Am I the only one who thinks we were extremely ripped off by our historical nobles not becoming god-kings through proper breeding and weight of the crown?
Do you guys prefer to use normal kings, or giants of men weighed down by authority and responsibility?
We are currently ruled by an elite group that pass on a more firm legacy than mere genetics. Money and education are far more tangible and far more powerful, and allow the men to select breeding partners on appearance, which is more reliable than trying to breed for intelligence, morality, or a sense of responsibility.
Just be glad our rulers have blessed some of us with our daily bread, and let us hope they forgive any of our trespasses against them.
>>48074430
You also have to remember that a lot of the elite from opposite genders meet each other at elite schools (Ivy League Schools and [insert other elite schools here]). From there, they continue to associate with one another in the higher levels of society that their elite education provided for them.
This acts as an enormous filter to keep the stupid, ugly, unambitious, lazy, and generally unsuccessful riff-raff from gene mixing with the elite. If anything, these filters have only grown stronger as women began entering the workforce.
It's a great time to be alive.
>>48074768
>This acts as an enormous filter to keep the stupid, ugly, unambitious, lazy, and generally unsuccessful riff-raff from gene mixing with the elite.
>>48074224
>>Am I the only one who thinks we were extremely ripped off by our historical nobles not becoming god-kings through proper breeding and weight of the crown?
>>Proper breeding
Noble ideas of proper breeding tends to get you the Hapsburgs.
>>48074788
>product of generations of American aristocratic breeding
>runs off to Latin America and marries a hideous little goblin
This is why arranged marriages should still be a thing.
>>48074224
>our historical nobles not becoming god-kings through proper breeding and weight of the crown?
Part of the problem is that basic selective breeding just can't accomplish all that much in humans beyond controlling for hair/eye/skin coloration and height.
The difference between the inherent physical and mental abilities of a eugenically bred person and an equally trained/educated normally bred person is marginal at best.
>>48074224
Just like in real life, fuckhuge men akin to demigods who inherited inherited royal power in my setting were just a matter of luck of the draw.
Most of those who were extremely competent competent were only so because they had to be badass or they wouldn't hold the position at all.
>>48074224
What was the name of this music video again, anon?
>>48075373
Delta or something like that.
>>48074856
I guarantee you she was one of those cute latina girls that's small and loli as shit up until her 20s, but like all latina women, she hits a wall and turns into a goblin who gets pregnant from a light breeze.
>>48075434
Yeah. Jeb even has the child-molester mustache to go with his loli.
I had this idea for a campaign where a human king marries an Orc chieftain's daughter in order to breed a royal lineage of half Orcs(which are pretty much nonexistent in the setting).
Anyway kid turns out alright, pretty smart and well adjusted due to his education, a good fighter thanks to his Orc genes and extensive training, he's is even pretty good looking thanks to a little cosmetic magic.
The kid's basically a big green Jamie Lannister. However it turns out he's infertile since irl crossbreeds usually are. The king only has one child and is too old to produce any more sons.
>1789 + 227
>Still allowing monarchists to live
Noble are just a shitty as everyone else, with the added shittiness of having the power to back it up. Some of them were good, because some people are good, but as a whole no, the institution was never going to create what you desire.
>>48074224
> normal kings
>or giants of men weighed down by authority and responsibility?
I don't get it, what's the difference
>>48074430
>>48074768
>>48074856
Do you people really believe that the upper class is genetically superior, or that everyone in charge is intelligent and just?
>>48074224
>That music video
Jesus christ, I have never seen a more ham-fisted propaganda video for feminism. Not even the Budwiser-Superbowl-Add was this cringy.
>>48074430
Education is accessible to literally everyone willing to take out a loan and the elites are not the most educated in the slightest.
>>48078874
I'm not seeing it, unless "don't immediately respond to first-contact scenarios with violence" suddenly became feminist propaganda recently.
>>48078874
What are you talking about?
>>48075373
Delta by C2C yo
Well, if Crusader Kings has taught me anything, 25% of the family will be godlike, and the other 75% will all be incapable of doing anything.
>>48074224
Ripped off as in people in positions of great power usually don't end up being that great? Or even that the position is much more important than the specific individual that fills it for a short time?
The fuck's a normal king? I don't even that concept. Has crown, does war, doesn't tank country, has son?
>>48079145
He's probably talking about an interpretation of the video.
Since you don't see any women during the video you could conclude that they are all gone. And the piramid is bringing them back now.
>>48079145
>>48079070
>babbies first symbolism
>some people still managed to miss it
Jesus christ, let me spell it out for you
>Planet full of males
>Alien Object has an Inverted Triangle shape
>males try to fight but get wrecked
>Manliest of Males bows down to triangle shape
>>48079377
Also, the pyramid is inverted and upside down triangles are sometimes used to represent femininity.
>>48079377
Nah, the society is without women. At all.
You could also interpret the heavy use of red tones for the planet as it being Mars.
>>48079019
>Education is accessible to literally everyone willing to take out a loan
Yeah, about that...
... you're not getting into the club with a loan and some scholarships, mate, I don't care how smart you or your kids are.
>>48079438
Come to think. Why is that? Males usually have broad shoulders and women wider hips. I think a normal pyramid would fit better, since it would represent women getting wider at a lower point and a upside down pyramid would represent males being wider at the top.
>>48078874
The place doesn't at all look despotic or unpleasant to live in, though. The worst you could maybe say about it is that it has inept generals.
>>48079430
Delta is a mathematical symbol that can represent change. It takes the form of a triangle.
>city encounters change
>tries to blow it up
>the homeless guy realizes that you can't stop change and by accepting it is able to approach it
>everyone gathers around change and is awed by its beauty
EVEN THE YOUTUBE COMMENTS FIGURED THIS OUT EVENTUALLY
>>48079430
I think you're seeing things, my man.
You might want to stop drinking the /pol/ kool-aid.
>>48079224
It's taught me that if you want divine blood you should marry your sister but take a couple concubines to deal with inbreeding.
>>48074224
>absolute kings
Republic with appointed dictators a best, every other system can go and stay gone
>>48079559
>Even people in the Youtube-Comments saw this at first glance
>This anon is literally dumber than the fucking Youtube-Comments
>>48079525
Like everything in life, it all comes down to genitals. The curve of the thighs leads down towards the pubic area, evoking a triangular shape. Just look at bikini bottoms or panties. Mothafuckin' triangles.
>>48079587
I'm actually doing a Zoroastrianism playthough right now. Those first few wars are rough.
>>48079618
>his first thought was MUH FEMINISM BOOGEYMAN.
>>48079619
Oh, yeah. That makes sense.
>>48078874
>>48079070
>>48079145
I see what he's talking about in terms of there being a theme relating to the feminine. Calling it "ham fisted feministed propaganda" is being a dweeb, there's nothing wrong with it. But the video is about a city with no visible women, and the inverted triangle is a classic symbol of femininity. It's not even a subtle or obscure one, it's mainstream. The Da Vinci Code goes on about how the "grail" is hidden under the Louvre, because of the symbolically inverted pyramid.
Anyways, you have this video of a city full of men freaking out about an inverted Pyramid. Then the Pyramid opens up with an almost literal vagina and all men, King and subject alike, fall to their knees. King's like "aw fuck I forgot how great pussy was I can't keep this stoic image anymore".
This isn't feminist, it's a pretty timeless theme. No matter what goes down humans will always be vulnerable to the power of the opposite sex and in a male dominated world the discussion defaults to the power of the vajayjay.
I would say the feminine imagery is ham-fisted but it's still a pretty cool video.
>>48074224
>Do you guys prefer to use normal kings, or giants of men weighed down by authority and responsibility?
The entire thing about political and legal equality was that "no man is made of a finer clay than another"
If some men were literally made of a finer clay than the plebes, then I would have no problem with it.
>>48078673
While the upper class may not be intelligent and just, they are certainly moreso than the plebes.
Look at it this way; if the people currently in charge are who the people thought would be good leaders, then that is only a argument as to why the people ought not be in charge of ANY decisions whatsoever.
>>48079659
>his first thought was MUH /pol/-BOOGEYMAN
>>48074224
>Do you guys prefer to use normal kings, or giants of men weighed down by authority and responsibility?
Redundant, cross-authority republic with segregated polities is the best.
3+ parallel executors, 3+ parallel executors, 3+ parallel judicators, etc.
Make like the USSR and have multiple, parallel state agencies watching everyone else, themselves, and each other.
>>48078673
Monarchy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
It randomly selects people by genetic origin. This is better than e.g. democracies, which choose rulers based on their facility for manipulating mass opinion.
Monarchy further expands its superiority by educating likely rulers especially for their job, from an early age.
>>48078874
>men like women
>must be feminist propaganda
ffs get your symbolism straight
>>48079804
Open any history text then tell me you were just pretending to be retarded.
>>48079858
Hey man, the kid is struggling with his sexuality. Let him be. He'll calm down once he realizes he's gay.
>>48078230
The French Revolution was the moment where everything went wrong.
>>48079804
>This is better than e.g. democracies, which choose rulers based on their facility for manipulating mass opinion.
This; If you can't trust the people to rule, why would you trust the people to choose who gets to rule?
However, raw genetics isn't necessarily the best way to go either. Rather, a superior method would be an aristocratic republic. Take, for example, the upper third of the population in wealth, education, and service to the nation. Give only them the vote, and only for their state or province. Of that 1/3, the highest 1/3 (1/9 of the entire population) are given national rights, while the remaining 2/3's of the population are relegated only to local government.
Democracy and republicanism have their perks, but they are ruined by universal suffrage.
>>48079898
>Open any history text then tell me you were just pretending to be retarded.
What are you talking about? Monarchy was the superior form of government for thousands upon thousands of years. The only exceptions were isolated experiments, and liberal/republican thought only came into being when a bunch of uppity peasants brutally murdered their betters, as well as when a ragtag bunch of colonials were suddenly given free access to a huge, resource rich continent sparsely-populated by technologically inferior savages.
>>48078874
>upside-down triangle is the symbol for change called delta
>the name of the video is called delta
> a society meets an unexpected change and tried to fight against it
>it fails
>Only one man knew you cant fight change, only accept
What the fuck are you talking about
>>48080081
>upside-down triangle is the symbol for change called delta
Delta is a right-side-up triangle you fucking idiot.
>Only one man knew you cant fight change, only accept
But that's fucking wrong, and cowardly to boot.
>>48079947
Then The élite starts breeding internally and you're back to feudalism.
Accept it anon. Feudalism is the most natural form of government, everyone used it and it came out indipendently everywhere, and any society forced to simplify itself naturally goes there sooner or later. Going full Heinlein slows the problem down,but can't stop it.
Arguably our modern crony "capitalist", "democratic" system is feudal too.
So let's embarace this. Let us create REAL "nobles" with genetic engeneering to rule us! Certanly you will accept that someone with 500 IQ who can run faster than a horse, pick it up and THROW IT AT YOU if you revolt, has a divine right to rule you.
>>48079987
I was more specifically referring to the last line of your post.
Everything else you've said is mostly wrong too, of course, but the claim that nobility was, as a rule, prepared to rule is laughable.
>>48079588
Becoming an Empire killed Rome.
Cincinnatus was a fucking amazing man who knew how to handle the burden of power.
>>48080128
>So let's embarace this. Let us create REAL "nobles" with genetic engeneering to rule us! Certanly you will accept that someone with 500 IQ who can run faster than a horse, pick it up and THROW IT AT YOU if you revolt, has a divine right to rule you.
But of course, and I don't disagree with you. Naturally, the top 3rd of the population will be superior to the bottom 3rd; it just has the benefit of also catching the few plebes who really make something great of themselves as well.
>>48080141
>your
Not him, but someone else.
>>48080115
>Delta is a right-side-up triangle
my mistake, but that doesn't mean the video is feminist propaganda and the overall meaning is still there
>But that's fucking wrong, and cowardly to boot
you opinion has been noted and that doesn't change the message the video is trying to show .
>>48080243
>my mistake
Well, to be fair, upside-down delta (nabla) is used to denote gradients, so it's kind of right.
There is a trend in my generation, those aged 18-30 that seem to be very much against the notion of being a free person being able to act, do and say as they please. Intentional or not they gravitate towards having authority over them to keep their behavior in line with what is acceptable. Is it so they can absolve themselves of blame if they do anything or is it something more/less? Or do we now need rules and boundries to live our lives? For somebody to tell us what we should and should not do?
>>48075819
>The kid's basically a big green Jamie Lannister. However it turns out he's infertile since irl crossbreeds usually are. The king only has one child and is too old to produce any more sons.
Better get that kid studying magic, then.
Lichdom > succession crisis.
>>48079019
>>48079497
There are way to become seriously educated without going to a state univercity, there are hundreds of local colleges that can provide what the majority of people go to study for, that is social sciences, english courses and political sciences. For those wanting to study things like STEM, yes, that will require more, but there are more than enough ways to migitgate cost.
My point is this, we are aware we are ruled by more dynastic families than ever before, a powerful elite that is very hard to break in to, impossible for most. Yet why do we keep handing more power and authority to them?
It is the biggest double-think in history.
>>48080321
Nice meme, Randlet.
But no, to be entirely honest, freedom should be nothing more or less than a privilege. Freedom is not "you can do what you want", freedom is "you can do what you ought to do without oversight". There are those above to be obeyed, there are those below to be ordered, everyone has a place and everyone has a duty.
Whether these places and duties are vaguely defined and minimal, or exacting and crystal clear, is dependent on the society itself.
>Or do we now need rules and boundries to live our lives?
What makes you think you know how to live your life? Mother doesn't always know best.
>>48080394
>Mother doesn't always know best.
Neither does government
>>48080503
>Neither does government
Neither do you.
It is the sign of utmost arrogance and hubris to think that you, personally, are the most qualified to lead your life in the best way possible. It is selfish and sociopathic.
It is a sign of humility and maturity to subordinate yourself to your betters, and to live your life to better serve your fellows, your superiors, your inferiors, and society in its entirety.
>>48080394
Our definitions of what a free man is are very different anon. A man is free to do what he wishes provided it does not impact upon the lives and abilities of another is all of it. It is a priviledge, I agree, one that our ancestors fought for, from General Washington to Doctor King.
>What makes you think you know how to live your life? Mother doesn't always know best.
Your question is offensive in many ways, anon. It reduces us all to infants unable to take care of ourselves, the eternal child that will enver grow or experience a life without the aid of Daddy Government telling us what we can and can not do.
I ask you what makes you think you can not live your life? As yours is an argument in favor of making laws against the whole of the people to prevent a few from doing something.
>>48080321
Part of the issue is that upward social mobility appears to be on the decline in this generation compared with the last century, so freedom is more of a source of uncertainty and insecurity than it is an opportunity to improve your circumstances. The idea of a feudal society where your future is pretty much set for you from birth and you just take up your father's trade when he retires has a certain appeal to it when the alternative is struggling under student debt and a highly competitive job market.
Plus, in a free society, you all imagine you have a shot at becoming a CEO or the President or whatever, but almost nobody actually manages it. So you've got all these frustrated people who had ambitions of greatness but are kept in lowly places under leaders that are no "better" than they are. But in a caste based society, the only real ambition most people have is to excel within the sphere of their own social class, which is much more readily achieved. Someone whose father was a farmer can be happy if he finds success in farming, because that's all he ever could have hoped to achieve.
>>48080544
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
>>48080552
>A man is free to do what he wishes provided it does not impact upon the lives and abilities of another is all of it.
Then your definition is false by its own nature; all actions of all men impact all other men. A man living alone in the forest is one less man contributing to the nation. No man is an atom.
>Your question is offensive in many ways, anon. It reduces us all to infants unable to take care of ourselves, the eternal child that will enver grow or experience a life without the aid of Daddy Government telling us what we can and can not do.
>I ask you what makes you think you can not live your life? As yours is an argument in favor of making laws against the whole of the people to prevent a few from doing something.
There is a lot of implications here, and I will respond very succintly. Men CAN live their lives perfectly satisfactorily by themselves, without authority. It is, however, a non-optimal state of affairs.
A group of soldiers can fight perfectly well without a leader, but the presence or absence of a general is what separates a mob from an army.
>As yours is an argument in favor of making laws against the whole of the people to prevent a few from doing something.
Is the ability to be authoritarian an argument to be authoritarian? Are you oppressed if the state has the power to violate every aspect of your privacy, and yet do not?
People may not be atoms, but they are certainly not ants either. Divorce your mind from extremes.
>>48080654
Am I supposed to be impressed by the words of one man?
A thousand strong and free men are nothing more than a thousand strong and free men, in a constant volatile mire of alliance and war with each other.
A thousand strong men united are a god.
>>48080544
I am the most qualified to lead my life because its my life. Only one person has a full understanding of my life,me.
Only one person knows all the troubles and hardships i go through everyday, me.
Only one person knows my want, needs, and desires, me.
No one on this earth has a better understanding of my life than me. For better or worse i am objectively the most qualified person to lead my life.
>>48080689
>A thousand strong men united are a god
In that both only exist in imagination?
>>48080698
>For better or worse i am objectively the most qualified person to lead my life.
In regards only to your own personal wants and desires, this is true. You are the most qualified on to how best lead your life how you wish.
Your life, however, could likely be put to better use than entirely in the pursuit of your own wants and desires.
>>48080735
>In that both only exist in imagination?
>states/governments/groups don't exist
I'm actually laughing right now; nice meme anon.
>>48080698
>I am the most qualified to lead my life
Free will is a wonderful thing, shame that on most people it is wasted.
holyshit you're both so spooked it hurts to laugh but also to live knowing you also live
>>48080651
You are a textbook example of why I said double-think. Please do not take this the wrong way, I mean nothing but honest intentions.
>Part of the issue is that upward social mobility appears to be on the decline in this generation compared with the last century, so freedom is more of a source of uncertainty and insecurity than it is an opportunity to improve your circumstance.
Here you say you know there is a decrease in upward mobility in the system. You then say that being apart of from it is uncertain and insecure. So your choice is to stay within the system and hope that you are one of the few rather than striking out and living by your own merits?
>The idea of a feudal society where your future is pretty much set for you from birth and you just take up your father's trade when he retires has a certain appeal to it when the alternative is struggling under student debt and a highly competitive job market.
You mistake what I mean by a free man, a free man is obligated to work and earn his wages or generate his income. I mean free of goverment intrusion for most of my life, I dislike that government tells me what I am able to do, say or believe. Or that my tax money goes to unelected officials that are unknowable and unimpeachable. That those representing me are utterly removed from my way of life.
>>48080788
Fuck off Stirner, you're the only spook here.
>>48080736
>Your life, however, could likely be put to better use than entirely in the pursuit of your own wants and desires.
If i desire to use my time for a greater idea or state of governance than i shall, however i am under no obligation to do so and that goes for everyone else.
Can't we all just agree that everything is terrible?
>>48080751
Because governments are known for their lack of internal politics?
>>48080736
>Your life, however, could likely be put to better use than entirely in the pursuit of your own wants and desires.
There are no better uses than satisfying my own wants and desires. I'm not sure the rest of you are even real.
>>48080663
>Then your definition is false by its own nature; all actions of all men impact all other men. A man living alone in the forest is one less man contributing to the nation. No man is an atom.
You extend it to extremes to devalue my argument. Your comment means nothing.
>A group of soldiers can fight perfectly well without a leader, but the presence or absence of a general is what separates a mob from an army.
A group of tax payers can elect a local leader to head the council, but when they elect a general whom then elect a general who then elect a general all sense of democrazy and representation is lost. Armies do not enter in to it as of course a national figure head is wanted for defense and many other things.
>Is the ability to be authoritarian an argument to be authoritarian? Are you oppressed if the state has the power to violate every aspect of your privacy, and yet do not?
All governments are responsible to their people, or they were once upon a time. Your argument is "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." I dislike the state having the ability to prevent my movements, deny me rights, deny me the power of spech for no other reason than exposing truth. The government grows more and more with each passing year.
>>48080689
>Am I supposed to be impressed by the words of one man
I don't care what impresses you, such is the beauty of living free. Where we part of another system, one that ended in the 20th century you would be required, enforced to be impressed and jubulant. A thousand strong men united by anything but personal choice are slaves.
>>48080861
>If i desire to use my time for a greater idea or state of governance than i shall, however i am under no obligation to do so and that goes for everyone else.
Your desires and your obligations do not factor into this, at all.
>>48080870
Regardless, they exist all the same. The state is the state is the state, regardless of how its public officials interact with each other.
>>48080904
But the state is not united men. It's loosely allied men at best.
>>48080766
>Free will is a wonderful thing, shame that on most people it is wasted.
True, i however blame the state of the current world more than the individual person. We been raised to fall in line and follow orders for literally all of our lives that it an instinct now, very few people can break that kind of conditioning, and i am unfortunately not one of them, at least yet anyways but im trying.
>>48080904
>Your desires and your obligations do not factor into this, at all.
Yes they do, that is all that matters. Obligations are all that matter, when I joined the army my obligations changed, when I left they did again.
We can force all men to march to one tune and do amazing things, yes, but that is neither just nor moral because the needs of the many are directed by the will of the few.
>Regardless, they exist all the same. The state is the state is the state, regardless of how its public officials interact with each other.
And should be resisted and made smaller and limited in power at all cost. There is not a single mention in the West (Or any modern country) giving up power, giving up authority once it has been aquired. Only recently have people begun to reject the onimpetent government.
>>48078673
The upper class generally isn't genetically superior.
Mostly because nobility is inbreed, and merchants has only been around for 150-200 years as current families.
The genetically superior would be some isolated village, which didn't get industrialized until the 50s, but with a large enough population to avoid inbreeding.
The region would also need to import education for at the least 200 years(priest, central reforms), just to get better stock and avoid the worst inbreeding.
The problem is that even if those things happened, there is no guarantees. A lot of "superior stock" has a bunch of slow creeping genetic issues, instead of just some rare defects.
>or that everyone in charge is intelligent and just?
By doing a job, you learn that job. By being in charge, you learn how to be in charge, not how to do the job you manage. The end result is often long term disaster(bureaucracy, Nobility inbreeding, the permanent feudal war)
>>48080904
>Your desires and your obligations do not factor into this, at all.
Then why should I or any individual should waste his time for anything outside of himself.
>>48080938
>i am unfortunately not one of them, at least yet anyways but im trying.
I believe in you anon, read some old literature. I find that a source of great morality and inspiration. By virtue of you not wanting to be a followerer you are free.
>>48080899
>Your argument is "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
Except it's not; If the state has the authority to spy on you, and yet does not nor has a method by which to do so, are you oppressed?
>I dislike the state having the ability to prevent my movements, deny me rights, deny me the power of spech for no other reason than exposing truth
What movements? Movements upon land controlled and guaranteed by states?
What rights? Rights granted to you, and guranteed by, the state?
Is truth an absolute good? Is it worth the dissolution and collapse of authority and the nation, for the sake of truth? It it worth it to compromise during Armageddon, if doing so would prevent Armageddon?
>A thousand strong men united by anything but personal choice are slaves.
A thousand strong men united by free will are volatile and transient, as prone to collapse as they are to infighting.
Ask yourself, is there truly anything wrong with being a citizen, rather than a sovereign?
>>48078230
>Every elevation of the type "man" has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society — and so it will always be: a society which believes in a long scale of orders of rank and differences of worth between man and man and needs slavery in some sense or other. Without the pathos of distance such as develops from the incarnate differences of classes, from the ruling caste's constant looking out and looking down on subjects and instruments and from its equally constant exercise of obedience and command, its holding down and holding at a distance, that other, more mysterious pathos could not have developed either, that longing for an ever-increasing widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, more remote, tenser, more comprehensive states, in short precisely the elevation of the type "man", the continual "self-overcoming of man", to take a moral formula in a supra-moral sense. As to how an aristocratic society (that is to say, the precondition for this elevation of the type "man") originates, one ought not to yield to any humanitarian illusions: truth is hard. Let us admit to ourselves unflinchingly how every higher culture on earth has hitherto begun! Men of a still natural nature, barbarians in every fearful sense of the word, men of prey still in possession of an unbroken strength of will and lust for power, threw themselves upon old mellow cultures, the last vital forces in which were even then flickering out in a glittering firework display of spirit and corruption. The noble caste was in the beginning always the barbarian caste: their superiority lay, not in their physical strength, but primarily in their psychical — they were more complete human beings (which, on every level, also means as much as "more complete beasts" —).
>>48079947
>Give only them the vote, and only for their state or province. Of that 1/3, the highest 1/3 (1/9 of the entire population) are given national rights, while the remaining 2/3's of the population are relegated only to local government.
This ends with a "congress" where "voting blocks" are formed, in 1-2 sessions.
And once the blocks are formed, there will be made delegation systems, binding the vote to a political platform.
You are better off with Election via Lethal Combat for fucks sake.
>>48080995
Why should we tell you? Find out for yourself why, explore a life and make the reasons for you to care for a family. I can not, nor would I ever wish to, tell you how to live your life. It devalues the short time we have here. Find out.
>>48080921
>But the state is not united men. It's loosely allied men at best.
Anyone who betrays the state, even those that comprise it, are often persecuted. They are united by coercion, and not by will.
>>48080976
>And should be resisted and made smaller and limited in power at all cost.
Why? The only problem with a large government is that it is inefficient; if that inefficiency could be eliminated, there is no reason to not expand the hierarchy of authority.
>>48080995
Because selfishness is not necessarily good.
>this entire thread
Fucking anarchists.
>>48080321
If I am free why are there laws
>Democracies
>Monarchies
>Aristocracies
>Not having an ascetic monastic order of political elites based on utilitarian policies
>Not having your leader being a cold, unfeeling savant who's been brainwashed from childhood into believing their only purpose is to maximize humanity's happiness
>Do you even Utopia?
>>48081018
>Except it's not; If the state has the authority to spy on you, and yet does not nor has a method by which to do so, are you oppressed?
Becase it assumes I am a criminal mearly waiting for the chance to get away with a crime. I am already guilty of something, the question is what?
>A thousand strong men united by free will are volatile and transient, as prone to collapse as they are to infighting. Ask yourself, is there truly anything wrong with being a citizen, rather than a sovereign?
You are wrong, all evidence suggests that when people are brought together by free association they work together for the betterment of the whole, it becomes a problem when one man with authority from outside the group is then placed in to the system.
>Why? The only problem with a large government is that it is inefficient; if that inefficiency could be eliminated, there is no reason to not expand the hierarchy of authority.
Yes one of the problems with large government is indeed that it is inefficient, but others are it is unaccountable and unrepresented of society entirely, instead of asking what do you want it says I shall tell you what you want.
This is soft facism. If people gathered together to say we're going to form a local bank, they would be presented with some many rules and regulations to make the task of doing so utterly impossible.
>>48081099
To prevent a tradgedy of the commons, originally. Not they are made to prevent everything from competition to direct inquirey to free association and many more things.
>>48081081
>mfw when the Anarchists in the UK voted to stay in the EU.
I am still dissapointed that human selective breeding in nobility didn't produce giant people who were smarter, nobler, handsomer, and all around better than the plebs.
Major ripoff.
>>48081052
I have a family that i care for and do so because i like them not out of obligation. What im saying is that every man should have the ability to devote his time into whatever he wishes and not forced to do so out of duty
>>48081065
>Because selfishness is not necessarily good.
neither is selflessness, your point?
>>48080904
>The state is the state is the state, regardless of how its public officials interact with each other.
The state is NOT the state when there is a lack of will and goals.
Generally, that is a huge issue.
They poke at campaign goals, and have internal policy changes for whats hip within the party.
Everything else gets choked to mediocrity and no action, merely by not being hip.
I.E Patent law reforms to fix court cases, court cases taking more time due legal hurdles, decreasing the number of paper workers, long term regulation to STOP increase of IT costs over long term. Etc
Or there being 3 branches of the Police force that fights over money.
>>48081008
Thanks for your kinds words , im doing what i can
>>48081188
>I have a family that i care for and do so because i like them not out of obligation. What im saying is that every man should have the ability to devote his time into whatever he wishes and not forced to do so out of duty
I agree. Though technically, a familiy is an obligation. You have an obligation out of love and honor to care for and raise a good, strong family.
I agree with your comment entirely. A man should be free to devote his time to anything he wishes.
>>48081138
>Becase it assumes I am a criminal mearly waiting for the chance to get away with a crime. I am already guilty of something, the question is what?
You are not reading the question, anon.
If the government has the authority to do X, but does not do X; are you oppressed by X?
If the government has the power to arbitrarily imprison someone for eating shrimp, but they don't imprison people for eating shrimp, are you oppressed in regards to not being able to eat shrimp?
>You are wrong, all evidence suggests that when people are brought together by free association they work together for the betterment of the whole
Only as long as their wills align with each other; otherwise, it is volatile and unstable. Being united by coercion has no bearing on how much freedom is afforded to group members in achieving those goals.
>but others are it is unaccountable and unrepresented of society entirely
Because some people don't deserve to be represented.
>instead of asking what do you want it says I shall tell you what you want.
Because what you want is often unimportant, unneeded, or wrong, and you should be doing something else.
>This is soft facism
And?
>If people gathered together to say we're going to form a local bank, they would be presented with some many rules and regulations to make the task of doing so utterly impossible.
Exactly as it ought to be.
>>48081188
>>48081262
>being unaware of the shackles of your genes
I don't think you entirely have a choice in whether or not you like your family.
Unless they do some TRULY HORRENDOUS SHIT, you are hardwired to both like them and be willing to do shit for them.
like, so hardwired that you get an almost double pain tolerance if you are taking pain for a family member VS a non-related loved one.
With a directly corresponding level of relatedness VS pain tolerance increase ratio.
>>48081138
Ok let me rephrase
If I am free how come there are laws instructing strongmen to club me into submission if I do something
The lesson to be learned here is that freedom is not a state which can be achieved but rather a description of the level of power you can exert on the universe
I.e by being very free you make people around you unfree
>>48081262
>A man should be free to devote his time to anything he wishes.
Why?
>>48081176
Nobles are fun
If they have many children there will be succesion wars and many armies/unions and splits of family fortune
If they have few children, their wealth grows, and kings get clean successions(genetic flaws be damned)
>>48081312
Because people don't understand that ENTROPY IS A-COMIN FOR YOU, BETTER ACT ONLY IN THE MOST ENERGY EFFICIENT WAYS AND SPEND ALL YOUR TIME IN LOW ENERGY VR.
Freedom is the result of poor long term planning.
>>48081176
That's because we didn't have a working knowledge of genetics and heredity for the time when nobility was a thing, and someone was noble based entirely upon their lineage, not whether they actually were stronger or smarter than the common plebe.
>>48081353
>>48081328
If we did it all again, but this time with a knowledge of genetics, would it be different?
I want my god kings.
>>48081340
>ENTROPY IS A-COMIN FOR YOU, BETTER ACT ONLY IN THE MOST ENERGY EFFICIENT WAYS AND SPEND ALL YOUR TIME IN LOW ENERGY VR.
Possibly, but in order for humans to act and work in an optimal manner, they must be afforded some amount of freedom, autonomy, and privacy. It's just the nature of the human condition, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
>Freedom is the result of poor long term planning.
Not necessarily, but selfishness is.
>>48081375
>If we did it all again, but this time with a knowledge of genetics, would it be different?
We did, it was called Eugenics.
Some mustachioed Kraut had to go and ruin it for everyone, unfortunately.
>>48081399
Fuck.
Fuuuck you hitler.
You ruined what could have lead to FUCKING AMAZING TIMES.
>>48081409
>trusting forest niggers to not ruin everything
>ever
>>48081385
That's another thing. Humanity's tendency to rebel and waste energy when not treated well is REALLY BAD. Gotta work on that somehow.
>>48081418
That's the problem.
You can't trust anyone not to ruin everything.
Hence my desire for god kings.
>>48081427
>Gotta work on that somehow.
Nah, I kind of diasgree. Freedom and the privacy that comes along with it is responsible for most of the spice that comprises human life. It's a fair price to pay for efficient humans if we get a fun and interesting civilization to live in.
Of course, this must be balanced against efficiency and long term planning.
>>48081282
>If the government has the power to arbitrarily imprison someone for eating shrimp, but they don't imprison people for eating shrimp, are you oppressed in regards to not being able to eat shrimp?
That is what they are doing, anon. Nofly lists, suspicious persons lists, tapping phones, reading emails, private conrospondance and more. This information is then passed on to businesses for commercial reasons. See net neutrality for a digital version.
>Only as long as their wills align with each other; otherwise, it is volatile and unstable. Being united by coercion has no bearing on how much freedom is afforded to group members in achieving those goals.
Even then, they will find a peacable way to work it out. Again the problem comes when one person says I have the power from God/Government to say this is how things will go.
>Because some people don't deserve to be represented.
Who watches he watchmen
>instead of asking what do you want it says I shall tell you what you want.
To the individual but not society.
>This is soft facism
And is against the free market, prevents competition and all the things people cry about when they hate the current system, which is actually Cronyism/Coropratism not captalism. Soft/Hard facism is only wanted by the people whom it favors.
>I don't think you entirely have a choice in whether or not you like your family.
Say that to the Black community, you have a choice to have and raise a family.
>If I am free how come there are laws instructing strongmen to club me into submission if I do something
Because there are criminals out there, that can not be argued but can be mitigated by many factors.
>A man should be free to devote his time to anything he wishes.
>Why?
Why not? Because we are not programable yet.
>>48081438
Bootstrapping anon, one step at a time.
First we put all the eggheads in charge.
Then they put their super-eggheads in charge.
Then we get vat-grown God-men to rule over us in a glorious new golden age.
>>48081446
I feel like, at some point in the future, we are going to have a very energy wasteful genocidal war over this issue, because I feel long term human survival is worth more than human happiness.
>>48081467
A guy can dream.
Too bad that's probably never going to happen since our eggheads are almost universally not predisposed to and untrained for taking over government positions.
We're doomed to forever fuck everything up always, because we have no god kings to tell us otherwise.
>>48081375
As socity is now?
The core problem for a eugenics program is that the parents need to have 5-10 children per generation.
Your goal is to breed 50% of that stock, where the rest becomes reserve stock for mingling
And each child needs to be vetted for genetical defects, and tested. The most fucked up children needs to be sterilized, which is acceptable once there is 3 brothers and 5 sisters to it.
Children out of wedlock is not even a issue with that large stocks either.
But the issue still remains, you need each generation to have A LOT of children. And the breeding group needs to be large enough.
Bringing in outsiders is ironically even less of a issue, since there is so many children.
And from a sociopolitical standpoint: With so many high class children in a interconnected family, there is a chance they nepotism will allow them to do great sociopolitical feats.
>>48081472
>Europe 2030
>>48081452
>That is what they are doing, anon.
Again, you're not reading. At all.
My point is that they are NOT imprisoning people for eating shrimp, and yet have the authority and power to be able to do so if they wished.
Are you oppressed?
>Even then, they will find a peacable way to work it out.
Are you one of those NAP idiots?
>Who watches he watchmen
Other watchmen, preferably multiple, parallel watchman who are watching themselves and everyone else simultaneously. That's one thing the USSR got right.
>And is against the free market
So? The free market is a dumb and blind natural process, I trust it as much as I trust evolution to create intelligent life as a teleos; that is to say, not at all.
>Why not? Because we are not programable yet.
We are governed by incentives, and those incentives can be manipulated.
>>48081455
No.
>>48081472
Are we truly human without happiness and art and other such "wasteful" things?
>>48081496
So basically just like how things were a few hundred years ago, but this time with knowledge of genetics and hereditary disease.
We'll just have to wait for WW3 and make sure we get the eugenics ball rolling right after the massive depopulation.
>>48081564
Doesn't matter.
I hear the beat deep down inside that tells me survival trumps all. Even if it's only for a fractionally longer time, desperately scrabbling at the edge.
>>48081545
>My point is that they are NOT imprisoning people for eating shrimp, and yet have the authority and power to be able to do so if they wished.
Yes, yes they are anon. Look at who is in Gitmo, who is in the prison system they are starting to hold people wihtout trial for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
>Are you one of those NAP idiots?
Don't know what that means, but every shred of evidence says that local and free association of people contributes to better safety, security, happiness and more. When you forceably relocate people in to other areas is when trouble starts.
>Who watches he watchmen
You would place more corruptable layers over and over each one more unaccountable than the one before it.
>And is against the free market
Yet it has lifted the most people the highest out of poverty all over the world.
>Why not? Because we are not programable yet.
Indeed they can, but they are not foolproof with enough education you can spot many incentives and behvaioral ques.
We seem to have very different opinions on what would make a desirable society anon and alas without knowing your history without seeing you before me and knowing your history I can not make apporiate arguments for and against. I will hazard (Which you will deny) that you are arguing from a postition of above the average for people. And that you have something of a desirable life or one laid out before you.
>>48081595
No. How it was a few hundred years ago, it was completely different. For one, the only selective breeding they had, was against chance of surviving birth/childhood.
Meaning even if you reached 20/25, and had 3 children, none of them might survive, and you might die of the next whif of plauge, and the same for the wife.
Another issue is that they had dynsties made for a single succesor, meaning the optimal was 3-4 children. 1 succesor, one political chip piece, and 1-2 daugthers to trade away to keep some form of relationships working.
And once they had 8-12 children, because some of them died during being raised, they would often use the oldest as successors.
>But what about daugthers
Doesn't change at all. Its ironically equally wasteful for both genders, in terms of breeding.
>>48081614
>I hear the beat deep down inside that tells me survival trumps all.
Perhaps, and it could be argued that when we're finally back over the precipice and can take a breather, that we can work on making ourselves human again.
What worries me is the possibility of discarding something that makes us human, and the lack of that something would give us no reason to "want" to be human anymore.
Say, for instance, you removed the human concept of boredom. You set the population working in factories and laboratories 16/7 for the next several millenia, until the fundamental forces of reality are beneath our very fingertips.
What reason do we have to create art, or have fun, or to be human when we can press a button that gives us dopamine, and be no less happier for doing it over and over again until the end of time.
In the process of ensuring our survival, we have given up something core to the nature of humanity, and we no longer have a will or volition to take it back.
>>48081675
I hear and understand your concerns, but will still most likely fight you over them.
Maybe once we go down the path enough to remove the SURVIVE AT ANY COST hardcoding my type have, we can work on art and such. Until then, genocidal hell war, europe 2030.
>>48081653
>Yes, yes they are anon.
My entire question was a hypothetical, anon.
>who is in the prison system
Criminals. Whether or not those laws are good or not is another question.
>but every shred of evidence says that local and free association of people contributes to better safety, security, happiness and more.
Borders.
>You would place more corruptable layers over and over each one more unaccountable than the one before it.
Not layers, but peers. There is no overseer-watchman watching the watchmen, but rather other watchmen watching themselves.
>Yet it has lifted the most people the highest out of poverty all over the world.
Except there has never been a free market. It has always been subject to manipulation, and rightfully so.
>I will hazard (Which you will deny) that you are arguing from a postition of above the average for people.
I wouldn't consider myself particularly above average (at least not on a global sense); The only thing above average for me is that my grandfather was able to foot my tuition, rather than me having to take loans out for it. Otherwise, I come from a rather average middle class family.
I will not deny that I enjoy my life, or that it is desirable.
>>48081751
>(at least not on a global sense
At least not in regards in a global sense*
>>48081751
>My entire question was a hypothetical, anon.
That is moot, it is happening therefore it is not hypothetical.
>who is in the prison system
>Criminals. Whether or not those laws are good or not is another question.
When the law changes and people are imprisoned retroactively, or when society cires out for a law to be changed but the Government enforces it even more strongly.
>Not layers, but peers. There is no overseer-watchman watching the watchmen, but rather other watchmen watching themselves.
Why not have the watchmen do the task they are meant to watch since they are so trustworthy? There, I eliminated a layer for you.
>Yet it has lifted the most people the highest out of poverty all over the world.
>Except there has never been a free market. It has always been subject to manipulation, and rightfully so.
True, buy my point still stands. The free(er) market has allowed people to climb out of povety more efficiently than any other way.
>>48074224
>the only one who thinks we were extremely ripped off by our historical nobles not becoming god-kings through proper breeding and weight of the crown?
Genetics are just random bits of information passed biologically from person to person like a game of musical chairs that has nothing to do with their eventual character and competence as human beings.
Aristocratic rulers were just people with marginally better luck in whom their parents were, and therefore they were of wildly varying quality of individual and thus in effect they were all psychologically as a group average human beings who when they fucked up their fuckups caused more damage then to just themselves.
You don't need to feel ripped off because Dune shit isn't real and thus there was never even a chance of it ever happier in real life a any point at all.
>>48074224
Charlemagne was a nearly seven foot tall (confirmed by a recent study of his corpse) physical superman who was educated, intelligent, a skilled commander, and excellent at politics, one of the most accomplished kings who ever lived.
His first son Pippin was a hunchback of no real note, skill, or accomplishment.
Genetics are a crapshoot. Universally.
>>48078673
Of course they would be, they're the only ones actually free to pursue the objectively correct things (including breeding choices). You sound like a mongrel plebe though so I see why you'd doubt that.
>>48081821
>That is moot, it is happening therefore it is not hypothetical.
My question is hypothetical, so consider it hypothetically.
Are you oppressed if the government has the power and authority to oppress you, but does not?
>When the law changes and people are imprisoned retroactively
Literally does not happen, this is the core of all law.
>or when society cires out for a law to be changed but the Government enforces it even more strongly.
So? Who says that the plebes have a good idea of what should or should not be lawful? If society cried out for rape to be lawful, should the government comply?
>Why not have the watchmen do the task they are meant to watch since they are so trustworthy? There, I eliminated a layer for you.
Ah, but you see, they are not necessarily trustworthy. In fact, let us assume that they are just as corrupt as any people. They do not act on that, however, because of the fear of the other 2+ watchmen indicting them. They operate in fear of other watchmen, and any coalition of watchmen can be busted by any singular watchman.
>The free(er) market has allowed people to climb out of povety more efficiently than any other way.
True, but will that pattern necessarily hold?
>>48081871
Pippin's mother is confirmed to have been a Jew. Coincidence? I think not.
>>48074224
Oh I am BEYOND mad that our kings weren't some dark souls tier 12ft tall badasses who literally crap lightning and live for thousands of years... real world is a disappointment and should be abolished...
>>48078230
t.Rosicrucian Freemason member of the Illuminati
>this whole thread
>>48081901
Charlemagne's other sons from other mothers were neither as tall, as strong, and not even a shadow as competent. In fact, everything he did sorta fell apart after he died.
Fun fact of life: exceptional people are exceptional people because by definition the rest of the collective human race are NOT exceptional. Instead we are merely average. At best.
>>48081944
>germanic race
>not by default exceptional and only weighed down by genetic impurities
Explain how they conquered 90% of the world then, SJW.
>>48081965
By failing to fix their current economic problems and manage the trade union they personally helped set up.
Oh. Wait.
>>48081886
>Are you oppressed if the government has the power and authority to oppress you, but does not?
Yes, as the innocent until proven guilty is not longer applying. I am assumed to be guilty am waiting to be caught in the act, otherwise why am I being watched?
>When the law changes and people are imprisoned retroactively
>Literally does not happen, this is the core of all law
It does anon, look at E-gold. They were accused of abetting terroism and torn down by the US government but when HSBC and many others were laundering over 100 billion of dirty money they were allowed to conitnue. E-gold had a collective worth of less than 30 million.
So? Who says that the plebes have a good idea of what should or should not be lawful? If society cried out for rape to be lawful, should the government comply?
The government should not be in the business of imposing morality on society, society should do it the otherway around. Seperating Church and State is important.
> let us assume that they are just as corrupt as any people. They do not act on that, however, because of the fear of the other 2+ watchmen indicting them. They operate in fear of other watchmen, and any coalition of watchmen can be busted by any singular watchman.
When you add more layers, either upwards or cross ways you do not discourage dishonesty you increase it because the system is more complex and easier to make alliances with those above you. Private industry is far more honest than government as the private industry has more to gain/lose than the government mandating what their employees will get.
>The free(er) market has allowed people to climb out of povety more efficiently than any other way.
>True, but will that pattern necessarily hold?
It has so far and nothing has changed, on the small scale or the large. There is no reason to doubt otherwise until things show it does not work.
I am thoroughly enjoying this anon.
>>48081920
Me too.
It's fucking embarrassing that our kings can't jump half a football field in a single bound, and stab three guys on a spear simultaneously.
>>48074224
Noblefags get out
>>48082057
Are you a noblefag if you are angry that nobles weren't noble enough to noble?
>>48081236
No anon, you are doing what you wish.
>>48082071
>why are the nobles fucking shit
Not a very common sentiment among the nobility, historically.
>>48074224
There is only one acceptable God Emperor
>>48082121
He is actually for small government, reigning in the power they have aquired across the board.
>>48082133
Most traditional monarchs would be considered "small government" by modern standards in all fields except for freedom of speech and religion.
>>48081993
>Yes, as the innocent until proven guilty is not longer applying. I am assumed to be guilty am waiting to be caught in the act, otherwise why am I being watched?
Again, you're not getting the question anon. I ask you to read it again, very carefully, and tell me. Are you being oppressed, if the government does not choose to oppress you, despite being fully capable of doing so?
>The government should not be in the business of imposing morality on society
I said nothing about morality; Rape being lawful or not has no bearing on its morality. Morality and law should attempt to match up, however.
>When you add more layers, either upwards or cross ways you do not discourage dishonesty you increase it because the system is more complex and easier to make alliances with those above you.
There is no one above to make alliances with; these watchmen are, by definition, subject only to the authority of other watchmen.
>It has so far and nothing has changed, on the small scale or the large. There is no reason to doubt otherwise until things show it does not work.
The market has become increasingly less free over the past century, and yet the quality of life for nearly everyone continues to increase.
>>48082117
I want nobles, but none are good enough.
So I settle for shitty republic until one shows up.
>>48082133
He's for efficient government.
>>48082220
>Are you being oppressed, if the government does not choose to oppress you, despite being fully capable of doing so?
If I can not see the gun, but know it is there. Then yes, I believe I am.
>I said nothing about morality; Rape being lawful or not has no bearing on its morality. Morality and law should attempt to match up, however.
Yes they should, but society is what dictates what is moral not the government. You had it the otherway around with the government saying rape is bad therefore I shall ban it because society doesn't know.
>There is no one above to make alliances with; these watchmen are, by definition, subject only to the authority of other watchme
Agencies will always conspire if there are profits to be made, placing it in private hands allows others to come in to replace them if/when they are caught doing bad. With a government we do not know what happens.
>The market has become increasingly less free over the past century, and yet the quality of life for nearly everyone continues to increase.
Not in the last century, in the last 20 years. And as such the quality of life is going down. We are the first generation to die before our parents, net income is down, house ownership is down, dependcy on the government is increasing, handouts are increasing. Unemployment is increasing, racial aggression is increasing. The trend remains, as government control increases the average (across the nation as a whole) quality of life goes down.
>>48082298
Efficent government is small.
>>48082213
Indeed they would be, but I argue that speech and religion are important to be free.
>>48082273
You can't think of a single good one?
>>48082349
>If I can not see the gun, but know it is there. Then yes, I believe I am.
Except the gun isn't there, and the gunman has no want or will to put the gun there.
But he could.
Are you oppressed?
>You had it the otherway around with the government saying rape is bad therefore I shall ban it because society doesn't know.
What if society doesn't know?
>With a government we do not know what happens.
That's what watchmen are for, watchmen are also accountable to other watchmen.
>Not in the last century, in the last 20 years.
Yes, in the last century; since the 1920's at least.
>Efficent government is small.
Evidentially, yes; intrinsically, not necessarily.
>>48082350
None of them meet the minimum requirements: Eight foot tall, able to slay any contender in single combat, of greater intelligence than the vast majority of the populace, handsome, noble, no outstanding genetic defects.
>>48079898
>>48074224
Gustavus Adolphus was basically a god-emperor.
>take nordic backwater
>personally lead multiple battles against the odds and win
>make it a superpower that makes Russia and the Catholic Church shit themselves with fear
>>48082457
>Swedes
>>48082350
The only good noble is a dead noble
>>48082475
That was before Sweden got cucked by a century of Socialist Party leadership.
>>48082429
So you want a system in which the upper class is composed entirely of Space Marines?
What would you even call such a system?
>>48082496
Omelette du fromage
>>48082513
Meritocracy, with the caveat that we are specifically breeding extremely capable leaders.
>>48082513
Pre-Horus Heresy Imperium where the Primarchs controlled everything.
>>48082513
>what would you even call such a system
glorious?
>>48082513
>>48082571
>>48082582
>>48082628
I must ask; if we are breeding men which are human in every way except being Better, why stop at replacing the leadership with them?
Why not gradually phase out the rest of the populace?
Will each successive generation be ruled by successively greater ubermenschen?
What if we reach a point as to where no further progress is possible without fundamentally altering what it is to be human?
>>48082663
ideally, our leaders are always a step further than us.
And we've gone too far to worry about fundamentally altering what it is to be human. We made fire and glasses. and the WRITTEN WORD.
>>48082676
Possibly, but you could conceivably take a child from Babylon and raise them perfectly within modern society; possibly even a child from near pre-history.
We have not fundamentally changed in all these thousands of years.
>>48082714
they'd be like 4 feet tall
>>48083031
>they'd be like 4 feet tall
?
>>48083271
ancient people were super tiny
>>48083309
That's because they didn't have a lot of food.
>>48080081
Because the upside-down triangle is the symbol for femininity.
Also, the literal vagina that it had.
>>48079694
The vagina had a vagina.
>>48083332
yeah, but there are genetic components to the additional growth as a result of that.
>>48074224
>Do you guys prefer to use normal kings, or giants of men weighed down by authority and responsibility?
I prefer the men to be normal, but the deeds to be legendary.
>>48082571
It is an open question whether the average idiot is more likely to thrive under the rule of the exceptional few or his fellow idiots. I'm not sure I should trust technocrats who want to weed me out of the genepool or keep people like me around as expendable drones. Living out in the Mad Max wasteland might be preferable to being a slave in a cyberpunk dystopian city-state ruled by eugenic supersoldiers, hypercorp elites, or godlike AI.
Of course the threat of the elite city-state dictatorship would mean that some ordinary idiot would be propelled by a Great Moment to unite all the tribes of the waste and become a god-king in name to lead a huge Persian or Soviet style invasion of the The City.
>>48083441
>I'm not sure I should trust technocrats who want to weed me out of the genepool
I really don't think they'd sterilize you for the hell of it; only if you were likely to pass on hereditary disease or were just a very dumb, very weak, or otherwise infirm human.
In that case, I would argue that it would be immoral for you to procreate and to curse your potential children with infirmity.
>keep people like me around as expendable drones.
You already are an expendable drone, and in a population of 6.5 billion other drones, that's all you or I will be.
>dystopia
Why would it be a dystopia? Part of the nature of said eugnenic super-soldiers or godlike AI is that they are friendly (hopefully, I can't say anything about the hypercorp elites, however.) It is literally part of their utility function to act according to the betterment of their charges and citizenry, and for the sake of civilization; the eugenic supersoldiers would be emphatic, fair, and selfless, the godlike AI wouldn't want to tile the universe in paperclips, etc.
>>48079804
Rulers can go from 1 (awful) to 100 (amazing).
Monarchy is a 1d100. Elected representatives are a 10d10.
>>48085261
>10d10
more like 20d10 discard the highest 10.
Elected reps are mediocre at best, and awful at normal.
>>48082457
Can't argue with that. Him and his prime minister we're pretty based
>>48078673
On average, yes. Mostly be having access to more resources and more importantly more time to pursue self improvement.
Doesn't mean they can't have a retarded kid, or that someone outside the elite can't be exceptionally intelligent or successful.
But on average? Yes. Definitely.
>>48081718
But Anon, the SURVIVE AT ANY COST coding rarely applies to individuals, and more often to family/tribal groups.
So really we just have to adjust how we view those groups. Personally I believe it will never happen because when all people are viewed as truly equal the only rational thing is to value yourself slightly more and become ridiculously selfish.
Maybe of we had an external enemy like predators or environment to fight against so we didn't have excess resources to waste on war, or the excess population to waste on murder so we would only have fights for dominance like other animals.
>>48074224
Normal kings weighed down by authority and responsibility. You know, something realistic.
>>48078673
>Do you people really believe that the upper class is genetically superior
On some level, yes. Intelligence is causally linked to life success by just about any metric imaginable, from wealth earned to education level attained to incarceration rates
>or that everyone in charge is intelligent and just?
Good God, no. Smart people are less likely to rape and murder but that doesn't make everything they do inherently good.
>>48074224
>through proper breeding
Do you not remember all the inbreeding?
>>48080689
But a thousand strong men united under the will of one are a device. Strong men don't want to be a device.
>>48086170
> Intelligence is causally linked to life success by just about any metric imaginable, from wealth earned to education level attained to incarceration rates
Fail.
The most common measure of intelligence is a degree, but parents' income is more important than degree (Pew, 2012):
- 25% of the children of upper 20% (by income) WITHOUT degree stay in the upper 20%
- 10% of the children of lower 20% (by income) WITH degree get become the upper 20%
I repeat: this is income (how much money you earn), not inherited wealth.
I.e. you are 2.5 times better off being born in high-income family and being quantifiably dumb, rather then being born in low-income family and being quantifiably smart.
The "link" between intelligence and success arises because getting degree is linked to having money (NCES, 2014):
- 14.5% of students from the lowest 25% SES (socio-economic status) earned a bachelor’s degree over ten years
- 61% of students in the top 25% SES did the same
>>48074430
>>48074768
>>48078673
I'd like to add a perspective to this debate.
Is it true that today's elite are more qualified and genuinely deserving than ever? Yes. Status, diligence, and intelligence are more heavily correlated today than ever before. Today's elites have been blessed with intelligence and master a wide variety of talents on their way to one of America's great wells of knowledge. But let me tell you this, as someone who's been through the system. I know you won't believe me because this is a cesspool of lies, but please, hear me out. You may think that the inherent virtues of the elite qualify them to rule, but you're wrong.
The elites of modern society are better at everything except the one thing, the one value that matters: noblesse oblige.
Allow to explain.
Firstly, places like /pol/ and conspiracy theory websites overstate the level of control that can be exerted on society. Do a handful of elites run society? Certainly, but I think we all figured that out by middle school and cut ourselves to the sound of emo music accordingly. But the kind of wide-sweeping conspiracies often proposed, in which essentially every elite would have to complicit, are completely impossible. Anyone who has tried to manage a team, or hell, has even worked in a team, knows that it's like herding cats. Or rather, herding cats is like herding people, because people can be a lot more obstinate than cats. The larger the team, the more absurd and ornery the complications. Naturally, the card played against this is to claim the conspiracy is broken into cells. But this goes against how government actually works. Government only rumbles along because the whole artifice is very interconnected via informal channels of power.
>>48087255
The real stories don't occur on the Senate floor, but in smoky backrooms where Bob talks to Jim, his DotA buddy, and Jim talks to Susan at the golf course, and Susan calls Raquel on his off-day, and Raquel goes down to the bar with Thomas, and then Bob gets a new military base and an arcana, Jim gets a $10k bottle of vodka, Susan gets to feel wanted for once, and Thomas passes the new law he needs. Now, this is necessary because the government is designed to deadlock. The Founding Fathers knew that the government would be filled with competing special interests, and so they built a system in which the natural result is for the different special interests to negate each other, resulting in gridlock. To counteract this, backroom deals need to be made. And this is good! Elite control is good because political knowledge, much like many other things, is Pareto distributed. Asking for a true democracy is often a recipe for disaster.
That's how things get done. Secrets are hard to keep. /pol/ and the like embrace conspiracy theories because they're *comforting*. If the world is not controlled by God, then it at least can be controlled by the Devil. The idea that no one is really in control is deeply frightening, leaving our fate up to cosmic whims and happenstance. And it's also empowering. If the world is ruled by the Devil, and you fight against it, then you are a powerful force on par with the Devil. And to /pol/'s ordinary folk, it does look like a conspiracy to destroy poor white folk, because why else bring in so many people? Well, there are a few reasons. One reason is to lower labor costs. And that is true. But it is not wholly compelling. In this day and age, factories can be placed anywhere without hassle. You know what can't be moved everywhere easily? A cuisine. That's right. Food. Rich people love food. You know what all those Pakis and what not bring with them?
>>48087264
Great. New. Meals. It's an unironic and sincere argument for multiculturalism in the high ivory towers of academia. Anti-racism is a codeword for chicken tikka masala. Now, to you, it might seem unimaginably petty to destroy ancient townships and cultures for the sake of a meal. For you, that ghettoized ruin of crime and misery might be home. Your whole life was lost in those ruins.
For them, it was Taco Tuesday. And more brown people means the fish tacos are 20 cents cheaper. #worthit
And while these schemes are part of some harebrained plan to exterminate all white people in the conspiracy view, or perhaps cull the world population or some such, people aren't nearly smart or farsighted enough for such plans. The truth is, you're simply too far beneath their notice for them to even see you as people. Poor America is the invisible America. And given that the median income is almost low enough to qualify for public assistance, three-fifths of Americans are now completely invisible. It's not about making people dumber and therefore easier to control. They're already fucking retarded and easy to control. The only thing it takes to lead most people is to pretend you're the one guy in the world who actually knows what you're doing (you're not, of course). The world isn't ruled by vast conspiracies. There are conspiracies, but they're very ordinary and usually easily found in public, accessible records that no one ever bothers to read because they're boring. Coups, assassinations, and all that jazz. Humdrum banalities. Instead, the world is governed by the Peter Principle on a grand scale. What do you people who eat food they're allergic to because it tastes too good, walk a mile the wrong way before noticing they're looking at Google Maps wrong, and stick wheels on fridges to ride them down steep hills? I call them humanity's best and brightest. I have never been qualified for any of my roles in my life. I only do what I do because there's no one better.
>>48087270
What is the one thing that today's elite lacks? Noblesse oblige.
Let me tell you about my childhood. I grew up in a small house, went to a public school, and hung around with my peers. We had normal school dances, drove around in ordinary imported Japanese cars, and ate the same GMO crap that everyone else did.
The difference between me and you is that I went to a school full of the cream of mankind, where each student was picked for an IQ far, far beyond the norm. They were still dumbasses. To give you an idea of the intelligence at work here, I once took an IQ test while sleep deprived. I scored 140. I'm smarter tired than most people will ever be. Another difference. I only knew one family which had a divorce. It simply wasn't done. My aunts and uncles? They met and married at elite colleges. My childhood friends? Well, they were normal folks. Oh, and also one was descended from Sudeten noble exiles, another from a engineering bloodline. My own family was both an engineering bloodline and nobility-in-exile, a distant forebear having fought as a Lt. General against the Gommie bastards to defend the privilege of... well, privilege. See, here's the thing about class. As Professor Clark has shown, it is really quite sticky. While wealth can fluctuate dramatically generation from generation, status does not, because what a class inheritance gives you is not necessarily wealth, but the cultural ideas necessary to acquire wealth and defend status. For instance, don't buy status symbols. You have status, and flaunting it is tacky. Buying a status symbol is spending money so that you can spend even more money later. It's stupid. Today, Joe Everyman has barely $400 to his name. In this neighborhood, people were millionaires. It looked exactly like any other neighborhood. The people there are normal folks. The black kid is raised by his mom in poverty because his dad refuses to pay child support, despite being a millionaire, "on grounds of principle."
>>48087281
And that's the most damning part of the whole affair. Despite what the media claims, most wealth is completely invisible. As a result, these privileged children have no idea how much they are benefiting. Sure, they might be vaguely aware that their school is good, and that maybe other kids don't have afterschool enrichment programs. But they see themselves normal American folks who've earned everything they've got. Never mind that their superior intellect means they've never had to work to understand anything, or that their finances mean that they've never had serious problems in their life. You might wonder why modern elites burst into triggers and treats at the slightest harsh word. You need to understand that, for them, this is literally the worst thing that has happened in their life just because their whole life up until then had been unbelievably *comfortable*. Not lavish. Comfortable. The old nobility was lavish. Today's nobility is comfortable. They never leave their comfort zones.
And because of this, they can see themselves as normal. Not privileged. And therefore, part of the oppressed masses. Noblesse oblige is really a simple concept. Because you own society, you have to take good care of it. Only an idiot breaks their own shit. "Excellent Sheep" is a good book that fleshes out some of these ideas. In the old days, newcomers to the Ivies were told they were easily replaceable and therefore had to work to justify their position. When they left, they were informed of the great privilege they had received, and therefore the great responsibility they were obligated to bear. Today's elites are given a verbal blowjob about how great they are to have earned their position, and then graduated with a message that the world is their oyster.
>>48087287
Such an attitude only encourages plunder. And they feel deserving of this plunder because they've "earned it". Because we now deny the role of inborn ability, today's elites ignore that they are often just plain smarter than the proles, and should have to give back because of their gift. Instead, they are told they are free to take as they wish, having earned their high place.
I had to explain to a Berniebro that, being a millionaire, he was in fact part of the despised upper class! These coast types sneer at the flyovers, not realizing that the flyovers are the good honest American folk, and they are the nobles sneering from the castles. One of my old classmates complained that our school was "ghetto". Needless to say, there was nothing ghetto about it. Hell, I met a fucking tumblrina bitching about her microaggressions... and her life was about finding a suitor to marry to avoid the rules of her entailment. Like Pride and Prejudice (plus power = Racism): Check Your Privilege Edition. I could have solved her miniproblems in one second. Have serfs interact with the proles for you. Also? Normal. People. Don't. Have. Serfs. And she was fat and had a pancake head, which makes me worry that the inbreeding of elites is already taking its toll. Heads should not be flat.
/pol/ likes to bitch about da joos. But Lenin came from Russian aristocracy, and Trotsky from Jewish gentry. Jews were over-represented in the Weimar elite, but Jews were already over-represented in the old Imperial aristocracy. The problems with society aren't the result of reptile men or Jewish magic. They come about because elites forget their responsibilities to wallow in self-pity and indulgence. If, today, the masses abandon the elites to vote for populists, it is only because the elites have already forsaken the people.
After all, today is Surf-and-Turf Sunday. And after that? Taco Tuesday.
tl;dr fucking rich people are fucking stupid and also don't realize that they're rich
>>48086698
>The "link" between intelligence and success arises because getting degree is linked to having money (NCES, 2014):
Wrong.
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/20040302_book443.pdf
>>48087255
> 64 pages
> doesn't even have a quote
Yeah. Right.
>>48087255
>>48087264
>>48087270
>>48087281
>>48087287
>>48087298
I believe you, but how long is this going to sustain itself? Once these people make a big enough stupid decision, they're gonna be met with tomatoes and cream pies and thrown out...but what are we supposed to replace them with?
>>48087435
The problem is there is no "these people" they aren't visible. Elite's fashion is the same as prole fashion just from fancier places. They have no real discernible marks and, according to the poster, they live in regular suburban neighbourhoods.
Its rather brilliant really. They don't appear as an elite class, so the guillotine has a hard time finding their necks this time around.
And we do the same thing that has been done since time immemorial. We replace them with up and comer elites who couldn't break into the glass dome and so whipped the populace into a froth against them when the time was right.
>>48087358
> Wrong
Assuming I haven't forgotten statistics, page 11 basically says "being born wealthy is 4.4 times more important than being smart" (comparison between comparative roles of Parental SES and IQ).
To put it simply: it supports the post you are trying to refute.
>>48087435
I dunno. What we have now is the product of a few decades of meritocratic policies where smart people meet and fuck other smart people to make even smarter people. But being smart hurts your ability to be diligent because you're never challenged, and also, those intelligence researchers in China believe that the same genes which cause intelligence also cause autism. Which lowers your empathy. Elites are just a fact of life, and there will always be a new class of them to replace the old ones.
We could just go back to the WASPs, basically picking families out of a hat and telling them to be responsible and not do anything too retarded. It worked fine.
>>48087376
wat
>>48087605
One last post because that long wall took a lot out of me, and it's late. I hope it was interesting. Today's elites epitomize 18 INT, 6 WIS. They are brilliant. They're basically the product of 30 years of eugenics. They're intelligent, charming, and athletic. They're also made of tissue paper and outrageously self-centered. The upper class already has the lowest natural self-esteem and highest rates of depression, and these young wunderkinds manage to get these dreary numbers even worse. We are putting our future into the hands of brilliant Supermen who are liable to self-destruct at the first sign of difficulty. Anyone interested should really read "Excellent Sheep", there was a lot in there that resonated with me. But seeing a classmate break down because she got a not-A for the time in her life? Something about that never sat right with me.
>>48083031
Babylonian child would reach 175 just by not having a crippled diet.
Its just like with the Chinese, and their growth curve.
>>48085261
>Elected representatives are a 10d10.
Its 4d20 anon, not 10d10.
Merely by having a coalition politican line, you cripple ANY ambition.
>big man in charge, ooga booga
I use a normal King.
>>48086408
Just imagine. Just go with this for a second. Imagine if he was a super powered super human.I once had players hired to tard wrangle a young prince in such a setting. The casualty report was 2 pcs, 4 chickens, 2 peasants, a horse, and a lot of dignity.
>>48088609
> Imagine if he was a super powered super human.
Vampire?Van Hellsing was a Communist Aristocrat-Hunter.
>>48088650
Nope, just some good old high potency blue blood.He wanted to play eggy, several chickens didn't get out of the way quickly enough. The peasants didn't realize he was a prince and attempted to stop the destruction of their property. One became a plaything and lost an arm, the other was killed by the players for daring attempt to lay hands on a member of the royal family in a hostile manner. The horse was killed with the first player as they attempted to jingle keys the prince back into his carriage.
>>48086408
I think that's why he feels ripped off, anon.
The nobles sold themselves on being better than people, but didn't follow through, and instead fucked themselves over with inbreeding and incomplete genetic knowledge.
>>48078673
Being part of the upper class means having to be superior, or you won't be there for long.
The songs name is Delta. The symbol in it stands for change. Delta is the name of the song. It isn't just abput femininity.
>>48088609
>>Just imagine. Just go with this for a second. Imagine if he was a super powered super human.
So the insane inbred mad king has super powers and is almost unkillable? Jesus Christ how horrifying.
The problem with super powered monarchs is that eventually you'll resort to intense inbreeding to keep the magical/super power bloodline pure. While this will keep your monarchs super powered, it also means that they'll be fucking relatives who likely have the exact same recessive defects that they do. Do this for a few generations without bringing in fresh blood, and half your offspring will be deformed or mentally handicapped.
In real life in a medieval environment you would have nobles who who were better only thru better diet and training as children. No peasant or lower class could compete with someone who did not have to strive for every morsel of food they could eat. Who did not have to devote time to day to day survival and could be trained/educated. Speculation that the "prince is tall and handsome meme" is supported by evidence nobles were taller by several inches over lower classes just due to diet.
>>48087281
>The difference between me and you is that I went to a school full of the cream of mankind, where each student was picked for an IQ far, far beyond the norm. They were still dumbasses. To give you an idea of the intelligence at work here, I once took an IQ test while sleep deprived. I scored 140. I'm smarter tired than most people will ever be.
I absolutely enjoy the way you prove your point yourself, hahaha. Still, decent series of posts.
>talking about your superior IQ on the Internet
>on an anonymous site
>>48087281
If you think it's notable that you ate GMO food then you definitely aren't that smart.
As for the IQ test, I'm going to guess it was free, online, and you took it three times until you got the randomized result you wanted.
>>48091263
Hey /pol/
>>48091263
So your point is that I'm not that smart, and you prove this by pointing out that eating GMOs is not notable... in a section dedicated to talking about how ordinary the "elite" are.
Okay. You're right. I'm a potato.
>>48089479
:^)
Doesn't really matter much anyways. Past a certain point, it really stops mattering, which is why the whole notion of a technocratic/meritocratic elite is flawed to begin with. Sufficiently complex problems must be broken up and slowly chewed through, even if smaller ones become trivial to think through. A great ruler is not defined by his ability to play sports, lead a Chinese cartoons club, or do well on IQ testing. He is defined by his character.
And his six-pack. That is very important.
>>48092361
Character is just the name we give to the ability to manipulate the media or simply be victorious enough to write the history about yourself. Successful slimy politicians are perceived as having good character, principled outsiders are smeared by the scholars and Fourth Estate for all time. Character is only a positive quality in the sense of it is a metric of how successful a manipulator someone is.
Frankly, the leader's intelligence or virtue is no more important to ruling than physical strength and the ability to ride a horse and swing an axe better than your rivals. Even if we are sticking to Great Man Theory, the ones who come out on top are those who employ strategy the best. Whether they surround themselves with the best of men, exemplars of strength and intelligence to work for them, or successfully organize all the little fish to gang up on the big fish, it is all the same.
Everyone who led by moral example or personal excellence is standing atop such a pile of corpses swept under the rug by their historians that we'd all just be better off embracing the Cao Cao type figures in history. The guy who stabbed the old king in the back probably won with less blood than the saint or the might hero.
>>48093269
>Everyone who led by moral example or personal excellence is standing atop such a pile of corpses swept under the rug by their historians that we'd all just be better off embracing the Cao Cao type figures in history. The guy who stabbed the old king in the back probably won with less blood than the saint or the might hero.
So?
>thread is still up
>interesting conversation
>somehow avoided warhammer 40k talk too
what is going on
>>48096047
Sometimes, every so often, you find a diamond ring flushed down with the shit.
>>48093269
I guess. Seems a bit cynical.
>>48074224
How has this thinly-veiled /pol/ thread not been deleted yet?
>>48099668
what
>>48099668
Because the mods aren't being autistic for once, unlike you.
>>48096047
The fuck is interesting about some delusional fuck's discussion about unimplementable and juvenile ideologies?
>>48099668
>>48099917
man what in the hell
>>48099917
>monarchy
>unimplementable and juvenile
???
