Eugenics

I believe that the idea of Eugenics should be renewed, perhaps not in the way it has been used in the past, but in some sort it is desirable and perhaps necessary.

Any such program should be based on positive Eugenics rather than negative Eugenics, that is to say enabling the good not disabling the poor. Even if a person has a disability of some kind, if they have been successful enough to afford and be able to have children, they should not be prevented as clearly their positive traits have overcome their negative.
Nevertheless we see few children are birthed in developed nations as the cost of living has increased compared to what it was in the past. This means that more suitable parents often wait and have fewer children, whilst less intelligent parents may have more children earlier and have them all spend time in poverty. This has the potential for a dysgenic effect.
My proposal is that we offer government pay based on the average cost of raising a child for all couples that are neither incestuous nor foreign (i.e. less than 50% native blood and/or less than 100% general European blood). Pay would be offered for x amount of children based on certain criteria of the parent couple, with increases in pay per child and other benefits for higher weighted groups.
These criteria could include:
IQ
height
strength
athleticism
attractiveness
lack of a criminal record
high testosterone (for men)
solid career
low likelyhood of genetic diseases
parental virtues (father not a nu-male, and mother not a whore)
selected phenotypes, i.e. blond/red hair, blue eyes (preferably lower weighted than others since I'd rather have a race of intelligent brunettes than dimwitted weakling blonds)
etc.

We need our peoples to breed, and we need the better of us to breed more.

Attached: Hercules.jpg (893x893, 544.67K)

no it cant work, you need the whole development, like ancient greek paideia, not just breeding, but child rearing, education, fitness, healthy crops to eat. adequate relaxation.

You can convince politically ignorant, but normal people, that eugenics is positive. Just don't use trigger words and they'll agree with the logic that is eugenics. Including negative... preventing criminals from having children

Start by having your own family, jackass.

Perhaps, but that would be a radical change to our society to a point unrecognisable to any other time in history. The proposal in OP is a relatively simple policy that could be implemented without such a radical change.

Obviously I'm going to; I am in university to get a large enough income to support a large family. Still it is always good to have concern for the nation as a whole, especially during these times.

>lack of a criminal record
>solid career

I would rather be a criminal than have a career by today's standards. Careers are dysgenic.

That'll be the way eventually, and China will lead in this regard I'm sure.

Liberal cucks will win the social war because the right is a pathetic husk of it's former glory. mfw all future generations are black and disabled by design.

Attached: 1585338805020.png (566x580, 438.23K)

Attached: 1584122895916.jpg (1200x640, 103.6K)

You realise if eugenics were implemented in bongland 85-90% of you bongs would be steralised right? U bongs Arent known for having Good genes you know that?

Attached: 1587427365893m.jpg (1024x541, 73.09K)

That is true, which is why there is a balnce required. Selecting for purely low violence would result in a race of weaklings. It is reducing neuroticism and increasing self control that is key.
If you are proposing a lawless society as being ideal selection pressure then you are calling for the destruction of civilisation itself, which is what we are trying to avoid.

And the race left over would be stronger for it. Also note that I advocate for positive Eugenics rather than negative Eugenics. Mass sterilisation doesn't work if it results in lower than replacement levels, rather encouraging the strongest among us to breed more results in better genes becoming more common. Far less disruptive and potentially gives better results in the long term.

You think Europeans ever needed laws to work together and build a society? You think out here in my goat fuck middle of nowhere town with 3 cops to a population of 6000 needs laws to know not to make problems?

Laws are there to make the poorly bred exist among the well bred and to give bureaucrats more power to make dysgenic policies.

You need to draw about 2 or 3 general rules for some collective fluency and the rest comes down to individuals being driven by their own individual dynamic. And if anyone wants to make stupid problems they can have their skull crush and their women raped inside out.

The fact that people are not okay with killing is one of the reasons why so many sub-humans get ahead of those building what's best.

Honestly: i would rather prefer a girl who looks exactly like me, but female..

This is the natural selection, the natural order and noone can change nature.

That is a fair point but does not strike against the core of my argument. If you wish to argue against the need for written laws as they currently exist then fine, but even in a tribal society people refrained from needlessly murdering those from the same tribe. This did not make them weak, in fact it was vital for the tribe to survive.
If you do not select for lowered violence, at least as it pertains to their own countrymen, then you may well end up with a society of people that commit random acts of murder or assault, and that will not be a society that lasts very long.

As much as sub-humans lack impulse control, they rarely attack those in their "group". That's usually limited to their gang or their family, but even they understand that attacking their own is not a good strategy. Hell, even animals do.

Violence is violence. There's no way to select for lower or higher violence.

The only selection is between the predisposition to wield violence well and to not wield violence well.

Non-Europeans are genetically incapable of wielding violence for constructive measures, they can't even commit the most brief and brutal acts of violence, they have to keep going at it until there's nothing left. (So for instance, complete extermination of them is proportionate violence conducted well despite it being an extermination event).

Random acts of violence are what the enemy would call "surprise attacks". You want men to always be prepared and willing to die, you want them ready to kill anyone at a moments notice with nothing more than a singular shared look between the group.

Yes, but evidently we have. Any idiot can survive today, no longer the strongest and smartest. Without an evolutionary pressure to keep up us strong and intelligent we will inevitabley regress.
Also you are right in that you should marry your own, but that is not the complete picture.

They've been attacking others and themselves since forever. Their society are proof of this.

"Me against my brother, me and my brother against my father, my family against the tribe, everyone against the infidels".

That's how they function.

That is indeed what I would prefer, but as you said non-constructive violence is what needs to be reduced. I was refering to a man randomly killing someone, especially a woman or child, not a dispute between rival men or groups. Random acts of violence help no one.
Surprise attacks can be fine for an actual enemy you have a feud with, but with a random passerby, no that doesn't help.
Having strong in group bias is also good.

Yes they have, but between gangs. I'm not saying niggers are united as one people, I am saying that the tribes that make up niggers society may fight each other, but they generally have low in fighting. It's similar to a chimpanzee troop, other than establishing dominance they do not needlessly kill those from their own group (i.e. their tiny tribe not the race as a whole).

nope you just need babies, genes will out

>I was refering to a man randomly killing someone, especially a woman or child,

Killing women and children is how you kill the enemy. You remove their future entirely.

They have high infighting. All non-European societies are like this, all of them. It's why they don't work.

Why everything jews propose has to involve gibs? WTF?