I think everybody here agrees that letting women vote is a bad idea, and that a “one man: one vote” strategy is a bad idea. But what will we have in its place? Some have suggested a monarchy and nobility. I have certain reservations toward going that far, but then my knowledge of European history is pretty near zero, so I can’t really say what monarchy was really like. Maybe my perceptions are as wrong as the SWPL perception of negroes, I don’t know. Since monarchies appear to be the historical standard and nearly universal, that suggests that monarchy has a Darwinian advantage over other alternatives so far.
I really think the form of government, whether US styled congress, UK styled parliament, or something similar to the British Monarchy of 1776 makes little difference once you decide the two biggest factors:
- who gets to physically reside within the country
- who gets to hold power, including the right to vote
Once you have those things taken care of, there’s not much use for much more constitution and further constitution might often get in the way of good governance. A short declaration of rights or checks on the rulers’ power would probably be beneficial. One thing that I think we can agree on is that equality is BS and that the best form of government is one where the:
- men rule over women
- older (but not senile) rule over younger
- more intelligent rule over less intelligent
- brave rule over cowards
- men of higher integrity rule over men of lesser integrity
- more patriotic rule over less patriotic
We obviously want benevolent rulers, but of course benevolence must be tempered with good sense. Parents should rule over their children, but that does not mean they are tyrants to their children.
We also want standards that cannot be reinterpreted for us by SJWs. This is why I am a big proponent of using objective standards that can be measured. The problem of course is that we do not have objective standards for all the attributes of interest, but at least we have standards for some, including:
- sex (can be determined by DNA)
- racial purity (let’s call it the Racial Quotient, or RQ)
- whether or not the person is in racially mixed marriage or has racially mixed children, siblings or nieces, nephews or first cousins.
I am including RQ on the list because it would be very easy for us to develop a DNA test to measure how genetically pure one is as a Dixian and because racial admixture necessarily divides racial loyalty. For instance a Southerner with appreciable Amerind, negro, German, or French admixture will almost always have divided loyalty between us and the source of admixture. I suspect some people will want to argue with me on whether French or German admixture from generations ago will actually predispose to divided loyalty. Yes, it will, even if the admixed person is unaware of his admixture. Other things held constant, a 100% Anglo-Celtic, colonial descent Southerner is going to care more about the Dixie Nation than someone of significant French or German admixture. Someone of significant Cajun admixture is going to be more likely to have divided loyalty between the core South and Cajuns.
It is well documented that people not only tend to mate with people they have a lot of alleles in common with (known as assortative mating), but they also tend to form friendships with people they share more alleles with. This behavior confers an evolutionary advantage because you have more genetic interest in those people you share more alleles with. The same of course would apply to rulers. Other things held constant, the more closely related genetically they are to the Anglo-Celtic South the more loyal they will be to the Anglo-Celtic South. This does not mean that a genetically pure person can never be a traitor to Dixie, but it does mean he is less likely to be one, so that makes genetic purity testing a valuable screening tool.
This is not a call to purity spiral; we must have realistic standards, but we must prefer our leaders have a higher RQ than average just like we want them to have higher IQ than average and it is something that could easily and cheaply be measured objectively as screening factor for who can vote or hold office. Once the test is developed, it would be SJW proof just like IQ tests. I can’t help but suspect that since so many people have IQ test phobia, that many would also have an RQ test phobia.
Things like patriotism, honesty, and bravery are going to be hard to measure. I can’t imagine how we could ever devise a test for these things where they could be precisely quantified and ranked by percentile. But we could select for veteran status, which should weed out a lot of hippie-fags and should select at least to some degree for patriotism. The problem is that the military standards would have to be fortified to become unpozzable. From what I understand, the trend going on right now is for a more feminized, degenerate military. If some unpozzable standards could be baked into the Dixian military, it could serve as a good proving ground for manly character and we could require veteran status for anybody to be eligible to vote or hold office. I am under the impression that military valor has historically been a merit that might elevate a man’s status to nobility or royalty. It sure makes sense to me that it would be.