The Founding Fathers of the United States should have wrote the constitution such that only the most brilliant people could vote. The problem is this would result in rich people having more power than they already do which would not be healthy, but if it were up to me I would make it so only the smartest 0.001% of each socio-economic, racial, ethnic, and geographic region of the United States were allowed to vote because that way, all major segments of society would be proportionately represented, but every voter would still be very smart.
Pumpkin Person 
Pumpkin “only the smartest 0.001% ”
(Fin: Will use the force. Han Solo: That’s not how the force works)
Pumpkin, they are the smartest, why would they not just be the unelected government. Who would they vote for other than themselves which is redundant? They would not consciously vote for anyone dumber than themselves. They could vote on laws, pass or fail, but that is what dumb people do. What they should do is eliminate the legislative branch and only have a judicial and executive branch. No laws but only executive orders as laws by them as a console. The judicial is more like the FISA court of the security agencies. Basically if only those with IQ’s above 170 rule. The only structure of government possible is a technocracy. A giant corporation of 100 million people.
These people above 170 IQ could not run the entire government with over 3 million employees. They would better run as a second government just as the Jedi were the second government along the galactic republic.
50 million inhabited systems exist in the galaxy.
There must be a representative government, the Jedi cannot do everything.
Instead of voting for dumb people to write laws, the IQ 170 group writes the laws and the dumb people vote on it. The IQ 170 group would replace the lobbyists who currently write the laws and the dumb people vote on it. Why would the IQ 170 group let the lobbyists write the laws then vote on that inferior work? That’s not how the force works.
They would not consciously vote for anyone dumber than themselves
By law they would be compelled to vote so if only dumb people were running, they would have to vote for one of the dumb.
Because they are smarter they would vote in better people, right?
That is why only they can vote. To get the best people in power.
What are the qualities of those best people, pumpkin?
1) The 3000 voters for the entire USA would have such power they would ipso facto become the true elite and disconnect from the segment they came from.
2) With heritability, every generation, you would have 50% legacies wich would make the thing worse.
3) If they werent paid huge amounts of money, corruption would be sky high.
4) There would be also lots of trafficking in the definition of categories. Some family of this elite would have strategies to change job, state, race
in order to maximize chances of having members included in this group. You would get something like mandarin|brahman/nomenklatura
society ….
5) Separation of power and check and balance would not be possible any more
Etc… I like the idea very much in its root but it leads to non desirable consequences
They would not become a ruling elite because their only power is voting once every few years in federal elections and their identities would be top secret so they could not conspire and no one could buy their vote.
They would vote in secret and would be jailed if they ever told anyone (even their spouse) that they were a voter
Then people would cheat the test not to be included in such a dangerous group were there is nothing to gain and everything to loose.
Pumpkin “They would vote in secret and would be jailed if they ever told anyone (even their spouse) that they were a voter”
That would mean they could never reveal their IQ’s because that is a dead give away.
Everyone would know that they cannot vote and thus know that this secret group exists. Eventually, someone would spill the beans on the IQ level of this secret group.
They could never reveal their score on the government test but they could reveal their scores on other tests.
But you’re right: people would know any really smart person was a likely voter so for this to work, only a randomly selected subset of the thousands of eligible voters would be made actual voters. Maybe just 50 people and it would be a different 50 every election, decided at the last minute so no time for special interests to bribe or intimidate the voters. Kind of like jury duty for the super smart
Maybe if it was a 1% and that people could keep their job but have an allowance of 50% of their salary for giving 50 days a year of their time for election matter, it would be harder to buy the group of 250/300 k people (you could include people > 12 yo) and there would be less interest in changing cagegory (a partner from goldman would be paid 5M and a macdonald waiter 5k for the same job … ). And an average of 0,5% of any group is still clever, because even voters representing homeless would have an average mensa iq 🙂
I meants 2500k/3000k voters. If you have more than 2 millions voters, you cant buy them.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be allowed to vote because I am a women which means I am a lesser human being because I have a vagina..
talk about having a victim complex
Read that chicks blog. She’s got issues.
1. If I am a “chick” that makes you a COCK
No crazy, I have a cock
Wanna see?
She mentions being assaulted a black guy and cant draw the link in her mind that most of the men that assault women are minorities. Which should be a feminist issue. But of course, feminism is a branch of Zionism. So all the rage must be focused on the white man. Notice the way she can hold these two things in her head despite her own experience. This is a good example of advanced brainwashing.
To a varying degree many westerners are brainwashed by the jews. But in some, the effects are approaching absurdity.
Some chicks have cocks.
Feminism thrives in nordic countries, which show their inferiority comparated to Meds. Nordic aren’t really dumb, they rather are extremely naive, a bit like children.
Partially, indeed, because anti white narrative is strongly directed to REALLY white people [nordic or northwestern strains] and marginally directed to other european subraces, the echoes has been more intense among nordics than among meds.
extremely naive IS a type of very badass stupidity.
Yes, nordic liberals [specially] in this aspect are very dumb.
”in this aspect”
I disagree. A small group of people would vote for the result profitable only for them. 99.999% of people would come short.
But yes, stupid people shouldn’t have a right to vote. Iq >100 is a good compromise for starters.
Pumpkin once again doesnt understand intelligence is a personality trait. Many of these people with those IQ levels may have aspergers and vote to donate all the money to africa or build up a comic book collection.
Other high IQ types are parasitical. I’m not going to name the group with high IQs that predate on peoples stupidity. But we already have a more or less good example of a government run by 160IQ plus people. And it isn’t good.
Pumpkin once again doesnt understand intelligence is a personality trait.
Intelligence is the slave of personality, not part of it. Think of personality as what you want, and intelligence as the computer that figures out how to get it.
Many of these people with those IQ levels may have aspergers and vote to donate all the money to africa or build up a comic book collection.
Autism is MORE common in the low IQ population. Contrary to popular stereotypes about socially awkward geniuses, social intelligence and general intelligence are POSITIVELY correlated, though the correlation is not strong
Other high IQ types are parasitical.
high IQ people are more ethical on average, though once again the correlation is very imperfect
But we already have a more or less good example of a government run by 160IQ plus people. And it isn’t good.
Isn’t good for who? It’s extremely good for the demographic groups it’s intended to serve which is why I clearly stated in my article that high IQ voters would have to be demographically matched to America’s socio-economic, ethnic and geographic distribution so that they had the same interests as the populations they represent (that’s the key point you’re missing).
.
”Intelligence is the slave of personality, not part of it. Think of personality as what you want, and intelligence as the computer that figures out how to get it.”
Intelligence, or seems, what you really want to say: cognition, is our machine or system side. It’s like to say our skeleton is the body-slave. ”Intelligence” or cognition without personality is just like a organic robot. Intelligence would be a result, a thesis of cognition [pattern recognition] + personality [emotional/aesthetic judgment/value].
Indeed many people are self-fooled and maybe we can blame their personalities but we still don’t know if is only or always the personality that self-fool people or also disorderedly prefferencial cognitive approaches.
”Autism is MORE common in the low IQ population. Contrary to popular stereotypes about socially awkward geniuses, social intelligence and general intelligence are POSITIVELY correlated, though the correlation is not strong”
He say ”aspergers” and not ”autism”. Aspergers =/= autism. One of the definitive traits of aspergers is having a avg to above avg cognitive skills, specially on verbal side.
You’re in slight contradiction when you say ”contrary to popular stereotypes about socially awkward GENIUSES, soc and gen intelig are positively correlated, thought the correlation IS NOT STRONG”.
Firstly, genius =/= highly [crystallized] intelligent. Remember that more than have a higher intelligence, what made a genius is also to have a higher creativity, continuous [in frequency] or discontinuous.
Secondly, when you say ”popular stereotypes” you seems are saying ”it’s a popular myth”, and we know it’s not. Yes, smarter people varies in personality, but seems there are higher proportion of ”awkward social types”. Sometimes, this lack of social skills is contextual, other times it will be intrinsic. Some people really no have great empathetic skills, it’s something they was born with. Other people, otherwise, have very higher empathetic skills, similar to ”psychopathic levels” in cognitive empathy, BUT also in affective empathy, and many this types tend to ”voluntarily’ move away from the social scene, not because lack of social skills, but excess or perfectionistic social skills. Indeed, the world is projected to average joey.
”high IQ people are more ethical on average, though once again the correlation is very imperfect”
But those who are not tend to be in the power places, in academia, in government or in industry. Only one brighter or ”clever’ individual in decision places can harm millions people and it’s what usually happen.
”Isn’t good for who? It’s extremely good for the demographic groups it’s intended to serve which is why I clearly stated in my article that high IQ voters would have to be demographically matched to America’s socio-economic, ethnic and geographic distribution so that they had the same interests as the populations they represent (that’s the key point you’re missing).”
population they represent.. a melting plot*
Without personality, without a purpose to do what we can/want to do.
To see, the Magic Negro
Since the 1960s there has been a movement, at once perverse and later totalitarian to force whites in their own nations not only to serve purgatory on this earth for the sins of slavery (which jews and arabs also engaged in) but to transfigure their society, culture and eventual reproduction habits to the needs of the magnificent, magical negro.
To a man from pre 1960s jewish academic takeover, this is a sick perversion of intellect and instinct.
How can so called intelligent whites fail a basic IQ test based on survival and reproduction?
Knowing the characteristics of the various races of man, the high verbal IQ desert people are using white empathy as a bludgeon to beat their historic ‘oppressors’ (read: gullible germanics that took in jew refugees from the middle east).
Many with low verbal and social intelligence wittingly and gainfully go along with this ploy. Possessing only empathy they are heavily exposed to the Necromancer’s spell.
Beating their chests and dancing to the mumbungo rhythm they police the thoughts of their fellow citizens. Even going so far as to join the Nation of Islam in a ‘black jihad’ against their ancestors, families and communities and declare total war on the ‘white devil’.
The premise of afros article that poverty causes stupidity begs the overwhelming question:
What causes poverty in the first instance.
[insult against another commenter redacted by pp, july 28, 2017]
But more importantly the jews know the answer to the question. And this is precisely why the myth of magic negro was invented. You see, all of these debates and intellectual sermons take place in white countries only. In other races of man, the magic negro and jew would not be allowed to even debate their moral legacy. Because other races of man have a lot less empathy.
It is empathy that defines morality for most. And this is why morality is a dangerous illusion.
”It is empathy that defines morality for most. And this is why morality is a dangerous illusion.”
So kill you without aparent reasonable reason is the truth of the truth*
Anti-white narrative: LACK of empathy about white people.
Anti-nonwhite narrative: LACK of empathy about nonwhite people.
Current morality, namely in complex civilizations is the monstruous combination between DOMESTICATION/obedience and REAL model of morality OR RESPONSABILITY.
You bring up one point I’ve should’ve mentioned in Afro’s post; that is, why are black communities so shitty and backwards in the first place. Although I accept extreme deprivation (like the kind that probably only occurs in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan, poor communities in India and North Korea) can stunt IQ by up to 10 points.
On what basis do you deny the effects of first world poverty and on what basis do you attribute 10 IQ points lost to poverty among the most under-developed communities?
According to a Swedish study, the heritability of income during a given year is 0.41 for males and 0.27 for women. The heritability over 20 years is 0.63 for males and 0.48 for females.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3592970/
So even in a world where everyone was given the exact same chance to move up the succeed in life, genetics would only be responsible for a low to moderate part of the variance.
the exact same chance to move up the succeed in life
To move up the social ladder/to succeed in life. Pick your favorite, my brain mixed the two, lol.
I can imagine that the heritability of success is lower than the heritability of intelligence. And regardless of the heritability of “success”, I still support some degree of re-distribution.
Watch this.
Now think of what would happen if people were ordered to treat the man as a magical being.
Verstanden?
Pumpkin should suggest only oprah should be allowed vote. That would make more sense.
No seriously, I would prefer Oprah to our current very high IQ cabal.
The jews power is the power of your mind. It lies nowhere else.
Consider the statement: a fraud is a crime against the mind.
[redacted by pp, july 28, 2017]
Gamma male psychology 101.
Listen and learn about this type of mind.
A government should be run on empathy like the nordic nations.
The catch 22 of course, is that means it becomes weaker to fend off predators.
And by predators, I don’t mean obvious ones with black skin and fake gold teeth.
I mean the high IQ types from certain middle eastern regions.
So an optimal state of affairs isn’t a configuration of institutions, design of government, words in a constitution….it is an optimum balance between high empathy genetics and tribalism genetics in the population to fend off predators. The west had that before the 60s.
There is essentially no race of man or nation that can combine these today. The east asians empathy is too low to create economic wealth and entropy.
I feel the indians could come closest. But they need a 1 child policy.
More and more you will see, the optimum nation state’s qualities are not far from the optimum qualities of a tribe in a hunter gathering setting. Crazy as it sounds.
Any system constructed on this basis will be subjected to massive change over time, just as the 1950’s were, vulnerable to gradual subversion as all western nations have proven to be.
In order to defend against threats a society needs to be strictly hierarchical. There needs to be an upper class comfortable in its governing role and intelligent enough and empathetic enough to govern well in the interests of all in order to keep an orderly society, part of the problem is that with societal advancement through meritocracy comes the development of upper-middle class families who fundamentally had to struggle for their ultimately high standing as is the case in most of the 1% now, these people have imposter syndrome and fundamentally feel that their business, rather than ruling, is first and foremost empathizing with the ruled, as a result they’re fundamentally susceptible to groups that they view to be in a similar position regardless of the fact that it is not in their best interests to assist them. A ruling class who feels it is their duty and right to rule by nature is resistant to claims and threats against its powerstructure.
What we need in effect if you are right is a dynasty.
Such a system will ultimately turn authoritarian or overthrown in a coup d’Etat or a revolution, as do all systems with low legitimacy.
And even before turning authoritarian or being overthrown, a system that excludes a large share of the population would be very vulnerable to fraud as the mass would feel unconcerned by the affairs of a mysterious elite.
South Europeans like Spaniards and Italians are the same race as North Africans (Berbers). Together they form the Mediterranean race.
The Meds have by far the best potential of all races. They are the most civilised.
What race are you Philo ?
Authoritarianism IS NOT intrinsically bad.
For example, FORCED in AUTHORITARIAN ways other people to not be RACIST, is a type of authoritarian approach, insularized for some behaviors but still characteristically authoritarian.
Benign authoritarian = forced govern to help very poor people.
East Asian income/wealth inequality is lower than white income/wealth inequality…
PP,
higher intelligence is usually translated to higher rationality and/or wisdom*
I don’t think so.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19174_5-unexpected-downsides-high-intelligence.html
Your approach is such a joke I can’t believe you wrote it down, and I don’t mean this as an attack on you.
In general the rich have much better voting than the smart because they have actually demonstrated they could survive in an evolutionary system. This is why capitalism in Europe produced much more success than the test meritocracy in china over the last 1000 years. The test is a good measure, but not as good a measure as actually evolving people based on there ability to contribute to society (success in capitalism has a much greater than zero correlation with iq, but is also correlated with factors like personality, creativity, not being crazy, etc.) also, intelligence does not mea. You have a stake in the existing system. This is why landownership was the traditional test. You are just way overemphasizing how important iq is to having perpecives that accurately align your persepctivr with ideologies that are good for the people.
The problem today is the rich can buy the poor votes. If you want to rebalance power the vote needs to be taken away from the poor, which would put power in the upper middle class.
Capitalism that has sacrificed million people throughout the world is correct…
REAL eugenics will start to happen when materialism become at the best secondary in importance as criteria to be evolutionarily succesful.
Capitalism is the regime of accumulative trash via irresponsible or FUTILE creativity + schizophrenic love for material goods instead vital goods + complete lack of [long term] organization, it’s just like a big brother show, capitalistic society can be viewed in this reality show.
It’s always evil and paliative AND the worst, select evil people to the power, no so different than in other KNOW or CURRENT political systems.
Even though you say you would have quotas for every group, there’s no way this would happen. Someone would still perceive their group as being somehow discriminated against. But still an interesting idea.
Afro didn’t answered to me on the other thread, may be he was moderated because he used to many personal attacks ? 🙂
Kitty,
draw me!!
Thats outrageous. Didn’t know Scarlet had such a good rack.
She’s jewish.
I would jump on her.
Haha, even though Santo is gay he has good taste!
I think this might be a lil advanced for Animekitty
In the scale of sexuality spectrum i’m not predominantly gay, quasi, between exclusively and predominantly but ocasionally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scales_of_sexual_orientation
4
”Haha, even though Santo is gay he has good taste!”
Even about women, gays tend to be good taste.
If only you were a women Santo with a different personality and my drawing abilities did not suck.
What made you turned on by me all of a sudden?
You want me to want your body. (sorry but I can’t draw)
If you notice, in every post pumpkin never talks about 50% of the population. Women. Why?
Because pumpkin is part of the patriarchy of oppression.
I would be open to the idea of people like Chris Langan sitting down and having a reasonable say in the legislative process.
Im reading The Republic and Plato makes some good points about how ‘guardians’ should be moulded and trained based on selection by aptitude, IQ and I suppose a modern day genetic test. I’m open to the idea of philosopher kings as an ‘optimum state’ of affairs or at least a praetorian guard of ‘guardians of the public’ as such.
They would not be demographically representative. Because guarding white ancestry would be the ipso facto main way to guard western civilisation. I don’t think you can detach white high empathy from the equation.
Now, the thing is I value Chris Langan for his blue collar values, honesty and experiences. Hes a tough guy. I don’t really value him as the smartest person as such. So the guardians would have the be trialled as Plato says by severe tests of character. IQ means nothing to me compared to will power and bravery.
Look at the no.2/3 smartest guy in the world by offiicial IQ tests. Hes retarded and a loser.
The other ‘smartest person in the world’ Greek psychiatrist guy I imagine would have similar more deterministic ideas like myself.
Terence Tao is a child.
If I was a dictator, there would certainly be a death penalty. I would cull psychopaths and people leaning that way. Not as a production enhancement measure, but for the social wiel.
I’d break up the media cabal. Regulate the banks into utilities. And weed out gamma males from academia. I would abolish tax havens and make all ‘matters of state’ downloadable. I would dismantle the secret police – CIA/NSA/DIA etc They exist only to do evil in this world. They have no other purpose. Like all secret police.
I would be a good king but nobody would see it because my opposite numbers on the forces of darkness would portray me as Stalin. As Plato’s friend argued 2000 plus years ago, the truly just do what they do knowing theyll be hated for it by the ignorant public. That is the real burden of the philosopher king. To be a social outcast.
You think Terence Tao is HBD aware? I would put all my money on the fact that (a) he is not (b) would be angry if you suggested it (c) would need an outrageous glitch in the illusion to see a hidden hand turning the levers of his mind (d) fundamentally cannot feel human threats or thinks barbarians act that way because of ‘lack of education’/’childhood poverty’.
People who rely on abstractions to grope onto reality are genuinely baffled why someone would rape someone. They might even say, rationally, why didn’t the person visit a prostitute? but even then cannot understand why someone would use a prostitute.
Because they can’t imagine what its like to have high T.
Imagine writing philosophy with a mind like this. Its bizarre you could take it seriously. But academics have to. Because thats the way the danes prefer it. More time spend debating the definition of ‘It’ means less time pointing out human bio diversity. Verstanden?
Libertarians seem split on open borders vs closed borders.
Its a ridiculous notion that you could not see why people create borders. More aspergers. Even if you demolished all borders, you would de facto see people make borders again.
The trick is not to replace the borders with new borders, but to replace the people entirely. This is what ZIon has correctly calculated will turn the needle.
I could stare at that johansen gif all day. I better not.
My avatar is socrates wearing a mask. Its not what you think it is.
BB C teach…
(((HBD)))