That would be hard since I will differ with the manifesto and you as to what 'evil' and 'ugly' are.Okay, did you read it all?
What is evil about it?
What was ugly about it?
Basically: I say that whatever criteria a person or people may have before placing faith into someone as an elected servant, it is rightfully that person or people's choice. Anything that circumvents that is oppression or thievery.
There is nothing wrong if a person were to place basic requirements of education for a government position. You can't drive a car until you pass a publicly accepted test to drive a car, and you can't obtain employment without meeting requirements set by the employer. But it is the public or customer that defines that criteria. An individual or society can place faith in an individual dependent on the criteria of their choosing. This geniocracy proposes enforcing a criteria, essentially removing a set of choices from the public. What is that criteria? That the person is a genius... whatever that means to anyone. You are asking people to serve only the mind or minds deemed genius. I consider that evil.
The problem I have with using that as required criteria is that it is inherently evil. What do I mean by that? Someone there wishes to set the criteria that only the more powerful people should have faith placed in them to give them more power. They want to place faith in a person endowed with features that someone considers more powerful. It is a darwinist concept... many companies use it, like the former Enron. Today employment in many places are heavily performance based. If that performance is tied to customer choice then the performance can be due to faithful service... but the employer, customer or consumer decides what that criteria is. You say that genius defines performance. I know that is often wrong. But in setting criteria, you could also elect only a rich person, or an educated person (different from genius), or a good looking person, or a physically strong person, or a popular person. Whatever the criteria is, many people wish to elect a powerful person to a position of power over people. I don't... I consider all those criteria to be evil. Yes, the USA like anywhere has people choosing by evil criteria.
Similarly as a consumer I might purchase solely by cost or by performance of product. Or I might consider other things, like the country the product was made in and their form of government. Or I might consider the honesty of the person or company. Or whether the person or company provides people with choices. Or that the person or company is charitable with profits. Maybe I choose a product by its color, or if I have allergies and I might avoid a certain material. Nobody knows what criteria that I am going to select by. Your manifesto grossly overlooks the importance of consumer choice... as well as the people's choice in electing an alledged servant (government).
A servant is a person that submits to the will of the person served. Your manifesto overlooks that important fact. In Christianity, Jesus was a selective servant, but he did not just walk up to people and heal them. This topic is also at the forefront of Islam. Note that I consider man's version of Islam is entirely different than the Qur'an. In man's version a Caliph or a set of leaders are chosen somehow to rule over the people. Who chooses that criteria though is paramount. Anyone that removes the choice from an individual being served is a thief. The Qur'an says to place nobody as Lord (Caliph) between you and God.
My criteria in relationships, especially government, is roughly focused on three concepts: Love (mercy, patience, forgiveness, etc...), Faith (choices placed in others), and Truth (honesty). I judge that this Rael is a liar... I don't care how smart he claims to be, I would not elect him to empty my garbage. He is a song-writer writing fables to appeal to people. If his message came from outer space then send it back.