Trump State Department official has called for mass sterilization of ‘low-IQ trash’
Trump State Department official has called for mass sterilization of ‘low-IQ trash’
The march to Nazism takes another step
Just a quick reminder that the US Supreme Court affirmed the federal government's right to sterilize citizens in Buck v. Bell and it's never been walked back.
So that's cool.
If there is a civil war, I look forward to shitty rulings like Buck vs Bell to be overturned by the good guys. This kind of shit is a black mark on human decency.
Right on schedule. These guys are following a playbook...step by step https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-biological-state-nazi-racial-hygiene-1933-1939
OP's article is 3 months old, being dated 2025-02-11.
Hello to my Americans friends, and an outsider looking in, we have a very famous saying about the situation you're currently in. It roughly translates to, "holy fucking shit, you guys are totally fucked". Honestly I'm baffled by the seeming lack of tangible response from the general public, I understand 30 odd % voted for this and another 30 or so couldn't be bothered. But the rest of you should be shutting down everything, how are you just holding these weekend protests and hoping for change. Cripple the bloody country! The longer you wait the worse it gets.
Sincerly someone who knows what Dictatorships are.
I feel this way every time I wake up. I am a pretty avid history enthusiast. I know what the parallels are. I know the direct analogies to what’s happening here now.
It ultimately boils down to the fact that the vast majority of the country is unable to mount a general protest because we’re all wage slaves, and healthcare is tied to having a job here, so we’re all predominantly conditioned to be nice little worker lemmings for the most part. And then there’s the imbecilic “exceptionalist” streak that a lot of people have, which is more or less the societally-toxic idea that you’re just a temporarily inconvenienced billionaire who hasn’t come into their own yet.
"It ultimately boils down to the fact that the vast majority of the country is unable to mount a general protest because we’re all wage slaves, and healthcare is tied to having a job here, so we’re all predominantly conditioned to be nice little worker lemmings for the most part."
That's the problem right there, right now you NEED action, no revolution was won and no government overthrown by people tweeting, and we all know how well "Thoughts and prayers" works.
That's fair, but I think that a non insignificant number of people just don't care. Yes, protests in big cities seem large, but like the other commenter was saying, only 1/3 of people really oppose this. And some of that 1/3 don't oppose it particularly strongly if at all. I know lifelong Rs that luckily didn't vote for Trump, but mostly because he doesn't stand on ceremony. They voted Harris, but they legitimately have no problem with rounding up immigrants and attacks on the LGBT community. Local resistance is just not really possible when 1/3 of your neighbors have trump flags in their yard, 1/3 think your resistance is stupid and maybe 25% of the remaining 1/3 care enough to join some of the time. How do you do a work stoppage if only 1/12 of your colleagues would even consider it. I'm not saying resistance is futile, but I don't think it's about the wage slave issue as much as it is that there's no real public will to stop this. Wage slave issue is of course still a problem and likely contributing factor.
I fled the country, so it's been fascinating looking in from the outside while still having a stake vis-à-vis all the people I love back home.
On the inside, the people that matter are terrified. It's easy to tell someone to grab a rifle and "do something", but the average person is now more focused on their own immediate survival than anything else. People are losing access to life saving medicine, they're worried about catching a life threatening illness, and basic costs of living (rent, food, health, etc) are getting more expensive. Even privileged people are starting to feel the screws tightening. The US is a ticking time bomb and something is going to give at some point, but it's going to have to get significantly worse first.
On the outside, everyone understands why we fled. My new country has been so incredibly welcoming and sympathetic, with a hint of curiosity. I realized yesterday while I was reading about the Philly mass shooting that I've yet to hear of a single mass shooting where I am, and I immediately felt a sense of relief.
Edit: wording
"but it’s going to have to get significantly worse first." Unfortunately given what we (the rest of the world are seeing) I think you're right, but it just makes no sense to me (who comes from the middle east, had to flee civil war and lived in the west) how easily it seems to be for this administration to literally dismatle the US as we know it.
"but the average person is now more focused on their own immediate survival than anything else. People are losing access to life saving medicine. They’re worried about catching a life threatening illness, and food costs double what it used to" This, in hindsight has been a strategy that has worked brilliantly in controlling the general population.
Well done for getting out and giving yourself this peace of mind).
Yes we know.
I'm and American and yeah, I figured that one out for myself years ago. A lot of us did. There's just not much we can fucking do about it.
There is actually, unfortunately it's a very hard choice and it will require sacrifice, be it jobs, etc, otherwise you'll end up being the worlds riches failed state.
I came in here to call Americans cowards but it looks like you’re already here making sure it’s covered.
The media is compromised. People are organizing but you're not hearing about it for the most part. No one's talking about it on public forums for obvious reasons. You will start hearing about it when things come to a head.
Yep, again just following Hitlers Playbook: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Germany
That was one of the first laws that the Nazis enacted...
“When a population gets feral, a little snip snip keeps things in control. Could offer incentives (Air Jordans, etc.).”
Holy shit. What a piece of shit.
Offer MAGA a chance to hunt with Ted Nugent or pit row seats at a NASCAR race, that will get unlimited stupid removed from the gene pool.
Sadly this was inevitable.
I think it was in the skeptics guide to the universe book, they covered the history of eugenics.
It has a significant history in the US, and loads of ne'er-do-wells were sterilised before eugenics was adopted as a policy by the german nazi party.
All of these "inevitable" thresholds being crossed are picking up incredible speed though. At this rate they will have the civil war they're clearly trying to create in less than a full year tops.
So… the trump party? That’s the biggest chunk of low iq trash I can think of
A better idea would be to sterilize people of low empathy.
Andy Warhol allegedly had an IQ around 80-90. But contributed a lot to society.
IQ as a measure of the value of people is bullshit, because it's an extremely narrow part of our combined intelligence that is measured.
For instance empathy is not part of an IQ test, but is a crucial feature for societies to work well. As societies with higher social intelligence function relatively better.
Something Trump is actively demonstrating right now. Remove empathy from how society works, and the losses are enormous.
Trump and his ilk do not understand that, because they don't have it.
I don't think there would be much actual measuring of IQ.
-I'm literally under water right now because of climate change
-Climate change is a hoax, you must have low IQ!
gets executed
But empathy is a weakness…
Side note: I’m autistic, so I might be approaching this differently from how others do, but is it so uncommon to know that you might be exploited and not care? I’ve put tampons in every shared bathroom I’ve used with any regularity, and sometimes they all get stolen. That sucks, but I can afford it, and maybe the person who took them all can’t. I once stocked a work bathroom with them four times in a month. Maybe one of my coworkers was getting one over on me, maybe all of my coworkers took two or three extra, maybe I saved one coworker’s budget. It doesn’t really matter to me. My buying tampons for people is a “weakness” in the sense that it is an exploitable tendency, but, like, so? I’ve got lots of exploitable tendencies, but I’m okay with that (and in fact, I prefer it).
I guess what I’m asking, is whether or not it’s just the nutso fascists who think exploitability is automatically a negative or whether that’s a common belief (that they’re expanding to include all forms of empathy) and I’m the odd one out? I don’t know if this can really be answered, lol.
It's only a weakness in a world where those without it have been allowed the same rights to participate in society as the rest of us, and haven't been made extinct. I'm not saying that's what we should do, but I'm saying that's what it would take to actually fix things.
Of course we're not going to do it... because we have too much empathy for them. So they win. Again. As always, and until the bitter end of humanity.
I once stocked a work bathroom with them four times in a month.
I have no idea why you would do that? But maybe the reason they are taken is because they think it's the administration that puts the there.
To the question, it's obviously not nice to be exploited, and the one doing it is not a nice person. If someone continues to exploit, I definitely wouldn't support that.
Wait a minute... deep in there he suggested incentivizing smart people to have babies. Like a handout? Susidized childcare, free healthcare for kids? He must be a socialist. Lol.
Oh he's a socialist alright... the "national" kind.
Also, improving sex education and access to contraceptives would almost certainly reduce the number of poor Black (which I'm about 100.2% certain is what he means by "low IQ") children being born, but I doubt he's in favour of that either...
You could say he's some sort of... national socialist, even.
He must be a socialist. Lol.
It's probably more like Robin Hood: take from the brown, give to the white.
How does this interact with male doctors' right to deny women elective sterilizations based on their hypothetical future husband's desire for a kid?
The women are demonstrating too much intelligence (and independence) by seeking control of their own bodies
The problem with abortion/sterilization isn't that we're "killing babies", it's that a certain group of conservatives don't get the opportunity to spike the football over a woman's stomach when the killings happen.
Like, ask any of those Pro-Life Red State Republicans think of the genocide in Gaza and you'll get a whole litany of "Fuck 'dem kids" and "Those were terrorist infants" and "It's actually antisemitic to mention the leveling of Al-Shifa Hospital". Ask them about the bombings in Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan and you'll get a mixed bag of "We were greeted as liberators" and "That never happened but if it did it was good". FFS, ask them about the kids in cages at the US/Mexico border and you'll get the same response.
The very term "Anchor Baby" should be all you need to hear in order to understand what Americans think of infants.
He's a white supremacist. He means black people. Note the bold.
In October of that year, he responded to a video of people in a neighborhood in Atlanta, saying: “When a population gets feral, a little snip snip keeps things in control. Could offer incentives (Air Jordans, etc.).”
“Where do these population reduction conspiracies come from? All I see is trash multiplying,” he wrote in January 2023.
In May of that year, Beattie wrote on X that “It's not politically correct to say, but low-IQ, low-impulse control populations lack higher reasoning and moral faculties---they require strict corporal punishment and threat of violence to function properly within a society. Instead of anarcho-tyranny, we need Singapore for the dumb and violent, and Sweden for the more elevated.”
The fact that there are Nazis in the US government, and that that fact is met with an attitude of "Oh well!" instead of torches and pitchforks is what makes modern USA sickening.
The nazi's called them "useless eaters."
It's funny, because I've heard anti-natalists use the same turn of phrase.
Eugenics..
Don’t be suprised if they add gas chambers to RFK’s wellness farms.
The original nazis got eugenics from the US. That's why there were so many sympathizers prior to Pearl Harbor. They faded into the background after WWII got going, but they never went away.
Eugenics was fairly popular worldwide until Hitler, US included.
Eugenics also includes in-vitro sterilization and selecting against horrible illnesses like sickle-cell anemia. Nazism, and what Beattie is proposing, is the dark side of eugenics, but eugenics is not inherently bad. Please try to look past the propaganda.
It’s important to separate the personal from the political here. You’re right that not every instance of genetic selection is equivalent to Nazi-style eugenics. But you say that eugenics is “not inherently bad” without really looking at proper definitions or recognising the deep social and historical baggage it carries, especially in how it’s been used to justify racism, ableism, and state violence, and that risks repeating the same logic that allowed those atrocities in the first place.
Choosing not to pass on genetic diseases through voluntary IVF and screening isn’t the same as state-led population engineering which is what eugenics often refers to politically. The key difference is consent and context.
When you talk about selecting against diseases like sickle-cell anaemia, you also have to ask: who defines what counts as a “horrible illness”? Who decides which lives are worth living? (For example, your example of sickle cell anemia comes with the caveat that this illness makes one immune to malaria, which is why it evolved in a significant chunk of the subsaharan african population. Yet Sickle cell anemia was also a favourite scapegoat by 20th century eugenicists to argue that african genes were “inferior”).
Historically, eugenics has disproportionately targeted disabled people, people of colour, poor people, communities with less power. Even modern-day genetic screening isn’t free from those power dynamics. So, no, it’s not “propaganda” to be against eugenics, it’s a necessary ethical stance informed by history and lived experience.
And the IVF example isn’t really eugenics as it is understood. For example, here is the wikipedia definition of eugenics:
Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek **εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well' and **-γενής (genḗs) 'born, come into being, growing/grown')[1] is a set of largely discredited beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2][3][4] Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter the frequency of various human phenotypes by inhibiting the fertility of those considered inferior, or promoting that of those considered superior.
So a better example of eugenics is for example the nazi slaughter of 80% of people with schizophrenia. Thinking that by “removing the bad genes” schizophrenia will go away. Yet modern day germany has an average rate of schizophrenia, so that didn’t work. (Ignoring that fact it was literally genocide and is morally apprehensible in nearly every way).
So he doesn't want a future generation of Republican voters?
So I know you're joking but I want to make the point so there's no mistake from you or anyone scrolling by in what this guy means.
He means black people. Like the whole of this statement is targeted at black people in the US. Dude is a hard-r neonazi.
So, they'll start with red state Trump voters, yes?
Do we start with the Whitehouse?
Start with Congress. There is a glut over there.
So Republicans?
FASCISM STATS +1
Seems they don't expect people to vote anymore.
tRump said this outloud. There are recordings.
Is this why they're getting a list of neurodivergent people together? Not that that has anything to do with IQ, but merely their perceived warped reality of it.
As a proud person who is riddled with adhd, depression and anxiety , I welcome the looks on their face when my I. Q is demonstrably far higher than the yahoos in office.
Maybe we should change the low I. Q part to, " moraly bankrupt greedy criminals" and we can get some improvements
The look will be, "shut the fuck up, hands above your head, get in the plane"
Not sure I'd be looking forward to that.
I am different too, but it doesn't stop me (unless I fall behind on self care lmao).
If Bobo, Margie, Jim J, etc. aren't on this list, you know its a bullshit list.
Let a nazi into a bar. He brings his friends. And it becomes a nazi bar.
That's free speech absolution In a nutshell. This is what it leads to
More proof that their alarmism about declining birth rates is bullshit
Intelligence isn't genetic. Its determined by large set of environmental factors as well as societal ones
It's genetic and environmental (I'd argue that societal is a subset of environment - the society you live in is part of your environment).
IQ is far from a perfect measure for intelligence, but it has a high degree of inheritability - up to 80%.
However
As soon as malnutrition comes into play, IQ is automatically severely diminished. Add in all the other environmental factors too, and - it turns out we do have a lot more we can do to increase peoples intelligence, before resorting to eugenics.
I mean, the validity of IQ tests in general should be questioned when the largest variability in scoring is if you've previously studied for an IQ test followed by what language you speak.
Philosophically I don't really think there's a uniform agreement on what exactly defines general intellect, or if that general intellect even matters considering were a species that relies on specialization.
As far as heritability, I imagine that would be a horribly difficult topic to actually get enough research to rule out variables like socioeconomics and cultural differences. I mean I doubt there's that many twin studies to establish the efficacy any particular theory.
Advocate mass sterilizing republicans? Thats a bold move cotton, lets see how it plays out.
Seriously. Red states about to get a lot of even cheaper real estate...
I did Nazi that coming.
You know when they say they, they mean the people they disagree with.
Oh look.
Eugenics.
It took this admin only 18 weeks to get all the way to openly discussing eugenics programs.
Cool so there isn't a population shortage then? Abortion should be allowed legally nationally then?
Seems weird that they'd want to go after their voter base so publicly.
Who needs voters, when you do not have elections?
Does he not know that would mandate the entire government to be executed?
*sterelilsed
“Interesting moral universe we live in where abortion is celebrated, but the notion of giving smart people incentives or cash to start families is so far out of Overton window no sitting politician of either party would dare advocate it,”
Has he never heard of the Child Tax Credit?
I think he's literally talking about making a credit that's contingent on a certain IQ test score, or something along those lines. He seems to be a straight-up, unabashed eugenicist.
Fine with me... That's the entire MAGA constituency
Start with Trump. I recommend steam sterilization - it's the cheapest option, and kills nearly all traces of bioburden.
There are a few chemical options as well, such as hydrogen peroxide plasma.
Does this guy think IQ is heritable? Hundreds of genes contribute to intelligence, so it's a genetic lottery. They certainly won't create conditions that stimulate intelligence in the people they govern. I suppose it's all mumbo jumbo to decimate black and brown people and get rid of unsettling white people.
The goal is to set a precedent on an intangible factor than can be used to detain a person and invade their bodily right.
IQ isn't a real thing. Yes, there are IQ tests, and there is a correlation between IQ and intelligence, but for the most part, they want to be able to say "GEOTUS is smart, if you disagree with him then you are dumb, if you are dumb, then we will detain and sterilize you, and if you resist, we will execute you in the street."
A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around 0.85 for 18-year-olds and older.[16] The general figure for heritability of IQ is about 0.5 across multiple studies in varying populations.[17]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
But for sure this is about black, brown and unsettling white people.
The article states in the first paragraph that there is a significant controversy on this topic in the scientific community. It's clearly more complicated than what a correlation coefficient could prove. Moreover, intelligence is also correlated with a good educational environment, which is what they are trying to rob from the people.
We need another and many more Luigis
Remember how so many so-called leftists, centrists, and most especially the corporate media kept chastising people and playing Tone Police for anyone calling the Republicans what they actually are? I mean, "both sides" are just as bad, amirite? Because something something "genocide Joe", he's even older than donvict, and having the worst economy ever or something?
And make no mistake, donvict is not some kind of weird outlier among the qons, this is who and what so very many Republicans are...with so many douchebags like this among us, it's hard to believe how we ever fought the Nazis.
Steve Bannon referred to Trump as an "Empty vessel" and the absolute worst fucking scum this country has to offer are pouring themselves into him...
Then who would vote Republican besides the rich? Not enough of you to do it alone.
Orrr we could sterilize fascists while the rest of us work towards egalitarianism and protecting the sanctity of life unlike these degenerates.
No, really, people like this should get a maximum of three comments on racial purity per lifetime before they get a guillotine to the nutsack.
That's eugenics just the same.
Best case would be for Thanos to come and we convince him to snap his fingers and sterilize a random 90% of the human population. That would solve the majority of our problems
Fascists are a threat to all life, including those that they define as their ingroup. They just feed them into the military machine in perpetuity. Totally on board with an antifascist Thanos.
Eugenic at its finest. Galton would be proud of them.
Evil AND stupid. There goes all your future voters.
He's not talking about giving everyone an IQ test. He's talking about black people... That's why he suggests incentives to participate being Air Jordans. Hes making racial stereotypes and insinuating that it's easy to tell which people are "low-IQ".
One fucking month ago we, for the first time in human history, cured a genetic disease in a human at the DNA level, using gene editing techniques that fixed a 10-month-old's liver specifically without altering the rest of his body's DNA (thus preserving genetic diversity). Are we really going to start fucking genociding people while we stand at the very goddamn cusp of cleanly subduing genetic disorders?? And we're going to fucking revive measles and polio while we're at it?
IIRC, the Trump Regime defunded that research. The ghouls don't understand that looking after everyday people is the key to figuring out cures for rich fuckers.
Seriously, the wealthy don't understand that they achieved their great height from standing on the backs of ordinary folks. They will take quite a tumble when society falls apart, due to their stupidity and greed.
Anyone happen to tell Republicans that those are their voters?
They did this in India in the 70s! Forced the poors to get snipped
Bold emphasis is mine
But idea of offering** feral populations **financial incentives for voluntary sterilization is completely taboo.
Wow, just wow.
When a population gets feral, a little snip snip keeps things in control. Could offer incentives (Air Jordans, etc.).
Sure... some new sneaks for never being able to procreate? Sounds legit (heavy /s obviously)
I have a suspicion where this is being aimed at:
It's not politically correct to say, but low-IQ, low-impulse control populations lack higher reasoning and moral faculties - they require strict corporal punishment and threat of violence to function properly within a society.
It's the people RFK is targeting - people with Autism, ADHD, other neurodivergent conditions, the physically and mentally disabled. Cull the ones who are already "diseased" and leave the healthier ones to live one and procreate. At least that's my suspicion here - basically they're pushing the discourse towards an acceptance of some form of eugenics. It's terrifying.
The point in the last quote - 'to function properly within a society' is really a veiled form of saying - 'you will work until you die in whatever way we see fit'.
There's a similar push in the UK to get disabled people into any job, seemingly regardless of suitability, workplace accommodations (despite there being legal requirements to make such things) - and the way this is being done is to effectively penalise them financially by sanctioning the disability allowances, refusing PIP (Personal Independence Payment) and forcing those with lifelong conditions to undergo a full review every year. This pretty much can starve out someone into finding a way to live that means the Government pays less and the quality of life the person has is drastically reduced owing to the various stressors inflicted on them. The whole thing is a shitshow and is being argued about a lot at the moment in our Government parties.
Can disabled people work? For sure, and many do. Can all disabled people work? No, but the Government is going to make damn sure that you at least try, and if you fail, then find another job cause we ain't supporting you now we know you can work regardless of how effective you are... From a Govt statement:
We’re determined to fix the broken benefits system as part of our Plan for Change by reforming the welfare system and delivering proper support to help people get into work and get on at work, so we can get Britain working and deliver our ambition of an 80% employment rate.
In other words, to "function properly within a society".
...did you read the same text i did?..that was fcking code-speak for urban black populations...
Yeah! Musk, JD Vance and Trump have had enough kids!
The irony. I bet most MAGA have sub-median IQ. But apart from that:
That stance of mass-sterilization is quite a hefty turnaround from "people should have more children", which we heard just a few months ago.
I don't want to be a doomer, but the economic prospects are bad. Lots of people already struggle to make end's meet, and if the mass layoffs of white collar workers due to AI are real, it will be even worse. Notice that it doesn't matter whether you think that AI can replace people, it only matters whether companies think that AI can replace people. Now, having children costs a lot of money, at least $100K, depending on where you live, and i understand people being reluctant about having children.
I also think that it's politician's job to improve the living conditions of the people, and GOP might actually for once be doing its job if it starts educating people about the socio-economic implications of having kids.
I also advocate for UBI (universal basic income), but the way i see it today, there's a high likelyhood that it will come, but will be too little to actually cover cost-of-living costs. I.e., it might be a "support", providing $400/month no-strings-attached and it would definitely improve the living conditions of many people, especially in low-income households. But it would still not solve all problems.
I don't want to appear snobbish, but if economic prospects are bad, then you need even more people. In economics scale makes everything better.
Basic food is, if we think about it, very cheap. Even the USSR managed to solve that problem. Everyone could find buckwheat\rice\some other grain\potatoes\vegetables to eat, salt sold for food was mandated to be iodized, for prevention of scurvy even on very basic diet, and some (bad, ugly, but edible) fish conserves were generally available everywhere, also "sea cabbage".
Depending on area there'd also be (bad, thin, kinda soup-only, not the broilers you're used to, though about USA I've read that food products quality is not nice generally) chicken, some fish, some meat. Some fruit, something else. The previous paragraph described the baseline that was always there.
So hunger is avoidable even if the economy sucks huge stinking donkey balls.
If hunger is avoidable, having more people is, of course, a disadvantage in terms of social conflicts, but they don't have to fear that - the most angry and dumb part of the population is voting for them.
Notice that it doesn’t matter whether you think that AI can replace people, it only matters whether companies think that AI can replace people. Now, having children costs a lot of money, at least $100K, depending on where you live, and i understand people being reluctant about having children.
There's a bit of tunnel vision here, I think. It costs that to have children in the USA, but in Mexico it'd be cheaper probably.
That's because value is created by labor, if your labor isn't needed and you don't have a job, then you'd still produce value if you had one. And when you can't afford something, that disadvantaged labor might produce it. OK, I'm a shitty explainer, what I mean is that, if there are no regulations directly preventing it, there's a feedback of creating another bucket of demand and thus jobs to fulfill it. Not an economist.
I also advocate for UBI (universal basic income), but the way i see it today, there’s a high likelyhood that it will come, but will be too little to actually cover cost-of-living costs. I.e., it might be a “support”, providing $400/month no-strings-attached and it would definitely improve the living conditions of many people, especially in low-income households. But it would still not solve all problems.
It might create hyperinflation, first and foremost affecting those owning money and not assets. And your average person is more dependent on money as opposed to assets than a businessman or a company or a fund. I'm not an economist, that's just how I see it.
Thanks for your comment :)
I feel that you're trying to be honest about this discussion, though realistically, many of your points have flaws in them.
One of the issues i see is that you're acting as if society was one, coherent blob. In reality, you have a bunch of people more-or-less (often less) willing to cooperate with one another.
That’s because value is created by labor, if your labor isn’t needed and you don’t have a job, then you’d still produce value if you had one. And when you can’t afford something, that disadvantaged labor might produce it. OK, I’m a shitty explainer, what I mean is that, if there are no regulations directly preventing it, there’s a feedback of creating another bucket of demand and thus jobs to fulfill it. Not an economist.
I think somehow, herein lies the fallacy, though it's completely non-obvious. In the last 200 years, we've lived in times where "bigger population" always implied more workers and thus more work getting done.
But that is not, in general, the natural way. Consider, as an example, the medieval ages. Most people were farmers, and basically all farmable land at that time was distributed among farmers. If you had more people back then, that did not mean that more work got done. You can only plow and harvest so-many hectares. Once that is done, you're running out of work, and the additional people are mouths-to-feed, but they don't really produce any extra. I'm worried that as automation advances, we're nearing similar terms. More people would not mean more productive output, but rather, people sitting around with not much to do, aka. unemployment. And that creates a psychological toll where people get dissatisfied with their living conditions, as they're looked down on as "useless eaters", and that creates a negative situation. I think that the number of people should not hugely exceed the number of jobs that actually should get done, i.e. jobs that actually pay at least a living wage.
He should prolly sterilize himself then
Thought i was reading the onion for a second
So…the cabinet?
They can start in the Oval Office.
Then who would vote for them?
American eugenicists tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon peoples, supported strict immigration and anti-miscegenation laws, and supported the forcible sterilization of the poor, disabled and "immoral."[13]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States
So just standard Republican Nazi shit.
Nazi fucks busting out the calipers?
So that would be most of the administration then
So uhhh
When is their entire political party to be lobotomized?
The soap boxes, ballot boxes, and jury boxes didnt work.
the Nazis are laughing that you're calling them Nazis, all while they're making plans to kill you.
"You got a vasectomy because it was forced on you for having low IQ. I got a vasectomy because I refuse to subject another human to this batshit world. We are not the same."
Is he talking about the Trump Administration?!?
eugenics
Wait, wait, wait. I thought they were just bitching that we don’t have enough people, now they want mass sterilization? Can they make up their minds?
Read "low IQ" as non-white. That's what they want to remove.
But idea of offering feral populations financial incentives for voluntary sterilization is completely taboo.
What the hell does 'feral' mean? Does he think there are actually feral people in the USA in any double-digit quantity in this day and age? Seems insane.
Anyway, Project Prevention already exists to pay meth addicts to voluntarily sterilize themselves (reversably). That's actually a good cause, because the children of meth addicts have serious disabilities that cost taxpayers millions of dollars and cause a painful and unpleasant life -- much better that that child be born to somebody else. We don't need this lunatic saying insane shit about feral children and mass sterilization.
'feral' is a dog whistle for poor urban black folks.
what to do with workers after automation don't need voters if you are dictator
some kind of sterilization for about 50% of the population would be an improvement.
Wait...why cull their voter base?
They don't need voters any more.
I have a feeling they're going to define anyone who has a college degree and leans anywhere to the left of conservative extremism "low IQ trash".
Yep, the Nazis defined socialists as degenerates, so I expect any sign of empathy to be seen as a sign of low IQ.
Shit! I just paid for a vassecectomy!
Probably worse, enemies or the state. Anyone not in lock step will be put in a camp...prolly about a year out...stay safe
Yeah, that's why they're trying to make questioning Trump's greatness a mental disorder. So they can identify us as irredeemable to dispose of us
Your college degree will be the new “Star of David” to identify you to the authorities.
Maybe, but I think it will probably start with the amount of melanin you may have first.
I read the article. He defined it as people that like the Fast and the Furious franchise.
I’m not entirely opposed to his suggestion.
Most of Trump's base was probably cheering him on until he got to this part: