Hardcore WWWW eugenic theorising is worthy of discussion, but it only serves so much of a purpose in that the implementation of such practices is many steps away from where the person that seeks to do so currently stands. For one, I think that a society or group that has the improvement of its stock as its chief concern needs to already have in place an established system focused on positive eugenics before it even begins weighing possible routes of negative eugenics. More so than fixating on what is "eugenic" and what is not -- the term has undergone disastrous misinterpretation and misapplication across various spheres -- it seems that there is not
as much attention given to the following question: how does one sensibly move the needle toward creating social conditions in which they would be able to begin working toward a set of desired eugenic ends? The difficulty surrounding this question doesn't center around identifying what steps are necessary to take; after all, #CommonSense arguments have existed for many decades now that abolishing the welfare state 'Charles Murray style' would inevitably result in both positive and negative eugenics. Rather, the difficulty is that the only people that pretend as though they are trying to do this are: 1. scared to outright state (or at the very least even imply) the goal, and as a result of that, 2. only provide lukewarm proposals that are either (a) conservatard versions of "mo money fo dem programz" or (b) outright dysgenic, i.e., "don't go to college". They are actually somewhat correct in advising that people shouldn't go to college because it is fake and a libtard scam, but the way they get there is completely misguided, and telling high-potential Whites who could otherwise compete at the highest academic level to abandon uni is, simply put, an abdication. Abdication of the university is exactly how higher learning (and the general society we live in) became what it is today in the first place.
The truth is that probably somewhere between 70-90% of American 'academic' institutions should not exist. It has been said much earlier in this thread that "elite-intermarriage" is not eugenic. This may be so,
today, but that's only because your so-called 'elites' today are RETARDS! And the aspiring Strivers being bred as the next class of 'elites' are women, effeminates, and foreigners.
Please see the last will and testament of Cecil Rhodes, setting forth each of the four criterion (
conjunctive) for consideration to become a Rhodes Scholar in 1902:
Now compare with the "Guiding Principles" of the Rhodes Trust today in the year 2023:
This is the abdication of the academy. And that, to me, is what is standing in the daydreaming eugenicist's path. "
Academia is dead in more ways than people know." This was recently reiterated to me by another user. This is true, and it
remains dead.
However, must it remain dead
ad infinitum? "
Marmoream relinquo, quam latericiam accepi."
It has also been said in this thread that elite-intermarriages in aristocratic circles of the past were primarily concerned with land and property ownership, supporting the idea that they were not eugenic. This, again, is probably largely true. But that fact should not be emphasised so much, because the conditions of
that society -- even if decadent in its own right -- were nothing like those of the society that we find ourselves living in today. Given that the current situation requires us, more than possibly ever before, to almost start from scratch, my proposal to this thread (rooted in #CommonSense and normie-friendly intuitiveness) is that the goal of any current eugenic efforts should be to focus on pairings between the male and female sexes in an effort to breed an ELITE and not an "elite". This would need to occur not all at once, but over time and in steps. Therefore, my theory of Phase 1 Eugenics would be: U.S. Supreme Court decisions overturning affirmative action and
the Ginsburgermeister legacy of "Equal Protection" interpretation re: sex-based admissions. From there, you see the flourishing once more of a meritocratic Ivy League and Ivy League equivalents which, paired with #CommonSense immigration restrictions, would be dominated by White men. At the same time, a secondary effect of this (as intended) would be the reestablishment of respective "
Seven Sisters" schools for the most promising young female students. I believe this would have the effect of reviving a serious academic environment while also creating male-only and female-only socialisation conditions, which in my view is of equal importance toward eugenic ends. As a result, we would see good pairings incentivised between the males and females of the respective academic institutions in the same way that students from the all-boys high school generally look to students from their all-girls sister school to ask to the big dance. To those who may say that we shouldn't factor in females and that they shouldn't be pursuing academics at all, you have to remember that this plan is grounded on a practical principle of gradual progression. You will be surprised how many females are
pretending to care about education and academia (because it
signals status); it's likely that, very quickly, only an infinitesimal percent would care about attending college compared to the amount we see today. What are people's thoughts?
I understand that this involves both the Woman Question and the Incel Question, but solving certain aspects of the former gets you halfway to solving many aspects of the latter. The natural effects of my proposal would solve a large portion of the dating issues that currently exist, as it would quickly eradicate many of the present falsities surrounding people's misguided ideas of their social status. If there is still an 'Incel Remainder' as a result of this, it should be significantly less than currently exists and, in any case, would be wholly consistent with the fundamental nature of eugenics itself: not everybody can win.
Please share any arguments against my proposal. I welcome all thoughts, including and especially critique and criticism.