He stills thinks people can be trusted to govern themselves

*Ahem*

Democracy is a control mechanism for the international elite. It knows no loyalty but to the Jews, Freemasons, and Financiers. It shows outright hostility to any who dare administrate their State to fulfill the needs and will of that nation's People. Monarchy would be impossible to reinstate, so it is an antiquated alternative to so-called progress. The only valid alternatives are the Corporate State, as proposed by Mosley and Gentile, or a hierarchical government with merit being the sole determiner of rank and power. Some countries may see the need to implement both, similar to what Hitler suggested in Mein Kampf, where the Parliament was an advisory body, and it was overseen by a Senate.

Oh and fuck niggers.

Problem with metritocracies is the issue of "competence to incompetence".

It depends on the job. Certain, mostly honorary, jobs can have people who "aren't the best." For example, you could make a general who lead the army during a war a Senator. Within the bureaucracy itself, you could utilize the military's up or out system. If you blend meritocracy with the corporate state, like I recommended in my shitpost, this works better. Sectors of industry will be appointing their representatives to one house of congress. Then you can give life-time terms to quality men in the Senate, and not give them much in the way of technical responsibilities. This wouldn't have much of a hierarchy. I suppose a more proper hierarchical meritocracy would have a ladder from municipal positions all the way up to the Head of State. We'd probably just have to suck it up in regards to "competence to incompetence." It should still work for the most part, so long as each role in that hierarchy is a similar leadership role, rather than a technical one.

Attached: file.png (1388x1292, 664K)

Attached: InPlainSight.jpg (2048x1366, 1.32M)

>It should still work for the most part, so long as each role in that hierarchy is a similar leadership role, rather than a technical one
But that takes away from the technocratic point of a meritocracy and instead builds a class segregated society of leaders and workers who can only work and advance within their own circles and quite possibly will come to detest each other.

I largely agree with your idea, but I can't help but think about its imperfections.

>merit

Never. There is real power to be had in certain positions in society, be the academic or professional. You give them to just anyone simply because they are "good", they must also be trustworthy...

Attached: godfather.jpg (980x1471, 81K)

Basically this. The alternative is some Civ-nat shit.

K

It should be noted that nations have fallen for not appointing the most competent man for a job, but the opposite is of course also true; that nations have fallen for appointing an ambitious and powerful man to a job where he has too much power.

No form of government can govern, so sooner or later they all fall.

Attached: 468.gif (680x813, 388K)

Not even Civ-nat. Even when Britain was ethnically homogeneous it still wasn't enough to get the talented working class into elite positions. You have to be born a member of Britain's ruling elite and socialised in isolation from wider society. Family nepotism and networking is an even more stubborn version of ethnocentrism.

I think organised crime is the basic unit of true power in this world. I think Ian Flemming knew this and hinted at it in his novels.

Attached: Dr_No.jpg (730x730, 348K)