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

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

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden
counter-currents.com/2014/07/against-good-breeding/
youtube.com/watch?v=PZ1YVM_H_dk
eugenics.net/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yes

Yes

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

Yes but Yes
We need diversity in answers

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

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

Yes.

yes

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.

Nope EUGENICS IS RAYCIST

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

u r gay

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

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

Only healthy seed must be sown.

That's a non-point because there wouldn't be any demand for Sup Forums 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 Sup Forums, but whatever, point remains.
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.

> 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.

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

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

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 Sup Forums.

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.

> 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.

>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

Yes

OFC

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

>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.

yes

>looks at sweden
No,it was not.

Well Sup Forums would surely have been pretty depopulated.

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.

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.

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

Uniformitarianism was a mistake
Darwinian evolution was a mistake
Communism was a mistake

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.

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

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

No, starting it was.

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

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.

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