What if every year each country executed the 1% of their poorest citizens, to simulate a kind of "natural selection"?

What if every year each country executed the 1% of their poorest citizens, to simulate a kind of "natural selection"?

Poorfags by definition contain the worst of humans: criminals, drug addicts, the slow in the head, etc.

Other urls found in this thread:

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/03/15/first-worldism-part-5-the-european-revolution/
npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

why not execute the 1% richest?

society is already executing them passively

End welfare.
Allow citizens to be armed and defend themselves against criminals
Allow drug addicts to buy all the drugs they need to finish themselves off.
Problems solved.
No simulated natural selection necessary.

Why don't we just kill dead people?

Yeah, some of those bastards are too persistent!

No jew you have to wait.

The rich contribute to society. The poor are a drain on society.

At least then they would stop voting Democrat, the dead are one of their key demographics!

Because they're the best.

Why not both?

>simulate
the right word would have been "emulate"

Oy vey that’s very antisemetic

+1 for improved diction

That happened in the middle ages

1.5% of the most criminal people in England were executed every generation.

The upper classes also had a higher birthrate than the lower classes, creating downward social mobility with the bottom being prevented from reproducing.

The upper classes replaced the lower classes 2.5 times over in the middle ages.

By the turn of the 20th century, the average IQ of an Englishman was around 112.

WWI killed a disproportionately high number of the upper classes (officers were typically half a foot taller than soldiers and as such had a much higher casualty rate)

Then, WWII and the welfare state kicked England into demographic decline. In the past 100 years, England has lost about a standard deviation in IQ. To put this into perspective, the White-Black IQ in the United States is about one standard deviation. Victorian English are to Modern English as Whites are to niggers.

Back in the 50s the police could stop you in the street and demand to see how much cash you had on you. If you were broke you got arrested for vagrancy.

Its not because of massive amounts of welfare

I don't think richness is a good measure of genetic superiority, though I think there is some correlation. Fact is, some people are just victims of their circumstances.

Poorfags can't into English.
I'm top 1% in my country.

Because they're part of the (((Chosen People)))

Wouldnt you need to REQUIRE that citizens be armed, not just allow it?

That has been tried.

If its natural why does it need to emulated, shouldn't it just happen?

Post source for any of this shit, faggot

>The upper classes also had a higher birthrate than the lower classes, creating downward social mobility with the bottom being prevented from reproducing

I thought it was the opposite, the poorer you are the more children you have

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/03/15/first-worldism-part-5-the-european-revolution/

TIL everyone on this board gets killed

how about the top 1%

Gas the Jews, Race War now bitch

That's a recent development. It used to be the other way around as recently as 100 years ago.

Makes sense because if you can pay for more kids you will have more.

The poor Irish family with 11 kids is a historical anomaly experienced primarily in immigrants to the United States and Canada where wages were 2-3 times higher than Europe and they could afford to sire a dozen kids.

Along with medical procedures to lower infant mortality I should add.

The mother would have assumed half of her children would die before adulthood.

declining to arm yourself while knowing that everyone else is armed is also natural selection

Eventually the poorest would be the ones that just came out of school with 100k student loans and -100k networth.

Just execute anyone that's gone to jail 3 times imo

I've thought about this a lot but I think I could improve on the idea. Force every man and woman to compete to the death in a random match.

This

No you wouldn't require people to be armed. The smart people would just be armed.

You wouldn't need to execute them, just sterilize. Cut out the weakest link for future generations.

>Wouldnt you need to REQUIRE that citizens be armed, not just allow it?
What are you going to do if they refuse?

>Makes sense because if you can pay for more kids you will have more.

I know, right?
that's kind of my argument when I talk with my friends, they keep saying "don't have children and you will be rich, that's what millionaires do", well, I want to have at least two children, more than that number if possible.

This was a good read, thank you.

I think right around 20% of the U. S. population should be culled. We need to construct some Freedom camps, maybe a dozen or so large operation facilities. After culling, there would need to be some major reconstruction efforts for a number of major cities. Razing entire sq. miles of urban blight. Reforestation in these areas could be beneficial.

The rich hoard wealth, especially property. The animals of nature only take what they need.

I think there was a study done on number of daughters and chances that you will be put into a nursing home as you became unable to care for yourself and it was like, your chance of being put into a nursling home halves for every daughter you have.

Back in the day, more children was a form of pension & social safety net.

Because 1%ers are the smart, competent people that make large swaths of society function.

>jews are the best

T. Police state

More than 1% of the population does off from stupidity already.

Add in obesity and gun violence dumb poor people are culling themselves.

The problem is most poor people just breed an live off gibs.

We can improve things drastically if there was leadership at the top. Not the bureaucratic managers we always get saddled with.

We need urban planning. But that requires a leadership that is immune from special interests who will undermine collective will. We need leaders in academia and journalism, but both are so enamored with moneyed patrons, it's not even funny.

Which came first, the collapse of leadership or the corrosion of capitalist greed?

We should just be allowed to hunt them.

>every country sucks jewish dick

Whatever works.

>we need less bureaucracy
>we need more bureaucracy
So this is how communists think.

only certain factions in every country
please, dont generalize on such a collosal scale

Yes. Something along the lines of a new Department of Homeland Restoration would need to be created. Only the top minds, the best engineers, the best leadership.

>implying inheritance makes you smart
>implying inherited wealth doesn’t disappear within 3 generations on average

Are you talking about the chronically poorest 1%, e.g. lowest net worth, or the poorest in terms of that year's income?

Communism worked so well last time.

That would result in the execution of the poorest 5%, too.

if the government didn't hand over gibs that would happen naturally

>Not realizing hatred for the poor is what the Jews and their cronies use to distract you while they eliminate the middle class.
Have fun starving in the slums or slaving away in the Google arcology for the rest of your life.

I think 5% of the US population is in jail so were not talking about doing much.

Who would pay the tax bill?

If you keep killing poorfags, you will eventually be killing today's rich fags

Honestly if we just killed everyone who was in state or federal prison we'd be a lot better off.

That would lead to people not taking any risk. Think about it, you are a multi millionaire taking risks. Your business tanks, you are bankrupt. You get killed.

Better to just work as a consultant in a comfy job, not taking any risks, remaining solidly in the upper half of the population - thus not getting killed.

Better: just sterialize criminals, drug addicts etc. This way, they cannot multiply.

>not raising a family=no future=dead
>not progressing in life=dead
>beyond an age or condition no longer beneficial=dead

you are fucking retarded
welfare prevents this from happening
we challenge nature on a minute by minute basis with welfare

>2017
>being this fucking stupid

Say that when you get falsely accused of rape.

You can't simulate natural selection. It's in the name. it's natural.

P.s. I am a robot

You'd soon be left with only jews and sheeps. At least here in western europe (especially germany, but also france, austria and UK), the useful people (everything from construction workers to engineers and doctors) make way less money than people like bankers, so-called "influencers" and politicians. Also students of any kind have little to no income, what about them?
While I do not know the situation in slovenia, germany's economy would collapse without a steady flow of STEM students, who are the poorest citizens - they get less money then even the unemployed, and the courses usually leave only two weeks around christmas free, making it impossible to work any job that takes more than 1 or 2 hours a week, and even that only if you're intelligent enough to get by without studying on your own.
Also, what about organized crime? they have little to no legal income, but the most intelligent and versatile people. eliminating them would go against any natural selection (though they'd probably find ways around it).

I bet you voted for Corbyn.

Oh, I see what you're saying. If they're at least providing benefit to somebody on the free market then it's more beneficial to others if they continue to do so until they expire of natural causes.

wrong, they just remove themselves from the pool genes
npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair

Bottom 20% needs to go worldwide.

aldous huxley nailed the perfect system on brave new world

hopefully crispr will be bringing that to us in the future.

This was tried.

Could never be done because 99% of those 1% would be minorities. Would be a genocide, you could not get that through the publics head.

>execute 1% poorest citizens every year worldwide somehow
>wtf why is the garbage piling up in the street?
>wtf why can't I get any food at the store?
>wtf why is the water all brown now?
>wtf why are the sewers overflowing?

You know that the bottom fifth of people don't work right?

Looking at the second post in actually convinced that we ought to kill the bottom 1%.

Ours not a genocide it they're current minorities from one another.

Also, Stalin got Lumpkin's definition of genocide for the UN in 1946 to leave our social class. So you can literally while out classes and or isn't genocide.

Instead of selecting based off income, use some sort of biological quality. IQ and desire to procreate, maybe. That's basically what feudalism did.

>Have MS
>in bottom 1%

Eh, I'm ready to go. There is no good left in the world. Men on the moon, and floating around the earth. No concerns for earthly matters anymore.

>What if every year each country executed the 1% of their poorest citizens
We going by overall assets or what they made that year?
Technically my 18yo son in college is in the bottom 1%
He has no income and now has debt
He gonna get executed?

you mean copulate

This entire thread is unAmerican and makes me sick