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

©2025 Poal.co

340

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (77).
[–] • 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.