Citizenship in the future

...

Many government jobs are already held by majority women. How do you sell military service alone as the token to receive voting rights vs 'service' to local government or some government branch? That is undoubtedly the angle they will take if we push this.

...

...

In this day and age, requiring to own land to vote would spike and skyrocket any piece of land available. Not to mention all the chinks and foreigners that own land here right now…

Risk of life for country.

...

I came here to say this. For once the first reply is good.
I would like to add certain types of community service, in large amounts, should count as an equivalent. For example, a gelder who preforms 10-20 hours a week making his nation better sterilizing societies shit.

Problem is that you'll get a huge influx of women into the army in order to get the vote. This damages your capacity to wage war by forcing you to take on a whole bunch of people who at best are no help and more likely are an active hindrance. If you try to exclude most of the women, you'll get accused of sexism. If you're not willing or able to be explicitly sexist requiring service for citizenship is a non-starter.

...

Yes, it would need to be done slowly, if legit it would probably be best done in small increments over a generational time scale.

Kinda like the past 100 year 'progressive' movement.

Dude, just kick them out for not being able to drag their tits over some finish line.

How do we get over this issue? Is it worth fighting to change public opinion on the abilities of women in military roles? That seems like a very high bill going up against the kike media shitting out G.I. Jane and equivolent every other year.

Le civic nationalism
No fuvk off cuck.

Movies aren't real.

They don't have the memetic powers to get people to actually do work. Only to not work and be lazy, they lure with sinful temptations.

The few women that want citizenship will earn it, and be better people for their time spent in a strong military environment.

These are issues Barron should be focusing on, it's long term goals. It would need the education system to be uncucked for a few decades to stop the horrid lash back from feminists and sjws.

Trump should immediately drain the swamp that is our public schools mind toxins. Hitlers youth would be a prime example of what this world still needs, gardening.

Truly the best timeline

a female president regardless of who it is is BAD NEWS, faggot!

It's pretty simple, OP:

Why wouldn't you want this?

More people should see these clips.

It's important that the societal service rendered in exchange for citizenship be something that puts the individual at risk. This serves to dissuade cowards from making the attempt, and it serves to thin out parasites who might try to enter.

Many government jobs are completely unnecessary and should be scrapped

Many government jobs are completely unnecessary and should be scrapped

Mattis needs to raise the female physical standards as soon as possible. Hell, make them equal to men and watch the feminists bitch about equality.

Just do what the Marine Corps did: Raise the standard to such a level that being a mand becomes a bonafide measure of qualification. That's what a lot of firefighter's here in the states do.

What an awful suggestion. Probably made by some shitskin green nigger.

Heiled

Got a source for this kino, friendarino?

...

have a good torrent link? the only decent ones i saw have hardcoded subs

WHILE THESE FUCKS BURN AND DESTROY THEIR COUNTRY I HAVE TO FUCKING LIVE IN FUCKING BRAZIL

why live?
at least soon™ I will get my Italian citzenship

I don't know any torrent sites besides Kickass and Pirate Bay and I'm forced to use Pirate Bay because of that.

Im disapointed no-one have posted this yet.

youtube.com/watch?v=-_7FaWnlhS4

I'm just going to hit on this a little bit. The US criminal system simply doesn't work. Felons are essentially bared from life for jobs which obviously encourages them to do more crime and go back to prison. We need a system where people who are ALWAYS going to bring us down are at the very least permanently removed from the general population (those who murder, rob banks, fiddle with little kids, ENRON execs who robbed many honest people of their retirment, etc). This should of course have to be complimented by removing retard-tier felons ("spousal rape", a stupid teenager doing stupid teenager things like trying shrooms or going skinny dipping in the woods, self-defense with a gun, and other stupid shit that really doesn't matter)

Be an example of how immigrants should behave and be a good example, you fuck. If you ever abuse welfare, vote liberal or do stupid shit in Italy, you'll make us look like Pakis.

t. Hue

I plan on making some sort of source of passive income and procrastinate the rest of my life thereafter, maybe make a workshop and do useless shit.
abusing welfare is disgusting

One massive issue with the system would be the quantification of land as a requirement of political power. Since land is one of the few things that cannot expand compared to the population at large those whom hold large tracts of land end up holding outsized influence which consolidates corruption and degeneracy into an very small elite group of oligarchs. We already see the effect of that kind of consolidation in our society.

People with wealth will quickly grab up all the land they can and horde it. Especially the most prime lands. This creates an bottleneck for soldiers in entering into political power. A soldier comes out from service and he would have to obtain land in order to complete his entry into relevance. Already wealthy individuals can exert outsized influence on such an system early on capturing power in such a way. Later on, only the influential landed will be able to enter into higher ranks, and such higher ranks endear them into obtaining more land in turn. This eventually squeezes out the common soldier and removes his interest in the wider nation since the wider nation holds no loyalty to him, only the high end political gentry of generals and admirals whom command the entirety of representation.

This also strips the ability to change and adapt society on a more fundamental level. In order to be citizen you must have land, that forces land to have an outsized influence on wealth and without good land you cannot obtain wealth. So consolidation of wealth can happen very quickly. Whats more, modern civilization and success rely utterly on technology, stripping the most motivated and potentially skilled out from those jobs by forcing responsible men into years of soldiering and then locking them into small scale land management rather than other outlets until much latter in life, if ever.

You would very quickly end up with the exact opposite problem we have now, but with similar results. This was why Rome lost cohesion and collapsed. They failed many centuries before the end of the Roman empire. Infact the actual empire itself was the ultimate result of trying to bridge a way to retain such an focus without addressing fundamental systemic problems within such systems.

WEW LAD

Not necessarily, perhaps it would be necessary to have served before being able to own land would stop the weak jew or foreigners from preying on our sovereign land the way they do now.

...

There is also the problem with cities in civilizations being the center of all power. This is an inescapable problem until decentralized power generation and cheap small scale production can outperform manufacturing on an industrial scale. Soldiers stuck out in the country end up removed from such. Only the already wealthy able to have their land already producing exportable wealth can afford to stay in a city and garner both direct power and political power capable of making wider moves into national influence.

An common soldier will not come out of the service with any wealth inherent in himself unless he had connections and already wealthy family. So such soldiers will end up on the very land they own, which is itself an trap that works against what we would want in such a system. The soldier would have to figure out how to generate enough to survive on at a fundamental base level, which acts as an anchor for the individual soldier. He becomes less interested in the wider nation since he immediately becomes non-cosmopolitan, he also cannot initially generate actual wealth, depending on the amount and production of the land itself possibly never. Without wealth frankly you never have political power, even if on paper you are the only one 'allowed' to have said political power influence. Also, soldiers are often desperate to start families after their experiences, families before you are grounded are a major drag on financial stability and political influence. The common soldier could conceive of doing nothing but 'voting' for something someone else puts in front of them for decades, possibly their entire life. And never get to the point that they actually directly influence political power.

Those landed gentry end up being able to make new latifundia types of centralization. Which will again strip more wealth and power from the common soldier further removing his ability to control politics. We already have such corporate estates ready made to be bought/seized/granted to the powerful and connected in such a system. Making us run straight into the worst of what the Roman system produced before we even obtained the full benefits of the goal.

Of course not necessarily. But that requires an understanding of what fundamental problems of the system are before you even address how to transition into the new system. Going into such a system as it stands now without directly seizing ALL lands from those whom own it now, even those whom are ex soldiers ensures the new system fails and fails hard before it starts.

Rome could not stabilize its problems due to this system of land = power. Adding soldiering on top of it does little but do lip service to addressing such problems. Those with the most land always ended up with the most power politically and could work to seize the land of the common soldier that he earned thru various ways. We would have to address and render iron clad rules of land ownership, land dispersion under every type of change, rules of inheritance and how to stop generals/admirals or others from being able to own outsized tracts of both land and influence.

It cannot in any way be modeled after anything that came before. Corruption in such systems at all levels are very real and will do nothing long term unless addressed. And frankly it would not happen anyway without utterly stripping this nation of its reliance upon our current system and allowing strong men to gut and seize the power, land, wealth and persons of foreign history. Which requires war.

Not really. It's not as if the voting power is equal to the number of square meters of land one owns. One landowner == one vote. The more pertinent issue is how leftists would sell microshares of land in order to create landowners. "Shheeeeeiiiitttt. I get to vote for dem programs because I'm the proud owner of one square centimeter of land in the Utah barrens! Now gibsmedat!"

We need service to the state as a condition of citizenship. However, for those who can't cut it as prime military candidates, I also propose that working on manual labor battalions for a period of years, upgrading and repairing our infrastructure should also count. Disabled people simply don't get citizenship if they can't hack either of these options. That's fine, because those on the welfare of the state from childhood until death don't deserve to vote.

What's going on here??

...

1080p
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:fe1aecaf0a2ca56110dcabb47e932f4ba5a2423d&dn=The%20Fall%20of%20the%20Roman%20Empire%20(1964)%201080p%20BluRay%20H264%20AAC%20RARBG&tr=tracker.opentrackr.org:1337/announce&tr=udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969/announce&tr=udp://tracker.leechers-paradise.org:6969/announce&tr=udp://tracker.pirateparty.gr:6969/announce&tr=udp://tracker.zer0day.to:1337/announce

The issue is that we've devalued citizenship by giving it away so freely. People no longer cherish it, and rightly so. We've drifted further from the Nation and closer to the Empire.

The first paragraph shows you didn't actually understand what I was explaining. I never argued that land ownership = voting power itself which would be a boondoggle of epic fail, but as part of the military + land ownership argument other user asked about. Most Americans have never actually paid attention to Rome, the Scandinavian models and various middle ages cultures which demanded the precept of land ownership as a precept into political power. I debated going into issues of micro partitioning but figured it was partially already covered under such arguments. I would suggest you look into that as to why it didn't work well. Mainly that even if owning a small parcel of land after military service is enough to enter into the political domain, those with excessive land ownership ALWAYS end up corrupting such processes. Even if the individual has only 'one' personal vote, he can bring to bear far outsized influence with his wealth that other soldiers cannot. That breeds corruption and disdain for the very political process soldiers risked life for BY said soldiers. Such a system leads directly into civil war when a civilization hits its cap on corralling such corruption. So instead of Trump being elected like we did, the soldiers behind him would have already said fuck it and started murdering the soldiers behind whomever the fuck was supporting someone other than Trump. Because then, like now, only the most wealthy and influential can rise to the top. Voting ability is not enough. An real voice and chance to become said voice MUST be retained by the average citizen or the fail of corruption will tear every system apart.

The second paragraph I hold little argument against what-so ever. Tho I hold some reservation about allowing anyone whom wishes to enter into service to do so. If you cannot serve you should not be handed light service to ensure you obtain a 'vote'. Fairness seems to be the argument in such, and fairness is how our own problems got started to begin with. Perhaps with the right setup it could work too, but myself I have no way to address it.

(checked)
Could we make grants of land equal for every soldier? Also no one is allowed to sell or buy land (it goes to the state if a soldier dies).

This gets into the territory of maximum land per person / family. If there were controls on maximum own-able personal land (for living) and a different category for business the division of land could become more 'equitable'.

It could work, but there are problems in that too if not addressed.

One. Working the land into being productive is fucking hard. The kind of hard that the type of man whom does it will only really do it for his progeny. Even with modern machinery. Working the land would become pointless, and by working the land you generate the stored wealth that makes land actually valuable. Land is an investment, take away that investment and you end up with renters attitude about it and eventually the wider society.

Two. We would have to address what land is granted and what happens to such that isn't granted as well as were such land to grant comes from. Do we grant 'land' in cities to soldiers, partially developed land like with say a house, or wholly undeveloped land? How would renter's rights work much less income from existing rent structures work if soldiers are granted land that overlaps such? How and to what extent are land rights dispersed to said soldiers when they actually don't own it if outside rules are in play? Do soldiers granted land in cities get less to account for value return generated off of ready made services and additional rents / multi story sf in such lands vs soldiers whom are granted lands in say a Utah county with a population of 20?

Three. Are all lands held by government if not held by soldier grants? If not owned by government how does civilian ownership of land work in light of the pros and cons of soldier land grants and value imparted unto both as well as the very real aspect of wealth generation competition between two such non compatable systems? How do you stop government control from becoming corrupted if they control all land management options, most men whom work the land are violently against government control even partially upon the land they work. How do you address value of land differential across an entire continent?

I would like you to explain in detail what you mean. I tried an argument and realized I was arguing an strawman I had made up in my own mind. I would like you to be the one to lay out exactly what your argument is one way or another. This is a discussion so I shouldn't hog it. Tho you might need to address rent payment and rent collection in such a system.

I was responding specifically to this part

if there are maximums on land ownership (ie only land that you yourself use consistently) separated into personal and business categories (I know there are grey areas here but there would obviously be a distinction for larger corporations that require more land) set up in such a way that those with wealth cannot buy up all the land it would reduce the impact of this point no?

In Vancouver, the wealthy from all other the world (but more specifically china) buy up land and living space at prices that exclude the domestic market and drive up prices. This is part money laundering part speculating that only the wealthy can engage in and only brings benefits/profit to the wealthy.

I know this doesn't address the fact that the wealthy will always have more power in politics for various reasons but it would at least curb that avenue of power concentration.

Do you have a suggestion regarding the ideal way to distribute citizenship?

Furthermore, what books would you recommend on learning how to analys systems? I'd like to be able to dissect a system the way you've just done with Romes power structure, would buying the highest ranked books on Amazon suffice?

nice thread btw

Because women leaders have been bad for their nations throughout history

Literally not an argument.

none of this would be necessary if all the jews were gone forever. whites can sustain committments. niggers cannot.

That is true. But you can address that issue just by seizing such land outright without changing the fundamental system of governance. In comparison to changing a system from the ground up, doing so is ridiculously easy and cheap. Most nations do so as a matter of course when the winds of change are upon them, never mind when the very foundation of their culture is being shifted into an wholly new direction and their own government is clearly dissolved in favor of a new one. By any course outside persons / nations lose their ownership very easily, only the current length of stability has colored how most of us see things. For most of human history the very idea that someone from another nation 'owns' anything in your nation would be insane. If you cannot control it you do not own it is the norm. Does make it a problem for trading internationally tho.

As far as business and personal. So many options and pro's and con's dependent upon every little option we could go all night on that. But would likely HAVE to be the way to go in our modern technologically driven environment. Otherwise such distribution would come down to fiat based upon the men whom made such decisions thru force in the first place I believe. Such a thing would likely be the meat and potatoes of what we should be talking about here if this is the path we would like to see taken.

I would dictate an tiered system of citizenship representation and requirements. No one perfect system is going to work for our world. While it sounds nice that 'service = citizenship' this usually comes from people whom have never actually been in the military, or are one of the guys the rest of us talk about as being why you shouldn't expect the best of humanity to be represented in a soldier.

All whom live in our land or territory are afforded our basic rights. Only full citizens are allowed to vote or hold office based upon the following.

non-nationals - afforded only basic human rights under the constitution. can be removed at will upon demand for no reason by ANY governing body or upon request and aproval buy a citizen
immigrant nationals - non-nationals whom swear alliegance to the nation and serve a decade of either military or critical need civil service to the nation. non adult children whom have lived at least 10 years in country will be considered national upon your completion of service. No voting or office holding capacity at all, for life.
national citizen - common non voting rabble - can own property and ask for redress in courts as well as petition government offices for resolutions, cannot hold any office or management position in government.
subjugated citizens - those not capable of self care after adult age - criminals and prior criminals - all basic needs are met at all times - no voting or office holding available - may not redress or petition offices, must use valid full citizen representatives - full citizens under punishment will either be granted full citizenship with NO further action after apointed term of jail or be stripped of all citizenship and listed as non-national until such a time as they can be exiled from the nation for crimes commited.
citizens in service - political office - can only vote as a representative - bared for life from petitioning for votes after leaving office, varous bans on jobs - personal effects are placed in caretaker status while serving office, given same pay / benefits as soldiers.
soldiers in service - no rights, military jurisdiction and punishments are in effect at all times - soldiers are slaves to the system and serving is a duty and honor, soldiers are paid an wage and provided for basic necessities - barred from marriage until at least five years served - may only vote on national issues until service is complete. Depending upon technology mandatory contraceptive use by all in service
full citizen status - only available after military service or exceptional intelligence is proven - may vote in any and all elections and selections - only personal whom can serve as police - are expected to serve upon demand - are expected to own and service personal weapons of war as an on call militia - are expected to carry personal weapons most of the time unless performance of such weaopn would be considered unfeasible when called upon (shit like surgens don't need to carry all the time).

Birthright citizenship like Israel. European whites, no matter where they're born, are automatically granted American citizenship. Shitskins and jews, even when born on our soil, can never be American.

I think that claim is a non sequitur in modern times. I alluded to this with my reference to the Utah barrens. Appeals to the way land ownership/politics *used to work* in an agrarian era prior modern ease of travel, excess caloric supply, energy availability, and instantaneous worldwide communications doesn't really hold.

Let's say you're a voter because you got a tiny chunk of land in the middle of nowhere. Eh, checked the box, now I can vote. Why would I beholden to larger local landowners? Outsized influence from large local barons would flow if people had small farms without economies of scale. However, you aren't stipulating that land owner citizens be forced to be on site farmers, are you? I could buy an acre of Florida swamp tomorrow for very little and never visit it.

Basically, my point is that land ownership in and of itself does not solve anything anymore, nor does it pose the excessive risks as you mentioned. I think the modern equivalent to land ownership would be "accumulating enough paid-in income tax". This could trivially be determined much like the Social Security Administration currently tallies for simple payroll.

1. First step is to dictate a minimum intelligence requirement to become citizen. The number of soldiers whom can barely tie a shoe is far larger than most suspect, and a huge number of soldiers refuse to think for themselves, that is a major problem itself when considering them for their capacity for voting. With a minimum tier of intelligence you are eligible to enter service and vote, with a very high intelligence you get defacto access to vote without having to enter service.
2. Political office requires service. No ifs ands or buts, and any criminal instances of corruption would be sent to military tribunal for execution of punishment. Your place of work is an court at is most basic core, no need for another court of law to waste resources in.
3. Once you go past say rank of say colonel or sergeant major (line unit command) you are bared from political office. The risk associated from military power consolidation is not something such a system should ignore. You either chose to get out to pursue an political office or you chose to become servant to such office holders. Either or, never both.
4. Most political office holders are generated by random selection, like jury summons, from that list those eligible to vote select the ones they consider 'right' for the job. Anyone whom refuses to serve without extreme need to abstain are to have their citizenship revoked. Nobody can 'volunteer' for the job. Never trust a man whom wants power. Trial by relevant representative body may waive such an punishment for not serving in office if they so chose to review and agree AFTER the election run is over. Damocles sword should always be in play against office holders.
5. No non-national person can ever be eligible for either full voting rights or political office regardless of their service. But service to the nation could speed the induction allowing their children into full citizen rights upon the above requirements. As a non-national person you or your children are disbarred from ever being citizens if you do not yourself serve and can be exiled from the nation at will for any reason.

I'm all for it if race is Homogenous (100% Whites)

my Grandfather's side of the family came here as a hessian soldier during the American Revolutionary War. Lived in the Germantown area of PA. Fuck shit skins, beaners niggers, and especially those kikes. I'm as American as apple pie. Whites only or GTFO. Hitler did nothing wrong. Grandad couldn't even fight in WWII 'cause he was a kraut so he made bombs in a factory.

Mostly agree with that argument. Land ownership is rather antiquated and can be rigged. But that is a common meme of how to fix our current system as well as military service as a path to citizenship.

Only reason I am wary about it is due to the economic reality of those whom serve in the military. You can buy some land in florida tomorrow sure, but those whom typically serve are not capable of expending such cash and tend not to for years afterward. Many cannot afford to buy their own personal vehicles without usurious debt. There is a reason the government guarantees the loan on an vet when he buys a house. Would it be considered ownership even if it was covered under a loan? Such a simple thing can change the dynamics by an order of magnitude. Not due to risks in owning land, but the simple inability to do so if the system does not address a number of issues that would become paramount due to the new system, and of course residual issues of our current system transferring into the new one.

If the house he buys on loan is sufficient to be considered as 'owned' by said soldier then there is no problem with such an system in modern times in theory. Until some jew gets the bright idea that they can extort votes due to economic realities of the common soldier. The problem really comes into play if they cannot buy an affordable chunk for a house or if it has to be an productive wealth generating plot of land. Such soldiers will for perhaps a decade or more after getting out not be stable enough to own land beyond their individual domicile. Extra property not generating income or providing you with a service, affordable to you or not, is a luxury item. Service in such a case could actually be detrimental to representation. Such things open itself to corruption.

Aside from land ownership. I find it even more interesting more of us do not argue against 'service = citizenship'. While many of us don't like it, the reality of many soldiers being glorified welfare queens isn't actually that inaccurate. The number of soldiers whom actually soldier is very low. Most ways of changing citizenship I hear on Holla Forums have me covered easily as citizen, I still feel we need to refine such ideas beyond a simple book/movie understanding of life. Especially when so few here have either served or owned land.

This system would work if the country wouldn't abuse its soldiers with zogbotting.

We can have 2 separate wars, the women soldiers fighting the enemy women soldiers, and the men fighting the men. The men can sit back and watch and laugh as women attempt to go to war with each other.

I used to be in the military. You're ignoring the fact that soldiers are notoriously bad at handling money and any financial issue they run into is 100% their own fucking god damn fault. You make money hand over fist in the military, you don't have to spend a single dime on food or housing ever, and if you DO decide to spend money on food and housing they'll throw more allowances at you than you'll ever need (adjusted for cost of living at your location too). Married soldiers practically make double pay too, to the point where lots of guys get married to random sluts JUST for the extra money – we called them paycheck vaginas.

The reason they can't afford to buy a car is because they blew $700 at the fucking strip clubs and bars every single weekend.

It would be like the WNBA. In the end, just kind of boring.

Fixed that for you. And no I wasn't ignoring it. It is a simple fact of life. But that is also why we are discussing the very concept of citizenship in this thread anyway is it not?

Blaming the retard for being a retard is a cop-out btw. You know your job as an nco was to guide your soldiers and if they fucked up it reflected back onto you (fucked up pos units not withstanding). There is a reason for that. Most young men have never had someone whom was responsible and capable of mentoring guide them into adulthood, hell most men only see their dads slaving away at work or vegging in front of a tv. Such is not conductive to responsible living early on until lessons are learned. Guess what, most men are never actually sat down and taught they don't have to shell out dosh for pussy, they are never given advice on how to pick women up other than some frilly lies about being yourself or other such hogwash told from women or faggots whom don't have a clue how they fucked some skank. SO they are going to go off and fuck up some. Failure of their better's to be honest. Hint fucking Hint.

Now, if you are arguing that all soldiers should be NEETs and save their money. Ok. Fine, argument understood. Not a bad one if you happen to have a goal. Another thing most men at a young age don't even begin to hope for since virtually all of them still don't know what the fuck or how the fuck they are supposed to be something in the job force much less some 'goal' unless again, they had some guidance.

I am not saying you can save them all. But many of them you can at least point out something they never thought of and never heard of. OR you can be a judgemental prick that likes to feel better about himself because others fail because you didn't help em a little. Feel free to feel superior and awesome when you point something out and they fuck up anyway, that shit is golden and great fun even when its a battle buddy.

A tiered system of citizenship. I'm just coming up with it off the top of my head.

Immigrants: Limited rights, no right to vote, no social assistance. Immigration is heavily regulated (basically no non-whit ountries), and those that get in are the lowest rung of society. Immigrants, regardless of their previous wealth, are not allowed to own property until they have reached the next citizenship level.

Born In citizens: This is the default citizenship status people are born with. Right to education up to 15 years old. Further education is earned by marks, extra curriculars and employment. Those not strong in academics but who are otherwise well-adjusted and hard working are transferred to a work study program.
These citizens have a right to free speech, assemble and petition the government (barring certain elements barred by the government). They have the right to bear arms and to join state militias. However, they do not have the right to vote or run for government. If under 18, they have the right to basic government services (to be decide what this is by the government, but should probably include some basic medical and legal representation), but this is cut off at 18. This level is generally surpassed by most people in early adulthood and is meant to be the first real level of citizenship. You're pretty much a total failure if you're past 25 and haven't advanced beyond this.

The college student: So this is basically just an extension of the 'born in'. Not much different. Full college is extremely difficult to get into but scholarships are extensive due to the elite nature of the programs. Masters and PhD students remain at the same citizenship level but can advance rapidly after graduation. College extends healthcare and other needs beyond 18 for top scholarship students, but this is paid for by the college's endowment fund.

The Taxpayer: The taxpayer is the real fully adult level of citizenship that most people are expected to advance to. They have stable employment, pay taxes and generally contribute to a society. Beyond simply having a job, they are expected to volunteer participate in some community organization (excemptions exist for people in certain lines of work). They must also register for the draft and may be required to participate in the militia as a reservist. This class has all the rights of the previous class, but are also given the right to vote and run for local government. They are also allowed to vote but not run in state elections, and vote for the lower house of the federal government.

The plebian: Similar to the taxpayer but has owned property for a certain timeframe, and has served the country's military for a certain number of years. In addition, the plebiscite must be married and have at least 2 children (exceptions can be made on genuine medical conditions). This person is respected and looked up to in the local commnunity and is generally encouraged to be involved in local or state politics. While the taxpayer is technically able to run, in reality the plebs will hold most power at the local and state level. These people can vote in all elections, and can run for local, state and the lower house of the federal government. They are also allowed to own certain businesses that are barred from the lower levels, including newspapers and media companies, as well as companies working in areas of strategic interest to the nation. While this is technically the highest level an immigrant (remember, immigration is limited to begin with) can achieve, it is an incredible feat to do so and only the most exceptional could hope to achieve this.

Patricians: These are people who have lived in the country for several generations, and whose ancestors have achieved the rank of plebian or higher for at least the two previous generations. These people may run for senate, which is given the majority of real national power. The lower house wil be tasked with mostly budgetary issues and domestic issues, while the upper house will be tasked with things like immigration, pasing of certain laws, and declaring war. Regardless of birth, all who hope to be patricians must serve in the military, must have a family and must own not only personal land but must also own productive land in the form of farmland, industry or commercial property. While the patrician technically does not need to be wealthy, it is expected this person must be able to serve in a political position without need of salary. No person may serve in the senate beyond three terms, and the position unlike some of the lower positions, is unpaid (to discourage the 'career politician' class from entering the senate).

Just made this up so its clearly not very fleshed out but I stand by the general idea of it.

Check it out: landcentury.com/under-1000-land-deals/

And that's *today*, with no structural incentive to sell a square centimeter of land for $10 or something so someone can be a landowner/voter. I guarantee you that would promptly emerge. If you set a minimum size threshold then people will simply buy that amount of land in an inaccessible badland area, never to visit.

Yes. This has been an established concept forever, and is illustrated by the existence of a lien. If you buy a house using a mortgage, you own it. You can demolish it if you want, you can sell it whenever you like and you set the price, you (not the bank) are responsible for taxes and any other liabilities the property incurs. That is to say, you have full ownership under the law. Same goes for vehicles bought with a loan… perhaps you have negative *equity*, but the vehicle is your property nonetheless.

do you think if the hit hits the fan US soldiers and cops are going to kill my mom, dad, and sister because George Soros paid them???

This is the crux of your issue with land ownership right here. All your pontificating boils down to welfare handouts for veterans, in the form of Jewish debt no less – which is ironic because you even mentioned it in your previous post:

So you think service is intrinsically detrimental to representation because the soldier happens to be a retard who is incapable of saving, building, and having goals? That's ridiculous and has nothing whatsoever to do with military service. You wouldn't be so fast to try to weasel citizenship onto non-veterans who were just as retarded and incapable of owning land.

Yes, I can be. Men ought to be judged, and the process of becoming a true citizen is one of judgement. Your attempt to paint judgement as a poor quality reads like another excuse for welfare and "inclusiveness". It's exactly that kind of rhetoric saying "don't be judgmental" that leads to granting everybody citizenship unconditionally and living in a leftist world of "tolerance" and degeneracy.

maybe its just the people I interact with, but I notice that the military is somewhat more republican than democrat…. however.

The people actually in combat roles are overwhelmingly conservative/nationalist. The military might be somewhat split, but most of the door kickers are "our guys".

you are kinda going off the assumption that switching over to such a system would retain this systems undercurrents.

I am not so sure that would work or be feasible since I only see such a switch involving a major civil war or collapse. But viewing it from this systems ways does make you think beyond the more historical view I have so good job. Also… that fucking link. Bretty interesting.

Local cops with dead soulless eyes with that antiracism training sticker on their department website all have participated in cheesepizza. On film. They will kill their own families rather than have that shit come out.

The New World Order was always meant to shift from any form of Citizenship towards everyone being simply customers. You can see this change in every aspect of life, where (((they))) try turn abstract or ideological things into (((simple))) economics, like relationships. I remember the shilling in news papers how it's positive to look at a relationship like a trade contract, questioning your benefits and checking possibilities of exploitation.

Hospitals, government institutions, schools, universities - everything turns into a fucking company by how they operate and what they want to achieve. Life is all about shekels.

Kikes are slowly turning earth into their fucking goyim simulator 2000, while having cheats enabled.

Is that what you think OP? Then you have NO FUCKING IDEA howit works. If you're a average White person as in, not super wealthy, you can wait THIRTY FUCKING YEARS to get in let alone become a citizen. These mud fucks you see… that's not normal. Look into the 'lottory' that's held each year for Green cards. It's a fucking impossible. So when you see Somalia's and other, SUBHUMAN FILTH getting in, that's being done by some unelected cunts at the state department. Real seventh floor type shit.

you apparently have issues and didn't learn how to just fucking laugh at it all while in. don't eat a bullet asshole, cause that stress and projection is building up a bit high.

I honestly don't know what the fuck is wrong with you on that second paragraph. Did you not actually read my post(s) or did you have an flashback and started putting some fucked up meaning into it that I didn't say. Perhaps you should think about going out tonight and finding some strange. You sound like you are wound way too tight and taking things a bit too personal to be on a chan on a Saturday night. I am an old married vet shitposting in an interesting thread on my own property. Maybe I have partaken in a bit too much ethanol derivative and fucked up somewhere by pissing in your cheerios, but fail to find reason to care.

Being a prick isn't being judgmental. Its just being a prick. You should also know as an soldier, that accurate judgement is requisite upon knowledge. You seem to lack it and project such lack upon others. Now, maybe I am a dumbass, but I got some knowledge. So lets go out on a limb and tell this private (you sound much like one) that if a person is not given guidance about which is the preferable path you cannot actually pass accurate judgement upon them without accounting for such. This is why we generally taught as many lessons to a private as possible so that said privates judgement is improved by his own henceforth knowledge level, and why behind the scenes after ripping private a new one for fucking up, nco's responsible for said private got ripped a new one as well. nco didn't pass along the correct knowledge or pass along that said private needed additional knowledge the nco couldn't provide(and in turn needed to fucking learn). Since you didn't gather from ALL of my over written posts on this thread that I was trying my hardest to avoid issues from ages past under several similar systems and also pointed out how I wanted to avoid corruption (another word for degeneracy ultimately) I will now point out the obvious for you.

Now since we are both clearly judgemental pricks. Do you yourself have an idea or thought upon how citizenship in the future should be structured? Or should I just hide you and wait till someone more interesting starts posting in this thread.

Damn good post mate. Check em. You likely broke thru everything we are talking about here too. We are trying to substitute alternate ways to generate relationships between people beyond our corrupted bullshit system so we can trust those whom are in said relationships to be responsible.

If you're referring to way ownership works, breaking that would almost certainly create more problems than it solves. Usury originally meant "charging interest for a loan". Now it just means "charging excessive interest". Why is that? Because it's essentially impossible to prohibit loan interest. Due to prohibitions on "usury" in the bible, the church disallowed it for centuries. Then the contractum trinius came along.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractum_trinius

It's effectively impossible to defeat this approach by writing laws. Eventually the church gave in and now the fight is to limit excessive interest. That's fine, because the economy does work better if credit exists (which it wouldn't without interest being charged).

Anyhow, Islam never gave up on the original definition of usury, so if you want to look at "alternative approaches" to finance, you can read about how Islamic banking works. Spoiler: it's the same as western finance, except with more steps so that they can deny that they are doing what they're doing

Ad hominems have no place in this discussion. We're not talking about me, we're talking about the fact that land ownership is still a perfectly valid form of citizenship requirement even though, as you have clearly gotten hung up on, some military members may not be able to afford land at some point.

Why do we need citizenship?

without property taxes there would be little incentive for small guys to sell land

door kickers do as they're told

What if we made it a requirement for people to live on the land they owned?

sadly there is no way out of it. I work in (((academia))) and the daily terrors and things I see to come true are just the side band.

The only things which can turn around this global corrupt system consisting of executive machinery (automated laws), their subscribers and the wealthy are either full out war or a technological black swan event.

Everything else is a lost uphill battle. I've thought about it for a long time and talked to trusted colleagues about topics like this and we always come to the conclusion that accelerating and spreading this illness is better than trying to fight it and die anyway. Scorched earth.

Also trivially gamed. Do you disenfranchise anyone who lives in an urban city? No? How about people who own more than one property? No? How about people who own one house & land but rent another?

I still assert the land ownership theme from the past was a proxy for "being a contributor to the economy" back before income tax accounting. It made more sense in a simpler time when the economy was fundamentally agrarian (it's not anymore) and income tax accounting was too difficult to perform (again, no longer the case). Being a net contributor to the state via payment of income taxes is a workable modern proxy that wouldn't force a skilled engineer to choose between pointlessly working as a farmer on his own land (in order to be a voter) vs applying his talents and maximizing his benefit to himself and the economy (but being disenfranchised).

Both the requirement of being a landowner and the requirement of meeting a some preset net tax contribution level would ensure that welfare takers don't vote for more gibs. Also, I still hold onto the idea that national service in manual labor or the military would be required of every individual who wishes to be a full citizen/voter.

Actually urbanization is a key factor contributing to some of the worst examples of degeneracy in modern society. Strongly incentivizing people towards moving away from urban cities and spreading out would be a welcome side-effect. I think you've simply misconstrued the idea of "living on the land" as being the same thing as "literally farming vegetables on the land". There's no reason an engineer cannot still apply his talents while living in a house outside of a city instead of living in an apartment inside of a city.True, some people will NOT have representation and it won't be 100% perfectly fair – but fairness isn't the end-goal of politics.

Don't like ad hominems don't get personally involved and leave yourself open.

Yes, land ownership is valid. But not perfect. And that was ultimately what I was arguing about. The reason military service + land ownership as a requirement got me hung up on land ownership due to historical accounts of how humans act. If we recognize such we can counter some of the biggest problems and make the system viable. Then frankly I have no cause for concern. And the reason to worry about it now is that if you do not address the issue before it comes into effect it tends never to be fixed and sets up the collapse of the system in the future due to lack of foresight. If all that was required for ownership was 'any' property be under your ownership and that is that. Then most of the faults and risks are moot, except it eliminates the core reason why owning land generates the very value in the person which is what would be desired in such a case. Rendering the requirement little more than afford bare minimum, check box, proceed to voting rights / citizenship. A man whom does not value his land is not actually all that in touch with the reasons why such men tended to be valued for a nation's strength. Much of my arguments have been (assumed granted) based upon the assumption we are after the type of person and not basic requirements per order of law. Similar to why so many would equate military service as being worthy of citizenship (even if not every person would live up to the ideal), it is not the service itself that matters but the type of man it hopefully brings into power. I see it as a complex issue and working around it defeats the reason even if it opens the way for wide availability.

Now, as for why I see availability of land for soldiers a must if land requirements are part of the cake: War. That is it. War is the ultimate result of what happens when you disenfranchise soldiers. Sometimes such wars are manageable from the point of view of an leader and as such acceptable. More often than not it crushes the nation in which it comes about since it is a major component of how a nation is structured and views itself. While generally forgotten and not taught, throughout most of history if soldiers feel disenfranchised from the nation they are a part of due to being shut out from said nation, or a critical component of involvement is not allowed to them, they tend to use what they have learned to take it. That is as simple and blunt as I can make it. If you don't care, fine. Would not be the first, nor the last.

…and yet Hitler solved that problem without razing cities to the ground. So why not follow His example instead? Cities exist for a reason.

And it's pointless to force him to do that simply in order to vote. The jobs will still be in a city, for the exact same reasons that cities came into existence thousands of years ago. All your suggestion does is promote sprawl without solving any real political problem.

This "must live on the land" thing is, as I said, trivially gamed. Fairness, I agree, is irrelevant.

As for followup on that second paragraph. Now it makes sense what you said. thanks.

I was saying that service and other factors can and do actually slow down the development of wealth for most soldiers after they have gotten out. Much of it can be avoided granted with the right information. Sometimes it can be as simple as the non vets are intimidated by them and biased, often working against them which results in hardships not needed. And don't get me started on what happens when Ms. Vet-wife up and leaves those guys. There are a lot of reasons vets get the short end of the stick and often as not its not all on them. Sometimes yes the guy is an fucktard and nobody should care. Sometimes shit just happens and you gotta suck it up. But the way it is now, you are well behind the bell curve even if you are high and tight on your finances and goals while in compared to another whom didn't serve. I have a feeling this argument was due to me biting off way more than I can chew and trying to cover too many bases at once in this thread.

My ultimate argument was that land ownership as a requirement for political influence was a bad idea. It could be made to work, but I was trying to point out a host of reasons why it would be a very complicated clusterfuck. And it is definitely not an good idea to couple it with military service without ensuring such service members are all but guaranteed a good place at the table. Retard or not, soldiers are warriors light, and being willing to kill, much less trained or experienced in such is a recipe for violence when shit goes tits up when such men are felt put upon and no longer see themselves as part of 'the system'. The idea is noble I believe but the delivery is likely to fall flat by far and setup the nation for worse later on. I am not even 100% behind military service being a requirement even tho I do lean heavily for it. Good and bad in all of these ideas.

Glad you calmed down, I'll avoid poking from here on out. Besides, not like I have all the answers. My dumb fuck ass volunteered multiple times. Shows how fucked in the head I am. 131 IQ … iz fucking lies. That is potato level smarts.

To toss in my 0.02$:
The question is "how do we identify the intentions of a person (for the country)"?

In our modern world, the answer to this is already being used against us: internet surveliance, forced identity logging.

How about this:
A person is given merit based upon:
(1) their behaviour on the internet, or a certain segment of the internet, like a forum/senate.
(Muh dik = no vote; cancer = no vote; let's discuss a worthy, rational topic = vote)
(2) Upon the strength of their arguments
(my feefees = no vote; x leads to y which causes z which is why I suspect q = vote)
(3) Upon the political opinions they convey specifically when it comes to state integrity (and possibly moral integrity in part)
(we must destroy the current system because I read Marx = no vote although maybe investment into a containment board ; we must destroy the current system because it betrays the integrity of the country as a functional unit = vote; pederasty = no vote)

These opinons are voiced anonymously. No namefagging in the senate. The value of the argument is decided in part by common vote- like "likes" or "upvotes" but these aren't actually shown to the public.
However, your "likes" are also evaluated when applying- you must enact the rules as well as you speak by them.

Moderators are in part AI, and in part the group of autists who control the AI. In taking the position, they forfeit the right to vote, invest, and hold any sociopolitical power, possibly even the right to marriage.
They are voted in by common vote and do not socialize with each other or any politicians. However, they are payed a living wage and get the chance to control the internet for X years. (Or have them be randomly selected instead of autists- a large enough random sample statistically removes most errors.)

Selection into votership is not taken lightly and requires the equivalent of a consensus, may years not-shiposting, and dedication.

Political offices are held only by voters and minimum 3rd/4th generation born citizens with a good history of being voters because intelligence is genetic .
Non-voters generally need voting representatives to do as much as sneeze in the government's direction.
In order to partake in this system you must be at least a landed immigrant by reason of virtue (ie, demonstrates hard work, not neediness.)

In such a system, idiots would filter themselves. My proposal isn't perfect, but it's definitely more optimized for CY+2 than land ownership (which has more issues than you classicists give it credit for.)

Abusing the system for purposes of money, a second account, or so on literally gets you killed. No questions asked, just a direct bullet to the skull.

Deepweb style forums and viewpoints are allowed to stick around for purposes of tracking but if you post on such a board your likelyhood of votership goes down and all your likes are dropped in value to 0.001 of a real like

Perhaps government-issued communication devices for this system with fingerprint/DNA identification. Library ones for general off the grid people. No location tracking, just the equivalent of a meta-societal reputation attached to your DNA.

fuck just taking away voting, get them out of our society, especially the marxists

"As soon as mature members of society habitually express acceptance or even advocate egalitarian sentiments, whether in the form of democracy (majority rule) or of communism, it becomes essential that other members, and in particular the natural social elites, be prepared to act decisively and, in the case of continued nonconformity, exclude and ultimately expel these members from society. In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They—the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism—will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."

pardon the libertarianism

I'm not in the military myself, but I do know some people in there, and isn't the thing that they usually just follow orders because they have to trust their superior officers judgement? If the orders come from on high, and they tell the soldiers that the people they are going after are terrorists and shit like that, they are going to do all that shit.

This. I hate the people who say we should let all the SA or Euros come here. We are not an immigrant nation. America is not the dumping ground for White people. We have strong regional, ethnic cultures with deep roots and I don't want it shitted up by outsiders.

t.Founding-stock Anglo burger

SA are dumb ugly beaners all resembling your average mexishit. Whoever is telling you to let them in is probably some autistic underage beaner who truly believes they are 'white' kek.

If you Burn the flag, you should be Beaten to within a inch of your life, stripped of your citizenship and deported to the Congo.

Wow, very unpatriotic of Stallman. Uninstalling all free software rn.

Nope.

Catherine the Great, Elizabeth the 1st, Queen Victoria.

Indeed, much of the foundational architecture that makes up our country was made around then or sooner, anything that came later has not contributed fuck all to this country and should be sent back.

He means boers

That's the higher code tbh. Fuck whoever's been here 10 generations or 2… If you or your father serves in combat, then you're a citizen. Everyone else is a parasite.

I've been saying this forever. These fucking immigrants that come here making demands that we bend our nation's laws to accommodate them, who run wild in the street when they don't get their way, who vilify and make threats against the people who make up the majority of this country's rightful citizens….who the fuck do they think they are? what other country would allow this? I would not DREAM of entering another country, legally or illegally, and immediately start making demands that the people and laws of that country bend to accommodate my will? My city has been overrun with Asians and Mexicans in the past decade, to the point where I don't feel at home here anymore. These people carry a sense of hostility and entitlement with them. They come here only to take what they can from the county that my people built with sweat and blood. They make money, buy nice shit, and contribute absolutely NOTHING culturally. Asians- Indians and Chinese are the fucking worst. They only associate with their own kind, they barely even acknowledge that they are in the United states- Chinese basically act like they are in China. They make fun of us every chance they get, speaking Hindi or Mandarin and insulting us right on front of our faces while they laugh and take our jobs, our neighborhoods, our cities and our culture away from us. They have absolutely NO desire to contribute anything to our country or give anything back to us, their most gracious hosts. Name any country in the world that is a more gracious host for immigrants and Visa holding immigrants than the USA.

The Asians are taking away our cities, our beautiful urban neighborhoods, by buying up properties and flipping them for exorbitant rates, taking our high paying jobs and causing the rent to rise in formerly middle class neighborhoods, forcing white working class families out…while blacks and Latinos steal all of the low paying jobs our poor brothers and sisters need to survive. The blacks and Latinos have taken over lower income neighborhoods, bringing in drugs, gangs and violence, subjecting any remaining whites to constant intimidation and violence. This is why so many lower class whites take on black mannerisms and adopt black culture i.e. become wiggers and coal burners. It's to attempt to avoid standing out and blend in, which minimizes their being targeted for their whiteness when they are grossly outnumbered in these low income areas. This wiggerism, the niggerization and subsequent dumbing down of lower class white culture is the greatest tragedy of our time. The demographic which formerly spawned many of the white race's greatest thinkers, artists, musicians, poets, writers, politicians etc has, for all intents and purposes, suicided itself by adopting the inferior black culture, mannerisms, and way of life in a desperate bid to survive.

But I digress. These fucking immigrants need to be forced to respect our laws and way of life, and most importantly show respect to the people whose families have built this country. They must be forced to give back to the communities which accept them with open arms. This culture of coming here and taking all they can take without giving anything back must end.

SA, as in South Africans, you silly goose.

...

Kikes wouldn't like it.