Yes, you’re right Roberto, sorry, my bad! The Feb 27th deadline is for registration of Parties before this year’s election campaign’s officially start. Otherwise, i think they can’t guarantee that you’s have time to register a candidate as well, or it simply means they’ll be too busy to register a new party after Feb 27th. It’s a minefield of rules & regulations, but we’ll get there I’m sure
@roberto, this post has clarified a great deal. I am ready to move on this as soon as it is deemed appropriate.
I think one of the other things you guys should try to do is to really establish the meritocracy ‘brand’ as something completely distinct and unrelated to other political ideology.
When I try to discuss meritocratic ideas with people, I often get called a fascist. It is unfortunate that Mussolini was an avid reader of Nietzsche and thus adopted some of what is in the province of meritocracy into fascism. But obviously the ethos of fascism has nothing at all in common with the ethos of meritocracy. This perception of anything combining the ideas of the left and right wings as being fascist/Nazi; has to be dispelled. Just because those idiots read the same authors we read, doesn’t mean our systems are going to be the same!
That is my opinion too. There are times whenever we are painting ourselves in a way which makes us resemble Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. They are old school social liberals, not radicals. Sometimes I think we play the democratic role too much and want to appear palatable and popular. We aren’t. We have a very distinguished ideology that is totally radical. We need to be honest about that and we need to be clear about who we are and what we stand for.
Making a brand which makes us look warm and fluffy may attract some people but what about when we reveal our true colors? They will then be put off and realize that we aren’t what they signed up for. We need to communicate to people in no uncertain terms who we are and what we alone intend to do.
Perhaps we need a political wing & a radical action wing, working in tandem with each other? There could be the ‘Meritocracy Movement’ taking the word to the streets, protesting & such + the official Meritocracy Parties, representing the political line. Food for thought …
We are not liberals, we are radicals, to pursue a liberal political agenda whilst handing out posters which advertise us as ‘radical’ does not even make sense.
The cold fact of the matter, if we are not in agreement without exception about what this Movement stands for then it is doomed from the beginning. Our ethos and our approach must be enshrined in no uncertain detail in the constitution. Divergence between the nicey nice liberals and the radicals is what took down the original Movement back in 2008.
A Movement is either radical or liberal. It is a zero sum game and has been my understanding since the beginning.
You truly speak as one representing the Green Party with whom I am very familiar with, my brother being a prominent member for England.
Yes Niall i agree, we are radicals, or we are nothing. In no way am I saying let the political wing talk ‘liberalism,’ just using the age-old strategy that in any organisation, there are always combatents and non-combatents.
And also, we’re not a populist movement. It might have been yourself that said ‘we’re as popular as chicken-pox.’ Right now, that’s so true.
I guess that what we’re all doing at present is sowing the seeds of something that will grow… as tiny acorns grow into oak trees.
I’ve been thinking up some new sub-heading slogans to go with ‘Equal Opportunity For Every Child.’ I’ll put them in a new post however, as we’re already drifting off topic.
We just need to be careful to audit ourselves all the way through this process. We do not need people bringing us up on details and accusing us of being inconsistent.
Especially if we ever did something that got media attention, we would be as popular as Ebola, AIDs or anyone with a slightly Arabic accent.
- Ban private education-but not the schools.
- Ban inherited wealth.
- Make all property ultimately state owned (I think theoretically it is owned by the crown)
-do not allow foreign ownership of British housing.
I agree with Niall – solutions must first be practical.
“Most arts have produced miracles, while the art of government has produced nothing but monsters.” – Saint-Just
“One does not make revolutions by halves.” – Saint-Just
“A nation regenerates itself only upon heaps of corpses.” – Saint-Just
“What produces the general good is always terrible or seems bizarre when begun too soon … The Revolution must stop when it has perfected public happiness and liberty through the laws.” – Saint-Just
“I have not found a single good man in government; I have found good only in the people.” – Saint-Just
If we’re truly saying WE will become the government, then what’s the flipside of that? We would have to be readying ourselves for the single most monumental task, rationally and spiritually, in all human history. That’s just what it is. We would have to be unflinching, fearlessly implementing new ideas among ourselves that really truly push human boundaries like never before. That is the flipside. The meritocratic government can only be started by people who wear those same principles in plain sight and demonstrate their effectiveness.
We need to uninstall the malware of unmeritocratic unreason within ourselves. We need the best of the best, and it comes from sheer hard work and determination, in all domains of thought – nothing else will do. We need to become the writers and thinkers and artists that don’t exist in this time and to which the classic works call.
I am starting by rediscovering my old egoistic Nietzschean personality so I can explain the best of it, and how to get other people tapping into it. We must be bold and fearless. We must truly “listen” and “pay attention”; the all-important act is of course testing and applying conscious reason when you find it. The psychological Nietzschean side dovetails with our cause very well. The first true meritocrats must also be unflinching, dominant, self-critical superhumans (turning their weaknesses into strengths). We must use everything at our disposal. We must write. Writing involves the Will to Power as well as reason.
The Sacred Cause is another key component of self development (one of the core facets the first meritocrats must master). We need to publish theories and ideas for ourselves about what psychology works, so we can clearly separate people who will integrate radically new knowledge, and who won’t.
As always, we advance through eternal reason and not the appeal of emotion or narratives. We don’t hope, hope is an emotional appeal. We press forward, onto reason. First then, is the defence of pure reason, is it not?
We need to attract the smartest, most unflinching meritocrats first of all. This undoubtedly means a bold, unflinching set of policies to clearly distinguish our Intent from the current system, which we seek to entirely replace.
We need to double down on the intellectual, intuitive solutions to grand scale national-level problems. Focusing on a core populist brochure can be left to the later stages where we have already attracted enough support to be moving and changing and attracting attention through intelligence.
If surviving purely on liberal and politically apathetic votes is our goal – is that really worth doing in the first place? Surely we want the true lifeblood of a revolution; and to be creating it by our very existence and methods. If we expect the entire political system to surrender its rein over to a group of meritocrats, what types of meritocrats are these? What will we have had to prepare ourselves for?
We are not just looking to gloss over the many problems of the current system. Fundamentally we need to expose its unmeritocratic, priviliged extreme (Iain Duncan Smith’s £40 breakfast), which is a moral outrage. Anything that prevents you from being valued in meritocratic terms leads to privileged abuse of that same system elsewhere (the money always goes somewhere). Ergo it’s morally outrageous. We are entirely opposed to that whole mentality. We are taking control. We need to be shown to be entirely in opposition to this ugly, nepotistic, morally bankrupt system of government. (And we only want that shade of support right now).
GamerGate was a great example of how liberal or mid-centre politics completely drained a movement of its passion and indignance. It withered away through concern trolling, appeals to appease the political opposition (Social Justice Warriors); and a submissive acceptance of politically correct race-based politics. We cannot make that mistake (diluting the very support we own). Thus, the emphasis on the radical nature of our Intent.
The past doesn’t ontologically exist, and with it, the past self, which is itself irrelevant for projecting evolution. As above, so below. The same applies with nations.
Things DO change, and linear projections are useless for showing the rational potential for evolution (which has always been optimization of the soul, not spacetime events). The real progress is timeless, and eternal i.e. rational waves of conscious realization.
There is no true rational progress to be made by incremental political correctness. It’s preaching unreason.
The traditionalists and the far right refer to tensed linear trends that do not ontologically exist. It’s preaching unreason.
The predatory workplace refers to tensed linear progression that does not ontologically exist. It’s preaching unreason.
Predatory capitalism refers to tensed linear Quality-of-Life progress that does not ontologically exist. It’s preaching unreason.
Progress in Reason is the true progress, it is the true merited worldview, and we must raise it above all other sentiments and priorities. This is the bedrock of a meritocratic culture. Rationalists are marked by a rational evolution, nothing else. We have earned this view - it is worth infinitely more than materialistic inventions - and we can earn more.