Totalitarianist

There would be a supreme race, the Trebaxians. To be a member, an IQ of 150 and above would doubtless be required, for 'trebaxian' is derived from the latin word 'trebax', 'intelligent'.

Only a noble who has endured 50 years of extensive education and, betwixt ages 3 and 17, has scored 150+ on at least 5 IQ tests could possibly claim the throne. Of those qualified, something of a democracy, or rather, debate betwixt afore-selected members of the Trebaxians could run for emperor. The labourers no not 'power', and delinquency would be unheard of among the nobles, for executions would be instantaneous in terms of rebellious actions of any kind, and those left uninvolved will subsequently pay for the mistakes of their fellow labourer.

Should an individual show signs of spirituality, acceptance of new religions and the like during youth, he shall be punished, albeit not executed, whilst as a child, for signs of rebelliousness would be doubtless visible before adulthood, surely, and could potentially hinder the progression of the nobility; hence they will be executed thenceforward if their delinquency persists.

The emperor

Intelligence is the primary qualification. What good is power without the ability to reason? One with an IQ of over 150 is more likely to function rationally,

Mathematics would be an intregal part of the education, not only for its own sake, but also because of its use in training the mind. Some activities, however, are not good: freedom of thought, the acceptance of new religions (the religion to be accepted would undoubtedly be a form of atheism based on a Nietszchian and Platonian constellation of thought), criticism of the political establishment, and allowing the young to consider new ideas.

In my charity, it is completely unfeasible for a potentially 'evil' individual to claim throne for badness is a condition that derives its strength from its tendency to embellish perfected contsellation of beliefs thus eliminating the need for self-preservation, which is the direct root of all evil. In other words, subscribing--even partially--(especially the ruler--), to a code of morality that deviates however slightly from the initial philosophy will cause curruption and lead, inevitibly, to a nobility characterized by mass neurosis; and the notion of 'evil' to the nobility will become less elaborate and the end result is undoubtedly a perpetual occurence of evil rulers (The concept of 'good' and 'evil' would become vague as a result of declining piety to the initial religion.)

Types of intelligence:
Linguistic
Bodily-kinesthetic
Spatial
Musical
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal

All of which are illusions. All of that can be traced to a mathematical-logical type of intellect which is imperitve for one to reason in a purely logical manor; which is, or rather should be, the underlying principle of all political debates. Any great ruler does not take into consideration the theories of morality. Politics should be 100% logical.

IQ means everything. I'd rather get my testacles torn apart a thousand times than communicate regularly with a norm whose average IQ is below 130. That is why I rarely ever leave me bedroom and never leave my house.

The point of the Trebaxian civilization: Advances in science, especially physics and space exploration. They will be taught from the moment they can learn how to behave in a completely logical fasion. The offspring will only be the procreations of gifted individuals. Education will sharpen their rationality. This will work because intelligence is 70% hereditary. Any non-gifted individuals will be steralized. IQ tests indicate your reasoning abilities. That's what logic is. Plato believed that mathematics is the ultimate tool for excerising the brain as it sharpens one's ability to reason. If you're going to have an emperor, why not have one who's innately inclined to such? To be the leader, as afore-mentioned, a high IQ is required. That, however, does not elbow out the other essentials--such as knowledge and the will to power.

People tend to believe that a totalitarian society such as the one I'm proposing will inevitibly lead to complete and utter coruption. I tend to disagree. If their opinions (which are loosely based upon false polital theories, misinterpretations of historical events, and hearsay) are true, then the great nations of ingenuitive Egypt, clever China, inexorable Rome, and numerous other ancient civilizations, during the course of their long and great reign, lived completely ineffectual, unproductive lives, lest (by their mandatory prerequisites that supposedly characterizes any successful nation), they should knowingly create a totalitarian government where the labourers are fit only to be ruled--then, hence, would their succesfulness be the direct result of the sheer lack of equality(?) --(which is historically stultificeous to the current and doubtless infallible concensus--the nations; that is, the conditions of such, had uniquely characterized,--yet undoubtedly ensured their 'success' which is a self-refutation); which hence leads me to a conclusion ineffably obvious to anyone containing a grain of intelligence: They are, quite simply, wrong.

Alas, I am but frail youth with the highest of expectations. I am but the herald among the clouds... Nay, I am... the Trebaxian of all Trebaxians-- I am equal only to the universe itself. You, my friends, are the raindrops--the messengers--that inoculateth warning into the minds of many a man for the coming of the thunder---the Trebaxian, the Overman.

Yes, I subscribe, albeit partially, to the Nietzsche's philosophy.

I welcome criticism, for I plan on becoming the next great mathematician/philosopher. I, now 14, currently lack the sophistication imperitive for adequate philosphizing.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian Vir ]</p>

Totalitarianist

Oops, wrong forum

Samhain

In applying criticism:

For what reason does a score on a test have anything to do with true intelligence, or genius for that matter? In applying such a gap between those of "lesser" and those of "superior" intelligence, then the voice of true genius may never be heard.

For what purpose? What does a test or education have to do with the human condition? Between the ages of 3 and 17? Once again, you limit your choices extremely dramatically, and who is to say that this ubermensch is capable of rule over his/her own reality let alone the reality of others?

I assume you mean know not?

I will disagree strongly with this unsupported assertion. What proof do you offer that a score on an IQ test and strict studies does not provide for some form of delinquency? Whether it be as far as knowledge is irrelevant. "Delinquency" can come in other forms.

de·lin·quen·cy
1. Juvenile delinquency.
2. Failure to do what law or duty requires.
3. An offense or a misdemeanor; a misdeed.
4. A debt or other financial obligation on which payment is overdue.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate or specify what you're asserting?

Can you set an objective standard to the word "rebellious"?

Hmm...I'm not really sure where to go with this one. By your standards of intelligence, religious preference seems irrelevant. What reasoning do you provide to enforce such a rule or requirement?

I will agree that fuctioning on the basis of intelligence may lead one to think more rationally in most situations, of course there are problems with this, mainly having to do with falling to deeply into "utilitarian ethics" (I hate using those two words together). But based upon IQ? I fail to see how this could possibly be a valid test of one's abilities to rule even themselves. Is rational thought defined by a score on an IQ test? If you believe so, you might want to back up that presently unsupported assertion.

I pride myself in rationality through methods of abstract thought. I agree that mathematics has a place in training the mind, but it does not and cannot provide answers for many questions. It is a tool, not only that it is a fractional portion of training of the mind and of rational thought. I don't think that specializing in mathematics for purposes of reason will lead to the realization of the ubermensch, or even close. Quoting Plato: "I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning" (The Republic? I believe) Now, while I may not hold completely to Plato's sentiments, I will hold that view, at least partially, until, at least, you are able to provide enough credibility to debunk Plato's claim.

Ouch, big screw up there. You'll catch hell for that one. ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION. You restrict all possibility for progress by placing yourself in a stagnantly conservative stand. Freedom of thought is necessary for progress. By placing yourself in such a powerfully strict position you run the risk of ignorant traditionalism, which is what should be fought against most. Read a short story called "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson(?) and you'll see what I mean.

Yet another unsupported assertion. What proof do you offer that this is the root of all evil? Also, how can you assert that corruption could not possibly occur with such a system?

For what reason is such not possible for the ruler? What holds the ruler from deviance from the initial philosophy? You seek to eliminate evil from the picture (a noble cause, granted), but you fail to realize how flawed this system actually is. Besides, declining piety will not reduce the concepts (even common concepts) of good and evil. While these words themselves may not hold any meaning to many of us, most (it's probably safe to assume that all) of us do not hold to strict nihilism. Besides, with such strict rules, which will eliminate the possibility for change, how can you be sure that such a system will not fail? If the system is flawed, then essentially, it is doomed to failure by lack of flexibility.

Begging the Question. How can you possibly assert that all of these derive from mathematical logic? How do you know that mathematical logic is not a by-product of other types of applied logic? I count three unsupported (and most likely, unsupportable) assertions in this phrase alone.

Another unsupported assertion. Morality plays an important role in the lives of all people, and thus, a truly great ruler must accomodate for these things as well. By your standards all tyrants are great rulers. If you wish to continue on with this part of the dicussion with your same observation, I will elaborate on this point especially, as I'm sure others will. This is probably one of the largest flaws in this system yet. While I hold that politics cannot make accomodations for all, and should be more logical, 100% logical will cause the ultimate downfall of the system if morality is not considered. Tyrannical governments are doomed to failure or change.

You put too much stock in IQ. Experience will teach you that there is as much to be learned from the fool as there is from the intellectual.

By limiting the aspects of thinking and free-thought, you thereby eliminate the possibility of success of these things and, in the same stroke, eliminate any purpose for them as well.

To what end? From an Sartrean-existentialist point-of-view, I'd have to say that, while this is in some ways "ideal" it is lacking in regard to the individual. How can one assert that "logic" some how makes one's existence more genuine than another, or vice versa? What does this do to improve existence? While I may hold to my logic and rationalism, I also accept the fact that it is not for others (at least not in totality), and I have no right to try and force it upon another. While expanded education is largely in order, what you propose is far to radical at any point in time, and is doomed to failure for lack of consideration and denial of our essences as opposed to understanding and coping with them.

Bad stuff happens when cousins marry

Now you deny more freedoms. You now will essentially choose mates for others, etc. You'll be facing a large opposition. Freedom, in all of its aspects, is a good thing.

Like I said, bad stuff happens when cousins marry. Just something to keep in mind

Perhaps not corruption if there is adequate checks and balances, but regardless, it is doomed to failure. I seem to recall something in vague resemblence in WWII...Perhaps I'm mistaken?

One of the nicest little spewings of mental masturbation that I've ever seen.

I promise that your ego will be quenched by the time everyone is done tearing apart this thread. On a more personal note, whether this is intended or not, I despise being referred to as someone else's messenger, I am only a messenger to myself. Whether such a statement was your intent, you might be wise to tone down your mental masturbations a bit before releasing the flow in here with the Internet Infidels.

I'm sure both Plato and Nietzsche are rolling over in there graves at this exact moment.

A hobby is good thing.

Edited for formatting. (Sorry Koy, I'm stealing that phrase )

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

Totalitarianist

For what purpose? What does a test or education have to do with the human condition? Between the ages of 3 and 17? Once again, you limit your choices extremely dramatically, and who is to say that this ubermensch is capable of rule over his/her own reality let alone the reality of others?

Religious coercion, which works.

I assume you mean know not?

Yes, that is what I meant. It's funny you should say that, for I made many other more significant errors of that sort. I conclude you either
a) consider them less important, or
b) did not notice them.

If b, you contradicted your original intention by denoting my error

If a, you stultified your claim as to being a rational thinker

I will disagree strongly with this unsupported assertion. What proof do you offer that a score on an IQ test and strict studies does not provide for some form of delinquency? Whether it be as far as knowledge is irrelevant. "Delinquency" can come in other forms.

Granted, but strict education would doubtless reduce this common hindrance.

Definition 2 and 3


Can you set an objective standard to the word "rebellious"?

I'm sure you'd arrive at an answer to that question of only you'd define it yourself.

Hmm...I'm not really sure where to go with this one. By your standards of intelligence, religious preference seems irrelevant. What reasoning do you provide to enforce such a rule or requirement?

Non-Trebaxian religions and ludicrous superstitions simultaneously cause hindrances to all branches of scientific thought.

I will agree that fuctioning on the basis of intelligence may lead one to think more rationally in most situations, of course there are problems with this, mainly having to do with falling to deeply into "utilitarian ethics" (I hate using those two words together). But based upon IQ? I fail to see how this could possibly be a valid test of one's abilities to rule even themselves.

As I've indicated earlier, all forms of intelligence can be directly traced to mathematical-logical type intelligence. Mathematics is applied logic, every other form of intelligence is not. That is why mathematics is an excellent tool for sharpening the mind, which includes all forms of intelligence as they are all linked directly to one another. Thence a good emperor must also be good mathemician.

I pride myself in rationality through methods of abstract thought. I agree that mathematics has a place in training the mind, but it does not and cannot provide answers for many questions.

Nor has any other branch of thought.

I don't think that specializing in mathematics for purposes of reason will lead to the realization of the ubermensch, or even close.

Not directly, but it would undoubtedly assist one into arriving at that realization--it can't hurt.

Quoting Plato: "I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning"

Mathematics is the epitome of reason.

Ouch, big screw up there. You'll catch hell for that one. ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION.

Where did I say atheism is a religion? I said that the religion to be accepted would be a form of atheism. Surely, you cannot doubt, Christianity is a form of theism?

You restrict all possibility for progress by placing yourself in a stagnantly conservative stand. Freedom of thought is necessary for progress.

Freedon of scientific thought is necessary for progress, yes, and the religion to be accepted would advocate freedom of thought in the form of science.

By placing yourself in such a powerfully strict position you run the risk of ignorant traditionalism, which is what should be fought against most.

No, the religion to be accepted creates a new tradition. Thus the beginning of progressive traditionalism.

Yet another unsupported assertion. What proof do you offer that this is the root of all evil? Also, how can you assert that corruption could not possibly occur with such a system?

Evil is beuty and it exists only within the mind of the perciever. What's 'evil' to a Christian is exacly what I've said. What's evil to the Nazi is exacly what I've said. It is universal. An evil person is indifferent to both 'right' and 'wrong' which are both mere illusions for the weak. "The weak and the botch shall parish: first principle of our charity."
There is an unfilled gap in my theory of 'right' and 'wrong' which I will meditate over.

For what reason is such not possible for the ruler? What holds the ruler from deviance from the initial philosophy? You seek to eliminate evil from the picture (a noble cause, granted), but you fail to realize how flawed this system actually is. Besides, declining piety will not reduce the concepts (even common concepts) of good and evil. While these words themselves may not hold any meaning to many of us, most (it's probably safe to assume that all) of us do not hold to strict nihilism. Besides, with such strict rules, which will eliminate the possibility for change, how can you be sure that such a system will not fail? If the system is flawed, then essentially, it is doomed to failure by lack of flexibility.

Mere conjecture.
Another unsupported assertion. Morality plays an important role in the lives of all people, and thus, a truly great ruler must accomodate for these things as well. By your standards all tyrants are great rulers. If you wish to continue on with this part of the dicussion with your same observation, I will elaborate on this point especially, as I'm sure others will. This is probably one of the largest flaws in this system yet. While I hold that politics cannot make accomodations for all, and should be more logical, 100% logical will cause the ultimate downfall of the system if morality is not considered. Tyrannical governments are doomed to failure or change.

Because humans are not 100% logical, therefore they are not fit to rule, yet, at the same time, they are fit only to be ruled.


Now you deny more freedoms. You now will essentially choose mates for others, etc. You'll be facing a large opposition. Freedom, in all of its aspects, is a good thing.


There will be the ones of low IQ, whom they know not of,--for they, the labourers, will be seperated--hence they can only breed among those of high intellect--the mate of which, they will choose.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian Vir ]

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian Vir ]</p>

snatchbalance

You need to go get laid.

SB

Totalitarianist

Oh, really? I am abhored by sexual love... On top of that, I am only 14.

EDIT: Can we PLEASE stay on topic. I really like criticism.

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: Trebaxian Vir ]</p>

bonduca

*think there will be no good jazz or single malt produced in Trebaxian culture, and precious little pastry, such things requiring a genius that cannot be measured by mere testing. a great deal of pi, but no pie. am reduced to helpless sobbing at mere thought of such things.*

kwigibo

what if i was up real late the night before my IQ test, and had to take it hungover, are there allowances for that?

[ May 25, 2002: Message edited by: kwigibo ]</p>

Automaton

This sounds like Brave New World to me (albeit with only Alpha-plusses.) Have you read this novel?

Totalitarianist

Oh, don't get me started on drugs and alcohol. No, really.

I did mention multiple takings of IQ tests for each individual.