Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

Good traits get amplified in the population, bad traits get reduced or eliminated.

There are many ways to go about it. A civilization automatically exerts a kind of genic stress on a population, some people have more kids and some don't reproduce at all.

You could just pay high IQ, non-psychopaths, that are healthy to have more kids.

You could sterilize people under a certain IQ and who have genetic diseases, something the USA used to do and the Jews objected to because they're actually a low IQ and genetically damaged group.

And there are lots of options in between like sterilizing people after a certain number of children depending on their IQ or other criteria.

The Jewish argument of eugenics is that it's inhumane somehow, but I think having people die because they're deformed or can't take care of themselves, or growing the numbers of defective people until society collapses is less humane.

Eugenics also nicely addresses the issue of unrestrained population growth and decline since you can match the number of births to the amount of people your civilization requires.

I also really want to see what humanity, or the White population since I don't like the idea of picking the direction other races go for them, can become with eugenics.

How smart can Whites become?

How fit can Whites become?

How attractive can Whites become?

How long can Whites come to live without medical assistance?

And I do realize that gene editting is just around the corner, assuming the West doesn't collapse in on itself because it can't handle the basics of what a country is and it screwed over the White Millennials and later Whites to the point they want to take everyone out with them. The idea of editing genomes and switching out body parts is a wonderful day dream that I hope becomes reality.

I also recognize there are problems with gene editing that might take time to resolve, incompatible combinations of genes that make editing a little more complicated than just switching out one gene for another.

It makes sense to start where we are with the tools we have available, and eugenics is something we can do right now.

Good traits get amplified in the population, bad traits get reduced or eliminated. There are many ways to go about it. A civilization automatically exerts a kind of genic stress on a population, some people have more kids and some don't reproduce at all. You could just pay high IQ, non-psychopaths, that are healthy to have more kids. You could sterilize people under a certain IQ and who have genetic diseases, something the USA used to do and the Jews objected to because they're actually a low IQ and genetically damaged group. And there are lots of options in between like sterilizing people after a certain number of children depending on their IQ or other criteria. The Jewish argument of eugenics is that it's inhumane somehow, but I think having people die because they're deformed or can't take care of themselves, or growing the numbers of defective people until society collapses is less humane. Eugenics also nicely addresses the issue of unrestrained population growth and decline since you can match the number of births to the amount of people your civilization requires. I also really want to see what humanity, or the White population since I don't like the idea of picking the direction other races go for them, can become with eugenics. How smart can Whites become? How fit can Whites become? How attractive can Whites become? How long can Whites come to live without medical assistance? And I do realize that gene editting is just around the corner, assuming the West doesn't collapse in on itself because it can't handle the basics of what a country is and it screwed over the White Millennials and later Whites to the point they want to take everyone out with them. The idea of editing genomes and switching out body parts is a wonderful day dream that I hope becomes reality. I also recognize there are problems with gene editing that might take time to resolve, incompatible combinations of genes that make editing a little more complicated than just switching out one gene for another. It makes sense to start where we are with the tools we have available, and eugenics is something we can do right now.

(post is archived)

[–] • 14 pts

What, for humans, we call eugenics, for literally every other species whose breeding we control, it has been common sense for thousands of years.

I don't think we need tyrannous restrictions on anyone's ability to have children. But we'd benefit from incentivizing the smartest, most accomplished, wisest, strongest, and best of us to have more children. We certainly need to stop the dysgenics plan we're running now in the West, where children are a burden for most families, but we pay the weakest of us to have more kids through welfare.

[–] • 4 pts

I'm unlikely to have children as things are, but have a high IQ and have high aptitude for many things that are useful to this civilization.

If they said they would pay 1k a month per child if I married a high IQ woman, I would start having children and they'd have a new generation of engineers, doctors, planners, experts, etc..

I'd turn raising them into a full time occupation and produce as many children as my wife was willing and capable of having.

[–] • 5 pts

If you sneak into swedistan and claim to be a muzzie invader you can get just that.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I would start having children and they'd have a new generation of engineers, doctors, planners, experts, etc..

Wish it worked like that. It is more likely your kids would largely be misfit for reasons you probably don't comprehend right now - the largest of which is, assuming your high intelligence claim is valid, intelligent people don't actually get along with each other, or work well with each other, etc. They are all loners, for many reasons.

Even people of normal intellect, which you probably are (remember we are far dumber than our forefathers, and IQ testing has been adjusted down over the centuries so the average moron remains a 100 - they call this 'renormalization' - your 'high score' is probably yesteryear's 'normal') have issues with this, which is where the old saying of 'some things skip a generation' comes from. In this case, I believe I've found the cause - it stems from child rejection of the parents (and anything they suggest, do, strive for, or want their kids to be), which itself stems from the jewish destruction of the role model early last century:

  • the first prong was substituting fake role models, aimed at males - the invention of comic books and Saturday morning cartoons had much to do with this (your Dad was no longer your role model, Superman/Gi Joe/etc. was)
  • the second prong was the 'corruption' of living role models, aimed at females - Madonna, Betty Boop, Britney Spears, every Disney child star, etc all started pure and virginal to gain their following, then have a 'turning' where they, as feminine role models, devolve into general jewish degeneracy or outright satanic worship.
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

The social problems for people with high IQs is due to isolation in an idiot dominated society.

Imagine if a society was dominated by literal retards and they were making decisions that affect you and as a group rejected your views as wrong because they were not the consensus.

Retards do not like being contradicted, they find it to be an assault on them. Since their views are based on heuristics, they will not even understand logical arguments. That might not be a problem after you become a adult, but as a high IQ child among retards they'll instil a kind of fear of others that turns you into a hermit.

If eugenics was implemented, or high IQ people simply were given their own state or city, that wouldn't be an issue and the currenly high IQ people wouldn't develop into hermits and losers.

[–] • 2 pts

That's the best way to think of it. Stop policy that disincentivizes responsible people from having kids while incentivizing children for the lowest tier of society.

[–] • 2 pts

You know what you get when you give free food to starving Ethiopians? More starving Ethiopians. Just cause those Ethiopians live in Detroit and Nashville doesn't make the statement false.

[–] • 0 pt

But we'd benefit from incentivizing the smartest, most accomplished, wisest, strongest, and best of us to have more children.

That's one reason why argue for having patent rights. That should be enough.

[–] • 0 pt

Just need white bitches to stay in the kitchen. No other fix necessary

[–] • 12 pts

I oppose it. Man playing god is hubris. Social engineering eg Covid rules tend to dystopia. Engineering humans just sounds like it could end badly one way or another.

I'd rather just end welfare for a start. I prefer social and genetic Darwinism. I would consider any one faction, race or society using eugenics to be pursuing a form of social Darwinism in competition with other factions/races/countries but would not hitch my wagon to that horse personally.

I'd rather be free range in chaos then engineered to suit constrictive social forms

[–] • 3 pts

Slam dunk.

Natural selection needs to be a natural process if you don't want a bunch of unintended consequences down the line.

Go buy a purebred dog that doesn't wind up with massive joint problems. It frequently can't be done.

[–] • 0 pt

That's because these dogs are actual monstrosities. Original dogs were wolves.

[–] • 0 pt

Purebreds have problems because of inbreeding, which is easily avoided.

[–] • 2 pts

Ending welfare while our economy is fake and winners and losers are picked by a foreign occupying power probably isn't a good idea.

What happens when White people are denied any employment by the companies the Jews nepotistically take over and there is no welfare.

Granted, I've applied for welfare and didn't get it, I suspect solely because I'm a White male, so welfare doesn't do me any good at all.

Technology means that the USA labor demand will always be smaller than the population going forward, to eliminate ways that currency is injected into the system would cause population collapse.

The only real expenditures in the USA over the past 40 years has been producing cars, servicing the utilities, servicing housing, and food production and distribution. The technology though requires almost no one to be involved with that and so the US White population has collapsed without the necessary injection of capital to keep people alive and reproducing.

Our economic and demographic situation can't be boiled down to just that obviously, there are many factors.

[–] • 3 pts

We don't have a lack of work that needs doing. We have a lack of leadership to direct people into being socially and economically productive.

The Federal government is growing like cancer and its doing so by wielding massive power via the central banks. Pouring phony money into pork, pet projects and control of people.

We need sound money and limited government. By sharing the petrodollar you become joined to people you despise because it is politicized money. It can be printed out of thin air and spent on whatever (((they))) choose to spread degeneracy and learned helplessness

[–] • 1 pt

Work in the USA means putting stuff on shelves for people to buy or sitting behind a desk doing nothing productive all day for the most part.

If it were me, I would restructure the economy around technological and scientific research instead of the nothingness that the USA's economy is currently built around.

Pouring phony money into pork

What do you have against pork? Are you a Semite and can't eat it? I love pork.

We need sound money and limited government.

We don't absolutely need sound money, but the fiat hasn't been used for the interests of the nation, but the interests of the foreign Jewish population occupying it; so fiat has to go to break their stranglehold on the West. If the Jews were gone and multi-ethnicism was dismantled, we could keep fiat granted the West had White central planners with their objectives straight and the intelligence to realize it using something as complicated as a floating currency system.

We have a lack of leadership to direct people into being socially and economically productive.

You're certainly right about that. Jewish nepotism in the Western governments and media has made these important institutions incompetent to the point of inevitable collapse. Jewish intelligence is a just a marketing scam of ethnic self promotion; they actually have a lower IQ than the average White, by and large, and it's a wide margin, something like 15 IQ points on average. The average IQ in Israel is 96. The average IQ in the USA which is half non-White is 101, I think, so the White average IQ is somewhere around 110 I imagine.

[–] • 2 pts

I prefer social and genetic Darwinism

It's how we came to be, when natural greatness wasn't squashed by governments.

[–] • 1 pt

Do the opposite of Welfare. Tax breaks for fit people with large families that score high on IQ tests. That'd be eugenics.

[–] • 0 pt

. Social engineering eg Covid rules tend to dystopia

Look around.

[–] • 12 pts

Most people think about eugenics incorrectly. All government policy has an effect on the genetic future of the country. A policy is either eugenic or dysgenic. Very few are neither. Supporting dysgenic policy is obviously evil. So the question whether or not you support eugenics, it's whether you support eugenics or dysgenics. It's easy for libfags to trash talk eugenics, it's hard for them to support dysgenics. Any government that does not take into consideration the genetic effect of it's policies is malicous.

[–] • 4 pts

I love eugenics. If you want to build a better race then you need to do it right.

[–] • 2 pts

Formerly based Canada was still involuntarily sterilizing Indians in the mid-1970s.....now they have lost their way.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

The issue is that it's the people in power who decide who precisely gets sterilised. In a perfect world you describe, no worries. But this one, where you would have the current batch of green haired fuckwits making decisions on who should and shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

[–] • 1 pt

You're right. This regime will have to go and be replaced with a competent one that represent White interests exclusively before eugenics can be implemented.

[–] • 1 pt

Until then, it can't work at all and would end up backfiring.

[–] • 0 pt

These anti-White regimes in the West will likely be gone soon.

They're too incompetent to keep things running and if they aren't thrown out, they'll flee to avoid the massive fallout of their own policies.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

I'm not opposed to the idea. But there's not a single government I would trust to implement it.

[–] • 0 pt

Right now the governments of just about every single country in the world is indoctrinating the sheep, and it's working that the heterosexual white male is the root of every single problem that exists.

If the governments were to implement eugenics, they would use it to eliminate whitey. Whitey refuses to be controlled. Everybody else is very easy to control. Give them a pair of Nike shoes and they will be the most obedient slave any jew could possibly want.

They wouldn't use eugenics to better the world. They would use it to better themselves.

[–] • 2 pts

Eugenics is based and redpilled.

[–] • 2 pts

Eugenics claims to be for the greater good, but always focuses on the negative. Instead of cultivating good gene lines, it focuses on eliminating bad ones.
Furthermore, eugenics has a history of focusing on politically undesirable people, typically involving non-consensual sterilization.
What I'm saying is, it's a double-edged sword that can easily be used for means unrelated to improving genetics through managed breeding.
Bring back a society supporting of arranged marriage before you go removing the uteruses and testicles of the underclass.

[–] • 1 pt

Having high IQ people have more kids is focusing on the positive, not the negative.

Right now, in the USA we're going under because too many people are too stupid to see the situation accurately or do anything effective to resolve it.

I don't look forward to where this mad house is heading next if eugenics of some form isn't implemented.

[–] • 2 pts

undeniable, but hard to implement.

also, look at yow many crumby mistakes are made by professionals is there own fields--and how bad industries/businesses can be with poor leadership and ill-fit leaders: there are certain traits we would certainly want to enhance, but what if other traits are overlooked due to our lack of understanding (e.g. health is boosted but sociability is reduced or aggression is boosted, or intelligence is raised but creativity is stifled [these are just spit-balls to get the idea across]).

I recommend looking at the Russian fox experiment. Selective breeding is effective--and necessary when natural selection hardly applies. When the experiment was done superfluous traits tailed along with desired ones: curly tails for instance emerged when selecting for docility, this was unforeseen.

What would they select for in this political environment, and how bad would the "experts" fuck that up?--everyone makes mistakes, and genies are hard to put back in bottles.

Would you want to breed all leaders (or people with traits moving in that direction?)--can you have a society with all people suited for that? Our race and civilization owes much of its success not just to intelligence but original thinking and cooperation--to submit or lead when necessary. A lot we have not addressed, nor can address in the scientific arena of this horseshit politically correct climate.

personally I think we lack the understanding for sociology for such an endeavor.

the best we could do practically is kill off those born with innate handicaps that would otherwise lead to certain death outside of civilization at birth (as the ancient Greeks did); and incentivize (monetarily with State finances) a higher birth rate for those already breeding who have a whole spectrum of desirable traits [kids are expensive, and the wrong people are the ones having them]. You would not import undesirable genetics.

Encouraging younger marriage over today's "normal" is also essential--getting married at 30 wastes years of potential breeding.

[–] • 2 pts

undeniable, but hard to implement.

It would be hard to implement with government having so little legitimacy at the moment and the mainstream media serving the purpose of merely being an antagonistic force in the Western world. It would cause a tremendous blow back if they tried it right now.

If the Western world had leadership that represented White interests and gave me control over the media, I think I could convince the Western population to get onboard for eugenics. It's a really important issue to me, I see the dysgenics in the West as a core element of the problems the West faces.

there are certain traits we would certainly want to enhance, but what if other traits are overlooked due to our lack of understanding (e.g. health is boosted but sociability is reduced or aggression is boosted, or intelligence is raised but creativity is stifled [these are just spit-balls to get the idea across]).

That's something that concerned me too. It's why I normally leave things like aggressiveness out of any discussion I have about eugenics. Some traits are valuable in certain situations. The passivity in the USA for instance might as well be a death sentence for the nation since without a certain amount of aggression people just roll over for any terroristic campaign or totalitarian tip toe.

I recommend looking at the Russian fox experiment. Selective breeding is effective--and necessary when natural selection hardly applies. When the experiment was done superfluous traits tailed along with desired ones: curly tails for instance emerged when selecting for docility, this was unforeseen.

I'm familiar with the experiment I think you're refering to. They postulated that dog domestication was a kind of infantilization.

What would they select for in this political environment, and how bad would the "experts" fuck that up?--everyone makes mistakes, and genies are hard to put back in bottles.

Implementing eugenics with the current regime is not something I would advocate for, they'd go to work eliminating the White population and get the planet rendered uninhabitable for their trouble.

Would you want to breed all leaders (or people with traits moving in that direction?)--can you have a society with all people suited for that? Our race and civilization owes much of its success not just to intelligence but original thinking and cooperation--to submit or lead when necessary.

I have noticed something with people of increasing intelligence. As they become more intelligent their views become more similar and that increases cooperation due to seeing situations where they can mutually benefit from cooperation. I don't know that I would correlate that with leadership, but who leads is almost irrelevant when everyone has come to the same conclusion independently.

I think the sheeple trait is dangerous, though I don't know if it's genetic yet. People that don't think rationally and are quick to form irrational mobs are a source of tremendous instability.

Encouraging younger marriage over today's "normal" is also essential--getting married at 30 wastes years of potential breeding.

I think you're right about that for the time being. But after the non-White invasion into the West is resolved and the population recovers and the general intelligence has been boosted with eugenics, I think it would be advisable to delay the age of reproduction by small increments to increase the unassisted lifespan of humans. Longer lifespan could be a double edged sword though, if the age where reproduction is physiologically possible is also delayed it could make the population less flexible if a genetic shift to another trait becomes necessary due to the reduced annual birth rate.

[–] • 1 pt

Eugene sounds like a pretty cool dude.

Load more (16 replies)