FancyMancy said:
Hi, all.
What I mean is is actual meritocracy good? If the jew got its tentacles on it, then it would be corrupt and dirty. Based on one's achievements, they could go further, higher, better. To me, that seems good. If you're going to be a lazy bestid, then you don't deserve to be up in high places of importance and influence, etc. From memory, the authour of a sermon said anyone can be anything they aspire to be - if they work at it enough. I think actual meritocracy seems to be good. Will civilisation in the coming Satanic Age, and thereafter, be meritocratic?
Thanks.
Meritocracy is the only system that's based on natural law - the harder you work the more you get. Society that achieves this enters a golden age. Unfortunately, this was rarely ever achieved. Mostly it happens initially - just enough to spark the fire needed for an empire to grow, but it's soon corrupted (due to Humans not being spiritually advanced) and it collapses. That's why empires constantly rise and fall, never lasting enough to permanently change things for the better.
And when I say empire, I don't necessarily mean an imperial government with one dickhead at the top. It also refers to modern countries like the USA. Basically any country that has power to dominate(militarily or otherwise) all close and distant countries.
You can think as far back as you want, you'll see a whole lot of empires and kingdoms that we look kindly upon today, but even they failed in this. Greeks, British, Romans(in their later stages), etc
The way it usually goes is that the """elite""" class that became established thanks to meritocratic principles begins to undermine the very same, which eventually leads to nepotism. Nepotism is just a fancy word for hereditary incompetence which ensures the downfall of everything. And no, even highly advanced people fail to stop this. Look at Marcus Aurelius who literally wrote a book about not letting your emotions get the better of you..... who promptly set his failure of a son Commodus *spit* to become the next emperor of Rome.
Most of the time there's also some form of slavery. Which is the exact opposite of meritocracy and all it does is make a lot of people hate the very fiber of your empire, hate that manifests on the astral and will manifest on Earth(assuming your empire doesn't collapse before that).
Thirdly, resistance to change aka dogma. Implementing meritocracy often requires significant changes to existing power structures, norms, and practices, which can face resistance from vested interests or conservative (short-sighted) forces. Spartans here are prime example of what not to do since they literally had all of the above. How did they end up? Romans steamrolled them with ease. "But they were merely a shadow of their former self!" - yeah, because of the above reasons.
There are plenty of other reasons, but I want to keep this relatively brief so here's the last one: Saturn.
Saturn is literally all about working hard and being rewarded for it, it's also the ultimate test. "Ah, so you're having this fancy empire, eh? Is it sound? Is it future-proof? Thinking about getting lazy and fat? I shall test that."
The rest is, as they say, history.
