>>23316006
He's the best the Catholics have got. Be nice.

common anglofat L

>>it wouldn't be very nice
What's your problem with that? Got a more convincing deboonking of his deboonking

>>23316058
It would improve the quality of the human species. Chesterton doesn't actually engage with the scientific arguments of his day, just some babble about the natural order.
The basic eugenic premise is that some people should have more children than others, and that society should encourage those people to have children while disincentivizing (and depending on who you ask, completely sterilize) others.
There is not a single argument that Chesterton gives that attacks these ideas on their practical merit. Just ethical pearl-clutching.

At least someone like Taleb, for all his faults, at least tries to make an actual argument. Saying for example that if we artificially focus on certain traits (intelligence for example) we could theoretically breed out of existence other traits that are desirable for reasons we aren't fully aware of yet, therefore it's best if we let natural selection and sexual selection do its natural job instead of artificially influencing it. Whether that argument is sound or not, at least it appeals to something more real than "it would hurt my feelings"
All such arguments are absent from Chesterton, the great genius

>>23316014
He’s not even the best that English speaking Catholics got.

Eugenics seems like a very sound compromise between anti-natalists and normal people. The human race continues to exist, but people won’t be born with genetic conditions that make life unbearable, far less people will be born into poverty, crime reduced, etc.

People like to read criticism on the current state of things, but only when it does not lay concrete frameworks for action and change. So they believe in catholic greenpill BS instead of reading Marx.

>>23316080
It's amazing to me that in the 21st century there is still a debate as to whether or not we should abort babies with Down syndrome. Most of the pro-eugenics of the 19th/20th century actually aren't cold-blooded Machiavellian proto-Hitlers but they base all their arguments on compassion for the human condition and the reduction of suffering. It's mankind's pride and ego that insists on making the choice for others to live with their genetic condition no matter what. We could have eradicated trisomy-21 by now

>>23316066
>improve
>should
>ethical
Back to school lad. What would you consider a valid argument if not an ethical one?

>>23316085
We could eradicate male virgins. If you haven't got it wet by your nineteenth birthday you get Logans Runned. Would greatly improve society by reducing the amount of ick

>>23316081
>Marx
People would like things to be better, not worse.

>>23316094
lol just because I use the words "improve" and "should" doesn't mean I'm making an ethical argument.
The eugenic position is that we can improve society, for example eradicate crime, by sterilizing the top 1% of violent criminals. The idea being that the subsequent generations become gradually less violent.
You can oppose this position with scientific arguments: saying why it won't work.
Chesterton doesn't do this, he simply says: we shouldn't do it, because my feelings.

>>23316006
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU STUPID FUCKING WORTHLESS /POL/TARD AND GET THE FUUUUUUUUUCK OFF MY BOARD!

>>23316110
average /lit/ intellectual

>>23316110
this bioleninist took it personally kek

>>23316006
I disagree, you can practice eugenics to prevent autism or other kinds of physical deformation. I support Eugenics as a form of medicine, not as /pol/tard science fiction LARP

What Chesterton is saying, and what the Catholic Church sees is the moral concern that arises when the means used for healing or prevention involve actions that are contrary to the inherent dignity of the human person — meaning producing desired traits by eliminate undesirable traits. Which is subjective. This will often will turn into discriminatory practices such as selective breeding or even the elimination of certain individuals deemed unfit. You would be creating artificial people tampered by humans (which is bad), because their traits will likely psychopathic.

A business man might want a son who’s less susceptible to the concern of others so they lower their empathy, shit like that. And people will do it, and this It’s demeans the worth of people.

>>23316006
Most Catholics don't take him very seriously, actually.
Chesterton as a writer is about on par with Jean Claude van Damme as an actor.

>>23316006
What I find hilarious is the vast majority of people who support eugenics would be the first sterilized.

>>23316233
retard

>>23316233
What I find hilarious is the vast majority of terminal patients who support euthanasia would be the first killed.

>>23316233
>mention eugenics
>people immediately jump to mass killings, cutting off ballsacks, putting in concentration camps everyone except the 1% Aryan specimens
in reality the first step would be sterilizing violent criminals, probably even repeat offenders, and aborting embryos with debilitating genetic defects. Maybe even, in our wildest dreams, some state-sponsorship for geniuses and other high achievers to incentivize baby-making such as tax breaks or even financial support outright. Not the ridiculous strawman you people always make it

>>23316081
If you're looking to contemporary voices that focus on laying "concrete frameworks for action and change", religious radicals (on either left or right) are going to be vastly more helpful than plenty of Marxists.

Someone who reads Chesterton and Leonardo Boff and Jean-Luc Marion and von Balthasar and Rahner and Lossky and Zizioulas and Moltmann and engages in the actual movement of the Church is probably going to gain more traction towards living a transformative and active life than someone who reads Luxemburg and Lenin and Trotsky and Che and Sankara and Marcuse and engages in the actual movement of left wing activism. And this is coming from someone who is a student of all of the above and engages in both communities.

>>23316066
Sounds like maybe you're just a soulless husk of a being who doesn't have the depth of inner life or relational vision to be stirred by the inherent beauty and sanctity of your brethren and neighbors. That sucks. Hell is hot.

We'd have to trust the bureacrats to do it, that's the problem.

>>23316281
Again with the strawmen. The anti-eugenicists are not sending their best.

>>23316286
Yep this is probably the best argument against it, but it's not an argument against eugenics per se, just an indictment of our current ruling class. Honestly, there would probably even be an overwhelming majority in favor of the sterilization of extremely violent criminals.

I guess life imprisonment is a sort of de facto sterilization. But in many European countries there's no such thing as a life sentence, it's 20 years max and you get out earlier with good behavior

>>23316264
eugenic should be a strictly a medical thing, not a ideological one (like sterilizing whole populations). which is why I don’t like, it will just end up killing thousands of people in a subjective manner like sterilizing people for wrong think or some shit.

>>23316006
Why are you reading a minor polemic? Read The Man Who Was Thursday or The Ball and The Cross. Seriously, whats wrong with the people on this board? This would be like saying:
>Why do people praise Milton? I'm reading his Areopagitica and its cringe.

>>23316113
I wish.

>>23316085
>>23316098
This is actually a sound argument from a compassionate point of view.
Male virgins are obviously suffering from their lack of companionship while also possibly inflicting suffering on others by consuming resources that should be better of being employed to sustain the descendants of better adapted and sexually successful humans. I imagine compassionate eugenicists could contemplate euthanasia as a mean to remove these individuals.

>>23316317
NTA but never thought of it this way. In theory eugenics could be something productive for humans but it'll most likely be used against "bigots"

>>23316264
>mentions homosexuality
>people immediately jump to mass genital mutilation, hormonal treatment for children, putting in concentration camps everyone except the 1% LGBTQ+ specimens and their allies
Let's just them have their public orgy and pride parade for one day a year, hell give them a month, what could possibly go wrong

>>23316218
Van Damme is a good guy, great actor and probably the only real martial arts athlete in action cinema, also Cyborg and Kickboxer are excellent movies.

>>23316006
I support eugenics but only if we get to sterilize /pol/tards first.

>>23316664
>he only real martial arts athlete in action cinema
Bruce Lee existed

>>23316682
Sure but no offense to Bruce Lee, and he could kick my ass for certain, but he looks puny in comparison to Van Damme.

>>23316103
Actual brainlet. Just because you don't want to call it one doesn't mean that you're not making an ethical appeal. You're making the assumption that "improving the race" (implying that there's some sort of standard of "improvement" you're appealimg to that goes beyond your personal preference to increase ability and reduce suffering) is in some sort of ethically privileged position that doesn't need to justify itself. You can't get an ought from an is. There's no scientific, objective reason to prefer function over dysfunction. That's your ethical judgement.

>>23316006
He has quite a varied range on topic of eugenics, but my favorite of his arguments is that the first thing that eugenics engineered supermen would do is topple the would-be eugenic system to marry and have kids with the girl they like.

>>23316766
>reduce suffering
Already a total bugman objective. I think the poster above that turned it on its head about massacring incels already highlight things enough, especially since it's now 40% of the male population.
Chesterton was also confronted with the hardline science fiction master race producing madmen of his time. Look how anons ITT backtracking to "we just sterilize serial killers".

>>23316832
Fascist scum wrecked by a gluttonous Papist, kek.

>Gluttony is a mortal sin
>Is a glutton
???????

>>23316066
>disincentivizing
...

Most Eugenists are Euphemists. I mean merely that short words startle them, while long words soothe them. And they are utterly incapable of translating the one into the other, however obviously they mean the same thing. Say to them ‘The persuasive and even coercive powers of the citizen should enable him to make sure that the burden of longevity in the previous generation does not become disproportionate and intolerable, especially to the females’; say this to them and they will sway slightly to and fro like babies sent to sleep in cradles. Say to them ‘Murder your mother,’ and they sit up quite suddenly. Yet the two sentences, in cold logic, are exactly the same.

File: 1701391210254754.gif (686 KB, 732x800)

686 KB GIF

>>23316006
>eugenics is le good
>but the exact people who are genetically unregenerate need to select what traits are eugenically superior

>>23317469
But I feel that gluttony must be a good deal less deadly than some of the other sins. Because it’s affirmative, isn’t it? At least it celebrates some of the good things of life.

File: 91I7wBR067L._AC_UF894,100(...).jpg (98 KB, 674x1000)

98 KB JPG

>>23316066
Staggering to me that the subject of diet never comes up amongst all this kind of talk. Genetics take the blame for everything, but if vitamin and mineral intake determines our genes...

>>23316025
>brown, hair fingers typed this post

>>23316098
>>23316625
Nah you’re both bellends. The only thing that needs to be done is to make sexual reproduction easier to obtain. “People” like your ilk have an agenda not unlike climate change alarmists and ecoterrorists

>>23317504
>we (who? the government?) must facilitate reproduction for sexually unappealing males
Sounds dysgenic.

>>23316066
>It would improve the quality of the human species.
by what metric? i believe only western european white people have any real value but even i would hesitate to arbitrarily get rid of everybody else

>>23316006
Did his doctor ever advise him to lose weight? Died of heart failure with 62.

>>23317671
his doctor said open your mouth and say oink

>>23317480
yeah this isn't an argument, so exactly what OP is talking about?

>>23317662
>by what metric?
how is it not obvious? you sterilize the most violent top 1% of criminals and you incentivize men like Dolph Lundgren (handsome multilingual intelligent socially savvy men) to have as much children as possible with as many attractive women as possible. You do the same for genius outliers in others fields. Honestly you shouldn't even have to burden them with being an actual father, although that would obviously be optimal, but better to have another fatherless 140 IQ genius in the world than no offspring at all. Imagine if Newton fathered 50 children instead of dying a virgin

>>23316275
It’s true that those in the popular religious life will help their communities more than those in niche radical groups. However, does this not seem like some transaction of short and long term gain in term of sociological and political progress? The obvious is Marx’s claims on religion and the dulling of feelings of alienation that might spark revolution, which is to say actual political progress.
Further, it seems dishonest to pick one on the likelihood of outcome. Belief obviously matters greatly to the religious so subordinating it to political gain seems to me to be doomed to fail because of the very nature of faith. Would it not be better to pick the “movement” that one believes to be the truth and most appropriately work towards that end? Certainly, and socialist who volunteers at a soup kitchen can do just as much as a Christian who does comparably.
And continuing on truth, these truths seem irreconcilable. Marx’s Materialism contradicts the character of God in the Bible and the absolutes inherent to his being. I struggle to see a possibility that allows the two to be complete and compatible even in popular beliefs such as Liberation Theology or Distributivism.

>>23317998
murder your mother

File: rg1.png (360 KB, 883x836)

360 KB PNG

>>23318008

>>23318008
>Just give the state complete control over your life and it will make everything better. Trust the science

>>23316006
What's frustrating about Christians is that they never acknowledge how, in reality, religiosity increases with high infant mortality, and it's general comfort and longevity that's made people irreligious and decadent.
Prior to the industrial revolution, Christianity adaptive because the most fit and mentally healthy had the most surviving offspring (weirdos became monks).
Christians just want society to collapse so we can return to Darwinian high infant mortality conditions by any means necessary. That's when the theocracy is established. This is why they're "against eugenics."
It would be easier if they'd just admit this instead of all the bad faith arguments. As long as it's God taking the babies rather than modern medicine, Christians are fine with it. They celebrate it. It's a child sacrifice death cult in a way.

>>23316006
To be fair to him that is what almost every critic of eugenics (which is most people in general) says about it.

>>23316080
>he thinks poverty and crime are solely based on biological factors
KEK

>>23318008
Regression to the mean. The Darwins already tried this and they didn't end up making a family of geniuses.

File: 1713462913007267.png (44 KB, 680x241)

44 KB PNG

>>23316066
And who exactly is to decide who is and is not fit to procreate and what the metrics are? Everyone assumes it would be them, and that any program would follow their own ideals but in the end any eugenics program is simply going to stack insane amounts of bodies, generate no net gains and only empower the one group of people who should never ever have power: those who want it the most.

File: 1525775846128s.jpg (3 KB, 125x125)

3 KB JPG

>>23318163
You're retarded.

>>23317662
>i believe only western european white people have any real value
Out of curiosity, how did you come to this belief and how does it effect your daily life?

>>23316006
were old ugly fat fucks really opposed to eugenics? really boggles the mind

>>23318795
Well I wouldn't be retarded if we had eugenics. Hope you tell your priest about this because insulting God's holy fools is not very cash money bud.

>>23318098
Revolution is fake and gay sorry bud

Don’t know about this eugenics crap but Manalive is based

>>23318716
Under eugenics, the impoverished will not be allowed to breed you dumb motherfucker. Less people will be born into poverty within a eugenic state. If crime is caused solely or even partially by poverty, then that means there will be a decrease in crime. Are you fucking retarded or something? How do you read that post as saying “poverty and crime are solely based on biological factors”? If you can’t understand a two-sentence 4chan post, what are the chances you can understand anything at all? What are the chances you can understand a full book?

>>23318768
I believe Darwin had a nephew who was an intellectual of some significance in his own right (obviously not on Darwin's level but you cant expect that anyway).
>>23318122
Nowadays you could just pay guys like Dolph Lundgren for their sperm. Pay him handsomely. In America this type of thing is already happening where parents can select donor sperm and filter for height, IQ, uni degrees, etc. In Europe it's largely illegal. But in any case, it's not the state having full control of your life, it's quite the opposite. All they have to do is jerk off in a cup

>>23318107
No one is arguing for this shit, Chesterton just made up an imaginary argument in his head and thought he was really clever when he came up with an overly verbose way of saying "kill your mother". If he was actually smart he'd have quoted an actual eugenicist who actually used overly verbose language to argue for something very inhumane, and do his rhetorical trick on a real life example. But he couldn't, because most eugenicists are actually very reasonable. He was a complete fraud

>>23318778
Do people really think no one has thought of this counterargument? It's like the people who endlessly repeat
>b-but what if you have a bad king
when talking about the merits of monarchy. Just like everyone in this thread, you're making a grotesque caricature of what you think eugenics entails while ignoring the sensible policy proposals. Paying Dolph Lundgren $10k to donate his sperm to a sperm bank is a form of eugenics. Tell me how having Dolph Lundgren donor babies would
>generate no net gains
as opposed to having just a randomized baby.

>>23319309
doesn't it strike you as unnatural. isn't our natural instinct (primal wisdom) greater than cold logic. aren't we losing something very important in this sort of behaviour.
schopenhauer said sexual passion is the kernel of the will to live ... what is the object of love, from the lowest to the highest forms of being, if not the perpetuation of the species

File: Dolph-Lundgren.01.jpg (112 KB, 850x527)

112 KB JPG

>>23319340
Do you think most women wouldn't feel "sexual passion" if they were in a room with Dolph Lundgren? The only difference is that we are not limited by Dolph Lundgren's physical constraints and time to impregnate lots of women. You can also select the women for general physical attractiveness, intelligence etc.
Imagine putting Dolph in a room with 20 college educated, fertile, attractive women. Do you think this would be a passionless medical procedure?

>>23316066
>It would improve the quality of the human species.
By what metric? There are no physical threats on earth that modern humans need to "breed better" to "overcome."

Eugenics is a very grotesque solution without a clearly present problem..

>>23319354
>>23318008

>>23319354
I don't know how the minds of people like you work. Do you look at the slums of Nigeria, and then to an upper class old money European family, and think, "yes both of these people should be equally incentivized to have children, that would be the optimal route for humanity to take"?

>>23318008
>>23319356
The "goodness" of men isn't genetic. Even Plato's eugenics recognizes this. And I still want to see whatever the monstrous beast or natural cataclysm is that only 80,000 atomized offspring of the guy from Rocky IV could save us from kek.

>>23319360
I don't particularly seethe with hatred at the existence of brown people on another continent, no.

>>23319376
>on another continent
not for long lol

>>23319376
>And I still want to see whatever the monstrous beast or natural cataclysm is that only 80,000 atomized offspring of the guy from Rocky IV could save us from kek.
The cataclysm of mass migration to Europe and American that will be sold to the population as the solution to their falling birth rates. Doesn't take a genius to figure this out. Either we make our own or we import others. I happen to think that more Europeans would be better for the world than more Africans, but you do you.

>>23319376
>The "goodness" of men isn't genetic.
yeah but IQ is. anti-eugenicists are not sending their best I see. turns out IQ is also a good predictor of propensity to commit crimes so yes if you focus on increasing the IQ of any given population you'll also reduce crime and increase "goodness"

>>23319352
you know he's on steroids in right photo?
>college educated, fertile, attractive
here is someone who knows all about love

>>23319386
you live in fairy tale fantasy land where you think "love" is about two soulmates finding each other, instead of simply being a subconscious expression of DNA finding its optimal match. even your daddy Schopenhauer whom you dragged into this, would agree on that with me.

>>23319380
White people not having kids isn't a natural phenomenon like the evolution that eugenics seeks to manipualte. Your eugenics is literally just a race thing.

>>23319396
No, you "manipulate" evolution by picking the best people to procreate. Why don't you engage with the actual arguments in this thread instead of making stuff up in your head? I even gave you the concrete example of a guy like Dolph Lundgren as the representative of quality: smart, physically attractive, socially savvy. Find other guys like him, match them up with the most fertile, intelligent, attractive women, and bring children into the world who have their genes as opposed to the RNG genes children have nowadays.

>>23319389
did i make out that love isn't about the body? only that you're missing something vital. there is a brief and informative bit in the rubaiyat that claims that a man in the arms of a woman is as close to god as he is ever likely to be this side of the grave (but no let's replace this with tossing off into a cup). actually it's funny you fixate on dolph since if you want to judge from a natural beauty standpoint there are signs of unhealthiness in his face.

File: dolph-lundgren-centre-wit(...).jpg (206 KB, 911x1390)

206 KB JPG

>>23319405
Retard, they could still have all the natural sex and natural relationships that they want, on top of cumming in a cup for a few minutes.
>if you want to judge from a natural beauty standpoint there are signs of unhealthiness in his face.
pictured: Dolph Lundgren and his daughters, obviously complete genetic failures, you can see how the "signs of unhealthiness in his face" really shine through

File: napd-seminole1.jpg (22 KB, 175x203)

22 KB JPG

>>23319411
but the child is the living proof of their love for one another. and thomas hardy said 'a lover without indiscretion is no lover at all'. you've made an enormous oversight somewhere in your thinking.
they look great, humans are meant to have broader, fuller faces though.

>>23318122
I'd say it would even workout if jews weren't the goverments of today's world.

the pro eugenics arguments ITT:
>we should pay quality people to have more children
>sterilizing the most violent criminals would probably create more peaceful subsequent generations
the anti eugenics arguments ITT:
>so you want to create a world where no one is allowed to have sex and fall in love and all that happens is that some guys jizz into a cup????
>but "by what metric" could we possibly improve mankind?? we're already doing so great with crime and intelligence, no way to go but down!
>actually I support the huge population explosion in Africa and nothing bad will come of it
>you want to improve the average IQ and reduce crime? what if we just kill virgins instead? checkmate
>but who decides who gets to procreate? you never said there should be one big council who decides who gets to fuck, but I made that up anyway so I can use this argument

>>23319423
Yes, being born into a loving family with ample means to provide for you, is the optimal life. But it's better to have a 140 IQ genius in suboptimal conditions, than not have him be born at all.

>>23316006
a favorite between the ages 14-15, but no longer

>>23319434
having 140 iq doesn't make you a genius and also doesn't mean you are going to contribute anything positive to society
in fact having a high iq person be born in impoverished conditions almost guarantees they'll become criminals or start lashing out, since they'll understand how fucked they are
it's like the perfect breeding ground for manipulative psychos who feel that it's ok to break every rule and destroy everyone else because they were born in shitty conditions and they had to make it all by themselves too, so c'est la vie, it doesn't matter if they destroy a thousand people in the process to become top dog
the other alternative to this is that those high iq people just become detached and start indulging alcohol/drugs and entertaining all sorts of antisocial and nihilistic ideas
there's a reason spartans culled helots of the most intelligent among them, a truly smart person born in terrible conditions either stops caring or becomes totally cuthroat, the chances of them becoming well-adjusted, hardworking, empathetic and moral people are so low it's basically not worth taking seriously

>>23319452
yes anon, the prisons are just brimming with 140 IQ violent criminals

File: rgii.png (1.25 MB, 1274x1338)

1.25 MB PNG

>>23319434
you're still lost. actually i think robert graves wrote a poem about a neglectful childhood being the circumstances of really great man ('we shall be too short-handed for interference'). what i'm getting at is this: what's natural is best. in indigenous tribes, men shorter than 6' didn't exist.

File: 1638130289098.png (1.92 MB, 1532x742)

1.92 MB PNG

>>23319458

>>23319459
>in indigenous tribes, men shorter than 6' didn't exist.
what a strange thing to point out, since male height is one of the biggest predictors for how successful they are with the opposite sex (aka, sexual selection, which would also occur in a state of nature, unlike selecting for high IQ which doesn't happen quite as readily (as every smart incel knows))

>>23317483
>Wrath could help you defend your family in case of an attack.
>Little of sloth teaches you not to overexert yourself before your body breaks down.
>Pride amkes you confident in your work.
>Controlled envy helps you better yourself instead of stagnating.
>Lust (not related to sex) makes you motived to strive for your desires.
>Little of greed teaches you to satisfy your basic needs before you break yourself down for others.
You can do that for everything you colossal hypocritical faggot

>>23319458
who said anything about violence or being imprisoned, you fucking retard? i said they'd do criminal and cutthroat things, something that occurs regularly in most businesses
they wouldn't be good bosses or even good employees, unless "good" in this sense just means seeking their own advancement at the cost of everything and everyone else

>>23319462
What a laughable excerpt. First of all, Alexander probably had dozens of bastard children and Napoleon had children too. Alexander and Napoleon profoundly influenced the world and elevated civilization, Alexander by spreading Hellenism, Napoleon with the Code Napoléon. You're bringing up these guys as a counterargument, as if having less Napoleons and Alexanders throughout our history would be a... good thing?

>>23316006
Yes, what an idiot for not accepting pseudoscience.

>>23319475
"smart parents have smart children, having more smart children is better than having more dumb children, therefore we should try to have more smart kids and less dumb kids" is not pseudoscience

>>23319464
why is that strange? obviously your height as a man is important and a natural indication of health. if you (and your ancestors) got enough animal nutrition in key development stages (as primitive peoples do) it isn't an issue was the point i was getting at

>>23319478
Oh modern genetics is wrong. They actually had it right in the 19th century?
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism

>>23319472
It would still be better to have 140 IQ criminal conmen around, than 80 IQ criminal murderers. Lol

>>23319483
does modern genetics deny that smart parents have smart children...?

>>23319489
Your question is a non sequitur.

>>23319483
there is not a single reason listed in this article why eugenics wouldn't work, except the vague statement that
>Eugenicists believed in a prejudiced and incorrect understanding of Mendelian genetics that claimed abstract human qualities (e.g., intelligence and social behaviors) were inherited in a simple fashion.
without further elaborating why exactly they are wrong. They also call eugenics an "immoral" theory. A scientific theory cannot be immoral. It's true or untrue. This is the best you people have to offer?

>>23319478
it is pseudoscience, it's just retarded
>smart
according to what? iq tests? so you want a collapsing society of redditors who all wanna be in the managerial class? or do you expect you'd be sending those smart people to be working as plumbers?
only a complete retard with no knowledge of history or how the world works would ever say shit like this. an overabudance of elites doesn't lead to your glorious marxist utopia where intelligent people suddenly usher in endless pleasure and comfort, it leads to the exact opposite, factionalism and collapse
the only reason society functions generally is because there's enough retards being tricked by some ideology or other into accepting their shitty life conditions and doing the labor nobody else wants
you have no actual argument to show that more smart people means a better world because, again, history goes against you, as do our current times. there are more high iq people alive today than at any point in history, yet we are barely making a fraction of the progress just a few smart people were making at the turn of the 19th century
you don't need a lot of smart people, you need a stable and well-governed system, and that by definition necessitates a lot of retards (low iq, low income) that are willing to accept doing the dirty work to keep it going

>>23319500
Obviously something that's wrong and causes harm is immoral.

>>23319499
you don't know what non sequitur means and your reticence to actually answer the question just shows you don't know what you're talking about.

File: 1638142162790.png (1.1 MB, 1456x427)

1.1 MB PNG

>>23319473
alexander's cutting the gordian knot was an offence to tradition. it was his defiance of ancient custom that brought ruin on the greek civilisation.
>would be a... good thing?
this icarly way of talking makes me feel physically ill

>>23319484
those 80 iq guys become criminal murderers because those 140 iq guys running the show don't give a fuck about ensuring any kind of safety for the rest of society
so, no, it's actually not better
where do you think you'd rather live, a trailer park in arizona, or a russian village during soviet times?
dumb people at the bottom aren't anywhere near as dangerous as sociopathic people at the top

>>23319507
the guy is a retard
anyone who thinks alexander was a great man is guaranteed to be either underage or some double digit iq pseud
>spreads degeneracy
>undermines his own culture
>glorifies himself despite being a retarded drunkard
>takes all the credit for his achievements despite 90% being the hard work of his father
>advocated a monoculture and total racemixing
alexander is globohomo incarnate and his legacy is the equivalent of your little brother unpausing the game before you last hit the boss and going "i beat the game!!"

>>23319501
all this kvetching and yet I said nowhere we need to eliminate all low IQ people. again you're making a strawman out of my position. I'm just saying it would be better if the smart attractive people had more kids as opposed to the dumb ugly people. groundbreaking stuff for sure and yes society would definitely be worse off if we implemented policies that would allow smart hot people have more babies

>>23319504
It doesn't follow our conversation because we're talking about genetics. Your question about smart parents having smart children isn't about genetics, so it's a non sequitur.

>>23319515
>your question about procreation isn't about genetics

>>23319509
every single system of civilization will attract sociopathic high IQs to the top of the dominance hierarchy, no exception.

>>23319519
I don't think intelligence is measured at pregnancy.

>>23319401
>Find other guys like him, match them up with the most fertile, intelligent, attractive women, and bring children into the world who have their genes
Literally solves no actual problems that can't be better solved through other means. Immigration and crime are sociological problems. Arbitrarily destroying social cohesion and regulating reproduction/population just to build up a useless managerial class has literally already been done and it's resulted in the fucked up situation in China right now.

>>23319528
So does modern genetics say that intelligence is not heritable at all?

>>23319530
Immigration and crime destroy social cohesion more than designer babies ever could. Millions of couples use donor sperm worldwide. Why not give them access to the best genes while we're at it? It already happens in the sense that sperm donors can't have genetic diseases etc. All I propose is we go one step further and add other qualifications such as high IQ, physical attractiveness, and whatever other traits that would indicate quality offspring.

>>23319514
>strawman out of my position
no i'm not lol
>I'm just saying it would be better if the smart attractive people had more kids as opposed to the dumb ugly people
so precisely what i responded to?
>would definitely be worse off if we implemented policies that would allow smart hot people have more babies
we already have those policies, cretin
if you are smart and hot you end up in a better position in life and have enough funds to raise 20 kids if you'd like

>>23319539
>so precisely what i responded to?
you made a dumb sarcastic point about having smart people become plumbers. I never said there would be no dumb people left to be plumbers. so you're strawmanning my position.
>if you are smart and hot you end up in a better position in life and have enough funds to raise 20 kids if you'd like
yeah if you're a top 0.00000001% outlier like Leonardo DiCaprio maybe. The average good looking dude with a masters degree is not getting "in a good enough position" to have 20 kids, be real

>>23319539
>if you are smart and hot you end up in a better position in life and have enough funds to raise 20 kids if you'd like
It's precisely the smart and hot people who quit at 2 kids, maybe 4 if they're particularly rich, because they're very conscientious about not having children in suboptimal conditions ("I'll wait until I'm worth $1million to start a family") while Nigerians are having 8 kids per woman because they just don't care. But I guess that's more "natural" so the anti-eugenicists in this thread must be very happy with this state of affairs

>>23316281
>the inherent beauty and sanctity of your brethren and neighbors
You're a glorified monkey.

>>23316317
>eugenic should be a strictly a medical thing, not a ideological one
That's an ideological assertion.

>>23319544
DiCaprio has all the incentives in the world and unlimited access to women, and yet he has no children.
What are you going to do if all these "outstanding specimens" don't want to reproduce regardless of incentives? Are you going to milk them out at gun point?

Lots of guys who should have a small army of sons (smart, intelligent, rich, attractive) don't have as many children as they should (or could, or even want) because they don't want to dilute both their time and energy and fortune (passing it down to 10 children is obviously worse for the family fortune than passing it down to one or two sons). You could solve this by incentivizing them to donate their sperm. This is not a radical proposal at all.
>they already can do this if they want
Yes, and it should be more advertised for by governments worldwide and there should be guaranteed protections when it comes to child support etc.

>>23319532
It's not entirely clear how much it's heritable. See "missing heredity problem."

>>23319558
>What are you going to do if all these "outstanding specimens" don't want to reproduce regardless of incentives? Are you going to milk them out at gun point?
No. Do you have other stupid questions?

>>23319577
Unless you have more stupid examples of rich and powerful men who could have had legions of descendants but chose not to.

>>23319577
how is that a stupid question? the israelis are milking their corpses right now. if you care so much about this topic, i honestly think your every moment should be spent milking the cum of hot and smart men and saving it for posterity
you can even start an organization of fellow milkers
the milk must flow

>>23319581
What? Our current climate isn't set up for guys having 10 children even if they're extremely rich. That's still dividing the family fortune among 10 descendants. All the riches gone within 1 generation. Let alone if each of those 10 descendants has 10 more kids. If we still lived under primogeniture (and polygamy) then for sure you'd see billionaires with 4 wives and 20 children. The current socio-political order disincentives doing so, it's obvious why these rich people aren't having a boatload of children.

>>23319589
lmao
please just kill yourself, i think it's obvious by this point you're part of the dumb and ugly

>>23319584
I actually don't think it's so inconceivable that Europe sometime in the distant future revives the Lebensborn program in some kind of capacity. it's definitely possible.

>>23319594
the final argument of the /lit/ intellectual

>>23319589
Who's going to feed and raise the children of these men who find themselves with no father figure and financial support if the masses of dumb and ugly worker drones have been sterilized and exterminated?

>>23319604
The money that currently goes to dysgenic welfare recipients and their children.

>>23318008
>>23319309
>>23319352
>>23319411
Think you're just a fag for this meathead.

>>23319604
Millions of couples worldwide already use donor sperm to get pregnant. All I'm saying is we could add more requirements to becoming a donor, not only not have any genetic disease, also have positive attributes like intelligence, IQ, etc. This already happens in some capacity in the US, but more can be done

>>23319604
also no one here said "the masses of dumb and ugly workers" will be eliminated or sterilized out of existence.

>>23319597
that's not an argument, it was a recommendation, retard
why is that every eugenicist is some variation of deformed or mentally/socially handicapped?

>>23319626
It was a quip on the famous saying "ultima ratio theologorum" referring to religious zealots burning people at the stake instead of engaging them in honest arguments, but you're too stupid and uncultured to have understood that. you're not as smart as you think you are

>>23319352
he's so fucking ugly
i can't believe people unironically find this guy attractive
even as far as tough meatheads of the past go, 80s arnold and jean claude are infinitely hotter
or do zoomers not even know who those guys are?

>>23319629
his daughter is extremely hot though, so apart from your personal taste, it seems his genetics are definitely redeemed

>>23319628
it wasn't a quip on anything, lmaoooo, what SEVERE coping
can you please go dilate little man? reddit is that way

>>23319630
Which one? The fat one or the one that looks like him with a wig?

File: 16982501719518.jpg (446 KB, 1980x1320)

446 KB JPG

>>23319630
i don't like her either but she isn't ugly
to be fair, i don't really like scandies in general, so it must be a taste thing
i definitely think van damme was hot as fuck though, he's like a chad non-jewy version of BAP

File: 1713007912036138.gif (16 KB, 340x340)

16 KB GIF

>>23319633
you motherfucker

>>23319633
sure Anon, you'd kindly pass on the offer to fuck them

this thread is like a 5v1 and everyone's absolutely getting cooked

File: John_Oliver_November_2016.jpg (259 KB, 1200x1682)

259 KB JPG

>here's that genius anglo i told you about whose empire-making giga-iq genes we need to propagate across the globe

>>23319648
there was an actual example posted in the thread

>>23318831
Cringe post

>>23319321
>we just want civil unions and to be left alone
you're making a bad faith argument pretending that a program to "improve the species" would take a few small, debately reasonable steps, and stop there for the betterment of all. Not a fucking chance in hell this is what would happen and you're delusional, retarded, or just plain ignorant if you think it is. You must always consider the logical conclusions and possible consequences of any path you propose and eugenics programs will only always have ever tightening restrictions and ever more extreme methods of achieving them.

>>23319385
>genetics is the only determining factor of IQ
Maybe if you had a higher IQ you would know that isn't true

File: IMG_7286.jpg (75 KB, 1170x240)

75 KB JPG

>>23316006
Quote related

Eugenics is just the political philosophy of sociopathic narcissism. Not a single person who aproves of eugenics would consider themselves a candidate for elimination of the gene pool

>>23319911
it's just antinatalism for chuds
if you hate humanity and you're leftist, you're an antinatalist
if you hate humanity and you're on the right, you're an eugenicist
different names, same scum

>>23319844
you're making up quotes that I never said and then getting angry at them, lol

>>23316014
One day you guys say Flannery is the queen of /lit/. The next you ridicule Catholics. You don't even know yourselves!

>>23319911
So?

>>23319833
Tell me about literally any policy you would like to implement and I'll make up an absurd slippery slope about how it will bring about dystopia. You can do it with literally anything

I like how the eugenicist just bases his entire argument on whether or not you'd want to fuck the person that should be having offspring.

>>23319952
No, physical attractiveness AND high IQ. Not one or the other. Again someone just making up shit I say and thinking they're smart for it lol

>>23319924
>if you hate humanity and you're on the right, you're an eugenicist
Not me. I hate humanity because I have faith in humanity's potential for excellence. To bad it keeps disappointing. If you were a mindless materialist who sees mankind as simply being nothing more than the cattle they currently behave as, then you just see it as natural and excuse the depravity

>>23319956
Nah, whenever you try to do a gotcha on one of the posters here you always resort to insinuating that they would want to fuck them. You never even give an argument as to why physical attractiveness should matter.

>>23319964
>than the cattle they currently behave as
they don't behave as cattle, you're just a hate-filled little man with no friends and no engagement with reality who is projecting your personal failures and disappointments onto reality

>>23316264
>Tries to mock critics of eugenics for claiming sterilizations would happen
>Immediately recommends sterilization
kek

>>23319969
Because physical attractiveness is by itself an indicator of good genes. By definition almost. High IQ by itself, not so much. It's possible that if you just focus on high IQ and high IQ alone, you proliferate certain traits that end up being dysgenic as a whole. Think of the typical frail nerd. You want the combination of the stereotypical jock with the stereotypical nerd. The first for the physical fitness, the latter for the mental ability. Some humans possess both.

>>23319973
Hateful of what? People 'having fun' or whatever? Nah. I just think most people are very inconsiderate and dumb

>>23319982
>Because physical attractiveness is by itself an indicator of good genes
How? What are these "good genes" you speak of and what makes them inherently good? Biological determinists are retarded

>>23319977
A life sentence in prison is already a de facto sterilization of the most violent criminals. I assume you're against locking up violent serial killers for life for this reason. It's inhumane that they are robbed of the chance to sire children, you see

>>23319984
>How? What are these "good genes" you speak of and what makes them inherently good?
We're not entirely sure yet, which is exactly why we need to consider the "natural" attraction of humans for each other. Evolution seems to favor physical attractiveness so more likely than not it serves a purpose to keep the species alive. But you're obviously not arguing in good faith here. You're basically asking "why would attractiveness imply desirable genes" as if the answer isn't self-evident. Physical attractiveness is a sign of physical health.

>>23319983
what's wrong with being inconsiderate? what's wrong with being dumb? both flaws seem so minor compared to your actual hatred of your fellow man

>>23316264
>state-sponsorship for geniuses and other high achievers
BIG trouble.
There was an analysis of Scottish gifted programs that was later extended to American and Austrlian gifted programs.
Intelligence researcher Deborah Ruf summarizes it and I'll boil it down.
If you ask teachers - highly educated, highly trained teachers - to identify "above average intelligence" students they fail.
Miserably.
In the absence of proctored IQ tests gifted programs are packed full of students with an average IQ of 102BUt! They are eager to please so teachers like them.
So, as Ruf writes later with tons of notes, once you tell teachers this and they adjust the program what happens?
Things get worse!
Now the "highly educated education experts" switch to TV/Movie stereotypes about high IQ and look for students that act like extras on the Big Bang Theory. Then gifted programs are an average IQ of 95 and are packed with students with social anxiety, depression, and ASD.
tl.dr; experts SUCK at identifying geniuses.
>Incentivize baby making
lol
lmao, even
Japan, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, and a TON of other nations with well-below-replacement-fertility have been throwing BILLIONS at 'incentivizing baby making'.
It doesn't help. Oh, sure, you get 3 - 36 months of more births, then they DROP because all you did was take the few people that would have kids anyway and speed them up a few months.

>>23316066
>The basic eugenic premise is that some people should have more children than others
Commodifying people.

>look man some illiterate African farmer with no concept of the distant future can have 5 children with his alcoholic Nigerian wife, or a fit European chemical engineer can have 5 kids with a blonde supermodel. impossible to predict the life outcomes and service to humanity for each of these sets of children, it's impossible, because biological determinists are retarded or something. who even knows the difference between good or bad genes?

>>23319996
a farmer is a more worthwhile profession

>>23319989
>we prefer physically attractive people because evolution selects for physically attractive people because we prefer physically attractive people
Totally circular and nonsensical. "Evolution" is just the aggregate of these preferences anyways, it has no causal power. Better question is why physical attractiveness and the life instinct are so coalesced, i.e. why we are so attracted to beautiful things as a function of life, phenomenology, and the existential threat of death

>>23320000
African farmers famously aren't doing a very good job of it

>>23319986
>You are against a committee forcibly sterilizing someone? YOU LOVE SERIAL KILLERS!
The IQ of eugenicists on display, everyone.
SO let's say you get accused of murder. You are convicted. They chemically castrate you.
Then wow! The cops lied! The prosecutor witheld evidence! You are exonerated after 7 years in jail!
Too bad about your balls, son.
Sound rare?
Look up just the Innocence Project.
More importantly, what if that violent killer has an IQ of, oh, 130+? Wouldn't you WANT his genius kids, eugenicist?
>https://allthatsinteresting.com/who-is-ted-bundy
Which wins? You valuing people by IQ instead of other factors, or you sterilizing criminals because they are icky and the justice system is perfect?

>>23320000
It's the high IQ chemists who come up with techniques to 1000x the yield of the average farmer. You're inadvertently making the eugenicist's case here. One genius can lighten the load of millions of low skill workers.

>>23319989
>We're not entirely sure yet
You could've just said that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about instead of wasting time
>Evolution seems to favor physical attractiveness
Does it? Is there an objective good which evolution tends toward? What even is objectively physically attractive? You are dumb, no better than cattle.
>Physical attractiveness is a sign of physical health.
No it isn't
>>23319990
I believe people should have good character and strive for excellence. It's that simple. If you think that people getting into fights on the subway like monkeys is fine by you then great, I guess. If you want to ask me why I think this way beyond my own reasonings then I suggest you do something more productive, like asking yourself why you have an opinion on anything at all. Or why my post bothered you so much.

>>23320003
still more valuable to humanity than a chemical engineer

>>23320003
>le epic high iq chemical engineer man
It was just a dumb post, accept it. I don't see African farmers clamping chains on my wrists and telling me to go slave for the aggregated stomachs and genitalia of hundreds of millions of rootless strangers. IQ means jackshit if it is used to optimize slave engines

>>23319996
>illiterate
no relation to IQ or genetic fitness
>no concept of the distant future
not genetic or IQ related
>alcoholic
not genetic, unrelated to IQ
>chemical engineer
not genetic. Average IQ of chemical engineers via proctored tests is 103
>supermodel
not related to IQ
So you think poor people are bad, Blacks are scary, blondes are hot, and you are stupid enough to confuse 'education' with 'intelligence'.
Typical.
Sterilize yourself for the good of Mankind

>>23320008
the same sort of approach by which our food has got unnatural & unhealthier

>>23320008
>Chemists
>high IQ
You keep conflating education with intelligence.
The proctored IQ test series proves that the average IQ of PhD holders is 105. Among STEM PhDs it is a whopping...108.
You fetishize a degree like it improves your genetics or something.

Eugenicists are just utilitarians but racist. And dumber

>>23320022
And slavish worshippers of the machines that have completely alienated them from themselves, or at least its architects

>>23316103
>lol just because I use the words "improve" and "should" doesn't mean I'm making an ethical argument.
It quite literally does. As soon as you go from "is" to "should" you're making a value judgmenent.

>>23320010
no one is perfect, but if we are capable of loving then we are divine. it is lack of love that makes someone detestable

>>23320005
Miscarriages of justice will always happen. If you're falsely locked up at 20 and you get out at 60 you're not having children either. Castration or not. It sucks but what do you want me to say?

>>23320010
You're a profoundly stupid and pedantic individual. Acting as if there's just no way to tell an ugly person from a beautiful person. Pretending physically attractive people aren't having vastly more sex than ugly people. It's just not worthy of a reply. You read on Wikipedia once that evolution has no teleological end-goal and now you think everyone makes the same mistake as you did. In fact, evolution does "tend towards" some things. For example, people progressively get taller because of sexual selection: women prefer tall men over shorter ones. Therefore "evolution favors" tall men. You can pedantically cry over the choice of words here but the point still stands.

>>23320024
Not sure about that. I just think they haven't really thought through their whole ideology. It's like they're not sure what moral assumptions they are working from

>>23320008
I imagine the vast majority of chemists just test piss tubes in some hospital instead of discovering revolutionary processes to multiply bread with infinity, being a chemist, even a high IQ one, wouldn't necessarily qualify you as top breeding material.

>>23320033
You are a porn addict. I can tell.

>>23320016
what is the average IQ via proctored tests of Africans?

>>23320021
you make the case for me that PhD holders are smarter than regular people, which is all we're looking for. If you're a "gifted kid underachiever" like all the geniuses on /lit/, feel free to walk into the Eugenicist Sperm Bank, take an IQ test, and donate some seed if it's 130+. I'm not stopping you.

>>23320033
>Pretending physically attractive people aren't having vastly more sex than ugly people
What on earth does that have to do with whether they should be having sex? Why do you base your morality on whatever you think evolution "favors"? You are not very smart. You aren't even making an argument.
>>23320032
Right, lets just ignore the reason why he doesn't love the person in the first place.

>>23320036
Yeah and neither would being an African farmer qualify but these people are still making 8 kids per woman while you're being anal about the small details of Europeans trying to improve their stock.

>>23320048
it doesn't matter.
written by a poet in the trenches:

Kill if you must, but never hate:
Man is but grass and hate is blight,
The sun will scorch you soon or late,
Die wholesome then, since you must fight.
Hate is a fear, and fear is rot
That cankers root and fruit alike,
Fight cleanly then, hate not, fear not,
Strike with no madness when you strike.
Fever and fear distract the world,
But calm be you though madmen shout,
Through blazing fires of battle hurled,
Hate not, strike, fear not, stare Death out!

>>23320049
>Europeans trying to improve their stock.
It's literally just you. Europeans tend to not even think about their stock at all.

>>23320048
>What on earth does that have to do with whether they should be having sex?
Are you fucking stupid? People are subjectively attracted to each other for evolutionary reasons. If you're going to do eugenics you need to find a balance between letting nature run its course and also trying to steer it into a direction that would promote a healthy civilization. That's why I say physical attractiveness AND high IQ. You don't want to disrupt the natural instinct of the species too much, hence you pick attractive people that would get laid regardless, you add an IQ requirement, and you allow these people to have disproportionally many children. It's really not as radical a proposal as you'd think. Very common sense.

>>23320055
Yeah which is why they're dying out.

>>23320058
Are we approaching a Euthyphro Dilemma with evolution here? Could "evolution" have made it so we are madly attracted to frumpy, ugly people?

>>23320058
>People are subjectively attracted to each other for evolutionary reasons
And what evolutionary reasons are you talking about?! The fact that they are attracted to eachother? And they are attracted to each other because of evolutionary reasons? Do you even know what begging the question even is? Honestly, this is a waste of time. Have fun looking back at this memory with embarrasment in the future.

>>23320049
What's preventing Europeans from having more children if not the dehumanizing modern ideologies of which eugenics is also a part of?
But somehow telling people that they have now to reproduce under lab conditions with anons in white coats looking at them will certainly improve the "stock" of European cattle.

>>23320062
If ugliness was a sign of physical health, sure. If women were sexually attracted to ugliness, sure. If ugly men were somehow stronger than attractive men and outcompeted them, sure.
>>23320064
Why do female peacocks mate with the male peacock with the most beautiful feathers?
>>23320066
>What's preventing Europeans from having more children
Economic factors mostly. Most people say they'd have more children, or would've started sooner, if they had more money. It's because Europeans tend to be very conscientious about it and want to do right by their children. Other populations don't care so much and just fuck away. It's a cursed blessing.

>>23317489
The kind of dirty, brown French fingers Chesterton would have loved to kiss.

>>23320072
>If ugliness was a sign of physical health, sure.
So does evolution set the normative pressure to be attractive, strong, dominant, etc., or is it these traits and the desire for these traits which determine evolution?

Is it loved because it evolved to be loved, or did it evolve because it is intrinsically lovable?

>>23320064
NTA but what's the controversy here? Of course attractiveness is a sign of physical health - your genetics, diet and lifestyle contribute to every aspect of physical development (animal protein for height, vitamin A for good skin, K2 for prominent jawline). What is healthy looks naturally beautiful to us.

>>23320078
In the normal course of nature certain traits are favored over others, ostensibly because they have evolved to be more competitive than other traits. As self-conscious humans we have become aware of this process and we have the technological means to interfere with it. But it would be unwise to interfere with it too much, so we look for a balance between letting nature take its course unimpeded and introducing new traits.
We simply don't have the full picture of why some traits are selected for others not, and there is a danger in interfering too much and thereby wiping out beneficials traits, or proliferating disadvantageous traits.
A society entirely consisting of physically frail Einsteins would probably be dysgenic. And a society of dumb but hot brutish cavemen wouldn't produce civilization. So we interfere just a little bit and see what happens. Find a medium between the natural way, and the artificial man-made way.

>>23320088
You can be perfectly healthy and not be physically attractive. You're a porn addict.

>>23319992
>Japan, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, and a TON of other nations with well-below-replacement-fertility have been throwing BILLIONS at 'incentivizing baby making'.
>It doesn't help. Oh, sure, you get 3 - 36 months of more births, then they DROP because all you did was take the few people that would have kids anyway and speed them up a few months.
No, they don't work because they don't actually tackle the reason why all three countries have extremely low birthrates - they have very high rates of working age female employment.

>>23320090
All I'm saying is these traits determine evolution from the inside. Women are not attracted to strong, dominant men because there is (or used to be) a preponderance of strong, dominant men. They are attracted to strength and dominance because it is intrinsically attractive - at least to the kinds of organisms we are. Evolution is steered from the inside, subjectively, inwardly, phenomenologically.

I firmly believe that attractive people don't exist so "evolution" can facilitate sexual reproduction, it is sexuality which exists because there are attractive people

>>23320091
Healthy in the modern sense, not in the natural sense. In indigenous tribes, men shorter than 6' didn't exist.
>You're a porn addict.
when someone try a gotcha like this, its always very telling about themself

>>23320101
>In indigenous tribes, men shorter than 6' didn't exist.
Even pygmies?

>>23320091
You can have the testosterone levels of a 80 year old man and still be marked "healthy" because of the way the medical system calculates healthiness, based on meeting certain minimums and nothing beyond that. In the same way some fat people can still get all the markers of physical health despite being, well, fat.
Health is not a binary condition where you're either healthy or not. It's a spectrum and we should seek to make as many people as healthy as possible, not just chase the bare minimum.

>>23320010
you don't have good character faggot
you're a fucking eugenicist, get cancer and die

>>23320106
Sign of malnutrition. People following their natural diet like the Maasai are taller.

>>23319513
>>23319507
>takes all the credit for his achievements despite 90% being the hard work of his father
Laughable and wrong.
>anyone who thinks alexander was a great man is guaranteed to be either underage or some double digit iq
He is the literal definition of greatness, you are just some faggot contrarian.

>>23320164
>He is the literal definition of greatness
For miserable Americans who are always in the market for a daddy

>>23320171
Sexual fantasy of yours, mayhaps?

>>23320073
Pervert

>>23317754
sounds like he needs a new doctor

>>23320016
>>23320021
Where did you get those numbers?

>>23319821
Yet you can't address a single point in my post because most of your opinions are unconscious.

>>23317754
He needed better insurance

>>23319385
To play devil's advocate, increasing the general IQ might also just increase the destructiveness and heinousness of the crimes, if a subset of the population is always destined to be criminal. Fewer petty thieves and more Shoko Asahara types.

>>23319429
This desu. There are good arguments against eugenics but the anti-eugenics people always default to the most retarded because they don't seriously consider it.

>>23319501
This is the best argument against eugenics and I wish Christians would just come right out with it instead of beating around the bush like pussies.

>>23319911
I would personally. My mom married down. I don't think women should be allowed to do that because it doesn't actually make them happy, they just want someone to lord over.

>>23319936
>eugenics has literally not hit the bottom of the slippery slope within living memory
kill yourself fuckhead

>>23320792
>is eugenist
>forbids women from "marrying down", which they already rarely do
>be surprised when something like 75% of men become incels
>according to anons ITT those incels should be purged by the eugenics program too
>we'll just totally shut down most of humanity from reproducing

>>23319924
It certainly runs on the same premises. Negative utilitarianism or whatever you call it. Eugenics is the light version of antinatalism in the sense that the expected-quality-of-life argument is not so drastic as to condemn all reproduction but only of part of humanity. It has a worse reputation because some historical movements did use coercive measure to force it in the rather recent past whereas nothing close to antinatalism has been part of the policy of any power since the Cathar heretics.
I'm not sure about tying it to direction politics, most eugenics was left wing when it was in vogue.

From 'The Catholic Encyclopedia' (1914):

>The root difference between Catholic teaching and that of modern eugenics is that the one places the final end of man in eternal life, whilst the other places it in civic worth. The effectual difference is that the Church makes bodily and mental culture subservient to morality, whilst modern eugenics makes morality subservient to bodily and mental culture. In dealing with racial poisons, the Church provides the most radical remedies. Against alcohol she sets the virtue of temperance, against white-lead the virtue of justice, against venereal disease the virtue of purity. She provides for proper selection in marriage by setting impediments against unworthy marriages. The spirit life of the married pair and of the children is protected by the prohibition of mixed marriages. The proclamation of banns protects the parties against possible fraud or mistake. The requirement of consent of parents tends to promote prudent marriages. The impediment of a previous engagement unreleased is a safeguard against rash promises and heartless breach of promise. The impediments of consanguinity and affinity are universally acknowledged to have a great eugenic value. Moreover, since the most necessary and most difficult eugenic reforms consist in the control of the sex appetite, the practice of celibacy is an important factor in race culture. It is the standing example of a Divinely aided will holding the sensual passion in check.

>The following, however, may be taken to be the prevalent teaching of Catholic theologians and physicians. Vasectomy or ligature of the Fallopian tubes is no remedy against concupiscence; and even if it were, mutilation could not be permitted as a means of avoiding temptation. The operation would open the door to immoral practices which would constitute a worse evil than the one avoided. Being in itself slight and almost painless, it would be useless as a punishment for criminals or as a deterrent for others. If the principle were admitted it would encourage the abuse of matrimonial relations. The welfare of the State, if seriously threatened by the degenerate, could be better protected by segregation. Therefore the operation is not permissible, except as a necessary means to bodily health, and consequently except for this necessity may not be performed even with the patient's consent. The Church has never regarded the marriage of degenerates as unlawful in itself: they cannot be deprived of their right without a grave reason. Even eugenists like Dr. Saleeby and Dr. Havelock Ellis disapprove of compulsory surgery. As for compulsory segregation it seems to be both right and good, provided that all due safeguards are taken in respect of the grades of feebleness. The spirit of the Church is to extend rather than curtail the freedom of the individual. The Catholic conscience guards against the State being unduly exalted at the expense of the family.

>>23320871
>The spirit life of the married pair and of the children is protected by the prohibition of mixed marriages.
kek

>>23320836
>be surprised when something like 75% of men become incels
Not remotely surprised by that. It's the nature of hypergamy. In periods of abundance women are obviously going to be choosier. I just don't think individual women should have 100% of the power. A council of elderly matchmaking women would be better but obviously that's harder to do at scale, and probably inhumane. Also, it's not as though Plato's Republic is actually possible in reality, it's only a matter of steering between Scylla and Charybdis.

>>23320033
>It sucks but what do you want me to say?
You said it, you just aren't smart enough to realize you said it

>>23320033
NTA
let's translate from Retard Incel into Human, shall we?
>You're a profoundly stupid and pedantic individual
Translation: you are correct
>Pretending physically attractive people aren't having vastly more sex than ugly people
Translation: anon is a KHHV incel addicted to pron
>It's just not worthy of a reply
Translation: anon is assblasted with fury and will respond 20 times out of anger
>people progressively get taller because of sexual selection
Translation: anon is a manlet

>>23320043
>you make the case for me that PhD holders are smarter than regular people
I didn't. 108 isn't even a single SD above average. it isn't even CLOSE to 'mildly gifted'

>>23320093
False. Niger and Nigeria also have high rates of female employment but well above average fertility.
You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

File: lol.gif (3.14 MB, 608x336)

3.14 MB GIF

>>23320101
Delusional KHHV manlets
>In indigenous tribes, men shorter than 6' didn't exist
Reality
>Upper Paleolithic Cro-Magnons of Europe had males that averaged 177 cm, or *almost* 5'11", making them perhaps the tallest of all indigenous humans before agriculture and later development

>>23320655
The Greenhouse, Ruf, Wilson analysis of IQ

>>23320884
"Mixed" as in 'Catholics marrying non-Catholics is forbidden'.
It is about religion, not race

File: IQ and education.png (46 KB, 902x375)

46 KB PNG

>>23320655
NTA
This is very well known in IQ research circles. I used to work for a firm that dealt with high IQ people.
And that average has been dropping for 60+ years, too

>>23320976
What about the flynn effect, the tests were re-normed over the years

>>23320934
the Tehuelche, Maasai, Tongans and Mundari - peoples that live in warm climates & follow their natural diet - all at least 6ft

>>23320939
Do you have a direct link, google spits out a plethora of different studies done on disordered children.

>>23320976
>only 3 points drop for high school but >8 for graduate degrees
>only since the 1960s when the decline of upper education was already well under way
Massification of university was a mistake. It should never have been for more than 3% of people born in any given year which is realistically the upper limit that would benefit from a liberal education. All the others could learn on the job.

https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>>23321031
Because of climate.
The Inuits, who lived in the cold, were smaller.

>>23321051
And also education and IQ are separate.

>>23321028
>flynn effect
Tasty meme that is invoked all the time completely out of its legitimate limits (which Flynn himself called out), but in any case taking that into account doesn't change anything to what is being posted.
Undergrad students have average IQs today (100IQ being the normalized mean). That means an undergrad degree today is indicative of only median IQ, whereas it was indicative of a moderately higher than average IQ in the 1960s, when having a diploma meant something compared to the general population and was a good indirect indicator, which it isn't anymore today.
It's been a while that diplomas haven't been even a merely decent proxy for comparative intelligence. Only a few majors like mathematics can still be used this way.

>>23321060
>read this blog post by a dilettante who presents his unsupported personal opinion as fact instead of 80 years of actual, you know, research
lol
lmao, even
YNGMI

>>23321097
Research in a field that people say has many scientific issues, is in desperate need of statisticians because they can't understand stats themselves. Taleb who is a statistician criticizes something that is already being criticized by the scientific consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

>>23321094
The real punchline?
Once you de-normalize BLS data you learn that 4 yar degree holders have been UNDER earning skilled trades for 20 years and getting worse.
The BLAS lumps all trades
>electricians and literal ditch diggers, master plumbers and guys that haul bricks, all as a group
together AND places all managers and business owners in the '4 year degree EQUIVALENT' category.
So that HS grad master plumber who never went to university and makes $800k/year who is incorporated for tax purposes?
The US government counts his income as '4 year degree' income because small business owners "should be" university educated.
And so on.

>>23321094
What about stuff like electrical engineering?
It was my major and the majority of people were also fairly well read, at least above average, and had talents outside of their narrow field.

File: ezgif-1-a6f2245381.jpg (21 KB, 342x203)

21 KB JPG

>>23321080
But when they 'modernised' and abandoned their traditional diets for a western diet, their children weren't as tall, had a narrowed face, crowded teeth, and a reduced immunity to disease.

The primitive Seminole girl left, the civilised Seminole girl born to parents who had abandoned their traditional diet, right

>>23319538
>Millions of couples use donor sperm worldwide.
I'd rather be barren and adopt than have some other man's sperm impregnate my wife, that's so damn pitiable.

>>23321080
btw a warm climate also affects health (vitamin D), humans are tropical animals

Eugenics is already being done my modern sexual market dynamics, how do you people not see this is baffling.

>>23321103
G, or IQ, is one of the few social science/psychology elements that HAS BEEN replicated and is highly predictive.
>Highly general and highly practical. Pages 331–380 in R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
>The development of talent and excellence - Do not dismiss psychometric intelligence, the (potentially) most powerful predictor Aljoscha C. Neubauer
>Jensen, A.R. (2002). Psychometric g: Definition and substantiation. In R.J. Sternberg & E.L. Grigorenko (Eds.), General factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 39–54). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Of, to put it another way, both high-end corporations like Lockheed-Martin as well as the US Military, who don't give a damn about anything but profits/results, have decades of internal analytics proving IQ is real and that it is very, very predictive.
Like I said above, I used to work at a firm that did IQ and skills testing and worked with high IQ individuals. the US military data on G-factor and performance is frickin' scary accurate.
The one that stands out was a young woman we tested my first week on the job. She wanted to be a military intelligence linguist and analyst. her score on the language learning aptitude test were too low to qualify and her G-factor was marginal but the army was short on recruiting and sent her to us. She got "only" a 130 IQ on the test.
The military liaison said
>"We will take her on hope, but the number say she'll fail out on the 5th or 6th week with a score of 62%-68%"
5th week? She failed out with a 63%.
I say that over and over from the military, General Dynamics, and so on.

>>23321147
Eugenics has to be imposed by force, not by voluntary selection.

>>23321133
you lost the thread - none of the Seminole were "at least 6' tall"

File: Screenshot 2024-04-24 at (...).png (113 KB, 1426x508)

113 KB PNG

>>23321158

File: overbred.jpg (58 KB, 590x350)

58 KB JPG

>>23321154
And this boils down to
"The same people that breed dogs until they are cripples? Yeah? Put them in charge of breeding people because that'll work out"

>>23321173
Dogs are the perfect example lol. They are bred for a wide variety of tasks, which sadly also includes looking cute, but that's not the fault of the "eugenic" policy but a fault of the demand.

File: laugh hard.gif (493 KB, 500x375)

493 KB GIF

You
>>23320101
>In indigenous tribes, men shorter than 6' didn't exist.
Also you
>>23321163
>"'Often' is the same as 'always', right?!"

>>23321179
>OK, OK< OK, virtually every animal husbandry effort has resulted in overspecialized, overbred breeds that are sickly and mean that hybrids MUST be introduced to avoid total genetic collapse, any farmer knows this, BUT! *I* am an urbanite and think we should do the same to people!"
Errytime

>>23321128
EE is definitely in the top ten of still mostly intellectual population in academia, if not five if it's largely material/solid-state science classified as EE, as it often is. Even there there's been a small drop but it isn't representative of the overall degradation of college.

>>23321110
I agree with what you said but the posts above were talking about intelligence or IQ, not money. The memes of graduate students ending up with terrible jobs are old by now. yet Jews still manage to convince millions of goyim to pay for overpriced colleges while delaying the start of their wage earning when it makes little sense for them.

>>23321180
semantics seems a petty line to take.
this disproves the crux of my argument how?

>>23321184
We are hugely successful at breeding dogs for specific purposes, this is an obvious fact. Including all the countermeasures you mentioned. Nice try though.
Yeah if we wanted to breed a race of superhuman marathon runners we'd probably get a bunch of Kenyans to breed with each other and in doing so we'd probably introduce some bad traits as well alongside the "run fast marathon" trait. That's not an indictment of eugenics in principle, just a contingency to plan around.

>>23321150
Did you even read what Taleb wrote? It's funny you bring up the military because that's what Taleb brings up as a psychometric peddler looking for suckers. The "high IQ" is exactly the kind of idiot that the military prey on.

>>23321184
>ok ok ok every attempt at flight has resulted in death, but *I* am Wilbur Wright and think we should tweak existing inventions just a bit more and we'll get there

>>23321193
the dogs themselves are less healthy, which is what matters in this case.

>>23321211
Because we breed them for a specific purpose, not for general health, and so we accept some health drawbacks if that means they are noticeable better at doing said task. The exact same reasoning applies to general eugenics, we focus on intelligence and there will probably be a drawback (although that "drawback" is probably a lessened propensity for violence, which would only improve crime rates, but ok)

>>23321147
It really isn't unless you're one of the simps that assumes as an axion that the sexual preference of teenage or twenties girls are somehow "eugenic" even though it's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they select against high IQ and in favor of criminality and a wide range of mental illnesses. I guess they select against small stature if you somehow think this matters and is part of "eugenics".

>>23321218
what about animals bred in captivity? well that's kind of hard to compare but with every case of animals 'wild' means 'healthier' - the thing (nature) demands to be taken seriously.

>>23321236
Yes, I assume that's why "Eugenics Anon" here in the thread kept reiterating that the breeding men should also be physically attractive and not just high IQ only.

>>23319833
You really didnt think about the words you just typed did you?

By your own argument, you just advocated the total health and intellectual decay of a nation because to do otherwise would “stack bodies” . If you are going to apply the slippery slope to his side then you should apply it to your own as well. If you do so, he is winning, so considering that the evidence of an anti eugenic mindset is given ample example in the western world, which can no longer maintain its complex systems and is witnessing a massive decline in literacy and birthrate. Meanwhile on his end, the last group that promoted eugenics was germany, and they were one of the most successful nations in the world while doing so, the other example being current china which is overtaking the west. Seems to me like those who fail to adopt some form of eugenics (“moral” or otherwise” are simply resigning themselves to the waste-bin of stupidity and weakness, to be taken as a slave race by whatever power was not crippled by such an expression of cosmopolitan decadence.

>>23319911
Of course he fails to consider that the potential to entertain the concept of eugenics may have a correspondence with intelligence.

Also there is a failure in this thread to consider that eugenic policy does not need to have a “negative” end on it, only the encouragement of the reproduction of the especially healthy, or sharp minded individuals, proving their worth through civilizational contributions or potentially aptitude tests.

>>23321246
and he feels he should have a hand in good looking people making babies?
this sort of talk in its very weak form is almost meaningless and in its strong form is wrong

>>23319973
Guess you weren't around for the last 4 years. Stanford prison experiment? Mouse utopia? Without eugenics men are most easily able to be turned into mindless golems. Do you claim to care about the well being of all people? Then you should entertain the concept that a wise population is harder to subjugate and eugenics in some form are the key to that.

>>23321282
>golems
j-j-jj-

>>23319984
Lack of illness means individualls live a more happy and fulfilling life, fitness allows one to defend against attackers, intelligence allows the same as well as innovation to bring advancements which improve quality of life. Why does this even need to be explained to you ? Are you just here to argue in bad faith?

Notice how only ugly people get offended by the idea that fast horses breed fast horses.
Read Selective breeding and the birth of philosophy by Costin Vlad Alamariu

>>23319990
Because you cannot operate complex systems to ward off tyranny and foreign oppression with a population entirely composed of the inconsiderate or dull.

>>23320005
I dont advocate sterilization but an imperfect justice system in no way negates the need for a society to produce high capability individuals with sufficient effectiveness to defend against other nations employing the same or more extensive techniques.

>>23321274
>If you do so, he is winning, so considering that the evidence of an anti eugenic mindset is given ample example in the western world, which can no longer maintain its complex systems and is witnessing a massive decline in literacy and birthrate.
Wow the civilization with more selective abortion and euthanasia, sperm donors and selective breeding than any in history is doing worse? Thanks for proving my point you dipshit
>something Germany had a successful eugenics program
So the retarded natsoc finally reveals himself. Germany's eugenics program killed millions (stacking bodies is a myth lol) and what? How were they more successful than any other country. They were still out performed by many other western nations, and even some non western nations.
>well they experienced economic growth or some shit
The Soviet Union experienced more growth more quickly

>>23320016
I would bet 100$ that you do not have children. Your arguments are in bad faith and present an impression that you are a spiteful mutant who wants to burn society down out of spite of rejection.

>>23321315
I'm intelligent, good looking, in good health, have 3 children and agree with that guy. What now?

>>23320091
Projection.

Everyone is more attractive in a state of heath. I assume you are a spiteful pig of a person.

>>23320921
Nigerians and koreans dont have the same sociatal needs Nor same expectations of employment or cost of living. Is this whole board full of disingenuous losers?

>>23321173
The lack of intellectual vigour you just displayed justifies eugenics thoroughly.

“People who breed dogs for capitalism will surely be the same as a population that watches over its own health and development for the betterment of its future state and to ward off subjugation and slavery”

You realize wolves also practice eugenics right?

Rule of thumb: if a thread on /lit/ has more than 50 replies then it’s just 2 people arguing

>>23321355
>You realize wolves also practice eugenics right?
that only happens under severe environmental stress.

>>23321282
None of those experiments have criticisms?

File: gettyimages-589535076-612x612.jpg (31 KB, 612x408)

31 KB JPG

>>23321369
dive in

>>23321312
It really is a disease isnt it....

The society using those tools is occupied by a parasite which is actively using them to employ dysgenics To create a slave race .

The entire western world effectively had to ally against germany in order to win a the war, Clearly had they not dont so they would have lost, not to mention the vast technological advancements that came from them And were adopted by the rest of the workd afterwards ( 40 hour workweek... animal rights... )

The soviet union was propped up by zionists using it as a bludgeon against nationalistic forces in the united states whi had realized they were swindled to adopting internationalism for the benefit of the (sabbatean) zionist lobby to aid its creation of an international slave plantation.

“Revealed himself as a natsoc” you sure you didnt just reveal yourself as a marxist? You realize rothschild backed sabbateans funded that movement dont you? You understand their goal is centralization? Do yoy not conceive that healthy intelligent Nations who can provide for their own are the inly way to ward off an internationalist slave state?

>>23321325
You didnt write the comment and i refer to his attitude of expressing his ideals.

>>23321376
Such as what much of the western world is going through to some degree of another.

Is this an admission that nature justifies eugenics in a time of crisis?

>>23321379
What kind of weak willed refutation is that? All science has criticisms, duh. Can you present a refutation yourself or is this simply an appeal to authority fallacy?

>>23321395
I don't see the point in using fraudulent studies to support your positive claims. To me that makes you arguments weak.

This thread seems to have strengthened my desire for an “ethical” eugenics program. I dont believe the state should have the power to sterilize, nations should be controlled by their ethnic stock for the well being of their ethnic stock, all races deserve autonomy and self reliance in the location that best suits their genetics adaptive needs. All races must practice a form of eugenics however they see fit in order to ward off potential slavers and subjugators. Centralization of world power leads to slavery, both in capitalism and in communism. Fuck the internationalist zionist lobby and everyone in this thread who has been deceived into becoming An arrogant golem for their cause. Fuck all forms of supremacism.

>>23321390
doesn't qualify
& no, because failing like this is unnatural. a natural human is a good hunter and has no need to resort to such things.

>>23321409
Again you failed to provide an actual refutation, do so if you actually care, otherwise you are making a fool of yourself. Show me how they are “fraudulent” to the point of total disregard. One with open eyes would see them verified in the macrocosm of human behaviour of the last few years

>>23321416
t. white supremacist

>>23321417
“Doesnt qualify”
The rate of mental health crisis and housing affordability as well as suicide rates would lead me to believe it does actually.

So in your logic, eugenics cannot be practiced because we are in “unnatural” decay?

In your mind what defines decay as natural or unnatural? Perhaps the decay much if humanity is experiencing is “normal” in the civilizational lifecycle, (toynbee, spengler, yugas/hinduism buddhism, aztecs etc)

Why shouldnt we employ emergency measures to counteract social and biophysical breakdown? Are environmental measures not a form of eugenics ? Is education not? What about public medicine ?

>>23321428
I'm not an expert in the field, so I'm going off what Wikipedia says.

>>23321439
Thats really all you have hey, you simpleton. In a world without slavery there is no room for supremacism, i wish to abolish all forms of slavery, therefore i cannot advocate supremacism. The world is in a state of decay as a result of din bulbs like yourself, i weep for your daily existence both for yourself and those who endure you.

>>23321445
The same website which the former Head of recently admitted was being used to consensus crack and manipulate public opinion? I encourage you to increase your skepticism towards sources of formerly trusted information.

>>23321383
All this schizo nonsense lol. You do realize that the origin of all eugenics is the communist idea of the superman right and that the overwhelming majority of its proponents from Wilson to Sanger Planned Parenthood are leftists right? Aso
>the whole world had to unite to beat Germany all by themselves and that proves eugenics works
My goodness, you truly know fuck all about WW2 don't you. And you think you should be in charge of deciding who gets to breed? Amazing. I hope you don't have children already, otherwise we may have to put them down for the good of the species.

>>23321444
Severe environment stress in this case means "there isn't enough food for the whole pack..."

It's true we're not living naturally, but that won't be helped by further scifi additions to our already dystopian life. Natural means pre-civilisation. With this in mind you probably don't need to hear my thoughts on education & medicine.

>>23321455
It could be true, but even if it was I don't see how it supports your claim that eugenics will solve the behavioral issues from those experiments. The military actively seeks out high IQ individuals. These high IQ people aren't paragons of virtue who avoids being golem-like.

>>23321187
>>>/pol/

>>23321190
Your argument
>No indigenous man was every under 6' tall
Your evidence
>Yes, they were
You refuted your own "argument"

>>23321474
I don't even understand the claim that a higher IQ will genuinely advance the species. There's many personality traits and intelligence is only one and its debatable if it's the most important. Why not integrity and honesty, or health, or bravery, or charisma, or good eyesight? I can find you lots of high IQ people who aren't fit to operate a cash register, raise a child, or anything else. Why is this the only trait that's being considered?

>>23321196
Again, Taleb is a grifter grifting fools and real world experience refutes his unsupported personal opinions.
>Th unmilitary is a racket, maaaaaaaan

>>23321282
>Stanford prison experiment?
Admittedly faked. Can't be replicated. A bad joke among actual scientists.
>Mouse utopia
The experiment that if you artificially crammed overpopulated rodents together in captivity they bred less?
What about them? Neither has ANYTHING to do with eugenics, you racist fool

>>23321304
That happens with a strong emphasis on family, not some racist dweeb measuring skulls

>>23321486
Was six the operative word? They're taller - it was clear enough.
For real evidence, my original statement was directly from a book by Weston Price; the Seminole he met were the ones beyond contact with civilisation living in the Everglade forest and still obtain the native foods.

>>23321493
The math is in the blogpost, literally the most important metric for determining whether something is bullshit. Psychologists fail to understand stats, like misusing p-values. This is supported by studies on statistical power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#Statistical_issues

>>23321315
I have 6 children, five grown and successful.
Now, tell me again how the ability to read is genetic.

>>23321463
So you immediately proceed to character assassination, Fail to recognize that almost all creature in nature practice some form of eugenics (that being the true source of it of course) not to mention agrarian techniques going back as far as human history. Want to actually learn something ? Go read Konrad Lorenz books, most specifically “ON AGGRESSION”.

Of course, you are unaware of “judea declares war on germany” happening for before any other declaration of war, specifically because the industrialization within germany was set to dethrone the prize host of rothschild sabbateans at the time in europe (Britain) , so the cluster of franctional reserve banks these orasites had control of was used to squeeze nations all over the world which not only didnt want to get involved in a war against germany, but wouldnt have won without the zionist lobby controlling them as a puppet army. Of course after the fact the benevolent americans decided to genocide some 900k germans under eisenhower at the behest of the spiteful rothschild who orchestrated this entire conflict.

Ironic you would advocate my sterilization, are you perhaps one of these special people who calls for global centralization under a chosen race?
I wish for the total abolition of subjugation, and i have thoroughly outlined why i believe that the utilization of eugenics in a form excluding sterilization and other “negative” means is required to achieve that.

File: downie.jpg (255 KB, 1200x1200)

255 KB JPG

>>23321335
>OK, OK, OK, when I said 'high rates of female employment' I didn't MEAN high rates of female employment. If you think I did mean high rates of female employment when I said high rates of female employment YOU are being disingenuous.

>>23321474
I dont believe eugenics will directly solve those issues rather i believe those issues to be products of a decaying society which would not exist with the utilization of eugenics. As well i also believe ethnic multipolarity is another cause of thise issues which could be negated by ethnic autonomous regions.

>>23321523
>going on about Rothschilds and Zionists
Any master race that loses the war to subhumans has no right to tell the rest of us what we should be doing with our own family trees. Go to hell

>>23321355
>Yes
FTFY

>>23321471
These additions dont need to be particularly sci fi in my opinion but they do need to be sufficient to ward off potential attackers who may be employing such tactics

>>23321515
>Was six the operative word?
You mean "number", of course.
yes.
The statement you made was clear.
And you personally refuted it.

>>23321491
Other posts in the thread advocate other charactaristics being identified in the pursuit of advancing societal health, not just IQ. Our understanding of what makes society healthy is not maximized and can be improved upon both in and towards the pursuit of eugenic social mechanisms.

>>23321505
Stanford, wasnt replicated due to concerns with human rights, other similar experiments have been conducted under the investigation of mans will to subjugate, with similar conclusions. (Labcoat experiment)

Mouse utopia shows that in our state of maximum decadence we lose the will to breed and become “beautiful ones” as there is no auxillary mechanism to promote health and fertility our civilization will inevitably collapse in a state of enduring plenty.

>>23321550
And who's to decide which is most important and to what degree? The most intelligent? The most honest? And who decides which ones those are? Which technocrats are your favourite choice to make those decisions for the entire species from now until the end of time?

>>23321550
What were eugenicists advocating for in the late 19th/early 20th century?

>>23321547
I stand by it

>>23321512
You make a false equivalency fallacy, when did i state measuring skulls was required to identify individuals who possess great health?

>>23321517
Sorry so are you stating that you are a disgusting stupid individual while youe children are not so that disproves this statement ? Obviously below a certain threshold one will not possess the capacity to learn to read, why does this need to be explained ?

>>23321571
Talk to that retard who thinks the Germans had a good eugenics program because they were doing it. You guys say it worked in the past but then say equating you to those people is some a false equivalence. Do you see how circular this is?