Question

Since you're on this board, I assume you've thought about race in a eugenicist way. Fantasies of violent, bloody genocides described with a tinge of excitement - pictures of a perfect future playing in your mind.

What about female hypergamy? Would you actually be mad if women started selecting for the traits in picrel, slowly improving people over time? Tell me, do you want people to get worse or better. Would you want them to get better even if it meant you weren't as competitive in dating? Exactly how willing are you to give up individualism for the collective goal?

Attached: file.jpg (500x444, 99.34K)

>Fantasies of violent, bloody genocides described with a tinge of excitement - pictures of a perfect future playing in your mind
eh, don't need violence to achieve that, user.

What do women offer other than a series of holes?

I suggested a peaceful way: directing female hypergamy towards height+smart+strength. Wouldn't that work?

>Wouldn't that work?
no.
women are not allowed to speak in the church that is the body human.
women never choose their mate, the male courts them.

No woman has ever made a rational choice in the history of humanity.

Still, women are deciding every day. What would some suggestions hurt?

People argue this but hypergamy means that women will be worse mothers and will have less children, creating neither a eugenic nor a dysgenic effect. Christian Britain in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries was the perfect example of a eugenic society, the society's religion resounded with it's own culture which allowed priests within the society to greenlight large scale executions making them socially acceptable and the punishment for a young male committing a felony was changed to the death sentence. Unintelligent, impulsive, reckless, lazy teenage boys and young men were killed for theft, violence, etc., meaning that the female population was locked out of reproducing with the bottom percentage of men in terms of intelligence meaning that no matter what, the dumbest men of each generation never reproduced while women were free to choose their partners or be married off to a man of a desirable pedigree by their parents. Additionally, there was no state sanctioned welfare meaning that the wealthy had a fertility advantage over the poor. What this meant for social classes is that the bottom class of people were always being bred out of existence, they can't keep up with the fertility rate of those above them and because they are outclassed in every way and are unable to turn to crime as a method of sustenance, they can't manage to keep existing. This would mean that the bottom rung of society would be replaced by the one second from the bottom which would become the new bottom and would soon be replaced.

I have literally killed people and I am a 5'7 manlet.

You faggots talk about violence as if you understand anything about it.
You know as much about violence as your average plebitor does.
"Violent" traits aren't exactly chosen by women.
There are multiple factors you faggots try to obersimplify things as a cope.
Just shut the fuck up already.

Napoleon syndrome is a greatly undesirable trait