in the same field who can make an informed decision about their ability.
6) The Prime Minister will be elected by the MPs from amongst their number. Every five years, there will be a general election in which every MP has to seek the endorsement of their voters, or be replaced.
7) To abolish Cabinet Collective Responsibility. The principle that people should promote views with which they privately disagree is absurd and ipso facto brings politicians into disrepute. Why haven't they resigned if they disagree with a policy? How can they defend a position that they themselves don't believe in? If they publicly support a policy they privately reject, they are hypocrites.
8) Critiques of government policy will be provided by select committees of MPs. Special committees comprising scientists and philosophers may also be used, chosen because of their critical-thinking abilities and their expertise in challenging assumptions. Committees of artists, entrepreneurs and designers may also be called upon. Pressure groups will be given a prominent voice too since meritocracy welcomes close scrutiny.
9) To abolish the 'moralising' approach to politics (what's 'right' and what's 'wrong' - the politics of principle) in favour of the scientific method (what works and what doesn't - the politics of pragmatism).
10) To increase Inheritance Tax to 100%. No one should be able to posthumously transfer an advantage to another person of their choosing. The state should acquire all of the assets of the deceased and should reinvest them to advance the public good, particularly via education.
11) Education is the bedrock of merit, and should be accorded the highest importance in the meritocratic state. The current education system is a demonstrable failure and should be overhauled in every respect. Our education system is designed to produce shoppers (these being what capitalist democracies require to sustain their economic model). True education is the opposite of shopping. It liberates the mind, not the credit card.
12) To promote the ideas of the most radical, free-thinking, independently-minded philosophers e.g. Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Rousseau, Diogenes, Camus, the Situationist International.
13) To provide community-based alternatives to the family (based, for example, on the Kibbutz model) so that if a family fails, its members can be nurtured in a different, constructive and productive environment of psychological and educational well-being.
Meritocracy sees humans as individuals, not as resources. It strives to offer maximum freedom, achieved by raising healthy, well-educated and psychologically sane people. A meritocratic government doesn't care about skin colour, sex, religion, nationality, status, name of your family or connections. Only your talents count.
Meritocracy awards the top jobs to only the most skilful workers, as recognised by their colleagues. Money or status can't buy you top posts. The meritocratic state supports everyone in the quest of finding his true talents with which he can most benefit himself and society. A good government provides people with everything they need to lay the foundations for a fulfilling life.
The purpose of the State is to produce perfect people: free, independent, autonomous, self-creating, meritorious, those whose abilities have been maximised, those who freely construct their own identity based on their own nature, character and personality.
The top 3 million Americans (1%) own 33% of the nation's wealth – 32 times more than their fair share. (Some estimates put it as high as 42%, and growing.)
The bottom 150 million Americans (50%) own 3% of the country's wealth – 16 times less than their fair share.
The next 149 million Americans (49%) own 64% of the country's wealth – 0.3 times more than their fair share.
In other words, 1% are having a ball, 49% are doing slightly better than OK, and 50% are in hell. Where's the Revolution? How can you treat half of your population like shit in order to allow 1% to live like kings? Why do the 50% tolerate it? It's the 49% who are the accomplices of the elite 1%.
Imagine life as a 100 metres race. 49% of the people are more or less at the starting line, but 1% are 32 metres up the track. Their 100 metres race is only 68 metres long! As for 50%, they are 16 metres behind the starting line. They have to run 16 metres before they even join the race. (Many don't get that far: they never start.) Ask yourself a very simple question – who will win this race and who will lose? Is there any doubt? The race is rigged from the beginning. 1% are sure to win and 50% are sure to lose. As for the 49%, they need to break every world record imaginable to beat the 1%, they have to be one in a million! Do you fancy those odds? So why are you taking part in this race? Isn't it time for a new race where everyone lines up at the same starting line?
Meritocracy is based on the absolute destruction of the rigged race of life via the introduction of 100% inheritance tax i.e. an overwhelming advantage can no longer be passed on by rich parents to their children. All children, no matter the wealth of their parents, must begin at the same starting line as everyone else. No parent can rig the race. The 1% can no longer dictate the outcome of the race.
Inheritance tax is not about raising revenue. It doesn't matter if everyone spends all of their money and the State doesn't see a cent of it.
Inheritance tax is about destroying the dynastic wealth of the top 1% so that they can no longer run the world. At last, everyone else will stand a chance. Inheritance tax is a mechanism for continually rebooting the world so that there are never any entrenched heriditary elites (such as the UK royal family).
Meritocracy is astoundingly simple and requires no elaborate debates. It is about taking the measures necessary to ensure that the race of life is conducted fairly, without any possibility of being rigged, so that the winners are those who have earned their victory through glorious achievements that illuminate humanity, rather than those who have simply been given victory because they were born into privilege.
The appropriate measures – such as 100% inheritance tax – may be highly controversial but that's because selfishness and privilege are ingrained in people's minds and, deep down, most people would love to be able to rig the system in their own favour. That's the central reason why the Old World Order have endured for so long; they are simply doing what the ordinary family dreams of doing.
To implement meritocracy means to bring about a revolution in human behaviour. It means, ultimately, that people must place the General Will over their particular will, the community over their own selfish desires. History has proved that human beings will do anything to secure their personal advantage. They will lie, cheat, steal, kill, exploit, enslave, manipulate, con and conspire to be top dog. And just look at the world those things have bequeathed to us.
Meritocracy is about accomplishment, creativity, a celebration of the human spirit and the exploration and maximisation of human potential. It's not about shopping, instant gratification, getting one over your neighbours, fake status, or being King Rat in the grubby rat race of capitalist materialism. Nor is it about bowing and kneeling to "God".
Meritocracy is about human excellence, not wealth. The super rich will have no place in a meritocratic nation since their wealth represents an intrinsic attack on equality of opportunity. The most meritorious will be handsomely rewarded, but never to the extent of becoming a separate species, as the super rich are. Meritocracy is about the journey to divinity, not the obsessive accumulation of riches and property. The dismal chapter in human history of greedy people continually grasping for more gold will at last be over. The new gold will be the human race itself as it transforms itself from base metal into God.
Meritocracy is nothing other than the rational attempt to eliminate all of the ways that people seek to use to game the system in their favour, regardless of talent. Ability does not flourish of its own accord. It has to be protected and nurtured, and its greatest enemy is privilege.
No one can rationally condemn merit and no one can rationally condemn a fairer distribution of wealth. Ours is the logical and inevitable dialectical upgrade of democratic free market capitalism to serve the people rather than the elite. Meritocratic social capitalism puts the people in charge, and the most expert people in the positions of power. No one – no individual or corporation – is ever allowed to become too rich or powerful. No privileged elites and dynastic families are allowed to develop. Equal opportunities and education are the unmovable core of meritocracy.
The pillars of a meritocracy are: equality of opportunity, equality before the law and equal rights, but not equality of outcomes (which is a variable based on talent, creativity and hard work).
A society of privilege is a fundamental breach of the three pillars of equality. You cannot have equal opportunity in a rigged system in which the privileged have arranged every advantage for themselves. You cannot have equality before the law if the privileged elite are able to buy the law and use it for their own benefit. You cannot have equal rights if you are a second-class citizen in a two-tier society - which is what you get when people are divided into the privileged and unprivileged. The elite are the top tier, the first class citizens. The word "equality" in their mouths is an obscenity, yet rich politicians never tire of telling us that we are all equal and we're all in it together. What a sick joke, and it's incredible that we continue to fall for it rather than getting rid of these hypocritical clowns. No one should use the word "equality" unless they are seen to be creating a system that actually delivers it in a meaningful way. Meritocracy is wholly committed to establishing the three pillars of equality. Only from this platform of equality are any unequal outcomes moral and just - because they have arisen through differences in merit and nothing else.
Every person born into this world should know that everything is open to them if they are talented and hard working enough to achieve it. There will be no invisible curtain drawn across the world that allows the privileged through and repels everyone else.
Be under no illusion – if you are not born into privilege in this world, you are not equal before the law, you have no equal rights and no equal opportunities. You are the loser in a game rigged against you from the outset, and only a person living in bad faith, or with a false consciousness, would continue to play a game that others are guaranteed to win. How can you consider yourself free when you know that others have manipulated the world to suit themselves? What does your "freedom" consist of? – being the stooge, the sucker, the patsy?
If you are a person of any quality, you must demand the end of this game and the creation of a brand new one, with a set of rules that gives you the same chance of winning as anyone else. There can be no privileged players for whom the rules have been specially constructed.
Do not vote for or support any political party that is not committed to giving you an equal chance in the game of life. Rhetoric is not enough. Western politicians are forever spouting forth on the virtues of freedom and democracy, and saying how everyone is equal. In truth, we have freedumb and dumbocracy, and the reality of "equality" is that we are all equal but some of us are "more equal" than others i.e. we are not equal at all.
It's a crime to accept the lies and hypocrisy of the privileged elite. It's unacceptable. It's an insult to yourself. It makes you a slave and a fool. Any self-respecting human being who becomes conscious that there is a privileged elite running the world in its own interests, of which he is not part, MUST fight back. You simply should not tolerate any system that is rigged against you.
This is a tax you never experience because you have to be dead before it applies. Is that not the perfect tax? LIFE IS PAID FOR BY DEATH! WHAT COULD BE SIMPLER? WHAT COULD BE MORE JUST? WHAT COULD BE MORE MERITOCRATIC? THE END OF THE DYNASTIC ELITES, THE MONARCHS, THE NOBLES, THE ARISTOCRACY, THE IN-CROWD, THE OLD WORLD ORDER. ALL THE MONEY IN A NATION IS CONTINUALLY RECYCLED. NO ONE CAN HOARD IT. THE MONEY IS ALWAYS REINVESTED IN THE LIVING, IN ALL FAMILIES, NOT JUST SOME.
Communism failed in 1989 and capitalist democrats then proclaimed that there was no alternative to their system.
They pronounced the "End of History" i.e. there would be no more great conflicts: all nations would adopt capitalist democracy and that would be it until Doomsday. But there IS an alternative – the dialectical political system of MERITOCRACY.
It’s time to get real. It’s time to get serious. Fuck DEMOCRACY! Obama was democracy’s last hope and he has failed dismally. He was an outsider who behaved exactly like an insider. Thus it always is. If you want a new society you have to understand something extremely simple – the prevailing ideology, the current “system”, has to be smashed to smithereens. It’s time for a new, dialectical system of continuous improvement – Meritocracy – that models itself on the most successful instrument ever devised by humanity: the scientific method.
Meritocracy is about applying expertise, method and evidence to politics. It’s about jettisoning ideology and rhetoric and dealing instead with hypotheses, experiments, data collection and evidence. Every aspect of society can be brought to perfection through repeated iterations of the dialectical method of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. There’s no further need for hot air speeches and moralising by politicians. Now we will have theories put forward by experts in their fields, and these theories will be relentlessly tested and perfected – exactly as in science, humanity’s jewel.
The quickest way to get people up to speed with meritocracy is to invoke the example of Star Trek This futuristic vision is based on a technocratic meritocracy. There’s no rich elite in Star Trek. In fact there’s no money. There’s no celebrity culture and no fanatical master-slave religious beliefs. No one is on their knees in terror of their God (any God who inspires terror is not God!). Anyone who likes Star Trek ought to be a meritocrat (and it says a great deal about you if you don't like Star Trek).
Can anyone seriously believe that five hundred years from now, humanity will still be operating under capitalist democracy with the top 1% controlling almost half of the wealth of the world? Capitalist democracy WILL be replaced. The only question is what will replace it. The solution does not lie in democracy. Democracy has failed decisively and irrevocably. Free market capitalism has failed decisively and irrevocably.
Capitalist democracy certainly won't take us to the future. It has delivered the 99% versus 1% catastrophe we have now. Communism won’t help us. Islam won’t help us. Anarchy won’t help us. What’s left? There’s only one viable alternative – Meritocracy, the political system of advanced, rational humanity, of Enlightenment, of the future.
If capitalism and democracy have failed – as they evidently have – it stands to reason that they must be replaced. Anyone who doesn’t understand failure will keep repeating failure. There’s no point in calling for worthless reforms of the existing failed system. The system itself has proved rotten to the core. The system must be wholly changed. There can be no half measures.
Meritocracy is the answer. Meritocracy is about taking all logical, rational, enlightened steps necessary to end privilege and create equal opportunities for everyone. Meritocracy is not however an ideology of equality. Meritocracy says that everyone should line up at the same starting line and be given an equal opportunity to win, but then the race will be run and some – the most talented – will prove victorious. They will be the people who govern the world, but they will govern it in the interests of everyone, not in their own interests. They will be all about public service and nothing to do with self-service (unlike the current capitalist leaders of the world whose primary objective is to line their own pockets).
State and religion must be separated. Everyone has his own relationship with God and doesn't need state "religions" bitching over rules and dogmas. There can be no "faith" schools, and absurd ideologies such as Creationism will be judged as foolish and crazy as teaching that the earth is flat.
The great events of history usually originated in meetings behind closed doors, to which we had absolutely no access. Public debates typically begin as private agendas of the powerful, who then want to make the rest of us comply with what they want. It wouldn't do for us to find out the truth, would it? It wouldn't do for all of the board meetings of Goldman Sachs to be publicly televised, would it? Power, manipulation and the profit agenda demand the strictest secrecy.
The elitist, secretive and cabalistic pyramid structure of society has failed. All of the wealth and power is in the hands of the monsters sitting at the apex. They lock themselves inside luxurious, gated communities where they don't have to mix with the likes of us. They despise us. They think we're stupid, dirty, talentless, pointless, fit only to bow to them and serve their every whim. But they are parasites. We do all of the work and they take all of the money. If the base of the pyramid grows feet and runs away, the apex will collapse. Stand up and tell the Old World Order the word they most fear: "NO"!
The content of this website is a selection of text (some of it translated into Dutch, German, Spanish and so on) taken from a British website discussing the aims of The Meritocracy Party and an e-book (in various formats) published by Michael Faust.
The video below gives a short overview of the meritocratic principles and the aims of the Meritocracy Party.
Someone asked us the following questions.
"I have just read your introduction to meritocracy on your website. In the main I agree with your ideas but I do have a few questions for you:
When you mention people being elected to the various offices by people who have experience in those areas, do you mean that the people of the country should be divided according to their profession and vote for the "leader of their profession"? If so, as both a payroll accountant and a special constable would I have two votes, one for the chancellor and one for the home office or would I choose? How about the unemployed person who has never worked and can claim no expertise in anything? Does he vote or not?"
Yes, you get to vote in all areas in which you have demonstrable knowledge and expertise. A person without any knowledge or expertise would not get a vote since any vote accorded to them could not be exercised in any meaningful way - it would be a random vote based on nothing but emotion and prejudice, hence would not be permitted in a meritocracy.
"What about people who do not wish to contribute to society? A recent walk around Lewisham town centre showed stickers up on lampposts saying "Back to work? No thanks, hands off our benefits!" This shows that clearly there are large numbers of people who have no intention of working or contributing on any level. What would be done about them?"
If everyone were given a chance and raised properly they would obviously wish to contribute. The sort of people to whom you are referring are the inevitable products of the type of society we have at the moment where a privileged elite control all aspects of society. The privileged elite care absolutely nothing for the people of Lewisham, and just let the area rot. When people are treated with contempt they become contemptible. Their consciousness becomes dictated by the shitty environment in which they exist. Our society deliberately generates people who are unfit to work because it has no intention of properly investing in them to give them a chance. It ensures they get no decent education, that they live in deprived ghettos and they have no realistic opportunities. To talk about them as if they were people who actively chose from birth to be lazy, inept and contribute nothing to society is frankly obscene. If Prime Minister David Cameron were raised in Lewisham, he would be putting stickers on lampposts too.
"The only point I disagree with in your aims section is that of abolishing inheritance, while I see what you are trying to get at here, I do think that it is a parent's responsibility and natural instinct to give as much as they can to their children. I know a person who opposes leaving anything to anyone, mainly because he does not like anyone on earth, even his partner and rightly or wrongly I feel utter pity and contempt for this person and this strengthens my belief in leaving your possessions and wealth to your nearest and dearest. However the society that is truly meritocratic is one that does not use money so in that society inheritance would naturally be pointless."
Then you are plainly not a meritocrat. The Society of Privilege is one where rich families pass on overwhelming financial advantage to their children, at the expense of all other children. You say that it is a natural instinct for parents to want to give as much as they can to their children. Well, parents who can offer no financial advantages to their children should therefore be as determined as possible to prevent any other parents from doing so. Only a complete fool takes part in a game he can never win. The UK is a two-tier society. 7% of the population are privately educated and they secure seventy percent of the best jobs in the country. The 93% who are state-educated have to fight for the remaining 30% of good jobs. Anyone who subscribes to a system in which they are a second-class citizen is stupid. Any parent who cares for his children should wish to ensure above all else that they have a fair chance in life and are not second-class citizens. Any parent who allows his children to be denied the opportunities that are afforded to the children of rich parents is unfit to be a parent. Any good parent must demand 100% inheritance tax in order to ensure an unrigged system, fair to all, where the rich can't buy success. Only in this way can all poor parents hand on as "much as they can" to their children. They are defending their children's interests by ensuring that they have a level playing field. If they can't pass on assets they can at least pass on fairness, justice, and equal opportunities.
"Would a meritocratic society ban paying for education in favour of increasing the standard of state education? If so then how would you handle the fact government funded organisations have become extremely inefficient and poor quality due to the fact they have no need for efficiency, in effect they are unnatural businesses because they cannot go bankrupt. As such they are mistrusted rightly by most people."
It automatically follows that private education would be abolished. All systems of privilege would be abolished. Anything that permits the rich to use money to buy advantages unavailable to others would be abolished. Only in this way can true meritocracy ever arise. The central focus of a meritocratic government would be education. It would be the axis around which everything revolved and evolved. The meritocratic government's primary responsibility is to ensure the best-possible education for every citizen, to ensure that the potential of each student is maximised.
Government-funded organisations are inept because they are designed to be. The function of a society based on privilege is the maintenance of the privileged Elite. Thus our society succeeds perfectly in this regard. The state sector is nothing but a sausage factory to churn out compliant drones. It has no focus whatever on quality and excellence, hence is always inefficient and ineffective. In a meritocracy geared towards quality and excellence, anyone who is not up to the task would be fired instantly. All aspects of society would be continually monitored regarding quality and excellence and anything that was failing would be shut down and replaced with something of merit.
In a society of merit rather than privilege, there would be no hiding places for the unmeritorious. Everyone, from Day One, would be raised meritocratically and be fully culturally attuned with the aims of delivering the highest quality and excellence, and to recognise and condemn the unmeritorious automatically.
At Eton (the most elite private school in the world), all pupils have the highest possible expectations for their futures. In state schools in Lewisham, kids are prepared for a life of failure and zero expectations. Our entire national culture and social make-up has failure built in.
Yes, the ultimate aim of a meritocracy is to abolish money, thus rendering inheritance obsolete.
The choice is simple - a society of privilege such as we have now, or a meritocracy where privilege is destroyed and everyone starts the race of life from the same starting position. The most meritorious will win the race because of their talent and not because of the identity and wealth of their parents.
Meritocracy is not any kind of woolly, soft, liberal, caring, sharing ideology. It is radical, tough, hard, ambitious, demanding and it has the greatest expectations of people, which they are expected to fulfil. The lazy, snivelling and inept won't be able to hide in a meritocracy. Meritocracy is an ideology of excellence and quality. It is explicitly intended and designed to be the best possible system for promoting human achievement and glory. The talented, the hard working, the geniuses, the movers and shakers will all be acclaimed and rewarded. But one thing is certain - none of them will come from backgrounds of privilege because systematic privilege, the deliberate rigging of the system to favour the Elite, will be illegal since it contradicts the fundamental basis of a meritocracy.
We were then asked some follow-up questions:
"You certainly have interesting opinions. I do like the idea of a fully meritocratic system with no money as an end goal, if that were to be brought in of course inheritance would become pointless. The system that is proposed seems to value knowledge over all other things, how about soldiers and other members of the armed forces? Where are they in the system as the key qualities in a private soldier is physical ability and following orders, not qualities one associates with a system that seems to revolve around everyone striving towards self-improvement."
We have no regard for soldiers or police. They are the puppets of the elite.
They would be replaced by a New Model Army and New Model Police Service based on merit and intelligence. The idea that stupid, obedient grunts who spend their whole lives obeying orders make the best soldiers is laughable. A smart army, better equipped, with enormously more initiative and education will make mincemeat of a dumb army no matter how disciplined and obedient to orders the latter might be. The killing fields of WWI just threw dumb soldiers' lives away. Their discipline and ability to obey orders got them slaughtered. Nothing like that could ever happen to a Smart Army.
"What sort of voting system do you propose? I have considered this in the past and had many debates with friends about the idea of a meritocratic system, if there was an established system in place then who would assess people's knowledge? Would it be a case of you either have a vote or you do not or would someone like my father, an accountant of more than 30 years experience have more of a say in who runs the country's economy than someone with 2 years experience?"
A newly qualified accountant could easily be much smarter than someone with 30 years experience. When it comes to experience, have you had the same experience a thousand times, or a thousand different experiences? A meritocratic vote would be based on qualifications alone, but no weighting would apply because a genius would then be worth more votes than all the rest put together, and we don't want to construct a new elite based on a handful of people.
Voting is a trivial issue. People get a vote depending on the possession of a suitable qualification or a relevant job. No relevant job, no relevant qualification? - then no vote in that particular area. All voting would take place online.
"I agree that education is one of the most important things in a person's life and I totally see what you are saying about people having low expectations of people from certain backgrounds. I think this is something that has come in over the last 20 years or so and has definitely led to a negative change in society. How would you propose improving education and at the same time making it free? We unfortunately do live in a very money driven society at the moment and I know that many of the better teachers teach in private education because the money is better. It is an interesting problem to be sure."
Psychology would become the guiding force of the education system. People would be classified according to their Myers-Briggs personality type and given the education appropriate to that type. There are sixteen MB types, so there would be sixteen separate education systems, tailor-made and optimised for the people of each type, ensuring that no one feels alienated from the education system. We also seek to ensure that everyone gets the "10,000" hours thought to be needed to make them experts in a chosen field.
The new education system will initially be paid for by the proceeds of the 100% inheritance tax – which will reallocate the wealth of the privileged elite to the education of the people. As time goes on, the country will be vastly richer because it will be producing optimised, self-actualised citizens making the best possible contribution. The enormous "cost of failure" that plagues our society will be a thing of the past, and all of the money can be redirected to education and social excellence. GDP will grow by leaps and bounds in a smart, meritocratic society.
The world should be designed for optimisation of the individual through education. The whole world should be an academy for producing free, independent, self-defining, self-creating, autonomous, adventurous, creative individuals. This is the doctrine of positive liberty. Autonomous Humanity. A culture of autonomy. HyperHumans. Supermen and Superwomen. The creation of a spiritual economy, an economy of mind, ideas, art, creativity, performance.
100% inheritance tax will ensure that the leaders of society cannot establish family dynasties or create systems of privilege for themselves and their relatives and cronies. There will never again be a super rich elite class. That will be enshrined in law and enacted via 100% taxation on all private estates: all assets at death are thereby inherited by the Commonwealth – the "Bank of the People" – and redistributed amongst the people (the money will mostly be invested in education). Since there’s no point in hoarding wealth, the richest members of society will no doubt spend their wealth i.e. it will be continually recirculating in the economy. The money will therefore always be available to the people and the economy rather than being removed from circulation and used to create vast, permanent assets for the elite.
100% inheritance tax is the measure most feared by the elite. Oddly, it is also feared by ordinary people even though most have few assets to pass on anyway. Why do people with no assets fear inheritance tax? – because the elite have brainwashed them to fear it! It’s labelled as a communist policy; as the “evil” State interfering in people’s lives. Who says so? – the elite do. Why? Because 100% inheritance tax destroys them once and for all. It brings to an end the age of the Old World Order of elite dynastic families. It brings to an end the super rich class. It brings to an end the two-tier Society of Privilege.
Inheritance tax isn’t even something that the living experience – because you have to be dead before it applies. What decent, moral person would object to having their excess wealth at death surrendered to the Commonwealth for the education and good of the people? Only sick and selfish people would oppose 100% inheritance tax. This tax is the one that will define the New Society. At one stroke, it changes EVERYTHING.
The Rothschild family, all of the monarchs, nobles, aristocrats, the super rich elites will be removed from the scene by 100% inheritance tax, yet all we hear about are people moaning that they won't be able to inherit their parents' house. Is that what humanity has been reduced to - the property-owning class, determined to inherit property that they themselves did nothing to earn? How can we distinguish these people from usurers who earn money from the work and sweat of others?
Well, let's have a return to the old Anarchist slogan: ALL PROPERTY IS THEFT. We must destroy this obsession with property and ownership. Our whole world has been smashed to smithereens on the anvil of private property. That's the essence of the rule of the elite.
100% inheritance tax is all about ending the rule of the privileged elites using a peaceful, legal, fair means that returns the elite's stolen wealth to the people.
Naturally 100% inheritance tax doesn't merely affect the rich elite. Every couple that owns a house will be confronted with it. For some people this is a frightening idea. Does the State have the right to force people out of their homes? Someone asked us:
"I can't find a clear answer to the following issue. Well, I have some suggestions, but I'm not CERTAIN they are the right answers.
100% inheritance tax means the widow and children lose the right to inherit the house and estate they live in.
Let's imagine there are no phalansteries or similar communities yet. (And those who ask the following questions have no idea of such possibilities.)
What are their options?
Are they given the opportunity to rent the house instead, with the State being their landlord?
What if the house is so expensive that they can't even pay the rent? Will they be forced to accept a cheaper house elsewhere?
What if they refuse to move? Will they be evicted, or arrested, or forcibly moved to their designated new place?
Should all the luxurious homes gradually be demolished, since no one will be so rich that they can afford to live there?"
Legally, marriage can be regarded as a decision by two people to become a single legal entity, and that arrangement can be terminated only by divorce or death. In a divorce settlement, half of the assets go to each party. In terms of the death of one partner, that can be regarded as a technical divorce, with the State replacing the deceased as the other partner. Therefore, the State acquires half of the total assets on the death of the first partner, and the other half when the second partner dies. If both die at the same time, the State acquires everything.
"100% inheritance tax means the widow and children lose the right to inherit the house and estate they live in."
No, the State only acquires 100% of the assets of the dead person, which is 50% of the total assets. Otherwise, the other person in a marriage would have been treated as if they were a mere appendage of their partner. When death dissolves a marriage, the survivor isn't subject to inheritance tax on their share of assets (though they will be when they die in due course). They are given half of the assets by legal right, not because they are "inheriting" anything. Half of the assets have always been theirs according to the legal definition of marriage. The State has no right to those assets until they die.
In the case of the death of the parents of young children, the State becomes the children's legal guardian (although it may of course delegate this role to relatives of the children).
In general, the State will not take any authoritarian measures.
"Are they given the opportunity to rent the house instead, with the State being their landlord?"
The State would own half the house, so the surviving partner would either have to sell their half and go elsewhere, buy the State's half at the market value, or pay rent to the State at the market rate.
"What if the house is so expensive that they can't even pay the rent? Will they be forced to accept a cheaper house elsewhere?"
Everyone in such circumstances will be given a period of grace in which to sort out their affairs. Six months sounds fair. Then the State will indeed take possession of their half of the asset and pay the market value of the other half to the partner. The partner, and any children, then need to find new accommodation that they can afford - just as they would have to do if they defaulted on their mortgage payments and their house was repossessed.
The State will of course provide emergency accommodation if it has to.
"What if they refuse to move? Will they be evicted, or arrested, or forcibly moved to their designated new place?"
Exactly the same processes would apply that apply at the moment when people can't afford their home, with the exception that the State replaces the mortgage company seeking to protect its assets.
"Should all the luxurious homes gradually be demolished, since no one will be so rich that they can afford to live there?"
Not at all. They can be used by the State for all manner of useful purposes. We are not trying to wipe out luxury. In fact we want everyone to have more luxury in their lives through a fairer distribution of wealth.
Isn’t it time to put your weight behind a brand new political vision – Meritocracy? Of course, it isn’t actually new at all. It's just a modern update of Plato's Republic, Plato's Laws and Rousseau’s Social Contract.
It's amazing how many people still think the current system can be salvaged. It can't. It's over. Anyone who wants a new society must turn to a new system – Meritocracy and social capitalism, specifically designed to curb excessive wealth and the power of dynastic families. What’s not to like?
Yet history demonstrates that, initially, the masses will despise meritocracy. Of course, democracy was not universally admired when it first appeared on the scene in ancient Athens, and it vanished for millennia. Britain claims to have been responsible for restoring democracy to the world, but that’s rather difficult to sustain given that Britain, to this day, is a monarchy with an unelected, unaccountable head of State and is one of the most socially divided, class-ridden, unequal societies on earth. Britain is a classic oligarchy. It’s ruled by an elite class, headed by a monarch. In fact, on close inspection, there aren’t any democracies in the world. They’re all actually plutocracies (rule of the people by the rich and for the rich). Switzerland is probably the closest to a proper democracy, and that’s not exactly at the forefront of world affairs, and its secretive, pro-elite banking system is exceptionally sinister and anti-democratic.
Democracy is, more or less, an illusion. It’s a tool used by the rich to convince the poor – the people – that they are really in charge. But if the people are in charge, how come all of the assets belong to the rich?
100% inheritance tax is the bedrock of meritocracy. It ensures that privileged, spoiled kids don't get to inherit lives of luxury just because they are related to people who made lots of money (and by the same token that decent kids are not forced to live in poverty because their parents didn't manage to make any money).
It creates an even playing field. It ensures that everyone sets out from the same starting line. It brings to an end the rule of the dynastic elites that have always ruled the world.
For the first time ever, it gives everyone an equal chance to go as far as their merit will carry them.
Everyone benefits other than the super rich and their parasitical offspring. Everyone gains. It is morally, economically and socially right. It is the Robin Hood tax that redistributes the wealth of the fat cats to the decent people.
The wealthy can enjoy their riches during their lifetime. It is taken from them only when they have no further need of it because they are dead. It is not any sort of attack on people earning a good living. In fact, it's designed to give everyone a good living.
There will be far more wealth in circulation because there will be no reason for the super rich to hoard their wealth. They will spend, spend, spend. And soon, 100% inheritance tax will be irrelevant because everyone will make sure they have spent all of their money before they die.
Everyone will enjoy a much higher standard of living thanks to all of the extra money available. Inflation won't take off because there's no reason any longer for the elite ownership class to always be seeking to increase their profits by raising prices. The vast majority of people will join the ownership class.
100% inheritance tax unlocks the Bank of the Super Rich and lets the ordinary people enjoy its benefits.
100% inheritance tax is on the side of nature since it restores the law of the regression to the mean. In ultra capitalism, the rich keep getting richer in defiance of the law of regression to the mean, and contrary to nature. Super wealth is an unnatural phenomenon, a kind of disease that attacks the whole of society. 100% inheritance tax is the natural remedy.
Andrew Carnegie, once the richest man on earth, declared, "The man who dies rich dies disgraced." That's absolutely right!
So, 100% inheritance tax is the Robin Hood tax, the Carnegie Tax, the Tax for taking from Wall Street and giving to Main Street, the Tax that restores nature via regression to the mean, the Tax that stops scroungers getting something for nothing, the moral and egalitarian tax that allows everyone to set out from the same starting line.
Only the greedy, the immoral, the lazy, the mad, the stupid, the anti-meritocrats would oppose the Robin Hood Tax.
You are taking next to nothing from them and giving them EVERYTHING.
The people who don't "get it" are the irrational, the super rich, the privileged, the anarchists and libertarians.
We understand that we are trying to overcome centuries of indoctrination, of people with a false consciousness who live in bad faith. But we know for a fact that any rational person who hears about the Robin Hood Tax immediately becomes a fervent advocate of it.
It addresses the fundamental problem of how to redistribute the excessive wealth of the greedy elite without resorting to communism.
The Robin Hood tax is the ONLY means for achieving non-socialist redistribution of wealth, hence the only means of achieving a fairer, reformed version of capitalism that gives everyone a realistic chance in life and allows the merit of the people to flourish in an unprecedented way.
Someone asked us an extremely important question:
"100% Inheritance Tax is something I'd say is a very important part of the Meritocratic Nation. Such a tax will ensure that there will not be a "Noble" class (in which wealth is passed down through generations) and it will ensure that everyone gets an equal opportunity to succeed, just as the American Founding Fathers wished. The only problem is I don't know how to sell this idea to the common man! In a discussion with a close friend, I attempted to sell the idea, but the response I received was, "If I am to spend my life working and struggling, I want the fruits of my efforts to go to my kids. Why should I work if I know everything will go to the government or someone else?" The only response I had was that it's honorable and proper, but he'd say to hell with that. His family first. This seems to be a slight bump in the road."
Our Comment: You're absolutely right about the importance of 100% inheritance tax to a meritocratic society. As for your friend, you have to "enlighten" him. The exact reason he works in a rotten job and "struggles" is that he's part of a system that does not regard him as a human to be cultivated; just as a wage slave and a consumer. Naturally, he wants to spare any kids of his the same misery that he is enduring, but the best way to achieve that is to help change the system. "Why should I work if I know everything will go to the government or someone else?" Much of it already goes to someone else - to the Elite!
"My family first" is exactly the mantra we attack over and over. That is the mentality that the Elite use to justify their wealth and power, their creation of family dynasties that rule over us forever. If you asked any member of the Elite what his philosophy was he would say Family First! i.e. screw the rest of you suckers. That attitude is the fastest route to an anti-meritocratic society.
Ask your friend this question: If in the future he is able to pass on a huge advantage to his kids, what does he say to the kids whose parents weren't able to pass on anything? His implicit message to them is FUCK YOU!!!! (just as the Elite say to us.) If that's his attitude towards others who are less fortunate than he is then, frankly, he's scum - a part of the evil system we are trying to overthrow. Why should children be penalized because their parents were unable to make much money? Are the sins of the fathers to be visited on their sons? That is a monstrous ideology. If your friend works hard, but has some bad luck (gets sick on a long term basis, for example) and isn't able to pass on much to his children, is he happy in the knowledge that society will treat his kids as badly as he implicitly wants to treat the kids of poor families who don't inherit much from their parents?
Equally, why should children benefit because of work done by someone else (their parents) - that's the whole basis of "trust fund" rich kids who have no talent at all yet sail through life in easy street. People should be judged on the basis of their own work and talent; not of those to whom they are related. In a meritocratic society, decent people would be appalled to have something given to them that they hadn't personally worked for.
This is a moral issue. Your friend is either moral or he isn't. If he has contempt for the children of unprivileged families then he is an immoral person. He will either be happy to be characterized as immoral, or he'll start paying attention to what you're saying. Either way, you'll discover a lot about him.
You should always emphasize fairness, justice, equal opportunities, merit, morality, personal responsibility and personal work (not work by proxies on your behalf).
You should always condemn privilege and narrow self-interest (being only concerned with your own success and that of your family - that's exactly why our society is so fucked and why so many people are dehumanized wage slaves).
Let no one kid themselves. The privileged Elite send their children to elite schools and colleges where they get the finest education money can buy and access to an elite social network that will guarantee them the best jobs for life precisely because they HATE YOU. They do not want you and your children to enjoy the advantages that they enjoy. They want to use their money to EXCLUDE you, to permanently lock you out from the good jobs. Their money is deployed as a weapon. These people are gangsters.
Look at the example of Fabrice Tourre of Goldman Sachs. Do you seriously imagine that you are in a fair competition with these people born into privilege? You don't stand a chance. None of us do. From the moment we were born, we had already lost. For us to have a chance of being winners, these people must be swept aside. There are billions of us and handfuls of them. What are we waiting for? Permission? Don't worry, it has already been granted. We have full permission to create a New World Order where all the forces of privilege lie dead and buried forever.
Why should any child, because of the failure of its parents to make huge amounts of money to lavish on it, be penalized for life, be denied any chance of leading a decent life? It's a scandal. Why should any child, just because it has extremely rich parents, be guaranteed a life of leisure on easy street? It's a scandal.
The fundamental principle of meritocracy is that everyone should be judged on their own merits, not on those of their parents, siblings or anyone else. The rich cannot be allowed to use their wealth to buy advantages for their kith and kin. Otherwise, we would be enshrining a two-tier society of rich and poor. Capitalist democracy is exactly such a two-tier system. It pretends to empower the people, while actually being entirely about the interests of the rich. Capitalist democracy is government of the people by the rich for the rich.
In the most recent British General Election, two of the three candidates for prime minister attended elite private schools. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair had an elite private education. Most leading politicians in Britain attended private schools. Although only 7% of the British people are privately educated, the vast majority of leading jobs go to these people. You have to wonder at just how dumb the remaining 93% of Britons are to tolerate this. Why would anyone take part in a game totally rigged against them? And look at the head of state of Britain - a monarch - unelected and impossible to remove. The "Queen" is a person who enjoys that status purely because of the identity of her parents. Britain is an anti-meritocratic, class-ridden society of privilege, where the elite continue to rule as they have always done. "Democracy" is a farce, a masquerade by the rich to conceal the age-old face of Plutocracy - rule by the rich. When will the rest of us wise up?
The people cannot be free until the two-tier society is smashed, until the rich no longer set the agenda.
Meritocracy is about preventing money being used to rig society. Therefore, 100% inheritance tax applies i.e. no one on their death can pass on a single cent to anyone else. All of their money becomes the property of society to be reinvested in society, and particularly in education. They can spend every cent they earn during their life, but they can't spend it on buying a privileged education for their children.
When they're dead then they own nothing because the dead have no property rights. And why should the relatives of the dead be allowed to inherit from the dead? They didn't do any work for it. They didn't raise a sweat. It's a straightforward principle of personal dignity and responsibility that you should be paid for your own efforts, not for someone else's. To receive money for work that you never did is a form of the ancient crime of usury. Usurers were those who lent money to others for exorbitant interest and were then able to make an excellent living out of the labour of others. It was a crime in the past to make a fine living from the toil of others, and it should still be a crime.
Which do you prefer?
a) I work hard, I make money, I spend my money.
b) He works hard (I do nothing). He makes money for me (I do nothing). I spend the money he makes for me.
The former is a dignified human being. The latter is a parasite.
If you work hard with the intention of leaving it to someone else then you are implicitly turning them into a parasite feeding off your efforts. You have no right to make another person a parasite, and they, if they have one shred of self-respect, should not accept a cent from you.
We should be building a society of dignity and fairness where no one gets an unfair advantage by virtue of to whom they are related. As soon as you allow privilege, i.e. a system where those who have excessive wealth can use that excessive wealth to buy an unassailable advantage for their family over other families, then you have destroyed merit. You guarantee the perpetual rule of an Elite who will always be able to price you out of the market. That's exactly the world we live in now. The Elite despise inheritance taxes; they want to be able to pass on every cent to their families to ensure that their families remain in wealth and power forever. To destroy the privileged Elite, all of their money has to be stripped from them when they die.
Inheritance tax must be raised to one hundred percent since no one can be allowed to use the wealth they have acquired to transmit a posthumous anti-meritocratic advantage to someone of their choosing. As the great Scottish-American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, once the richest man in the world, said, 'By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of the rich man's estate which should go at his death to the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell.' Carnegie was strongly of the opinion that enormous legacies to children were harmful to those children. More importantly, they are harmful to the state because they provide an unfair, anti-competitive advantage to some people, thus transgressing the Meritocratic Principle.
Whereas oligarchs are consumed with their desire for material wealth and conspicuous spending, meritocrats are obsessed with culture and the experiences of the mind. An excess of money would be vulgar for a meritocrat, and all meritocrats would bear in mind Andrew Carnegie's warning, "The man who dies rich dies disgraced."
The last thing the Elite want is a meritocratic nation where their children are denied any privileges over anyone else, where money cannot secure any advantage.
Ultra capitalists and Randist libertarians revere the "market" as some quasi-religious, mystical force that cures every problem. They say that no one can "buck the market." In fact the market is nothing but a reflection of Id psychology, driven by short-term pleasure seeking (the pursuit of "fast cash"), instant-gratification (short-term profit over long-term investment), presents (bonuses), golden handshakes, golden handcuffs, golden parachutes, golden goodbyes, massive expense accounts etc. It is driven upwards by greed and downwards by fear. It is based on impulse, basic instincts and desire, not reason or logic.
This is a hybrid, a dialectical synthesis, of capitalism (thesis) and socialism (antithesis), preserving what is best in each and discarding the rest. The economic macrostructure – by which we mean banks, stock markets and regulatory bodies – are all controlled by expert, meritocratic, publicly accountable officials who will be dismissed without compensation for poor performance, and who will never receive outrageously disproportionate bonuses simply for doing their job. They will be rewarded for providing stable growth. The economic microstructure will be capitalist - individuals and collectives can set up businesses and trade without State interference. There will be competition, profits, markets, choice and everything that is good about capitalism, with none of the downsides. The State Bank, not private banks, will lend to businesses.
This new form of social capitalism will ensure that no capitalist individuals ever become so rich that they can dictate to governments. We will not be ruled by banks or capitalist corporations that are outside the political system and unaccountable to the people and that can leave the country if they so wish. We will be ruled only by officials who can be fired by the people if they do a bad job.
Just as it would be insane to entrust the defence of a nation to private armies with their own agendas (they would start wars to boost their share price!), it’s insane to entrust the economic defence and stability of a nation to private banks and corporations with their own agendas that have nothing to do with the welfare of the State and the people. That's why the infrastructure of the State must be socialist (for the people) rather than capitalist (for private individuals).
We are not communists. We are rational capitalists who appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of both capitalism and socialism and see how they can be integrated in a natural and highly productive way. This is an economic evolution, not revolution.
There will be no more vast multinational corporations that blackmail governments: all corporations and companies will be small or medium sized; they will be bespoke and integrated with their communities and nations, working in harmony with the State to bring prosperity to all of the people.
There will be no more casino banking, banks that are “too big to fail”, hedge funds, “shorting”, and speculative financial derivatives instruments . There will be no more psychopathic spivs and speculators driving the economy into the ground in pursuit of higher profits and bonuses for themselves. We will thus bring to an end the insane cycles of boom and bust that characterise free-market capitalism and which devastate the lives of so many innocent victims.
We will replace the “testosterone” modus operandi of free-market capitalism with the “oestrogen” of social capitalism i.e. women rather than aggressive young men will become far more prominent. We will seed society with metaphorical “oxytocin” – the Moral Molecule – that increases bonding, harmony and community. At the moment we have a testosterone society given over to selfishness, self-interest and ruthless competition between families and individuals as they all fight to be top dog.
Testosterone has had a good run for its money. Now it’s time for an oestrogen and oxytocin society without boom and bust, without aggression, without savage, destructive competition.
You want a new society, a new economy? – meritocratic social capitalism delivers everything you want. It ends boom and bust. It ends the rule of elite, dynastic families of extreme privilege who rig the game of life in their own favour. Everyone, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation or background gets an equal opportunity.
Consider these two questions:
1) Is it rational for a political process to elect "leaders" who have no actual power because all of the real power resides with external super rich individuals, banks and corporations that can use their wealth and power to buy the political system and enforce their will? Can anyone deny that banks, corporations and the super rich tell Presidents what to do? If the President is the embodiment of the will of the people, it means that unelected and unaccountable banks, corporations and super rich individuals are telling the people what to do. That’s what democracy has delivered: a system in which the people get to choose a powerless figurehead who simply does what the non-elected elite decide. Therefore democracy must be abolished. No political system supposedly operating in the interest of all the people can be subject to external influence by groups and individuals that have no interest at all in the well-being of the people. Is Wall Street on the side of Main Street? You’d need to be insane to think so. Who shapes government policy – Wall Street or Main Street? Is there any question? Which institution has its fingers in every pie all across the world? – the Zionist-Masonic leviathan of Goldman Sachs.
Goldman Sachs runs the world. Haven’t you realised that yet? Solution? – CLOSE DOWN GOLDMAN SACHS AND BAN ALL OF ITS OFFICIALS FROM SERVING IN GOVERNMENT. Simple!
2) Is it rational for dynastic families – such as the Rothschilds – to be able to use their incredible wealth and power to dictate the shape of the world generation after generation, and always in their own favour? Why should a rich family of today be allowed to determine the fortunes and prospects of the families of the future? How do you prevent a rich and powerful family from arranging the future to suit itself i.e. to guarantee its descendants a luxury life regardless of merit? You can stop the super rich controlling the future once and for all by introducing 100% inheritance tax. This automatically means the end of dynastic family rule. It means the end of privilege and the rise of equal opportunities and a world of merit.
Isn’t it time to join the meritocratic movement of social capitalism and equal opportunities? This is a real political movement with actual solutions for the ills of the world. Don’t protest mindlessly against the ruling regime. REPLACE THEM. Meritocratic social capitalism will inevitably replace democratic free-market capitalism. Meritocratic social capitalism is the dialectical successor of democratic free-market capitalism. The Old World Order has had its day. It has hit the dialectical buffers. Now it’s time for the New World Order based on merit, social justice and equal opportunities.
Bring the rule of the rich bankers to an end.
Bring the rule of the global corporations to an end.
Bring the rule of democratic puppet politicians in the paid service of the elite to an end.
Bring the rule of dynastic families of privilege to an end.
MERITOCRATIC SOCIAL CAPITALISM – THE DIALECTICAL FUTURE.
Why do you allow 1% of the people to control 33-42% of the wealth? Are you the biggest suckers of all time? How can you stand any reasonable chance in life if 1% of the people have gathered approaching half of the nation’s resources for themselves? All of those resources are not accessible to you and in fact are designed to perpetuate the wealth and power of the 1% i.e. they are an active weapon being used against you.
The elite don’t care about you. They have no interest in your welfare. They don’t want you to succeed. They don’t want anyone anywhere to challenge their hegemony. They have used religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam to make the people slaves, to keep them terrified and on their knees. What is the concept of hell if not a terrorist tactic to terrify superstitious and stupid people into submission? Islam means submission. To be a Muslim is to declare yourself a slave of God. What sort of sick person imagines that God is a slavemaster or that he's interested in sending people to perpetual hell? God is reason, well-being and health. He’s not some sick fuck psychopath who wants people bowing to him and perpetually terrified of him. He doesn’t order fathers to kill their children as Jehovah/Allah ordered Abraham. Everyone who bows to “God” is a slave.
It’s time for humanity to escape the Age of Slavery; the Age of Abrahamism. Judaeo-Christianity goes hand-in-hand with democratic free-market capitalism.
We are advocates of the dialectic of freedom and choice. We are opposed to those who use money as a weapon to advance their own interests and damage those of everyone else. Rich parents do not spend a fortune sending their children to elite private schools and colleges because they are interested in YOUR success. They want you to fail. You are designed to fail. That’s why you went to shit schools and had shit teachers. You’re factory fodder.
The elite don’t want trash like you competing with them, so they arrange the whole system to ensure that you can NEVER compete. What’s more, they even get you to agree to being a second class citizen. Well, if you didn’t agree you would be trying to overthrow them, wouldn’t you? Since you’re doing nothing to advance the cause of meritocracy (which means the complete destruction of all systems of privilege, especially private education for the rich elite) then you’re clearly assisting the elite and you agree with them that they should be on the top tier of life while you should be a second-class citizen.
Ultimately, people are treated like shit because they want to be. If they didn’t, they would fight. They’re not fighting ergo they’re content with their lot. Q.E.D.
Get off your ass and start shouting about meritocracy from the rooftops and advocating the one measure that is sure to destroy the rich elite – 100% inheritance tax. Stop the rigged game of life. End the cartels, monopolies and oligopolies. Stop the robber barons and carpetbaggers, the spivs and speculators.
Meritocracy is about turning politics into science, about applying the scientific method to create better and better answers to all social, psychological and political problems. The rich despise science because most of them are hopeless scientifically. Science is not included in “cultural capital”. Science is the subject of true merit because no one can bullshit their way through science, and privileged connections won’t take you far unless you actually know what you’re talking about. A technocratic society run by scientists, mathematicians, technologists and engineers is a disaster for the elite.
What do the elite fear above all? – having their wealth taken from them. What does 100% inheritance tax achieve? Precisely that – the complete and irrevocable end of dynastic wealth.
Imagine a world in which the rich realised they would lose all of their money and assets to the Commonwealth at their death. They would have to spend, spend, spend, wouldn’t they? A huge amount of cash and assets would be pumped into the economy. Recession would turn into growth and this time there would be no boom and bust economic cycle because there would no longer be any point in the rich seeking to bend every rule in the book to make themselves richer, knowing that all of their money would eventually end up with the Commonwealth.
The world can be changed overnight – just by stopping the rich elite in their tracks. If you really do believe in the 99% versus the 1% then demand the introduction of the tax that guarantees the victory of the 99% percent – 100% INHERITANCE TAX, the bedrock of meritocracy. Anyone who opposes 100% inheritance tax is a friend of privilege and the rich elite. Anyone who opposes 100% inheritance tax is a supporter of a two-tier society where those who can pass on resources are the winners and the rest are losers: permanent second class citizens.
Merit or privilege? Meritocracy or democracy? Free-market capitalism or social capitalism? IT’S TIME TO CHOOSE.
100% inheritance tax could be combined with a general cancellation of debts. The rich are the creditors and the poor are the debtors. Debt cancellation instantly transfers wealth from the elite to the ordinary people. The rich got us into this crisis so why shouldn’t they pay?
Debt cancellation would lead to the collapse of the banking system and the stock market. Capitalism would become insolvent. GOOD!!!! The State could then take control of the banking sector, the stock market and the corporate sector and start implementing social capitalism. The former elite would no longer have any power, wealth, influence or voice. Isn’t that what we all want? Why were the elite bailed out in 2008 and the ordinary people saddled with huge debts to pay for it? Why are bankrupt banks paying out vast bonuses at the taxpayers’ expense?!
It’s time for the people to take charge of their own destiny. That means having the courage to say “No” to the elite.
Someone asked us the following questions:
"As for your stand on Meritocracy, I do believe those with the most competency should be utilized for the advancement of the world as a whole. I'd like to know how you will encourage those who refrain from achieving their maximum potential? And what encouraging provisions to those who wont be able to reach their goals? Last but not least, how could you psychologically prevent the rising of the OWO principles? And would these be against your moral standards?"
These questions are all answered by a society based on entelechy. When citizens are brought up in a healthy rather than diseased society and their consciousness is at last optimized, everything will change. Who would want to refrain from achieving their maximum potential? Such a thing is impossible in a properly constituted society. Our entelechy is to maximise our potential. If no obstacles are placed in our path we will certainly succeed. Everyone will be able to reach their goals, or to know that the only thing that prevented them was that something else had superior talent. Andy Murray is a great tennis player, but he is not as great as Federer and Nadal. Murray doesn't complain. He knows that he can do no more than give it his best shot. He may not achieve his personal ambitions, but not through any failure to maximize his talent. It was simply the case that others were more talented, and that's life. All we can ask for is the best opportunity to maximise ourselves. If we get that, we have no basis for complaint if it turns out that someone else's best was better than ours.
What people regret most is that they were never given a proper chance, not that their best wasn't good enough.
As for ensuring that the Old World Order can never rise again, the values that underpin the OWO would not exist in a Meritocratic Republic based on entelechy. In capitalist America, communism has never been able to flourish. The mentality that underpins communism is simply absent from Americans. By the same token, there will come a time when the mentality that supports the values of the OWO will be absent too. It will be futile to hold such opinions and values because all of the institutions of society will be arrayed against them. After a time, they will literally become unthinkable.
Nietzsche said, "The aim of institutions – whether scientific, artistic, political or religious – never is to produce and foster exceptional examples; institutions are concerned, rather, for the usual, the normal, the mediocre."
We have to create a Nietzschean world based on quality and excellence.
Nietzsche also said, "The goal of mankind is not to be seen in the realization of some terminal state of perfection, but is present in its noblest exemplars."
In fact, the creation of a perfect society goes hand in hand with producing the finest specimens of humanity the world has ever known, the true Supermen that Nietzsche dreamt of.
That is the prize that awaits us. A Society of the Divine. A Community of Gods. Who would dare to stand in our way?
One of the greatest contributions to political philosophy came from Jean-Jacques Rousseau who contrasted the "particular will" with the "General Will". The latter promotes the best interests of the whole community, while the former allows a particular group to prosper at the expense of everyone else.
The idea of elites, divorced from the needs and wants of the people, and acting in their own interests, is anathema. Crowdsourcing and meritocracy, working in a continual feedback loop, can provide the engine to take humanity to the next stage of its evolution. The people should be working in tandem, in partnership, with government. They should not be passive recipients of diktats from on high, from a remote government of the privileged elite. Citizens must be active in the moulding of the state, contributing at every level. Government and the people should be hardwired together: there should be no possibility of the government not representing the people's interests. Any government that is not deemed by the people to be representing the General Will of the people is a tyranny, reflecting only the particular wills of the ruling elite.
A right-wing Republican government in America will invariably cut taxes (to favour the rich), reduce regulation (to favour rich corporations), reduce public spending and the size of the state (to penalise the poor and deprived) i.e. it governs in the interests of its Republican constituency, not in the interests of all. How could anyone argue that it is governing in the interests of all when it is so nakedly executing an ideological agenda that helps the rich and attacks the poor? It is transparently government according to the particular will, not the General Will.
Gil Scott-Heron famously said, "Mandate my ass." He's absolutely right. No democratic government ever has a mandate. Winning an election is just that - an election victory. It's not a mandate. Those who voted for the opposition parties aren't suddenly supportive of the winning party just because it won. They are as opposed to it as they always were. All governments are elective dictatorships. In the UK, it is typical for the governing party to enjoy the support of only about a fifth to a quarter of the total electorate. Up to 80% didn't vote for them yet have to endure their "mandate"!
Political parties of any description are vehicles of particular wills, not the General Will. The central political question lies in whether there is anything that can truly reflect the General Will in a systematic and transparent way, to the satisfaction of all.
The answer is an extraordinary one. Conventional politicians are by definition enemies of the General Will since they care only for sectional interests and satisfying their supporters and sponsors. Hence conventional politicians can play no part in the New Politics. Political parties must be abolished! But we are not advocating any kind of anarchy in the new world. Rather, we will turn to the most successful endeavour in human history to show us the way forward - science.
While politics has lurched from one crisis and disaster to the next, science has produced astounding triumph after astounding triumph. Science, not politics, has brought us the advanced world we live in. Only the biggest fools on earth would say that the political way of doing things has proved beneficial to humanity.
The Meritocracy Party seeks to replace politics with political science i.e. a new politics that takes its lessons and methods from science, thus emulating the brightest jewel in the human crown.
The movie The Mission is based on the true story of the Jesuit "Reductions" (missions) in South America. The Reductions provide a glimpse of what type of world the Illuminati wished to create in those days: the New World Order. The Reductions are an illustration of positive liberty. They represent one of the greatest episodes in history, and yet few people know much about this boldest of experiments.
When the Spanish and Portuguese empires conquered South America, many indigenous Indians were plunged into the familiar tale of Old World Order slavery and exploitation. Jesuit missionaries, under the guidance of the Illuminati, tried to help the Indians. They managed to persuade the King of Spain to grant a vast region to their care, in return for generous annual payments to the King's coffers.
In 1609, the Jesuits established the first mission and other missions followed over the following years, up to a total of about forty by the first half of the 18th century. Each mission catered for up to 10,000 people i.e. they were the size of small towns.
The Jesuits helped the Indians to create advanced societies. The Reductions had law and order, schools, hospitals, and free public services for the poor. There was no death penalty. The working day was set at 6 hours, compared with the 12-14 hours of the average European worker. The Indians worked the communal land and all produce was fairly divided amongst them. They were skilled in sculpture and woodcarving, and started making watches and musical instruments. In their free time, the Indians enjoyed music, dance, games, sport and reading. They were shielded from the bad influences of the Europeans (alcohol, gambling and venereal disease) and allowed to develop their creativity.
Each Reduction was arranged in a square. On one side were the civic buildings: church, school, hospital, community hall, warehouses for storage, shops etc. On the other three sides were the Indians' homes.
The missions were extremely efficient. Not only were they self-supporting, they produced surpluses of goods, which could then be traded. They were far more economic than comparable communities in Europe. They were said to be the first entirely literate communities in the history of the world. Meritocratic community elders were placed in charge, under the supervision of the handful of Jesuit missionaries in each Reduction. The missions became centres of culture and egalitarian community life. They effectively enjoyed full independence from the territories of South America ruled by Spanish and Portuguese governors.
The Jesuits protected the Indians from European slave-hunters, to the annoyance of the slavers who thought the Jesuits were bad for business and potentially subversive. They worried about what would happen if the Jesuit missions were set up everywhere, including in Europe. Slowly but surely, the Jesuits' missions were perceived - correctly - as a radical threat to the power of the Old World Order.
The Jesuits' enemies then claimed that the Jesuits were exploiting the Indians, making vast sums of money from them to enrich themselves, and acting as arrogant lords with airs and graces. Nothing was further from the truth, but the nature of propaganda does not change: in every age, the names of the good are blackened by the bad.
In 1767, tensions came to a head and the Jesuits were expelled from the Spanish and Portuguese empires. The missions were destroyed or absorbed into new towns built by the authorities. Slavers captured many of the Indians and the rest returned to the forests and jungles for safety.
Little remains to mark the passing of the Jesuits' Reductions (although the La Santisima Trinidad del Parana Reduction in Paraguay is a UNESCO World Heritage Site). The Old World Order had succeeded in killing off the Illuminati's great and noble vision. They despised the Jesuits' resistance to slave raids, and the autonomy and economic success of the Reductions. They despised the good education and high standards of health care enjoyed by the Indians. They despised the Indians' lack of subservience to nobles, kings and emperors. They despised these jungle utopias where primitive Indians were turned into far more than noble savages: they became clever, skilled members of communities that were not based on power, riches and status. When they looked at the Reductions, the OWO saw a new society that might overthrow everything they stood for. So they eliminated the threat.
In 1773, the Jesuit Order was formally suppressed throughout all Catholic lands.
In 1814, with the Order completely purged of all non-orthodox influences, and under strict instructions never again to challenge the power and economic interests of the nobility, it was reinstated.
All good, thinking people should see that what the Illuminati-inspired Jesuits attempted in the jungles of South America centuries ago was a magnificent endeavour, a heroic attempt to create a utopia free of the iniquities and corruption of the Old World Order. That's why the Reductions were ruthlessly stamped out.
We are told that we need to live in capitalist cities, full of all the ills of our fallen modern society. Do we? Our cities are impersonal machines, designed for the convenience of the OWO, to maximise the profits of big business, and to allow close control and surveillance of the masses. We could replace our appalling, inhuman, congested, dirty and dangerous cities with 21st century Reductions: small, efficient, economic communities of 10,000 people. (Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a strong advocate of communitarian politics. Community, more than anything else, is what has been lost in our modern societies.) Wouldn't they be things of awesome beauty? The world would be transformed. The time of monarchs, Masons and Wall Street fat cats would end. This age of soul-destroying materialism, consumerism, cheap entertainment, junk food and junk values would be over at long last. Humanity could reach out towards its higher self, freed from the chains of the Old World Order.
Isn't it time to start again the great project of the Illuminati's Reductions, designed for the 21st Century?
Isn't it time for community rather than anonymous, soulless, capitalist cities: the dark, Satanic mills of the Old World Order?
Isn't it time for a New World Order?
This video explores the ideas of the radical 19th century French thinkers Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier. Did these utopian visionaries, advocates of a much more communitarian approach to life, offer the solution to humanity's ills?
Rousseau's masterpiece The Social Contract (1762) was immediately recognised in Europe as a revolutionary work. Copies of the book were burned in Geneva and later in several European capitals. The author and his work were denounced in Paris and condemned by the French parliament. Rousseau, already exiled from his home city of Geneva, had to flee France where he had been living.
The Social Contract is, in effect, a statement of the political position of the Illuminati at that time, and remains largely valid to this day. A Meritocratic Republic of Laws, based on a social contract operating in the interests of all, is the vision of the Illuminati. This is the New World Order. It does harm to none, except those who do not wish to promote the common good. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The chain of our society could not be any weaker because of the number of people who are left to rot by the Old World Order. Society can never be healthy and strong until as much effort is put into strengthening the weakest link as is put into polishing the strongest links.
The Old World Order, in their high towers of greed, selfishness and privilege, are the antithesis of good citizens. They can play no part in any healthy State. Everything that characterises the Old World Order would become illegal in the New World Order.
"Let us establish just laws for our contract." ~ Virgil
The Social Contract was the "Bible" of the two leading Illuminists and Jacobins, Robespierre and Saint-Just.
They attempted to put Rousseau's ideas into practice, but they were given no time and space. In the aftermath of the Revolution, France was plunged into war against the great royalist powers of Europe: the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, Spain, Portugal and Great Britain. Counter-revolutionary forces were everywhere. There were uprisings inside France against the Revolutionary government. The Catholic Church was opposed to the Revolution. France was in chaos.
In other circumstances, the Jacobins might have created the radical new society they desired. Instead, they were locked into conflict, horror and terror and failed to bring their vision to fruition. That is the world's great tragedy. Now, more than ever, we need a social contract between the governors and the governed, one that prevents the governors from doing what they always do: governing in their own interests rather than those of the people and then lying through their teeth that they are doing their best for everyone. Democracy is dumbocracy. You'd need to be really dumb to buy it.
On the Path of Illumination facebook page, MS said: "Just yesterday I had a discussion with someone about 100% inheritance tax. They started to disagree and said why should an inheritance that I want to pass on to my child be taxed 100% and how am I supposed to ensure that he/she gets what I worked hard for? I offered the solution to teach your child about the business you set up from A to Z. Everything that you learned, make sure he/she learns. That way he’ll have the knowledge, which is more valuable than having the money, and then he can rejuvenate this business that you started and even improve it, rather than giving everything that you worked for to him/her just to have it run into the ground. The perfect rebuttal to the antagonism of the 100% inheritance tax!"
This is an excellent answer, but the comment also reveals the disturbing selfishness and lack of community spirit of the other individual. The person questioning 100% inheritance tax is only thinking of his own private situation. He doesn’t care about children who aren’t the beneficiaries of rich parents or parents who “worked hard” (whatever that means: no highly paid businessman ever works as hard as a poorly paid coal miner! – in fact, there’s almost an inverse relationship between hard work and how much you get paid). He puts ZERO thought into their welfare. In other words, he has tacitly declared war on them. If he cares nothing about them and wishes to disadvantage them by passing on benefits to his children that are unavailable to other children, why shouldn't they display equal contempt towards him and have zero consideration towards his welfare and that of his children? In fact, why shouldn’t they make his life hell on earth?
We seek to replace politics with political science i.e. a new politics that takes its lessons and methods from science, thus emulating the brightest jewel in the human crown.
Science is characterised by smart people putting forward well-considered hypotheses, which are then tested by other smart people. Data and evidence are collected to see how well they correspond to the hypothesis. The hypothesis can be refined in the light of the data, and new experiments performed. If the hypothesis is unproductive, it is discarded while if it prospers then eventually it attains the status of "theory". A scientific theory is not something speculative and vague as many non-scientists erroneously believe. It has been successfully tested innumerable times and it takes something remarkable to overthrow it. Newtonian physics, which had been revered for centuries, was replaced by Einsteinian physics, but it was nevertheless Newtonian physics that was used to land man on the moon i.e. that's how good and reliable it was. Einstein's refinements to Newton's laws only become significant in extreme situations that we don't often encounter. Even now, we refer to Newton's Laws of motion.
Creationists say that Darwinian Evolution is just a "theory" - but it is an extremely well tested one with an enormous evidence base. Darwinism, like Newtonian physics, will eventually be replaced, but it will still retain a great deal of validity. What's for sure is that Abrahamic Creationism is a mad hypothesis without any evidence at all to support it and an immense amount to refute it. No scientist would ever consider Creationism a theory - it's just a story. It's Mythos, not Logos. Much of the trouble with the world is that "Mythos-thinkers" believe they can challenge "Logos-thinkers". The two types of thinking have nothing in common. Scientists (Logos-thinkers) have nothing but contempt for the suggestion that the world was created in six days by "God", the only "proof" being an ancient book of the Jews, which says so. "Revelation" isn't fact or evidence. It's not theory. It can't be tested. It can be neither verified nor falsified (in terms of Karl Popper's falsification principle). It's pure Mythos. Can anyone "prove" that gods didn't once live at the summit of Mount Olympus? There are innumerable stories and none of them can ever form the basis of any kind of science.
Creationists are Mythos-thinkers who don't understand science. Their attacks on Darwinism amount to little more than some staring-eyed person jabbing his finger at the Book of Genesis and saying, "Hey man, can't you read? It says right here that God made the world in six days. End of story."
Stories - Mythos - should be reserved for entertainment purposes, not for trying to understand mathematical, scientific and philosophical reality. Politicians, like religious leaders, are always spinning yarns to "sell" their message to us. We don't need their Mythos view of the world.
There are no political parties in science. Disputes are resolved via experiments, hard data, mathematics and logic, not via speeches, rhetoric, stories and ideology. Scientists can't vote down other scientists and dogmatically push through their agenda regardless of the evidence. No scientists have to kiss babies and shake the hands of the "common man" to get elected. They have no party position that they have to defend.
In the New Politics, clever people will propose hypotheses and these will be tested and the evidence collected. The evidence will decide between rival hypotheses, not some partisan debate in Congress full of hot air and fanatical ideology. Evidence, not rhetoric, is the only valid means of testing rival policies and ideas in order to identify the most successful ones.
Hegel is arguably the most ambitious philosopher of all time, intent on explaining everything, including all previous philosophies and the whole of history in an all-embracing system of extraordinary power and grandeur.
He set out to demonstrate nothing less than the awe-inspiring evolution of the cosmos and all of existence towards self-consciousness. Towards, in fact, becoming God.
Everything is on an upward trajectory towards the highest possible outcome. Humanity, like everything else, is on the path to divinity, if it could but grasp that incredible fact.
God is not external to the universe; he is the fulfilment of the universe's evolution. He is not the creator of the universe; he is its highest creation. He is the supreme work of art of the cosmos. He is not beyond the universe, he is the universe, and yet greater than the sum of its parts. He transcends the universe that gave birth to him. The created can then assume the role of true creator, guiding the future destiny of existence.
Existence is undergoing a process of completion. It strives to reach a definite end: that of the maximum actualization of its original potential. It began as nothing but possibility. It "ends" when it has reached the zenith of realization of possibility.
As a student, Hegel was captivated by the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the work of the German genius Goethe.
The dialectic is the engine of Hegel's philosophy. Although it's usually described in terms of thesis, antithesis and synthesis - and this is certainly the easiest and most practical way to think about it - it's a somewhat more complex notion than that. Thesis and antithesis are usually considered as different, independent entities, but Hegel treats the antithesis as something inside the thesis, intrinsic to it i.e. the thesis contains its own antithesis. Hegel says, "Everything is opposite. Neither in heaven nor in earth, neither in the world of mind nor of nature, is there anywhere such an abstract 'either-or' as the understanding maintains. Whatever exists is concrete, with difference and opposition in itself".
Hegel's preferred terms for the dialectical process are: "Abstract", "Negative", "Concrete" (and sometimes "Immediate", "Mediated" and "Concrete"). The initial idea (the thesis) is too abstract, too theoretical. As it is tested in reality, as it is subjected to trial and error and to the experience of the real world, the errors and contradictions, the "negatives", become apparent (i.e. the antithesis within the thesis starts to assert itself). As the negatives are progressively taken into account and resolved, the initial abstraction becomes more and more robust and solid. Finally, the idea is fully concrete.
Hegel's dialectic is similar to the scientific method whereby an initial hypothesis is tested experimentally and continually refined until the predictions of the hypothesis exactly match the experimental results, at which point the hypothesis becomes a theory. In scientific terms, a theory isn't a speculative concept: it is something so well verified that it's practically an unchallengeable law of science.
The Hegelian dialectic is a fluid process. The evolution of the universe takes the form of a cosmic spiral, winding around a genesis point while moving ever further from that point.
At times, the spiral is moving upwards (the thesis), at other times it is being internally contradicted and moving in the opposite direction (the antithesis), but it is always growing and evolving. As the antithesis phase gives way, it is reconciled with the thesis to form a synthesis, which then becomes a new thesis, which flows on into a new antithesis, and so on. Each iteration of the cycle represents a new synthesis being formed at a higher state of evolution than the previous one. And so it continues until it reaches the dialectical endpoint - the Final Synthesis, the Omega Point.
In the New Politics, clever people will propose hypotheses and these will be tested and the evidence collected. The evidence will decide between rival hypotheses, not some partisan debate in Congress full of hot air and fanatical ideology. Evidence, not rhetoric, is the only valid means of testing rival policies and ideas in order to identify the most successful ones.
Every citizen will be able to propose hypotheses and have them treated with the utmost consideration. Clever citizens will be direct contributors to the new dialectical politics, not passive recipients of policies passed in Congress after "hot air" debates.
We don't need any politicians or any debates. We just need hypotheses, experiments and evidence.
Take drugs policy as an example. There are fifty States in the USA: fifty opportunities to try different approaches to drugs. You can have zero tolerance approaches, decriminalisation, complete legalisation etc in the different States. At the end of a ten-year period, the nation simply has to look at all the different approaches that were trialled in the different States and see which one worked the best. That then becomes "best practice" to be used throughout the country. See how easy it is. No emotive debates are required, no moralising, no religious opinions. All that is needed is the experimental data.
Evidence replaces rhetoric. Science replaces politics. All debates are resolved evidentially. All disputes are turned into rival scientific hypotheses and put to the test. Is that not the only sensible and rational means to resolve conflicts?
All the hot air and ideology gets kicked out and is replaced by cool, calm science. No politicians are necessary, thank you very much: no pressure groups, no lobbyists, no hysterical media reporting.
This new system removes all of the levers of power from the OWO and from the religious and political fanatics. Their irrational beliefs and propaganda can now be relentlessly challenged and tested.
The whole world will have a transparent, systematic method to resolve all issues. All hypotheses will be available on the internet, as will all the experimental procedures to test them, and all of the results. The world will become a global laboratory dedicated to perfecting human life and society.
Plato said, "I have created the perfect republic, but where are the perfect people?"
The dialectical method will supply Plato with his perfect people.
The ingredient that was missing all along from politics was none other than a neutral method with which all parties could agree - a dialectical, scientific method.
We are supremely fortunate. We are living in the era of dialectical completion.
1945 - the end of fascism.
1989 - the end of totalitarian Soviet Communism.
2008 - the beginning of the end for Western Capitalism.
2011 - the end of Arab dictators.
The pace is increasing, and the internet is acting as an incredible accelerator.
The hardest dictators to topple are the unseen ones of capitalism: the super rich Zionists and Masons. They operate behind the scenes, pulling the strings of their "democratic" politician puppets. The credit crunch has done enormous damage to their propaganda that they know what they're doing economically. Since that was their supreme claim to legitimacy, they no longer have any credibility. They are like the Emperor with his new clothes - stark naked and about to be ridiculed even by children.
After they fall, humanity's dialectical journey only has one more hurdle to overcome - the bicameral, ancient slave religions of Devil worship. They will be replaced by new, 21st century religions of light, reason, freedom and consciousness.
The nightmare is nearing its end.
The dawn of a glorious new humanity is coming.
And we will be there to see it.