Was stopping the pursuit of eugenics one of the greatest mistakes

>>129013193
Yes

no, eugenics is evil
>>129013366
you bet'not support it ugly face british inbred

>>129013193
Yes but Yes
We need diversity in answers

>>129013631
The girl in the picture is British, non-country.

>>129013193
Sweden was practising it up until the '70s. Yet most of that nation seems to be "feeble-minded".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

>>129013193

Yes.

File: 1493824110265.png (67KB, 468x466px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 468x466px

>>129013193
yes

>>129013193
Well sort off. I mean it's good for picking up traits but you lose diversity. And I'm not talking about brown ((((diversity)))) but different types of whites and some asians. Maybe just getting rid of undesirable traits.

File: 1489881106033.webm (751KB, 608x1080px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 608x1080px

>>129013193
Nope EUGENICS IS RAYCIST

File: vd63SlV.jpg (147KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 667x1000px

>>129013193
Yes, if Hitler had won each single woman would be as beautiful as her.

>>129014796
u r gay

File: Wernher von Braun.png (350KB, 392x487px)

350KB, 392x487px

>>129013193
Each single man would be as intelligent as Wernher von Braun if we had eugenics.

>>129013193
if the u.s. had done eugenics most of /pol wouldn't be he-

File: Eugenics.jpg (52KB, 640x361px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 640x361px

Only healthy seed must be sown.

File: EmilieNereng.jpg (99KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 667x1000px

>>129016783
That's a non-point because there wouldn't be any demand for /pol/ if there were eugenics. The world would pretty much universally be in line with what it wanted. Well, there's the argument that there would be leftypol or whatever and it would just take the place of regular /pol/, but whatever, point remains.
>>129016747
>>129016454
I don't think that's how it works, you could get relatively quick or gradual gains which affected things drastically though, a national increase in IQ by 2-5 points in a generation would cause massive increases in scientific output, etc.

>>129013193
> Was stopping the pursuit of eugenics one of the greatest mistakes of Western countries in the 20th century?
we have eugenics now, it's called tinder

and it's shit

Eugenics haven't been stopped.
>promoting homosexuality and feminism
>campaigning for open borders and interracial relationships
>taxing the successful and giving welfare to the stupid
This is eugenics in anything but name. A program to breed out the smartest, and replace them with obedient slaves.

File: elsa wheat field.jpg (153KB, 499x750px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 499x750px

>>129013193
>>129013631

Yes. Guess (((who))) is behind it's suppression?

https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/07/against-good-breeding/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ1YVM_H_dk
http://www.eugenics.net/

>>129013193
eugenics never stopped
men nowadays are put into a highly competitive environment and they only get to procreate if hey are economically successful. Those who fail end up as lonely virgins on 4chan.

Women can gain status through education and a job. Because women only want to marry men with a higher status then themselves. Women are competing for the few successful men. Those who fail end up alone. Maybe get pregnant with a sperm donor. The less educated women get knocked up by a degenerate thug and end up as poor single moms.

The end result is a wealthy highly selected upper class and a degenerate mixed lower class. And the lower class probably will be killed of in the next world war.

>>129022200
> men nowadays are put into a highly competitive environment and they only get to procreate if hey are economically successful.
Poorer people have more children than richer people and the state subsidizes people who aren't wealthy to be able to have children.

>>129022200
>men nowadays are put into a highly competitive environment and they only get to procreate if hey are economically successful
My, cross dressing when depressed, NEET weed dealing friend didn't get the memo apparently

File: 17760229_10211943126120759_4984631916323795767_n.jpg (113KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 720x960px

Yes

>>129013193
OFC

File: 1496401197459.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>129022200
This post both makes a lot of fucking sense and probably just made me realize something I never realize before.

>>129022909
>The less educated women get knocked up by a degenerate thug and end up as poor single moms.
Literally he's saying uneducated women are sluts and, lo and behold, it's not hard to get a slut knocked up.

>>129013193
yes

>>129013193
>looks at sweden
No,it was not.

Well /pol/ would surely have been pretty depopulated.

>>129022909
poor men usually have less children. Highly successful men have the most children.

poor women indeed have the most children, but eugenics doesn't necessarily focuses on reducing the population. Eugenics always was about selecting the best white people to produce a better upper class. The lower class becomes racially mixed, depressed, degenerate, easily controllable. And like I said the lower class probably will get reduced in the perceivable future. In the age of automation most people are not needed anymore.

>>129024171
There is more, I have the theory this blueprint for eugenics is taken from the bible.
First you let people compete in a free market environment for a 100 years and then and then you have your judgement day. The poor are killed of by some kind of event. War, disease, something.

Calvinism highly focuses on economically success. The rich belong to the elected. Those who are economically successful belong to gods chosen people. Those who are poor deserve damnation.

>>129013193
The crowned heads of europe is the best example of eugenics.

>>129013193
Uniformitarianism was a mistake
Darwinian evolution was a mistake
Communism was a mistake

>>129025583
Its not like you can evade the degenerative nature of eugenics in the higher classes.
You may get one generation "better",but then it dives like an anchor into degeneration.
Look at swedes.Thats what you get from eugenics.You cant be better than nature,you can just fuck up your gene pool without hope.

>>129013631
>Complaining about Brits while letting third worlders breed with whites is the worst case of dysgenics.

>>129026638
>Communism was a mistake
No shit, women were a mistake.

>>129013193
No, starting it was.

>>129013193
No, creation of the welfare state was. Without the welfare state, eugenics happens by default.

>>129026775
a population doesn't work like a pool
the upper classes usually don't race mix.
upper class women want upper class high status men. They treat refugees as children and not potential sexual mates.

>Was stopping the pursuit of eugenics one of the greatest mistakes of Western countries in the 20th century?

You are free to practice eugenics at any time. It's called Eutelegenisis, which is eugenics by way of artificial insemination.

If we did eugenics they'd start with you single minded fat fucks.

>>129027616
You might want to reconsider that.
A large gene pool indicates extensive genetic diversity, which is associated with robust populations that can survive bouts of intense selection. Meanwhile, low genetic diversity (see inbreeding and population bottlenecks) can cause reduced biological fitness and an increased chance of extinction, although as explained by genetic drift new genetic variants, that may cause an increase in the fitness of organisms, are more likely to fix in the population if it is rather small.
You are not god,and you can only fuck things up,not make it better.Accept it.
>flag
ohwait