Eugenics and the beauty of math

I see many people argue against it, but i fail to see what exactly is wrong with it. Would you rather be born as a healthy, smart and handsome superman than some sick, ugly and dumb creature that spends entire life struggling to survive? It seems quite sadistic to let someone experience a life like that, and yet most of bleeding heart liberals fully support it, and even encourage such people to reproduce as much as possible, bringing misery to countless next generations. That also brings profits to entire industries built upon people being ugly, sick, unhappy etc.

Most of them are conditioned to automatically imagine the most brutal and inhumane ways to do it when mentioned, and they start appealing to emotions right away. Or, they start feeling threatened.

While in reality, there is absolutely no reason for it, as it can be done in a very humane and rational way. The main problem with previous eugenic programs is that they were mostly financed by industrialist kikes who wanted to create a perfect goyim/slave and not a superman. They wanted a healthy horse, not someone who is better than them or their degenerate heirs.

How to solve this issue then? Simply, use math. For example, if we limit every family in the world to a single child, the world population would halve in a (hypothetical) generation. Also, since the number of white people is smaller compared to other races, they would lose less people. 100 niggers would have 50 children (A loss of 50 people) , 80 whites would have 40 children ( A loss of 40 people) and so on. While the ratio might remain the same, you would go from having 20 niggers more to having 10, to having 5 and so on. Of course, this is just one example, where we can gain even in a fully universalist setting.

The point is that, you didn't kill anyone (either directly or indirectly) nor did you take away anyone's right to reproduce. If we allow genetically superior people to have more than one child, while allowing the genetically inferior (people and races) to live and even reproduce (unless they have some very serious hereditary condition or are literally retarded), we would eventually achieve the goal of having a genetically refined humanity.

This sounds exactly like my own idea for Eugenics, and I'm happy to hear you came to the same conclusions. This reminds me of convergent evolution.

The beauty is that almost everyone will have a child, so they won't feel that their life was wasted or that they were a dead end. One can only imagine how depressing it must be to have no children at all. Of course, exceptions should be raised for those with serious illnesses.

Anyway, we must form a discussion of what it means to "allow" a birth anyway. Do we continually tax people for having more than one child if they're deemed unfit for it (probably not so effective), take away a benefit (much more effective), or do really invasive things, like forced abortions, etc.

Honestly, as much of a Nationalist that I am, you must understand that even your Nordic ancestors would fucking throw a fit and be ashamed of a government that forces abortions or incarcerates the lower class for doing what comes naturally.

In general, Freedom is very important to wellbeing you wouldn't want people telling you what you can and can't read or watch, like criminalizing pornographic materials–that moralist shit is infuriating and gives us a bad reputation, and one can still have freedom while maintaining order. The difficult thing is to figure out how to achieve just that.

It's because they are self-righteous hypocrites. Upholding the weak and destitute gives them a sense of superiority and virtue but would any of them want to be born with 1/4 of a brain? I doubt it. They are in a race for the bottom of the barrel: he who helps the lowest is the most virtuous. This is basically Bolshevism when it's used against us.

Helping others is certainly virtuous but a culture and people centred around it will be too busy at the bottom of the mountain and will never climb it. All the while you have those that will exploit this situation to fill the world with mundane and sickly creatures, forcing mediocrity by chaining superior beings into the sphere of inferior ones. This is against nature and is essentially devolution, for if this situation were widespread nothing would be left but microbes.

Exactly. And there is even another mathematical boon. Let's assume that everyone is looking to reproduce with a partner who has better genes than they do (on a purely biological level, let's disregard other factors at the moment). With current setting, we have an over-supply of inferior genes, and a very limited supply of superior ones. That makes the great majority of people unhappy, and they might turn to all kinds of self-destructive and socially destructive behaviors because of that. It also creates cutthroat atmosphere that is very destructive long term.

If we encouraged genetically superior people to reproduce in greater quantities, all while discouraging inferior ones, there would be a greater supply of "optimal" partners (bringing much higher overall happiness and social cohesion) and the differences would become less and less apparent. Plus, from the point of genetics and evolution, even the people who appear most inferior hold some very valuable genetic data (immunity to some diseases for example). That way we would avoid creating genetic bottlenecks with our still limited knowledge.

MUH FREEDUMZ

Well, for this to be truly implemented, some kind of serious authority is required anyway. Give people absolute freedom, and you get democracy, and with democracy you get dysgenics and death of civilization. Of course, you can never have 100% efficiency, but there are all kinds of measures which can be implemented. Education, encouragement, penalties etc.

There is something awfully psychopathic about their "virtue" . They are essentially egomaniacs who are too weak to get what they want through open confrontation so they resort to all kinds of jewy behavior and supplementation.

Not on Holla Forums surely?

In general.


How is it pro-freedom to limit the freedom of future generations? A healthy, strong, and intelligent man has much, much greater freedom than someone who is restrained by his physical and mental flaws.

1. prevention
2. cure

wouldn't a society that advantages the healthy and disadvantages the unhealthy do good enough a job as natural selection?

you'd also have to consider desirable behavioral traits, on top of overall health.

These threads always reek of subhumans same as those genetic engineering threads. Whites don't need to change we need less subhumans walking around and their kike handlers destroying everything that is good.

From the standpoint of reproduction, sure.


You sound pretty subhuman yourself.

I'll admit I didn't even read your OP but after actually reading it I'm convinced you are retarded. Also seems like you are implying someone isn't to blame for this mess.

name of book?

Not an argument.

Ignore him, user, we've been getting heavily shilled within the past few months.

They're trying to push that
1.) Holla Forumsacks hate all gays, with no exceptions. Being gay is a choice (typical cuckservative/rightist Christian stance) never mind that personality is 80% genetic

2.) Pornography is very bad and should be banned because the Jews have involvement in it.

Look, Holla Forums's silent comfortability with waifus and porn and their stance on genetics when it comes to gays
ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE MAKING US SEEM REASONABLE AND MAKING OUR MEMES THAT MUCH MORE POWERFUL

They're trying to give us that hard we love boots up our ass discipline-worship mentality that a lot of rightist Christians seem to have. Also, Christians are excruciatingly awkward when it comes to discussing sex, or sex related memes, which makes them so memetically underpowered (a lot of loosh owes to Luna/Yesod).

You know what most young people don't like? Stale moralists who hate fun. They will then associate love of race with hardship and deprivation, when in reality love of race should be fun.

At one time the Spartans were capable of such a wise measure, but not our present, mendaciously sentimental, bourgeois patriotic nonsense. The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of sick, weak, deformed children, in short their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.

-Adolf Hitler

Sounds more like the parents had great genes and thus the kids succeeding was only likely.

Bring up Genius by Laszlo Polgar. Only available in Hungarian and out of print. Basically he studied the lives of many geniuses and found that they became focused on a particular subject at an early age. He proposed that if you make your child focus on a singular subject in a positive/loving manner, they will become exceptional.

Regarding the topic of nature vs nurture, I concede that genetics generally are more important because nurture is often of poor quality. At the same time though, we are often tempted to discount evidence to the contrary by just claiming any failures on a person's part are solely due to just not being born with good enough genetics. So what if this person was subjected to physical and sexual abuse as a child. So what if there was no father in the home. If their genetics were just better it wouldn't matter.

Modern eugenics is too authoritarian and inorganic. But I think you're right in not looking for a solution that leads to life becoming cheap.

If you don't mind me Germabooing for a sec, Tacitus tells us one extremely interesting fact about proto-Germans: Their pairing practice was a combination of romance and arranged marriage. Basically, a woman could hold off on marriage and choose her husband, but there was a cultural norm/pressure of pairing up similar-aged people of similar stature. Generations of this yielded pretty interesting results.

So maybe genetic fitness should be a cultural thing? Something the ordinary person is consciously aware of and not afraid to speak about. Something families and communities discuss, rather than a matter for laboratories. The programming is there already; people have no problem shaming a short or bald man. At the same time, tall fit dudes should feel equally stupid for bringing home their 5'1" cutie. You might think focusing on height is vain, it is, but it lays the foundation for people seeing genetic health as a matter-of-fact thing. All other qualities fall into place in the discussion after.

I don't think it's optimal for people to be test tube ant people, baby chuckers or inherently unfit so I'm defaulting to this. Sorry if I sound dumb.

...

It's too bad people have the kneejerk to eugenics because "muh hitler gassing cripple and potatos", and nigger tier logic like "but stephen hawking wouldn't have been born" as if not having neurodegenerative disease prevents someone from being good at physics. We have been doing eugenics on animals and plants for ages, and it works great, none of those bullshit objections people raise to eugenics have been a problem in practice.

In fact, we've been doing eugenics on people too up until very recently, because this ridiculous idea that people should be free to decide to have as many children as they feel like, without being beholden to law of neither God nor man, the wishes of their parents and relatives, or societal mores, is purely an invention of modernity. Back when children born out of wedlock were called bastards and their mothers branded adulteresses, wasn't that basically a soft eugenics that culled all the half witted whores who only think with their vaginas?

But the good news is, you can totally do eugenics even today, Hitler or not. Many countries already do it. India for instance pays about $300 to women who sterilize themselves, a program which has stopped countless poor morons from breeding and becoming an even bigger drain on society. I think this is a good modern solution: Pay "undesirables" to sterilize themselves, and make it a sum that only seems big to an undesirable. Valuable people would have jobs anyway, they wouldn't need such money, but nobody could seriously complain because hey, it's all voluntary and non-discriminatory. But in a place like America there is actually a mountain of dysgenic regulation: Ie. monetary incentives to irresponsible child birthing that are significant only to the poor and workshy. So first you have to get rid of those.

I'd add them pushing the "gas all kikes, no exceptions" narrative to the list, as they want to make us appear like their Hollywood script nazis (that were real in their mind) and reinforce their own in-group preference that's already on a very shaky basis. Otherwise your average Jew would have zero reasons to support mid and top level kikes. But that's another story.


Remember when any "Christian" posting on chans was automatically assumed to be a troll?


Being a genius at one thing, and retarded for everything else is not really being a genius. Most average and mediocre people can do that. Just look at the Chinks. A real genius is excellent in many fields, but excels in one (that interests him the most, not the one he was conditioned by his parents or society to pursue)


Modern eugenics is an attempt by industrialist kikes to create a) a perfect goy b) a perfect kike . Of course, they had no idea what they were doing because they don't understand organic and generative principles. The method which i suggested, with 2/3 artificial and 1/3 organic selection seems to be most optimal. Of course, we would need to determine which characteristics are most desirable first.

I understand your point, but the problem with cultural conditioning is that it can be easily hijacked and corrupted. Someone's physical and mental traits got replaced with money as the most desired trait. Now ask yourself, who has very bad mental and physical characteristics, and a lot of money.

It's too bad people have the kneejerk to eugenics because "muh hitler gassing cripple and potatos", and nigger tier logic like "but stephen hawking wouldn't have been born" as if not having neurodegenerative disease prevents someone from being good at physics. We have been doing eugenics on animals and plants for ages, and it works great, none of those bullshit objections people raise to eugenics have been a problem in practice.

In fact, we've been doing eugenics on people too up until very recently, because this ridiculous idea that people should be free to decide to have as many children as they feel like, without being beholden to law of neither God nor man, the wishes of their parents and relatives, or societal mores, is purely an invention of modernity. Back when children born out of wedlock were called bastards and their mothers branded adulteresses, wasn't that basically a soft eugenics that culled all the half witted whores who only think with their vaginas?

But the good news is, you can totally do eugenics even today, Hitler or not. Many countries already do it. India for instance pays about $300 to women who sterilize themselves, a program which has stopped countless poor morons from breeding and becoming an even bigger drain on society. I think this is a good modern solution: Pay "undesirables" to sterilize themselves, and make it a sum that only seems big to an undesirable. Valuable people would have jobs anyway, they wouldn't need such money, but nobody could seriously complain because hey, it's all voluntary and non-discriminatory. But in a place like America there is actually a mountain of dysgenic regulation: Ie. monetary incentives to irresponsible child birthing that are significant only to the poor and workshy. So first you have to get rid of those.


The unhealthy are already disadvantaged by virtue of their own poor health. The problem is the government artificially giving them an advantage.

Valuable to whom? The holy market? Smart people wouldn't work in a scenario where they get screwed by both their bosses and the government, unless they really have to. "Free" market is quite dysgenic itself, but i really have to go to sleep now, i'll explain tomorrow if this thread is still alive.

This is great but it would take a long fucking time to be implemented into a law. Imagine the backlash if you even mentioned this in public at the current state of society. Imagine if a senator introduced this concept, they would be laughed at and ridiculed.

This would be something that might happen in 20 years, if we are lucky.

Gas your self

...

This post is 100% right

People get triggered by it because its too right, its too good

Globalists (the useful idiot ones) want a world where literally all bad shit is allowed to exist because (insert warped logic here)
The ones pulling the strings want it because docile goyim slave species

The issue is that there really is a large group of rightist Christians. In my experience, they're on the younger side (and I'm sitting at 24 years of age) being 16-20ish, who have looked to Nationalism to ride our waves back into fashion with their shitty proto-Marxist moralisms.

Anyway, I'm positive there are many good Christians on Holla Forums, but when really has me agitated more than ever is that
1.) Many argue for censorship on the internet
2.) Their belief of eternal, excruciating torture for human error is degenerate. This became very disgusting to me after learning things in the occult, and being so traumatized by qliphothic lies that I couldn't even function at the time. Luckily, souls/spirits, while possibly having indefinite lifespans, are not immortal This is very serious, as interest in the occult is growing, and misinformation can be very deadly.
3.) Demonization of misfits who desperately need our help.

I don't really want conflict with them or to splinter Holla Forums, as race comes before god(s), but it does seem like Christians, or the shills who masquerade as them, are doing serious harm to our image. I could tolerate shills in the past, but this shit has gotten rotten.

Don't wanna derail, got any links/info on this?
I've never met an occultist who subscribed to the mortality of the soul.

I think it was Lebnitz that said that just as motion follows motion, so does perception follow perception. A lot of occultists have this thing where souls have this innateness to keep … going , on and on, like a wheel .

Eugenics is as simple as this:
Subsidize those traits we want to potentiate, for example give economical incentive to high IQ couples for every children they have, and decentivize low IQ couples from breeding more than 2 children, with economic sanctions.
Simple to implement, everyone can have at least 2 kids, if you want more and you are stupid you have to pay to society. Not the unfairest thing in life, the kike concept of eugenics is what most people have been sold. Eugenics is the best and fastest way to have free societies and for the people to fight against hostile elites.

Yes. And we need to understand how exceptional creative ability really works, for eugenic purposes. It may be something completely different from IQ, but work properly only with IQ>110, for example.

Depends on what you define as a soul. If you're referring to your conscious experience, like your spirit, then yes spirits have been slain many times on the astral plane. Maybe your deeper consciousness is created anew somewhere, but I don't know. To me, a soul is a collection of thoughtforms, which may be sapient or not. You are not your tulpa, but nonetheless you share a soul. So effectively, yes, you can die in the sense that makes intuitive sense to you.

However, Christians treat souls and spirits as being the same term, so that's where I'm coming from.

Why not just use genetig engeneering? Alter every shitskin's genes so that their kids are born white.

Sage because of pointless intellecual masturbation thread.

Nah, if anything you'll get monsters like the modern showdogs.
It's a bad idea overall.

Bump

Yes goy, make everyone the same. Everyone will become blue eyed and blonde haired and white!


wew you kikes want to achieve your "one human race" ideal no matter what.

If you allow yourself to be chained by a current state, there will never be any other state.


Christian indoctrination is a serious problem, but it would take a wall of text for me to explain it, so let's leave it for some other thread. It being used to censor wrongthink and ensnare souls into a web of lies is nothing new. Christianity is one of oldest psyops in the book.


But having healthy, strong, intelligent and educated population would literally be another shoah!


Your soul is essentially immortal, but under certain conditions it can be "reset" to a lowest state, so you become as dead as a rock for billions of years until the world around you doesn't evolve to a point where consciousness is possible again, losing all the memory (even incorporeal one) of what happened before. This is essentially what happens at the start of every cycle.


Because we are nowhere near the technology where that would be possible without horrible long term consequences. Also, because organic evolution has near-infinite detail of finesse that we will most likely never be able to match, so we can end up creating biological robots at best. Just like certain someone tried to do.