/lit/ - Literature

>>15820509
Why not genetically modify everyone to be 130+ IQ and clean-brained if the ability is there, and give them all great swaths of robotic servants?

>>15820509
>narcissism
>lack of empathy
>social retardation

monarchy is the defacto cope by humanist who are disappointed by the HUman rights. THose people are so low iq that they can only go back to a previous political system already made up. People are so infatuated with either monarchy or Republic that they can't even make up another for m of politics.

THe best part is when the retarded humanists who push for rationalism keep saying that the politicians must be trained in science and have high IQ.
Because according to plebbit, if all the goberments were full of scientists, everybody would be happy, which means for them, have lots of comfort and pleasures, because those subhumans are ofc hedonists.

>>15820509
IQ is an arbitrary test to see what grade to place children in.
For further arguments against divine right see Thomas Paine.

>>15820515
Why not replace everyone with AI operated cyborgs and be done with it?

>>15820515
Firstly, because there most likely wouldn't be those sorts of resources. Secondly, because at that point I feel like you're moving very close to a Brave New World-esque situation in which everyone is basically no longer human. A monarch who's lineage is clean and intelligent would be able to guide the people, but keep their overall humanity in tact.
>>15820526
>monarchy is the defacto cope by humanist who are disappointed by the HUman rights.
I am a National Socialist/Constitionalist exploring the idea of monarchy.

>>15820537
>IQ is an arbitrary test to see what grade to place children in.
Not at all. IQ means greater verbal intelligence, greater working memory, etc. It's just a simple fact that higher IQ means you're more intelligent, and correlates with pretty much every facet of success in life.
>For further arguments against divine right see Thomas Paine.
I said nothing at all about divine right.

>>15820543
>IQ means greater verbal intelligence, greater working memory for the all important test taking, It's just a simple fact that higher IQ means you're more able to pass the IQ test and correlates with pretty much every facet of success in life that based on the test

Divine right is what monarchists claim.
It’s all downsides

>>15820567
>Divine right is what monarchists claim.
Okay, and I'm proposing a system not based on divine right.
Do you not understand what I'm saying here?

>>15820509
>no aristocracy
Yeah, like in the times of uhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

>>15820599
What are you trying to say? The idea is that aristocracies are easily corrupted, and therefore any government under the monarch wouldn't be subsidized through land or anything of that like. Perhaps set wages would make sense, I'm still trying to smooth out the edges, which is why I made this thread.

>>15820515
>everyone to be 130+IQ

You understand how IQ works right? 130 is 2 standard deviations above, so by definition, only ~5% of people can be 130+ IQ.

>>15820616
There is no society without aristocracy. Who would be interested in maintaining the status quo?

>>15820573
Bad idea. Won’t work right. Never will.

>>15820697
Of course there will always be pseudo-aristocracies, what I'm saying is a lack of traditional aristocracy (land owning aristocrats who answer to the monarch), as this will greatly lower the chances of corruption spreading among the upper echelons close to the monarch.
>>15820702
Good argument, you fucking retard.

>>15820526

>>15820509
every system that doesn't force the ruling class to serve the interests of the people = shit
at least people back then believed in the divine right of kings, there is no excuse for being a monarcuck today

>>15820509
>State
Another ruling over me is impossible for I am my own property. If you disagree, I have a bullet for your thoughts.

>>15820804
>every system that doesn't force the ruling class to serve the interests of the people = shit
The idea is that a genetically modified ruler with a high IQ and no mental illness would pass down his knowledge to his children, and the first monarch would understand the importance of serving the people (I'm particularly a transitionalist, and believe a fascist/National Socialist state would be required first, then from this a monarch would emerge. i.e, in Hitler's Germany, I think the best route would have for him to eventually become a monarch). As long as the monarch's children are educated well by him, then they would continue with the tradition he sets.
>>15820819
dude haha individualism man, lol!
have fun with your failing democracy being ruined by subhuman niggers and kikes.

>>15820840
>The idea is that a genetically modified ruler with a high IQ and no mental illness would pass down his knowledge to his children, and the first monarch would understand the importance of serving the people (I'm particularly a transitionalist, and believe a fascist/National Socialist state would be required first, then from this a monarch would emerge. i.e, in Hitler's Germany, I think the best route would have for him to eventually become a monarch). As long as the monarch's children are educated well by him, then they would continue with the tradition he sets.
That's naive, at the times of monarchy kings were swimming in gold while the peasants were starving. Without democracy we would never have gotten a welfare state.

>>15820866
>That's naive, at the times of monarchy kings were swimming in gold while the peasants were starving.
Yes, but the kings weren't genetically modified and instead got their place through divine right. What's stopping a monarch from implementing a welfare state? Like I said, the idea is that a monarch would emerge from a fascist/NatSoc state, and so they would initially have experience with the importance of ruling for the people. If the initial monarch is well studied and intelligent, and their children are also intelligent and not mentally ill, then I'd say there's little risk in subsequent kings becoming corrupt. It's sort of the idea of a philosopher king being best.

>>15820509
Mehmed II
Ottoman Empire
see where it got them.

>>15820804
>serve the interests of the people
Okay, who exactly are these 'people' again?

Don't tell me they're relatives of the 'ruling class', anon.

Monarchy is the absolute centralization of power, aristocracy follows automatically from this, and IQ is mostly a scam. Also, you’re gay

>>15820908
>Monarchy is the absolute centralization of power
>aristocracy follows automatically from this
>IQ is mostly a scam
Low IQ cope.

>>15820656
2%*

>>15820537
Shut.
The Fuck.
Up.

>>15820509
Supremacy

>>15820898
First off intelligence has nothing to do with caring for other people, charity is an emotional trait (also, intelligence is not the same as iq, but we can put that aside) Secondly, humans are naturally selfish, so a ruling class will inevitably pursue their own interests first, the common man be damned. The point of democracy is that common people are given the power to "dethrone the king", which forces the ruler to actually tend to the well being of his citizens. That's why the medieval peasants didn't have a welfare state but we do.

>>15820509
IQ and mental health don't necessarily have anything to do with morality or wisdom. Humans are fallible, and everyone makes bad or cruel decisions sometimes, often for no reason. A supremely powerful person who commits even a simple human error can cause a tremendously outsized amount of damage.

Weirdly, I think an aristocracy actually makes a monarchy better because the monarch has a pool from which to draw advisors, and the network of traditional obligations can be great for stability.

>>15820906
don't worry, they are not

>>15821011
>First off intelligence has nothing to do with caring for other people, charity is an emotional trait
I never said it did, I said that a person who emerges from a fascist state, genetically modified/selectively bred to produce intelligent children would be able to pass on knowledge of the importance of charity. Basically, a monarch will be able to fully educate their child in philosophy and ethics.
>Secondly, humans are naturally selfish, so a ruling class will inevitably pursue their own interests first, the common man be damned
The ruling class is the monarch himself, and any below him would be subject to him. While they may attempt to vie for power, because the monarch is intelligent and educated, he will be able to deal with this ruling class (whoever they may be, as I've already said the ideal would to at least have no traditional aristocracy as in land owning aristocrats, and especially no corporate aristocracy). Yes I know that this ruling class will naturally pursue power, but the idea is that without a traditional aristocracy and with an educated and intelligent monarch, it would be much more difficult.
>The point of democracy is that common people are given the power to "dethrone the king", which forces the ruler to actually tend to the well being of his citizens.
What does the democracy has over the king in these terms? Democratic states buy out the people's votes, or persuade them in some way to vote some certain way, or rig their votes, etc. The common man, especially in this era, is not nearly educated enough to have voting power. I'd say it's much more likely for a tyrannical ruler to come into power through democracy than through a monarch's lineage. If someone wants to retort this by citing something like Caesar's lineage, I'd say that Caesar and his lineage were inherently mentally ill, as can be seen in Caesar himself's narcissism. This would not be the case in my ideal of a genetically modified or selectively bred lineage.
>>15821015
>IQ and mental health don't necessarily have anything to do with morality or wisdom.
The main reasoning for the IQ and mental health stipulation is so that the initial monarch can properly educate his child, as his child would be intelligent enough to grasp metaphysical/ethical concepts and implement them into his statecraft.
>A supremely powerful person who commits even a simple human error can cause a tremendously outsized amount of damage.
And what about a supremely powerful corporation or political entity who has no philosophical education, and actively tries to make cruel decisions? This is why I'd say a monarch is better for the people than a democracy.

>>15821048
>Basically, a monarch will be able to fully educate their child in philosophy and ethics.
being an intellectual is not being a virtuous. Also it is the Christians who hype being an intellectual, they did it to make up a affiliation from their mental gymnastics to the greeks

>>15821078
>being an intellectual is not being a virtuous
Yes. Knowing, understanding and implementing proper ethics is. To educate the child in ethics, then show him how to implement them, would cause him to be virtuous. Why do you keep insisting that intelligence doesn't matter? To even be able to understand the Greek texts requires someone to be of a more than average intelligence minimum.
>Also it is the Christians who hype being an intellectual, they did it to make up a affiliation from their mental gymnastics to the greeks
What?

>>15821095
History has shown that anyone with absolute power will abuse it no matter what.

>>15821127
History didn't have genetic modification. Also, what about Marcus Aurelius, pretty much any of the founding fathers, Catherine the Great?

>>15821048
>I never said it did, I said that a person who emerges from a fascist state, genetically modified/selectively bred to produce intelligent children would be able to pass on knowledge of the importance of charity. Basically, a monarch will be able to fully educate their child in philosophy and ethics.
That still presupposes that altruism is the result of knowing about philosophy and ethics, which is not. It is an emotional trait, and humans are selfish by nature.
>Yes I know that this ruling class will naturally pursue power, but the idea is that without a traditional aristocracy and with an educated and intelligent monarch, it would be much more difficult.
Not sure I understand what are you saying here. I agree that the ruling class will naturally seek power, which is why I want to impose limits on them.
>What does the democracy has over the king in these terms? Democratic states buy out the people's votes, or persuade them in some way to vote some certain way, or rig their votes, etc. The common man, especially in this era, is not nearly educated enough to have voting power. I'd say it's much more likely for a tyrannical ruler to come into power through democracy than through a monarch's lineage. If someone wants to retort this by citing something like Caesar's lineage, I'd say that Caesar and his lineage were inherently mentally ill, as can be seen in Caesar himself's narcissism. This would not be the case in my ideal of a genetically modified or selectively bred lineage.
There are many things that could be said in response to this, but I will simply point out that the point of democracy has nothing to do with a belief that the common people have a deep knowledge about politics. They don't. The point is rather to make the ruling class serve the people. People vote for the side that eg. offers welfare, hence politicians are forced to include it in their policy. Without democracy the ruling class has no motive to give a damn about what the people want (natural selfishness and all that).

>>15821143
>That still presupposes that altruism is the result of knowing about philosophy and ethics, which is not. It is an emotional trait, and humans are selfish by nature.
Really? Because I'm pretty sure if a king were to educate his child in the importance of implementing his philosophical studies, and educated him in proper ethics, the kid would most likely come about to be ethical. This system is much, much safer than random mega capitalists and career politicians running a country. I really don't understand why you insist that being taught to read and implement foundational ethical philosophy won't cause someone to, most likely, be virtuous and ethical.
>Not sure I understand what are you saying here. I agree that the ruling class will naturally seek power, which is why I want to impose limits on them.
I'm saying that any pseudo-aristocracy/ruling class would be naturally limited through the power of the king due to his education and control of the military.
>The point is rather to make the ruling class serve the people. People vote for the side that eg. offers welfare, hence politicians are forced to include it in their policy.
Yes, that's the point. That's not what actually happens; instead, politicians cause them to think what they want them to think with the help of corporate entities. Democracy failed as soon as technological slavery began. A people who get the entirety of their ideas from news stations controlled by the same people, apps controlled by the same people, radios controlled by the same people, etc. will serve those people. It is the direct opposite of what democracy attempts.

>>15821199
>Really? Because I'm pretty sure if a king were to educate his child in the importance of implementing his philosophical studies, and educated him in proper ethics, the kid would most likely come about to be ethical. This system is much, much safer than random mega capitalists and career politicians running a country. I really don't understand why you insist that being taught to read and implement foundational ethical philosophy won't cause someone to, most likely, be virtuous and ethical.
Because I am a moral anti-realist and I believe people act in order to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. I don't believe that there are action-guiding moral facts that can be known through ethics and philosophy, hence you can't remove men's selfishness through education.
>I'm saying that any pseudo-aristocracy/ruling class would be naturally limited through the power of the king due to his education and control of the military.
Yeah but who limits the king then
>Yes, that's the point. That's not what actually happens; instead, politicians cause them to think what they want them to think with the help of corporate entities. Democracy failed as soon as technological slavery began. A people who get the entirety of their ideas from news stations controlled by the same people, apps controlled by the same people, radios controlled by the same people, etc. will serve those people. It is the direct opposite of what democracy attempts.
Well, I mean we got the welfare state, so it seems that democracy sometimes achieves the goal to force the ruling class to serve the people's interests. In Monarchy you can never force the king to pay welfare programs for you, hence democracy wins.

>>15821253
>I believe people act in order to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Yes, and education and implementation of virtuous actions and ethics will cause someone to stop doing this quite a bit.
>I don't believe that there are action-guiding moral facts that can be known through ethics and philosophy, hence you can't remove men's selfishness through education.
Yes, and I don't believe that there are action guiding scientific facts and I that the only knowledge in life is knowledge of one's self existence, therefore science is bullshit and we should all kill ourselves because life doesn't matter.
Education in ethics and philosophy, regardless of whether you believe objective morality is real or whether you believe truth can or can't be found, will push someone to question their decisions and thoughts much more than the layman, and cause them to be more ethical.
>Yeah but who limits the king then
The king's father, who educated him. I'm trying to get this through to you; the limiting factor on the king's absolute power is himself, his lineage, and his education. The initial king is limited by the process of his selection through the initial fascist group, and this group will attempt to choose the person who they believe will fulfill their beliefs best. You can critique this, but every system has to have some starting point.
>Well, I mean we got the welfare state, so it seems that democracy sometimes achieves the goal to force the ruling class to serve the people's interests.
We have a welfare state that is designed by the ruling class to keep people out of work and having children. It's not a welfare state that helps the individual, it's a welfare state that helps the ruling class, because it was designed by the ruling class.
>In Monarchy you can never force the king to pay welfare programs for you, hence democracy wins.
This is called "begging the question." Your argument for democracy is that democracy is good because you can't do something without democracy that democracy is meant to do. The conclusion that democracy is good is assumed in the premise of the argument, the premise being "welfare states are always good, and it's good when individuals have the choice to democratically elect them."

>>15820509
Smart people don't necessarily make good leaders. Or good decisions.

>>15821320
The idea is that a smart person will be able to be educated in difficult subjects like philosophy, and therefore make a good king, because a philosopher king would likely be virtuous. I'm not implying that being intelligent makes someone inherently virtuous or good at leading.

>>15820866
>at the times of monarchy kings were swimming in gold while the peasants were starving.
Brainlet, obviously if a system constantly starved its population it wouldn't be practiced across the entire world for thousands of years. Monarchy is outdated imo but its a perfectly valid system. Wealth inequality today is similar anyway.
>Without democracy we would never have gotten a welfare state.
Pure bullshit, we have a welfare state because of our TECHNOLOGY allowing an advanced industrial society, technology that mainly comes from the scientific revolutions that happened under monarchies. I am not a monarchist, but this is a retarded point I see people spam.

>>15820509
>another dumbass falls for le benevolent ruler meme

>>15821309
>Yes, and education and implementation of virtuous actions and ethics will cause someone to But people only care about their own pleasure, the monarch has no reason to care about his citizens.
Yes, and I don't believe that there are action guiding scientific facts and I that the only knowledge in life is knowledge of one's self existence, therefore science is bullshit and we should all kill ourselves because life doesn't matter. Education in ethics and philosophy, regardless of whether you believe objective morality is real or whether you believe truth can or can't be found, will push someone to question their decisions and thoughts much more than the layman, and cause them to be more ethical.
I don't think you get what the problem is here. If people only care to attain pleasutre while avoiding pain, this fact about their nature won't change by reading books on ethics. This is why we can't replace our laws with an educational system that teaches people that stealing and killing is bad, people are still going to do it if there is no fear of punishment because they are naturally selfish.
>The king's father, who educated him. I'm trying to get this through to you; the limiting factor on the king's absolute power is himself, his lineage, and his education. The initial king is limited by the process of his selection through the initial fascist group, and this group will attempt to choose the person who they believe will fulfill their beliefs best. You can critique this, but every system has to have some starting point.
I just think the fuhrer will just spend the money from the taxes to fund his cocaine orgies instead of building bridges. As I said earlier I believe that morality is a social construct. We don't act morally because we are good, we act morally because we fear the police. A ruler with absolute power has nothing to fear, hence he also has no reason to act morally.
>We have a welfare state that is designed by the ruling class to keep people out of work and having children. It's not a welfare state that helps the individual, it's a welfare state that helps the ruling class, because it was designed by the ruling class.
No we have a welfare state because the people like free goodies and voted the parties who promised these policies into power. Sounds like a good system to me.
>This is called "begging the question." Your argument for democracy is that democracy is good because you can't do something without democracy that democracy is meant to do. The conclusion that democracy is good is assumed in the premise of the argument, the premise being "welfare states are always good, and it's good when individuals have the choice to democratically elect them."
Actually my argument goes something like this:
1. The purpose of a political system is to serve the well being of its citizens
2. Democracy does a better job serving the well being of its citizens than Monarchy
3. Hence, Democracy is a better system than Monarchy

>Yes, and education and implementation of virtuous actions and ethics will cause someone to stop doing this quite a bit
But people only care about their own pleasure, the monarch has no reason to care about his citizens.
>Yes, and I don't believe that there are action guiding scientific facts and I that the only knowledge in life is knowledge of one's self existence, therefore science is bullshit and we should all kill ourselves because life doesn't matter. Education in ethics and philosophy, regardless of whether you believe objective morality is real or whether you believe truth can or can't be found, will push someone to question their decisions and thoughts much more than the layman, and cause them to be more ethical.
I don't think you get what the problem is here. If people only care to attain pleasure while avoiding pain, this fact about their nature won't change by reading books on ethics. This is why we can't replace our laws with an educational system that teaches people that stealing and killing is bad, people are still going to do it if there is no fear of punishment because they are naturally selfish.
>The king's father, who educated him. I'm trying to get this through to you; the limiting factor on the king's absolute power is himself, his lineage, and his education. The initial king is limited by the process of his selection through the initial fascist group, and this group will attempt to choose the person who they believe will fulfill their beliefs best. You can critique this, but every system has to have some starting point.
I just think the king will just spend the money from the taxes to fund his cocaine orgies instead of building bridges. As I said earlier I believe that morality is a social construct. We don't act morally because we are good, we act morally because we fear the police. A ruler with absolute power has nothing to fear, hence he also has no reason to act morally.
>We have a welfare state that is designed by the ruling class to keep people out of work and having children. It's not a welfare state that helps the individual, it's a welfare state that helps the ruling class, because it was designed by the ruling class.
No we have a welfare state because the people like free goodies and voted the parties who promised these policies into power. Sounds like a good system to me.
>This is called "begging the question." Your argument for democracy is that democracy is good because you can't do something without democracy that democracy is meant to do. The conclusion that democracy is good is assumed in the premise of the argument, the premise being "welfare states are always good, and it's good when individuals have the choice to democratically elect them."
Actually my argument goes something like this:
1. The purpose of a political system is to serve the well being of its citizens
2. Democracy does a better job serving the well being of its citizens than Monarchy
3. Hence, Democracy is a better system than Monarchy

>>15821309
forgot to quote you, reply is over this post

>>15820736
>Of course there will always be pseudo-aristocracies, what I'm saying is a lack of traditional aristocracy (land owning aristocrats who answer to the monarch), as this will greatly lower the chances of corruption spreading among the upper echelons close to the monarch.
Please, as if the corruption in our world isn't already essentially this. And their power is growing by the second.

>>15821392
>Brainlet, obviously if a system constantly starved its population it wouldn't be practiced across the entire world for thousands of years. Monarchy is outdated imo but its a perfectly valid system. Wealth inequality today is similar anyway.
It did, the peasants were starving. If you think the medieval peasants had the standards of living of contemporary first world countries you are a moron.
>Pure bullshit, we have a welfare state because of our TECHNOLOGY allowing an advanced industrial society, technology that mainly comes from the scientific revolutions that happened under monarchies. I am not a monarchist, but this is a retarded point I see people spam.
The medieval kings had enough gold to fund at least some moderate welfare programs, they just didn't give a shit about peasants dying.

>>15821445
>I don't think you get what the problem is here. If people only care to attain pleasutre while avoiding pain, this fact about their nature won't change by reading books on ethics.
Weird, because it did for me completely. An intelligent person who's of a strong lineage will be receptive to ethical education.
>I just think the fuhrer will just spend the money from the taxes to fund his cocaine orgies instead of building bridges.
You mean the same way the ruling class and elites do now?
>We don't act morally because we are good, we act morally because we fear the police
I agree with this mostly, but I believe individuals are able to be moral in and of themselves without fear of retaliation. See pic related
>A ruler with absolute power has nothing to fear, hence he also has no reason to act morally.
A ruler who is educated in philosophy and history properly, guided away from nihilism by his father, will rule through his understanding of such things, or at least, they will have a much better chance at doing so when compared to democracy and the mob rule, who can easily be controlled and manipulated by the ruling class.
>No we have a welfare state because the people like free goodies and voted the parties who promised these policies into power. Sounds like a good system to me.
No, we have a welfare state because the ruling class made people want a welfare state. Where was the Welfare state for the 100 years past the formation of America? If Welfare states are a natural want of the people, then why did the founding fathers, nor the century of individuals after them, not implement it? Perhaps there is now some external factor which causees people to want such a thing, like mass technology easily manipulated by the handful of corporations which control it?
>Actually my argument goes something like this:
No, your argument was that welfare states are inherently good and wanted by the people, and the fact that democracy can fulfill this means democracy is better. You automatically assumed that Monarchy's for whatever reason can't also fulfill welfare states, too. Now that you've reformed your argument to be a bit more coherent and logically stable, I'll respond.
1. I agree
2. I disagree. Democracy is easily manipulated by a ruling class of corporations, career politicians, etc., whereas a Monarchy is ruled by one Monarch who is intelligent and philosophically/ethically/metaphysically educated. While an aristocracy may naturally occur throughout all societal structures, it can be much more heavily kept in check and observed by a monarch.
3. Hence, Monarchy is a better system than Democracy.
will respond to your other post in a moment.
>>15821481
The aristocrats now don't own land, which is why I'm calling them pseudo-aristocrats. A Monarchy would keep these pseudo-aristocrats in check, because the pseudo-aristocrats wouldn't have a military of their own like they did in the past, and the Monarch would, along with his education.

>>15821513
>>15821458
Not sure why the reply didn't work, must have fucked up because of the double post

>>15820509
>monarchy
Good idea. Got us from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance.
>no aristocracy
Bad idea. Centralizing all power requires you to hire an army of bureaucrats to administer it. Eventually they will decide they don't need the king and overthrow him. This is how all the democratic revolutions happened in the first place.
>governing lineage is genetically modified to be at least 130 IQ with no mental illness
IQ heritability is a bit more complicated than passing on specific genes, it's about how combinations of genes interact. A particular gene may modify IQ differently depending on whether another gene is present. The Chinese are already studying this and setting up databases for their state breeding program, so we'll probably see what can be done very soon. They have already selectively bred athletes, leading to extreme physical outliers like Yao Ming.
In the case of a monarchy, you only have one ruling family. You don't want them to marry each other, as that would cause inbreeding depression. Usually they would marry an aristocrat, but you said you don't want those. Your best bet would be to keep a genetic database of the whole population and study the gene interactions. You can then determine which women have genes that would interact well with the genes of the crown prince, and bring him a selection to choose from.

>>15821513
The shopping cart. Holy shit. I saw this stupid retard fat old nigger sub human nigger female leave her shopping cart behind the car next to her's at Target last week. The stupid retard gorilla child retard nigger parked the chopping cart behind the car next to her's. She/it unloaded her items and just left the cart their. I have NEVER seen this done before. Sometimes people are lazy an put the shopping cart in front of their car. Sometimes I've seen the cart left in an empty spot. But this stupid sub human fucken retard gorilla nigger bitch just leave it behind the car next to her's. I just watched in amazement. As I watched, waiting for a spot to park, a fat lesbian couple walked by, pointed at the cart left behind someone and said "Who does this?" "A fucken fat stupid black nigger gorilla monkey sheboon retard child feral stupid nigger monkey does this" I said out loud. I felt stupid for ever trying to not be racist.

>>15821572
>Bad idea. Centralizing all power requires you to hire an army of bureaucrats to administer it. Eventually they will decide they don't need the king and overthrow him.
Do you have any examples of this sort of thing? I figured pure aristocracy (as in, land owning aristocrats who have their own militaries and peasants) would end up being inherently corrupt, as they would constantly be vying for more power. Perhaps a more modern and thought out Magna Carta would help with this?
>You can then determine which women have genes that would interact well with the genes of the crown prince, and bring him a selection to choose from.
This was roughly my initial idea, genetically modify the initial king's offspring so as to try and eliminate any mental illness and increase intelligence, while allowing him to selectively breed with a high intelligence/low mental illness woman.

>>15821599
>A fucken fat stupid black nigger gorilla monkey sheboon retard child feral stupid nigger monkey
kek

>>15820538
>National Socialist/Constitionalist
Fucking Burgers, just become a paternalist paleocon and be done with it.

>>15821628
>paternalist
have no fucking clue what that is
>paleocon
paleocons reject the JQ and race realism, and are civnats.