Well that’s you gone for a starter!
Are you copy-pasting articles from Google?? Or did you seriously write that of your own…“volition??”
What’s your point?
The more I think about it, the more I imagine a Timocratic society being bogged-down by neighboring countries or the Globalized Marxists. The first thing they’d do is important millions of illegal aliens into your country. If that failed, then they’d try to infiltrate into it themselves, and attain positions of political power (citizenship). This is why, most likely, Racial/Ethnic composition is critical to prevent foreign contamination and infiltration. How ‘Meritocratic’ would Citizenship be?
Would it be open to racial/ethnic outsiders? Homogeneous vs Heterogeneous? How open, or how closed?
Even if only a small amount of racial/ethnic outsiders were allowed, what would be the expectation of their loyalty?
For example, when WWII broke out, Japanese were interned into camps along the West Coast (where they were concentrated).
Would the same thing happen to racially-foreign Citizens within the Timocracy?
Those with no political power have no say.
Those who serve the state in the military, and who can provide tangible goods, consistently, are citizens.
the rest are Perioikoi…they can live and work and make money, but they have no political power.
If we add the racial/ethnic criterion then homogeneity is established.
Like in UAE, they import peoples from around the world to work and live, but they cannot vote, nor can they hold office, nor are they given citizenship.
They have a work visa that can be revoked if the individual breaks the laws, or if his contract ends and is not renewed.
Even the military in a Timocracy, can hire mercenaries to bolster its defences…as many nations do presently.
These are contracted ‘workers’ with no citizenship, and with a temporary contract.
The connection was quite obvious for anybody with a little bit of common sense, but of course, you couldn’t think of anything else to say. You are weak and feeble and should keep your stupid ideas to yourself instead of constantly spreading your drivel all over the internet.
How would you respond to a loyal, successful, proven contingent of mercenaries that wanted to naturalize into the Timocracy?
A veiled, subconscious desire to move their platonic relationship onto a sexual level?
It depends on how stringent you want to make your Timocratic system, or how dominant the racial/ethnic component is.
In my ideal Timocratic State the criteria percentages are:
70% - genetic - ethnic/racial.
20% - memetic - education, training.
10% - will - choice, loyalty, commitment.
In the 20% and 10% percentile there is an allowance for integration of foreigners.
Especially those who show a desire to belong, adopting the same values, traditions, ethics, and duties, can become eligible despite not belonging to the same race/ethnicity.
Military service is the primary criterion of eligibility.
Mercenaries will meet this…
The second criterion is the production of tangible goods.
The value of the goods and how long of consistent production will meet the criterion in to be determined.
The easiest way would be through farming, necessitating the ownership of land.
This makes the investment inevitable, and it shows a desire, commitment.
So, citizenry would have already proven their loyalty and commitment and ability, by the time they meet all the criteria.
A more racially stringent Timocratic system may adjust the eligibility requirements.
Military service is only one option.
Females may gain citizenship through some other kind of service to the state.
In the medical or education fields.
Handicapped males and females may meet the criterion through some other form of service.
It depends on what kind of Timocratic system you wish to build.
The basic idea is that citizenship is not a right but a privilege one must earn.
A privilege that comes with duties.
This would filter out retards, cynics, degenerates, charlatans, opportunists etc.
Wouldn’t it be better to call it “meritocracy”? With “timocracy”, the current rulers of the current system called “plutocracy” can say: “Timocracy? Good, that’s exactly what we practise. The richest are in charge - for you, of course.” They can say that because most people don’t know the difference between timocracy and plutocracy anyway. Of course, timocracy is different from plutocracy.
Besides: The most important values of every person, couple, family, kinship, tribe, people (nation), culture are the tradition, the conservative, the normality, because everyone and every community must be so stable in order to be safe from danger. And if these values are forbidden (as they are in the West), then the people must become traditional/conservative revolutionaries.
And if we consider the slogan of the French revolution - “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” - then we must realise that it is only fraternity, which is not mentioned last by chance, that can be practised 100%, i.e. absolutely. The other two - liberty and equality - can only be practised to a relative extent, because due to the relative determinacy or relative indeterminacy and due to the genetic diversity in nature, in our world, there can be no absolute liberty and also no absolute equality, but only before the law, where every person should have a right to liberty, equality and fraternity. But only fraternity is 100% practicable, but is fought against because there is a striving for power and consequently greed, war, crime, injustice and the like. On the other hand, freedom and equality are claimed, although both can never exist 100%. Since the French revolution, these two have increasingly been used by the powerful only to become even more powerful: by means of freedom, to eliminate legal disruptions, to “deregulate”, to get “freer markets”, but only to achieve a monopoly themselves, i.e. even more power; by means of equality, to seemingly side with the majority so that the majority support them and fight for them, in order to achieve what what freedom is already supposed to achieve: more power for the most powerful.
When the abnormal and unhealthy are on top, what Darwin called “natural selection” is reversed, because a “social construct” (i.e.: “artificial construct” [AC]) named “social selection” (i.e.: “artificial evolution” [AE]), ensures then that the weak survive and the strong die out. On this point, Nietzsche was and all those who thought and think like him on this issue were and are right.
1 Like
Go further though:
Why do the weak create such hard times?
Because their ‘weakness’ is spiritual. They have no Autonomy, Self-Control, Spirit, Mind. They have no ‘Choice’. They want no Choice. They want no Autonomy, Self-Law, Responsibility. Because to the weak, they consider “Responsibility” a bad word, a poison, something repulsive and drives them away. Responsibility, hence Morality, is their Antithesis. Because the Weak are driven by Sex and Hunger, primal drives. They are more “animal” than human. This is why Jews look upon the “Goyim” as cattle, chattle, because, they are easily taken by their lies, propaganda, pornography, immorality, cRap music, etc. They behave, look, and act, like animals.
Use “Ecmandu” or “Costard” on this forum as primary examples, in real-time.
They have no Spiritual Resistance, no “Strength” of the highest kind or category.
Freedom and Liberty are contingent, dependent, and directly corresponds to Autonomy. If you have no Self-Law, no Discipline, no Autonomy, then you have no real Choice in life, thus no real Freedom or Liberty.
This is why the Western masses went from belief in “Free-Will”, from the 1950s and 60s, to reversing their belief and faith, today.
It is a decay of the spiritual strength, that makes them Weak, and creates Hard times.
Another aspect of Timocracy that may be applied is a wealth cap, so as to prevent political control over the state.
A minimum of wealth production makes someone eligible, but there’s a maximum, preventing wealth accumulation that will corrupt the system.
You could do it that way, but corruption knows no bounds.
I would favour a system based on merit or diligence, in which, for example, intelligence would be the currency (and not money). There was a similar system in Egypt, in ancient China, in Germany, especially in Prussia, which had definitively replaced Austria as the main power in Germany after the victory in the German War and was dissolved by the Allies (USA, Soviet Union, British Empire, France) after the Second World War. It was not the alleged “militarism”, which was nothing but a lie by the Allies, that was the reason for the dissolution of Prussia, but the perfect functioning of a civil service state in which those who achieved something were rewarded, i.e. rank was primarily based on performance and not primarily on the amount of money.
The Allies should have done it the other way round, then they would really have learnt, so that they would definitely not have today’s problems: endless corruption, debts, foreign infiltration, i.e. disintegration to the point of the danger of ruin forever.
1 Like
The reason for the observation that there are hard times creating weak men, because there were good times before, is not only because of weakness, but also and even more because of comfort. 80% - the masses - are simply too comfortable, but not too stupid and not too weak, but simply too comfortable to be among the really weak or to stop the really weak, and they are also simply too comfortable, but not too stupid or too intelligent and not too weak or too strong, but simply too comfortable to be among the really strong or to stop the really strong. They are lumped together with either the weak or the strong. The comfortable do not change the facts. Just because they are too comfortable. But because the cycle in question (Hard times => Strong men => Good times => Weak men => Hard times) only says something about the facts, it doesn’t have to take the comfortable into account, but it can, because it doesn’t matter, because the comfortable don’t change the facts.
Weakness does not need a majority to prevail, because the masses will go along with it at a certain point anyway. Weakness does not need a majority to prevail, because the masses will go along with it at a certain point anyway. The same applies to strength. There are always only a few. The masses automatically follow behind like a herd.
Take the example of softness again. For weakness, a certain percentage of the powerful is enough to “convince” the 80% masses, the comfortable. This happens automatically, via the media. Hardly anyone realises that the people themselves are their primary media, namely the signs naturally mediated via and through their own bodies, and that the sign systems artificially developed or built by them outside their bodies are their secondary media (e.g. artificial images, writing, statues, architecture and other artifacts - they are all texts as well as books, newspapers, radios, television sets, films, Internet, etc.). So if, as happened in late antiquity, tolerance towards the intolerant (regardless of whether they presented themselves as hypocritical and peaceful) has already taken hold among a certain percentage of the powerful, then that is enough to topple the entire system (culture, nation, family, marriage - the entire tradition) if the masses are already “convinced”, and that doesn’t take long. Today’s West also finds itself in this situation.
2 Likes
Funny.
Timocracy can take many forms.
Some may choose to include race/ethnicity as a primary prerequisite for becoming a citizen, other may not.
Some Timocratic variants may choose to include a ceiling to wealth so as to prevent its dominance by the wealthy.
The requirement of producing tangible goods already filters out individuals of low IQ and of a particular disposition, that have proven to be detrimental to modern/postmodern “pseudo-democratic” systems.