Is Social Darwinism red pilled? Should people who can't

>>132882630
>Darwin
>Against eugenics
As George Lincoln Rockwell said
>They admit that animals vary by breed and that you can breed better and worse animals. Now, how do they explain how there is a certain dividing line when you come to one particular animal called man? They have no explanation. Time and again when I’ve asked them, they have no explanation. They just say if it’s got two legs and it stands on its hind feet, then it suddenly becomes a special being and there is absolute equality, they’re all the same.

>>132882630
People should get help to get back on their feet and rejoin the society, but only for as long as the recipients are willing to actually improve their situation and get back to the workforce. It should be accomplished by things like food stamps and discounts on necessities, definitely not by giving them cash.

Eternal gibs should be cut off, period.

Meritocracy with basic poverty aid and state healthcare is the best possible system in my opinion.
Give people the basic means to function properly (as long as that help is not being wasted), then leave the people's fate in their own hands.

Also recurring criminals should be stripped off their citizenship and rights to any government aid. Bonus points for deportation to Siberia.

Social Darwinism makes sense to me. People unable to maintain a healthy mind in a capitalist world would an hero. As life gets more complicated I'm sure our standard to live rises in certain respects.