[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Technological advancement and mass production are useless when your population consists almost exclusively of cucked Starbucks-sipping hipsters trying to compete who is the biggest victim.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(07-27-2016 09:57 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

@ Leonard D Neubache

Careful what you wish for. Germany turned itself into a war machine within a decade with nothing like the type of military training or mass production & technological advancement we have today.

Once a train gets enough momentum it needs an equal if not greater force to stop it. 7 billion on the planet currently. No certain way to claim you or anyone you know will survive such a total war scenario.

What precisely am I wishing for?

I get particularly nauseated when people confuse accepting reality with wishing for bad outcomes.

Reality check. The spread of islam is stopped or you, your children, theirs, etc will be slaves to the barbarians. If you think that's a fair trade for avoiding the possibility that zombie Hitler will take another shot at the thousand year Reich then by all means, find an accountant that knows how to calculate your Jizya rate before the rush sets in.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Alright - the pope has spoken some powerful words - his patience has run out:

   


.... Of course it was nothing of the sort - he actually cucked some more and would have likely sucked off a rapefugee on stage during the World Youth Day in Krakow if he could have done so. Maybe he will wash their feet again - that will help:


One guy should have mocked him by reading the newspaper.


That Freemason gay Pope can go home to his lodge.

[Orion]

Never ceases to amaze me to what extent we still talk within their frame

Remember, we are debating whether it is justifiable to carpet bomb Raqqah, capital city of literally Hitler, because of objections to innocent lives of civilians being lost.

However, when they carpet bombed Hamburg, and created a massive 300 meter high firestorm that produced winds which would easily suck in people from the streets like dry leaves into the furnace not only were there no objections, but there was not even a debate, a discussion about it. Nor was anyone given a forward notice such as Raqqah inhabitants certainly would.

Remember, Hamburg was in hearth of Europe, and devastation and horrors of bombing were described as worse than Nagasaki and Hiroshima, because in the latter case it happened in an instant blitz, while Hamburg bombing was a slow and tormenting oven.

The supposed concern and white tower moralist sermons on their part come only when their interests are at stake. When it comes to pursuing their interests, no action, no matter how sickening and inhumane, warrants any denouncement. Never forget folks, they are brutally systematic in pursuing their interests, and will accept any pose necessary. Stop being fooled.

[amity]

(07-27-2016 01:42 PM)rw95 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 01:07 PM)amity Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 11:17 AM)rw95 Wrote:  

^Well there you go. The Christians have lots of kids. But of those kids, how many of them stay Christian?
I still don't exactly see what the elites stand to gain by flooding Europe with Islamic terror. I don't see how it ends well for them.

There's a few theories about why this chaos has been created , ie. socially engineered by certain people(and it has been created, have no doubt about that)
Stefan Molyneux has spoken about this in recent months, but I need to track down the exact episodes where he zones in on the reasons why this is happening (as opposed to the chaos it's causing), will get back to you on that soon.
But another interesting and not implausible scenario is that certain very powerful people, at least some of whom are of Zionist persuasion/background, are trying to implement Kalergi's masterplan to effectively genocide white Europeans in their homelands. Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, Sarkozy have all played their part in this. And in particular you have Peter Sutherland and George Soros, surely two of the most evil twisted men on the planet, pushing and promoting for Europe to take on millions of "refugees"(ie. some genuine refugees yes but the vast majority of whom are third world, welfare seeking migrants), while well aware of the chaos and destruction this is causing.
Here's an extensive interview about this, it's long but well worth listening to.

You'll forgive me if I don't listen to the interview, but I am familiar with the Kalergi plan.

I'm a bit skeptical of the claims that this whole thing is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Europeans, but for the sake of argument let's say this is true. What does the average Jew get out if the deal? Jews living in Europe would find themselves surrounded by millions of Arabs who hate them and are ready, willing and able to kill them. Sure, they have a homeland to escape to, but Israel is pretty much in the same position, surrounded by Arab countries who are more than willing to blow them off the face of the Earth. And what does the Zionist elite get out of it? Rule over a group of people who hate their kind more than just about any other people in the world, and who would have no qualms about killing them?

Yes I know on the face of it, it makes no sense.
The average Jew gets nothing out of it, same as white Europeans.
The elites care about neither and are willing to sacrifice the average Jews as well to ensure they have no competitors to their control (the white Europeans or from other anglo countries being the most likely to be a threat to them).
I'm not sure if I fully buy this idea either, some aspects of this plot seem to add up, but other aspects seem a bit fanciful.
I found one of the Molyneux videos where he address some of the possible reasons for the deliberately created migrant crisis.
The entire thing is really worth watching, from about twenty minutes he begins to address the possible reasons, or at least his thoughts on the possible reasons behind this

[rw95]

(07-28-2016 06:37 AM)amity Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 01:42 PM)rw95 Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 01:07 PM)amity Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 11:17 AM)rw95 Wrote:  

^Well there you go. The Christians have lots of kids. But of those kids, how many of them stay Christian?
I still don't exactly see what the elites stand to gain by flooding Europe with Islamic terror. I don't see how it ends well for them.

There's a few theories about why this chaos has been created , ie. socially engineered by certain people(and it has been created, have no doubt about that)
Stefan Molyneux has spoken about this in recent months, but I need to track down the exact episodes where he zones in on the reasons why this is happening (as opposed to the chaos it's causing), will get back to you on that soon.
But another interesting and not implausible scenario is that certain very powerful people, at least some of whom are of Zionist persuasion/background, are trying to implement Kalergi's masterplan to effectively genocide white Europeans in their homelands. Merkel, Hollande, Cameron, Sarkozy have all played their part in this. And in particular you have Peter Sutherland and George Soros, surely two of the most evil twisted men on the planet, pushing and promoting for Europe to take on millions of "refugees"(ie. some genuine refugees yes but the vast majority of whom are third world, welfare seeking migrants), while well aware of the chaos and destruction this is causing.
Here's an extensive interview about this, it's long but well worth listening to.

You'll forgive me if I don't listen to the interview, but I am familiar with the Kalergi plan.

I'm a bit skeptical of the claims that this whole thing is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Europeans, but for the sake of argument let's say this is true. What does the average Jew get out if the deal? Jews living in Europe would find themselves surrounded by millions of Arabs who hate them and are ready, willing and able to kill them. Sure, they have a homeland to escape to, but Israel is pretty much in the same position, surrounded by Arab countries who are more than willing to blow them off the face of the Earth. And what does the Zionist elite get out of it? Rule over a group of people who hate their kind more than just about any other people in the world, and who would have no qualms about killing them?

Yes I know on the face of it, it makes no sense.
The average Jew gets nothing out of it, same as white Europeans.
The elites care about neither and are willing to sacrifice the average Jews as well to ensure they have no competitors to their control (the white Europeans or from other anglo countries being the most likely to be a threat to them).
I'm not sure if I fully buy this idea either, some aspects of this plot seem to add up, but other aspects seem a bit fanciful.
I found one of the Molyneux videos where he address some of the possible reasons for the deliberately created migrant crisis.
The entire thing is really worth watching, from about twenty minutes he begins to address the possible reasons, or at least his thoughts on the possible reasons behind this

From a more economic than racial standpoint it makes more sense. The western world is bar none the most successful in terms of wealth, comfort and material goods, and the elites have no desire to give these things up or share them with the lower classes. Bring in a bunch of migrants who are incompatible with western culture, they create a stir, the people at the top declare martial law, the elites remain on top forever.

[Traktor]

https://www.rt.com/news/354056-muslims-r...-attacker/

Send the stinking cadavers to Erdogan and Tel Aviv.

[redpillage]

(07-27-2016 09:57 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

@ Leonard D Neubache

Careful what you wish for. Germany turned itself into a war machine within a decade with nothing like the type of military training or mass production & technological advancement we have today.

Once a train gets enough momentum it needs an equal if not greater force to stop it. 7 billion on the planet currently. No certain way to claim you or anyone you know will survive such a total war scenario.

Those were different Germans. That gene pool has all but been eviscerated in Germany. If you are looking for warriors and conquerers look further East.

[RexImperator]

One of the throat-cutters worked at an airport as a baggage handler:

Quote:

Now it has emerged that Petitjean worked full time at Chambery airport, which is used by more than 250,000 passengers a year including many from Britain, until just three months ago.

It comes as ISIS released a new video of the teenager calling on fellow extremists to 'destroy' France and launch attacks on its allies.

President Francois Hollande and Prime Minister Manuel Valls directly, he says: 'You will suffer what our brothers and sisters are suffering. We are going to destroy your country.'

'Brothers go out with a knife, whatever is needed, attack them, kill them en masse.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...e-job.html

[Foolsgo1d]

(07-28-2016 02:05 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(07-27-2016 09:57 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

@ Leonard D Neubache

Careful what you wish for. Germany turned itself into a war machine within a decade with nothing like the type of military training or mass production & technological advancement we have today.

Once a train gets enough momentum it needs an equal if not greater force to stop it. 7 billion on the planet currently. No certain way to claim you or anyone you know will survive such a total war scenario.

What precisely am I wishing for?

I get particularly nauseated when people confuse accepting reality with wishing for bad outcomes.

Reality check. The spread of islam is stopped or you, your children, theirs, etc will be slaves to the barbarians. If you think that's a fair trade for avoiding the possibility that zombie Hitler will take another shot at the thousand year Reich then by all means, find an accountant that knows how to calculate your Jizya rate before the rush sets in.

When this forum was first started nobody predicted its current form. Nobody in the US or EU predicted the mass migration except for a few and even they were not 100% correct.

Now you're going to tell me that in the future its either mass genocide or servitude? Do you also have the Euromillions jackpot numbers two months from now?



Reality check: Nobody here knows what will happen 5 years from now, let alone 20. They could take over, they might not. I don't care either way.

But calling for one race to fight another on a global face-off no human being has seen before is like those baby boomer doomsday preppers in the mid-west, Alaska and Texas. I'm sure it'll come..one day.

[Phoenix]

As someone who made peace with this future back when I was 18, I'd like to say something to put this into context beyond "crusade time!11!!".

On "let's fight Islam". Islam was never the problem. I've been saying this since my teens. If you come across a kindergarten full of wild dogs, who are savaging the children, it's easy to point the finger at the dogs. It's easy to rant about how the dogs are uncivilized and violent and aggressive. How they should be got rid of. How they should now be thrown out.

But that is a truly comical form of tunnel vision and naivety.

The wise man instead calmly looks towards the door of the kindergarten -- and looks upon the figure standing there, pinning the door open with his foot, with a big grin on his face.

The problem was never about the muslims. They come from poor countries, burdened by a primitive form of civilization. They were always going to come, and try and make better lives for themselves. They were always going to have their elements who, like all humans, have a territorial instinct. The problem was the leftist, and the leftist alone, holding the door open for the sake of his sadomasochist pleasure.

I disagree with QC about ISIS. IS is simply "Islamic State". It follows one simple rule: the Koran and the word of Muhammad is to be interpreted strictly and comprehensively. The role of the caliph is well illustrated in the texts of Islam, as is the nature of the caliphate. How could you prosecute someone for being a member of "Islamic State"? Two questions, are you Muslim and should your state be Muslim?

IS is nothing more than an energized Islam. Energized by the leftism of the west -- which smells like weakness, and concurrent destruction of the dictators who were holding them in check. It's worth remembering that what Islam is doing now is nothing more than a continuation of what it was doing in the 600s. Just look at your clock on your computer -- it's 2016 now, and they are simply doing the same thing.

Islam should be viewed in the same way we view wolves -- they can't win, they can't kill us, unless we ourselves make mistakes.

The solution to the question of the 21st century western decline is a very simple one: why is the leftist empowered?

That is to say: why are the anti-social members of society ruling, instead of being ostracized? Why are those who weaken us not cast out, and instead attack us with impunity?

The answer stares us all in the face, and sits suspiciously beyond criticism: democracy. By what unnatural constitution does something like this happen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin...tion,_1945

A great man defeats a brutal enemy hell-bent on world domination, and is then immediately cast aside by pieces of paper being dropped into boxes? Who could ever look upon such a system and call it sane? Comically, even that man himself famously said "it's the least bad system", and played a role in starting it back in 1911.

Little more than mass arrogance. The idea that just because you have your piece of paper, you'll be able to lead your country to safety and greatness. You'll be able to see to it that you get treated well. What a fucking laugh.

The solution to decay is ownership. Nobody does maintenance on houses they rent unless forced too. A house that they own is a different story. They have their whole savings to lose if it gets eaten by termites, versus the renter who will just have to move his stuff elsewhere. Nobody protects an animal from poachers more than its owner.

Likewise, no democratic politician gives a shit about his country beyond what he can exploit from it in 4 years.

And likewise, nobody protects a country more than kings and lords. It's their and their family's kingdom to lose. Why did the Saudi's take zero refugees? Because why would they? Would you take a refugee into your house willingly? Well Saudi Arabia is literally theirs too. They have simply acted in their own natural interests.

We've all shrugged off such hierarchies as being "medieval", thinking we've done good for ourselves, only to set ourselves up to get conquered by those who will simply restore themselves as rulers in place.

The only role of democracy is to formalize the power of revolt. That is, for the weaker but more numerous to check the stronger but less numerous should they decide to exploit instead of lead. And so on up the pyramid. The balanced and traditional constitution consists of 1 king, a minority of hereditary nobles, and a large qualified electorate (male landowners).

It is the absence of this constitution alone, and the existence of democracy in it's place, that is creating this situation. The only answer to this situation will be one that restores said constitution.

On the genocide talk, it's just reactive bunk. Simply making your position more harsh each time a bad event happens is not a "ramping up". It's just multiplying of zero by 100 instead of by 10.

If kings returned, there would be little need for genocide. Genocide and psychopaths who wish it and carry it out have never achieved anything good. Indeed you could argue that Hitler is in fact personally to blame for the problem we now have, as after his know-no-limits aggressive psychopathy burned out, the backlash predictably created today's pervasive western leftism.

A king, like the head of a house, simply asks the unwanted guests nicely to leave. If they say no, he explains more clearly why they must leave, why it's not working out, and then draws his sword and places it upon his table. If that's not enough, he makes an example until the rest get the picture, and they then leave. It's been done before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos

The muslims were never the issue. The issue is the leftists. The issue is in them gravitating to the center of power instead of being beaten to the outskirts. The issue is the absence of kings.

[Orion]

Pope delivered another globalist-humanitarian drivel

http://www.mail.com/int/news/europe/4513...ge-hero1-2

[Valentine]

(07-31-2016 11:21 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

The muslims were never the issue. The issue is the leftists. The issue is in them gravitating to the center of power instead of being beaten to the outskirts. The issue is the absence of kings.

Great post. I've been curious about the arguments of monarchy vs democracy and the difference ownership makes is a very powerful argument.

I'd go one step further with identifying the real issue though. Muslims are given free reign by leftist policies and social commentary, who are in turn given free reign by globalists who appoint them to positions of power and fund their causes.

You can again see the value of monarchy by seeing the power of quasi-monarchs like Putin and Kim Jong-un who are some of the only anti-globalists with real influence behind them.

[Samseau]

The idea that Monarchy is the answer is total nonsense. There are so many examples of Kings and Queens completely abusing their power and destroying their nation we could spend all week discussing them in this thread.

The guy who bankrupted France which lead to the French Revolution?
The Emperors who destroyed Rome, or Justinian the Great whose disastrous rule reduced Byzantine to half its territory in under a 100 years?
Terrible Chinese, Russian, and African Kings who can also be added to the list.

The oversimplification Phoenix makes is really freshman stuff. You should read some more history before you start suggesting political solutions, you jumped into the deep end and you don't know how to swim.

[Orion]

(07-31-2016 05:04 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The idea that Monarchy is the answer is total nonsense. There are so many examples of Kings and Queens completely abusing their power and destroying their nation we could spend all week discussing them in this thread.

There are so many example of consecutive presidents destroying, selling, or simply neglecting their nation, often also out of interests. Taken into account that democracy is completely vertically open to all groups with enough financial and social capital, it is a system pre-wired for subversion, and hence almost completely incompatible with nationalism without harsh discriminatory laws towards minorities, foreigners, etc.

Power abuse is nothing inherent to monarchy. It is garden variety Whig non-sense which completely ignores any historical-material conditions for important events.

Quote:

The guy who bankrupted France which lead to the French Revolution?

How did subsequent republics show themselves to be any better ? It was one loss in prestige and territories after another. Then, you can't ignore the bourgeoisie nature of revolution. Middle classes wanted the power that was reserved for aristocracy. Unfortunately, once loosened, the valve could not be tightened again. State structure was now wide open for subversion, manipulation, and incessant agitation.

Quote:

The Emperors who destroyed Rome, or Justinian the Great whose disastrous rule reduced Byzantine to half its territory in under a 100 years?
Terrible Chinese, Russian, and African Kings who can also be added to the list.

As i said, claiming that monarchy is the sole cause of historical events of colossal proportions is Whig habit of completely ignoring underlying causes, which can be material, political, cultural, etc... To Whigs, it was all about ideas, and the entire history is just a never ending cycle of one "muh opinion" winning over another "muh opinion" which is nonsense.

Also, you must be aware of your own cultural presentiments that lead you to dismiss idea of monarchy.

[TooFineAPoint]

Monarchy + strong aristocracy > Republic with limited franchise > Democracy with universal suffrage > Monarchy by Divine Right

[Phoenix]

Yeah what Orion said. Correlation doesn't imply causation. But Samsaeu is known for this, simply choosing a correlation, applying an opinion to it, and then calling other people's opinion "complete nonsense". Or worse and like in this case -- choosing the worst examples and calling them the rule and sole cause.

On the globalists question, it's a popular opinion here that it's just some bunch of elite bad guys wanting to rule the world. It's spoken of like they are evil gods. In reality they are just men. They are power hedonists looking for an ever stronger fix of that drug. None of them have ownership of any position they reach, or anything to lose, so the best tactic to fuel their addiction is just keep shooting higher. It's just the natural extension of democracy.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(07-31-2016 08:48 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

...
Reality check: Nobody here knows what will happen 5 years from now, let alone 20. They could take over, they might not. I don't care either way.
...

Thankyou for confirming something I have suspected for a while now.

Your opinions shall be regarded as such. As those of a disinterested observer.

[Leonard D Neubache]

People may not like the idea of a monarchy but if they want a reality check, here's the gold standard.

Democracy is not going to save us from what democracy has inflicted upon us.

We all want to have our cake and eat it too. Tough titties. It's not going to happen. There is no way out but through, and democracy is blocking the door. So what's the solution?

[El Chinito loco]

The problem with monarchy are bloodlines and the resulting mess it always causes when it comes to succession. Then of course the idea of "royal" blood and divinity starts to rear its head eventually too. If you're from a line that has absolute power based on descent then at some point you will try your hand at convincing the people you are a god king also. It's the next step in absolute power.

This seems to end up happening more often than not. Even the pragmatic Romans weren't immune to this sort of thing.

In modern times you just have to look at the King of Thailand to see a living breathing example of someone who is pumped up to near god king status. He actually has to downplay his image to prevent over the top fanaticism.

[N°6]

(07-28-2016 01:35 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Technological advancement and mass production are useless when your population consists almost exclusively of cucked Starbucks-sipping hipsters trying to compete who is the biggest victim.

Unfortunately for the Roman Church and for Christians in general, the liberal-capital and liberal-social SJW paradigm hates Christians and no amount of cucking, niceness and tolerant appeasement will win them over.

As Jesus said:

Matthew 11:16-17 Wrote:

"To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:

"'We played the pipe for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'

This is the religious equivalent of playing the dancing monkey in Game and a man trying to be a tolerant feminist to appease women into bed. But this is what organised churchianity has been doing with the liberal establishment in the West but it will not mourn when Christians begin to be martyred in their homelands. So don't sing the victim dirge, no-one will mourn for you.

Did Obama et al mourn when Syrian and north African Christians get massacred?

Did NATO and the Western military-industrial-complex mourn of heed the Syrian patriarch's pleas that the Jihad that the West supports is destroying Christianity in the land of Saint Paul?

No.

Hollande talks about the slaying of a priest as an attack against the Republic as opposed to France. The French Republic has slew more priests than many other régimes. Before anyone thinks that this happened centuries ago, they should consider what the Republicans did during the Spanish Civil War to priests and nuns. This is relevant as the Republican struggle in Spain and its support by middle class International Brigades is the source of inspiration to the liberal, SJW, financial-democratic establishment.

[Leonard D Neubache]

A meritocracy is just about the only thing that hasn't been tried yet, but the fact is that nobody is quietly going to allow themselves to be stripped of their right to vote. It's a thing that could only rise from the ashes of our current arrangement.

A Constitutional democracy with strictly limiting taxation laws that in practice prevent the creation of a police/welfare/warfare state could also have merit, not that the plain letter law of Constitution of the US is held to have any relevance these days.

[Phoenix]

(08-01-2016 12:40 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

A meritocracy is just about the only thing that hasn't been tried yet, but the fact is that nobody is quietly going to allow themselves to be stripped of their right to vote. It's a thing that could only rise from the ashes of our current arrangement.

A Constitutional democracy with strictly limiting taxation laws that in practice prevent the creation of a police/welfare/warfare state could also have merit, not that the plain letter law of Constitution of the US is held to have any relevance these days.

It's important to avoid using the passive tense in these discussions -- from whom will the strict limits come? By whom will merit be adjudicated? Constitutions are only constitutions insofar as they are self-sustaining.

For instance, the 1st amendment in the US constitution only stays in force because of Article III -- which empowers the judges to be the sole final interpreters of the law. To them, enforcing rights is their source of power. Consequently though, they then abuse that by inventing new rights to suit their political persuasions.

The funny thing is, all of this has already been covered thousands of years ago by Aristotle. Back then he had already explained the importance of avoiding faction, and doing so by separating powers, checks and balances etc.

A democratic house checks the power of a king, but likewise, a king checks the power of a democratic house. No foreign militant goes chopping off the heads of local church men in a kingdom without it's king having their own heads displayed on spikes, and issuing a warning to their community/clans to cease spoiling his peace lest they get a one-way ticket back to their sandy shithole of a homeland.

A deeper question might be: why do constitutions degenerate? I suspect we do not currently have the biological and sociological knowledge required to answer that yet. Certainly no democratic government would support such research. I guess a particularly long-sighted and down-to-earth king might.

[Mercenary]

I'm going to have to agree with Samseau on this one...having a king is no guarantee of a better run country.

A few examples from history:

Kaiser Wilhelm II - Destroyed the Germany empire built by Bismarck by embarking on one of the most destructive wars in history of mankind.

Tsar Nicholas II - Totally pussified ruler who was unable to prevent the rise of communism and the destruction of the Russian empire. He also was a total cuck who let his slut wife cheat on him with Rasputin, which probably was a main reason for his inability to rule properly.

George III - Totally insane. Overtaxed the American colonies so harshly they broke off and created the USA and got into a war with them that decimated the British Army and nearly bankrupted the country.

Honorius - Roman emperor who outlawed trousers and was so lazy and passive (and probably gay) it lead to the sack of Rome in 410


One thing monarchy does do correctly is bind people behind a single ruler that people can look up to who protects them and represents them...even in mass democracies people still look to single leaders rather than a group or party. But being a benevolent alpha ruler, is no guarantee your children will be as well, no matter how well you train them.

I'm not saying democracies are better, but we need a reality check when it comes to monarchies.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(08-01-2016 03:41 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

...
A deeper question might be: why do constitutions degenerate? I suspect we do not currently have the biological and sociological knowledge required to answer that yet. Certainly no democratic government would support such research. I guess a particularly long-sighted and down-to-earth king might.

Good post, snipped but for the part above. I don't think there's much of a riddle to the degeneration of a successful constitutionally limited democracy. Success and plenty breed complacency. Those who seek power are not so complacent. While the man on the street sleepwalks, the connivers undermine the checks and balances, gathering to themselves more and more power. Inevitably this comes at a cost to the man on the street, who begins to wake.

That is where we are now.

A meritocracy could only occur organically. A collapse might occur, where-after the people who take control decide to institute a different arrangement. The nature of the organisation that takes control would dictate what merit meant and who was measured to posses it. If they were wise then the new (possibly constitutionally limited) meritocracy would flourish and sweep away opposition. If they were unwise then the new arrangement would inevitably collapse and something else would just take its place.

There is of course another possibility that none of us seem to mention. That the military sweeps away the old government, bins everything except the Constitution, holds new elections and the USA starts fresh. Not as cut and dried as it would sound, but not the worst outcome by far.