I am trying to make a list of the 100 most influential people on the planet. Time magazine already has such a list of course, but their list is so absurdly politically correct and celebrity focused that I feel there is a need for a much better list. Forbes publishes a list of the most powerful people in the World, but as Condi Rice once said, power means nothing unless you can turn it into influence. So I am trying to create a list of people who have actually had an impact; people without whom the World would be a very different place. It could be a good impact or a bad impact.
My list is inspired by Michael Hart’s list The 100, except his was the most influential people of all time. This list is going to be The Living 100: The 100 most influential LIVING people of all time. But I have to hurry up, because a lot of the people on my list are quite old and could die any day now.
Please share your thoughts in the comment section about who should be included and why. They can live in any country, work in any field, be famous or obscure, good or evil; the only criteria is that they’ve had a huge influence and that they’re still alive.
Evo Morales should be on there.
Interesting suggestion.
considering Venezuela is collapsing right now, many of these far leftist Latin American leaders aren’t successful, but Evo has been.
Incas/Andean Natives/mestizos, are actually quite smart.
I’m quite sure he was excluded from the main list because he has made statements praising Castro and dissing America, especially American business interests, also falling out with Obama relating to that.
“Incas/Andean Natives/mestizos, are actually quite smart.”
no they are not.
but…they could be.
Genghis khan. He left behind an enormous amount of descendants.
My list is only of living people. Maybe i should include a living man with many kids.
My bad, sorry about that. That may be a good idea a man that produces many offspring is definitely what i would call “influential”
politicans, artists, scholars?
All of the above. Anyone who’s had a major impact.
very ambitious indeed. One problem: the most influential person might be someone like a local warlord in a third world / war-torn country. Somebody who might be known outside of a small region, but within region he could have absolute power. He could get away with everything, decide about life and dead. All of this is not true for famous people in rich countries.
Maybe there is no meaningful way to compare the power or influence of people if different kind of situations. How could one compare the influence of a famous scientist, with that of a important politician, with that of a violent gangster, with that of an important army general etc. etc.?
I have the impression power can only be measured “local” not “global”
A Third World War lord is extremely influential in an extremely uninfluential part of the World, so on balance they have little impact.
Seems a most ambitious post ever
but is just other post about ”celebrities” and its ”achievements”…
😉
PP’s top 5 influential in the world:
1) Obama
2) Oprah
3) Mandela
4) MLK
5) Please name a Canadian black
Shows Oprah’s ability to adapt. She improvised the perfect reaction to an unexpected joke. Sadly her boyfriend is not able to adapt, but I suspect that’s why she keeps him around; easily controlled..
You’re a troll, it’s not possible….
Kek
Obama & Oprah will be on my list, but MLK is obviously dead, and thus ineligible. There are no Canadian blacks who’ve had a large enough impact to make this list; sadly, there will be very few Canadians of any race who will make this list. As patriotic as I am, I must be objective.
Yes, I forgot, only those who are alive. Mandela is also dead.
No Canadian blacks?
I suspect Canada is better place for blacks, given the fact that blacks become famous, only when there’s oppression.
Or, places that are more ambitious, complex and rich require higher doses of social control like in US than in Canada.
Canada have little % of black people living there during great part of its history, just recently that the proportion of black people have increased. Today i no doubt if the police-proceedings in Canada become the same that in US, i mean ”more enphasis on black individuals usual suspects”.
US have a bad historical reputation but ”a land of freedom” don’t work with a group who have a desproportional % of people who confuse irresponsability or anarchy with freedom.
Canada also have little creative culture if compared with USA. Unfortunately creative/inovative epicenters tends to correlate with $$, the places where ”everything” is happening, and remember, many times, creative thinkers need mecenas/ financial support.
The late Canadian Flushton (or Rushton), was very influential to the alt-right in the world of HBD.
French Canadians like Celine Dion, and Anglo Canadians like Justin Bieber, could make your list of influential Canadians in the world of entertainment
I think you have amnesia with Canada, and wished you were American!
Americans are more ambitious? Not really in a progressive world, but greedy, yes!
Canada, is the least insane and the most orderly of the Anglo Prole Sphere, so police state is lessened.
Nope. You don’t read what I wrote?
Less blacks= less police work
And American culture also don’t help
A nation of “winners” and “losers”.
I love Celine Dion but she hasn’t changed the World.
America was a great country in the 20th century, but it’s been ruined.
Canada is still great.
Celine Dion surprises The Canadian Tenors on Oprah:
Huh? With Trudeau? Justin “Come on it’s 2016) Trudeau? See how great Canada is after a few Syrian and other mystery meat migrants arrive.
Canada is still great… in territory.
”Still”**
when it was great[er] *
A “race realist” who can’t understand race v. Ethnicity….. WNs compulsively make up “facts”(I’ve provided links many times)… and frequently end up incarcerated…
http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/06/white-people-say-progressive/
Shit nigga!!
I think this would be a pretty easy list. Choose the most cited academics, wealthiest businessmen, presidential candidates and top military officials. After that, throw in some important journalists and policymakers. Somoneone like Elon Musk should be in there too.
I would keep entertainers to a minimum. Other than maybe Oprah and Rush Limbaugh, most of them aren’t that powerful.
Creating a list of the most powerful would be easy, using the method you describe, but a list of the most influential is trickier, because a lot of powerful people do nothing of note with their power & a lot of non-powerful people use what little power they have to maximum effect. A lot of people are influential behind the scenes.
So basically what I’m doing is looking at the most important events, inventions, trends, discoveries & developments in history, & trying to figure out what LIVING humans are most responsible for them.
Elon Musk has big ambitions, but I’m not sure how big an impact he’s had YET
Musk is all PR and no substance
”Heritability of height increases with age”
in some twitt…
what it’s mean***
Someone could explain to me**
It means that if you had an identical twin raised in a different city, your heights would get more similar with age.
heritability = potential variation of some trait based on twin concordance
i understand like in the case of iq
iq varies during childhood and adolescence
then it become fixed or more stable in the adult life.
But it is not exactly heritability but genetic factor that become more stable or increase genetic/biological intrinsic factor with age.
genetic factor ”increase” with the age.
So, height varies obviously during childhood and adolescence
and if we compare with other, like happen with iq,
no there a iq without inter-personal comparisons, is not* you understand my verborragy by now*
for example, i was tall or on the above-average when i was younger, pre-adolescence.
so i become below-average (comparatively speaking) in the second half of the adolescence and early adulthood (15-25 years old).
i thought if the heritability word is being used incorrectly in this context of this sentence.
I understand…
height concordance between twins varies more during childhood and adolescence and becoming concordant during the age.
http://www.yourgenome.org/stories/evolution-of-the-human-brain
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/south-koreas-struggle-with-suicide.html?_r=0
Interesting that seems some ”neanderthal genes” confer strenghts to the immune system and we have this
less socially complex human organism = less microorganic populations interactions*
more socially complex human (or non-human) organism = higher demographic density of microorganic populations [within the body] and its interactions*
I don’t get this OVER-OVER-OVER-OVER enphasis on so-called iq to explain everything that is correlated with intelligence.
yes, two things are fundamental to the intelligence:
– degree of self awareness
– perception level
iq don’t measure directly this two most important things that create the basis of the intelligence.
iq measure horizontal or superficial cognitive approach.
creative is vertical or deep cognitive approach,
wisdom is the perfectionism in conclusive reasoning or judgment.
real smarter people are deep thinkers and deep problem solvers
higher self awareness is essential at least to avoid a constant and or accumulative bad judgment, what differentiate a excellent from a very bad professional. Bad professional no have good detector or good taste to make the best choices.
if i have well developed self awareness, proxy to the self-knowledge i can deduce better my strenghts and my weaknesses, for example, a person who think that is a spectacular singer but is not. A real good, talented singer know your limits and tends to work with the best s’he have.
Talent begin with a self-adaptation and not try to surpass its own limits.
perception level tend to cause emergence of self awareness, what normies see two things a real smarter ones can see four or more things, the increasing of what i define as ”the human perception style”, more balanced and holistic if compared with other animals or life forms. Creativity start like that, supposedly a ”different identity” of intelligence, but not, creativity is a real intelligence, but because the human psycho-cognitive specialization become the norm, creativity also become individually diverse while memorization and superficial/horizontal reasoning (what iq measure) is generally more evident, more omniscient than creativity, but this still doesn’t mean that creativity is not less relevant and indeed it does.
[practical] creativity is ideal to the unstable environments while ”intelligence” is ideal to the stable environments or civilizations.
creativity is itself a short term cognitive response, think quickly.
self awareness is just part of higher degree of perception/feeling the world, you recognize the dinamics of the life and obviously you will finish recognizing yourself in a better understanding, at priore.
people mistake memorization and superficial reasoning (invariably measured via iq) as if it were main concept of intelligence but is not, the two real intelligence’s’ are wisdom (exponentially good judgment= the product of the reasoning) and creativity (learn something new, do it yourself)
Generally the higher one of this aspects the higher will be the psycho-cognitive specialization and less so-called factor g or general intelligence.
General intelligence may or logically look like a support of the higher creative potential to some area. Look complementar
So,
first is the higher perception levels (to the horizontal or superficial factual understanding to the vertical or deep factual understanding)
that produce a exponential internalization or christalization of the correct thoughts and useful remembrances
i know who the least influential person on the planet is.
peepee.
I’ve been influential enough to inspire you to comment on my blog THOUSANDS of times.
Please don’t moderate him! The comment section went downhill as soon as he left.
We need more Mugabe and more Bokossa and Ruhkuka. And less Stetind 😉
Ultimately…HBD is being raped by Alt Reichers-I.e. Syrians similar to Euros (sourced many times). and Asians being by their own premise smarter and just as creative as Whites. But I’m a “kek” for saying so
Yes! He’s back!
🙂
He’s been back for a while
Sociopath gossip = peepee
i know JS isn’t peepee.
i think santa claus isn’t peepee.
but the rest?
and i just checked out of the loony bin…NOT!
peepee is like jerry lewis…but she isn’t acting!
peepee is such a fucking NUTTER.
i wondered if there was anything wrong with me…
the PhD in psychology and the psychiatrist told me the same thing…
THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH YOU EXCEPT…
YOU’RE THE MOST NEGATIVE/CYNICAL PERSON I’VE EVER MET.
i took it as a COMPLIMENT.
that indian midget is hilarious.
credo quia absurdum!
I am generally Anti-HBD or rather anti-hbder….am I “peepee” in your mind? Santo is not too bright. but js is one of the best commenters here..
the blog’s savior has returned. everyone heil.
Another is just a lunatic with higher energy, pedant at hell, cynical and without any drops of self shame defector, I mean, he or she can to say what she want because she is blinded/protected by its dominant ignorance. This is the most bizarre life forms ever the stupid human. I’m the natural world stupid no have choice or chance. This explain the beauty of most of life forms, less about humans. Humans have higher diversity of phenotypes based on appearance. Why?? Most of lions for example look beautiful, like a Valhalla Nordic super models male and (feminine) female. Also about intellect humans have the least effective natural selection of all. No just we don’t select the real smart ones (my opinion: Wises) but also we leave the stupid type like sir Another Willy become a majority. Nothing more dumb to do.
Js is over obsesses with Anglo and he had produced very stupid comments here about Spain like the trasherry variety “(we) Spaniards have integrated our friend Moslems” “we are superior”. Nothing bizarrely disntat from cold historical facts than this distortion.
And videla is other Spaniard with mental problems with a triumphant narrative as well usual incoherent a common place among humans
And videla is other Spaniard with mental problems with a triumphant narrative as well usual incoherent a common place among humans.
one of the gestures of Cynicism is not to respect rank and to offend intentionally.
very few people are strong enough mentally to act like Diogenes. thus Diogenic behavior is a sign of mental health and strength, not infirmity.
99% simply cannot tell the difference between:
1. what is socially acceptable or appropriate and
2. what is right and wrong or good and evil.
the two spheres are simply the same in their minds. there is no difference for them.
the result is political correctness, the holocaust, stalin’s purges, etc.
evil is ubiquitous and banal. 99% of the human race are just little Eichmanns or Eichmanns manque.
finally i got an answer from the head of my former professional organization after i sent an e-mail calling another of its executives a kike. funny there was no response to any of my other insults. but i called the guy who called me a kraut. so maybe i won’t be put on the ADL’s black list.
”one of the gestures of Cynicism is not to respect rank and to offend intentionally.”
Yes but the fundamental about cynism is laugh cleverly about fake or non-fake moral principles.
”very few people are strong enough mentally to act like Diogenes. thus Diogenic behavior is a sign of mental health and strength, not infirmity.”
Yes, i agree, but offend or manipulate [negatively or destructively] is waste of time, lies is waste of time most part of this time.
”99% simply cannot tell the difference between:
1. what is socially acceptable or appropriate and
2. what is right and wrong or good and evil.”
I disagree slightly, they know superficially, but few people are really deep thinker.
the difference between to be a deep/vertical from a superficial/horizontal thinker is just is a quarter.
thinking or universal common behavior is divided in
– observation
-analysis
– criticism
– final judgment
[some] humans evolved to the reflection.
reflection or think about thinking is just for those who really are interessed to understand exponentially this world.
understand is not what most people think
understand is fundamentally ”to accept” that certain reality is real.
but this need factual understanding and separate a real philosopher from a matoid ”religious”.
”religious”, ”culturèlle”, ”ideological”,
SAME shit
even via semantic precision, religion, culture and ideology have very different meanings
religion = ”re”-connection to the ”divine”, to the absolute meaning of the life, of the existence,
culture = cult
ideology = subject that study ideas, vaguely speaking…
”the two spheres are simply the same in their minds. there is no difference for them.
the result is political correctness, the holocaust, stalin’s purges, etc.
evil is ubiquitous and banal. 99% of the human race are just little Eichmanns or Eichmanns manque.”
I think most humans are too bright to live in a food chain world…. but this brightness become over in morally/socially advanced places.
Human brain is faster, efficient and even pretty plastic if we compare it with other mind-body systems.
It’s like kinestetic hyperactivity in a ”modern” (technology-dominated) world, is over in hygienically sterile environments.
Hbb call domestication a evolution, i just call it a slavery.
”finally i got an answer from the head of my former professional organization after i sent an e-mail calling another of its executives a kike. funny there was no response to any of my other insults. but i called the guy who called me a kraut. so maybe i won’t be put on the ADL’s black list.”
the anjoolisch behavior seems pretty irrational.
My approach:
(1) First, compile an index of national power (based on subcomponents like economic, military, and soft power). There are several such; here is my modest attempt:
http://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-powerful-countries-2015/
(2) Estimate the percentage of power your individuals have over each country.
So, if the national power of the US is fixed at 100, China is at 52, and Russia is at 28; and we assume that Obama, Xi Jinping, and Putin have 20%, 40%, and 75% of power in their countries respectively, then the top list would be:
Putin – 21
Xi Jinping – 21
Obama – 20
Of course feel free to play around with the numbers. That said, I suspect those three guys will always come well above the others.
That said, the US has appreciable power over most countries of NATO and the EU. Even if we quantify it at 10% of their respective national power, and give Obama his 20% share, that should push him ahead, to perhaps 25.
(3) How much power does Oprah have? I do not think she realistically has more than a 2% claim to US power, at best (i.e. 2, an order of magnitude below the Big Three). Frankly its probably more like 0.2%. Even someone like Krauthammer is probably ultimately more powerful.
(4) A perennial favorite: How much power does the Pope with his zero divisions have? Let’s assume he can lay claim to 1% of US power (USA – 100) due to its substantial Catholic minority; 2% in the more secular majority Catholic countries (France – 20; Spain – 5); and 5% in strongly Catholic countries (Brazil – 9; Italy – 8; Mexico – 5; Poland – 3; Argentina – 2). Answer: Substantial, but not that much. About 2.8 from the above, let’s round that up to 3.5 to take into account the smaller, weaker Catholic countries not listed above. Comparable to Merkel, who can lay claim to perhaps 20% (like Obama with the US) of German national power (~15).
(5) Rough ranking:
Obama/Xi Jinping/Putin – all very near the top, ~20-25
King Salman – Maybe 5, since can claim large percentage of Saudi power
Modi, The Pope, Merkel, Hollande – around 3-5
Cameron would normally be up around the Merkel/Pope level as well, but the former is currently a lame duck. Japanese PMs are traditionally considered to be quite weak, so Shinzo Abe is probably considerably below Modi/Pope/etc as well.
I LOVE your method of measuring power! Much more clever than any power rankings created by the media.
I am going to devote my next post to your method.
Do you think any central bankers/finance ministers would make the list using this method?
yanis varoufakis.
because he has such a huge neck.
and he looks exactly like voldemort.
Do you think any central bankers/finance ministers would make the list using this method?
Probably not. Unfortunately some of the most powerful people have power that is hardest to measure. But perhaps that’s what makes them so powerful. They’re elusive.
I’m sure this can be done with an algo to see who has the most references on Wikipedia or the highest clout score . Pretty a lot foreign leaders and politicians.
This should be fun.
Obviously, the Koch brothers deserve a place on the list (while I don’t believe they’re half so powerful as some more conspiracy-minded individuals on the left would posit, their money has propelled many conservative organizations and thinktanks to prominence.)
Vladimir Putin has changed the world’s geopolitical landscape more in the last five years than has any other individual.
Donald Trump has drastically changed the tenor of American conservatism and the Republican party.
Justice Kennedy on the US Supreme Court has, as the swing vote for the court over the past many years, held the most power of any justice in modern American history (he swung the Obergefell decision, for example.)
Charles Krauthammer has been enormously influential as a critic of the Obama administration, both in writing and on television.
Those are the first few to cross my mind. Other top picks would include: Tim Keller, David Coleman, Paul Krugman, Petro Poroshenko, Bashar al-Assad, Boris Johnson, Benjamin Netanyahu, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, and Greg Mankiw.
You’re very good at this. You’ve named several people that are already on my list: the Koch brothers, Putin, Trump, Kennedy, Krauthammer, Soros, Netanyahu, Murdoch, & Bashar al-Assad. I haven’t decided on Krugman since Obama ignored a lot of his columns on health care.
The other people you mention hadn’t yet occurred to me.
The biggest challenge will be narrowing it down to just 100 & then ranking them all.
I’m no fan of Krugman’s politics, but I can’t ignore his influence. Not only is he a Nobel Prize-winning economist, he’s also perhaps the most influential liberal intellectual in the nation. Even if Obama ignored some of his healthcare prescriptions (ha ha), hundreds of other Democratic lawmakers have listened with open ears. He’s the liberal corollary to Charles Krauthammer.
On a similar note, it’d be interesting to know which of them has a higher IQ. My money’s on Krauthammer, but it’s hard to say.
1. Janet yellen and the heads of major national banks and the eu are the most powerful people in the world because interest rates control the economy as much as government spending in many countries.
2. I believe political rulers are overrated when it comes to influence because they are a victim or benefit of already occurring trends. For example, vladmir Putin has been living and dying based on oil price.
3. Religious folks like the pope are irrelevant because people do as they naturally please, religion has nothing tho do with that.
4. Robert A. Cohen, the current AIPAC president needs to be on the list because American foreign policy and military basically runs around Israel.
Keep in mind, this is a list of the most influential, not the most powerful, though the two are highly correlated. But being super powerful is neither necessary nor sufficient.
In order for someone to make the list something very important had to happen partly because of that person. I suppose you could say that because of Cohen, Israel was able to build settlements in disputed territories, despite Obama’s strong objections.
Let’s do it!
the pound?
what’re you fucking retarded?
do you have any clue?
the UK has the biggest trade deficit as a % of its GDP in the developed world!
it’s more than 5% motherfucker!
and currency speculation?
seriously?
there’s no percentage in it! BY DEFINITION!
…
i made bank on brexit…both on puts on SPY and calls on TLT and leveraged positions on US treasuries…
there will never be “normalization”.
the whole fucking world is gonna be japanified.
as i predicted.
“the whole fucking world is gonna be japanified.
as i predicted.”
agree.
some folks who predicted ’08 have said as much too.
peepee would do well to listen up.
Noam Chomsky
Chomsky is already on the list.