I was reading this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearing_blonde_gene#Scientific_position

So basically, they are crying that as long as there are blond genes, there will be blonds. This is false.

It is simply not enough for blond looks to persist just because there are a few blond genes floating around in the gene pool. The frequency of people carrying blond genes must be high enough for them to find and mate with one another, in order for the blond looks to manifest.

When there is a closed gene pool, think an all Northern/Western European population, people with blond genes will mate with other blonds or other carriers of blond genes reasonably frequently, their blond genes will combine, thus producing a blond haired child. But, if the gene pool is open, such as what we currently have, where lots of black-haired immigrants are introduced into the gene pool, then there is no closed gene pool anymore. Blonds and carriers of blond genes might mate with these black-haired people, and if nothing is done about it, this will result in fewer and fewer opportunities for the blond looks to manifest, because the blond genes will have a harder and harder time finding one another to combine with. I guess you can argue that blond looks haven't technically been completely wiped out; but if the frequency of blond looks goes from being, say, 5 % of the population, to being 0.00000000005 % of the population, then yes, blond looks have been effectively wiped out.

Of course, Wikipedia is very dishonest. They keep squawking about blond genes not disappearing, which is not what people are even talking about. People are worried about blond LOOKS disappearing. They are not worried about blond GENES disappearing. But they produced this dogshit of an article to lull white people back to sleep. And when I tried to edit the article, predictably, it got changed back within 3 minutes. And people still don't believe me when I tell them that there are dedicated staff on Wikipedia whose only job is to un-edit the articles.

Wikipedia is deliberately misrepresenting the question. The true question is, "Will blond looks disappear?" It's not, "Will blond genes disappear?" Also, regarding Wikipedia changing our edits back in 3 minutes. Wikipedia likes to brag about how their site can be edited by anyone. Which technically is true, however, what they don't tell us is that they will simply change it back. What is the point of allowing everybody to edit, if you are just gonna change it back in 3 minutes? In fact, Wikipedia is so dishonest, I would not be surprised that if it was bankrolled by that rich globalist Jew, George Soros. He also bankrolls Snopes, which purports to fact-check, but all it does is stink.

Trump's son-in-law Kushner, his family owns over 9000 properties. Can you imagine that? How many houses does one family need? I really think we should start putting a hard cap on how much wealth a single person can have. This isn't communism or jealousy of the rich. This is to ensure that resources are shared more equitably. People like Kushner essentially take finite resources from others and hoard them. Why should this be legal? I really feel that nobody should own such an absurd amount of resources, because there is only so much to go around. When one person has so much, that necessarily means he's taking it away from others. I mean if a regular American works hard and owns like 300 acres, that's one thing. Those belong to him, because he put in the hard work and he earned them. But owning 9000 properties, it's just impossible to justify resource-hoarding on that level. Look at the Kushner family. What work did they do to earn those 9000 houses?

I mean, imagine it. Bill Gates owns hundreds of thousands of acres of land. He can lease out these lands to farmers, simply because he had money to begin with. Now these farmers have to pay money to him every month, just for the right to use his land to make a living for themselves. What has Bill Gates done to deserve this much land and to have these farmers working for him as if he were a feudal lord? Why should he be able to sit on his butt doing nothing at all and receive money from people who labor hard? Just because he has some money? How is this fair? Why should rich people be able to benefit from other people's labor, just because they had some money to begin with? Why should they be able to buy up the means of production just because they have more money than we do? Why is this a good way to organize our society? Why do we allow this? By the way, I mention Kushner and Bill Gates because they are what people are familiar with. There is a company called Blackrock, they own even more.

I believe the land thing I just mentioned touched upon something deeper. It's not just land, it's resources in general. There has never ever been any formal, agreed-upon-by-everyone way to divide resources among members of a society. So pretty much they are up for grabs. So normally, some of the "better" people grab a disproportionately large portion for themselves. "Better" people can be defined in many ways, but in our context, it means people who are more intelligent, more ambitious, more driven, more business-minded, and more aggressive. In fact, that there are "better" people is actually a fundamental fact of human life. There will always be people who are better than other people in some ways. They can be better in the ways I described above or in other ways, but this isn't important. The important thing is that some will be better than others. And it is from this inequality that some other even greater inequality will come. In the case of resources, this usually means "better" people will end up with an unequal amount that is grossly distorted in their favor. We actually already see this in the US, where the richest 1% owns more than the bottom 20% of the entire society, or something like that. I feel that it's about time that we as a society look at this huge gap, doesn't matter if it's in income or wealth, what we need to do is to make sure that the "not-as-good" people still get their portion of the resources, while the "better" people get a bigger portion, but not so monstrously big as it currently is. In other words, we need to re-organize the way our society is, especially when it comes to how to divide up resources. The exact details of how this is to be done can be worked out later. What we need right now is the realization that the rich/the better shouldn't get too, too rich, and the poor/the not-as-good should be reasonably taken care of and be assured of a minimum level of comforts in life.

Also, I called Bill Gates a feudal lord. It might have been a joke, but I really think it's not too far off. We in the modern world would like to believe that kings and queens and monarchs and dukes and barons don't exist anymore, and that we are not ruled like subjects like our ancestors were. But guess what? We still are, it's just that those who rule us have other names now. Now we have people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, various people who are rich and powerful, regardless of what their actual names or titles are. Notice the similarity between these people and the kings and queens of the olden days? That's right, these people also don't have to do any work, and they all entirely live off the labor and sweat of the masses. In the olden days, the masses were called the peasants. Today it's called the workers/employees. The names have changed, but the fundamental nature and qualities haven't changed. We are still the bottom-most layer of society, and we work hard to sustain those above us.

I wish to try and describe good and bad people in terms of biology. I say that good people and their good genes seem to be self-limiting. They seem to remove their genes from the gene pool, or at the least, tend to act in a way that fails to maximize their reproductive success. For example, I remember this website that I read a long time ago. It was calling for voluntary human self-extinction. Basically, the author was saying that humans exploited their environment, and caused all kinds of ills for their planet. So he was urging all responsible humans to purposely make themselves go extinct, so as to save the planet. As I was reading, I couldn't help but realize that the very kind of humans who would do that, were actually good, responsible people who had the inner light to see that they did wrong. They were exactly the kinds of people who should not go extinct. Yet they limit their representation in the gene pool, by purposely not having children. Contrast this with someone who thought, "Oh who cares about the environment, I am just gonna have children anyway" and he would be exactly the kind of people we don't want in the gene pool, yet paradoxically and very frustratingly, people like him who would get more and more numerous in the gene pool.

It seems to me that a lot of admirable, noble behaviors result in having fewer children, or otherwise in limiting the spread of the genes. In fact, I can think of another example whereby the good limit the spread of their genes. Think of a soldier in battle, who jumps out of the trench to pull his friend to safety, thus endangering his own life. He succeeds in protecting his friend, however he dies as a result. Now, we all know this is very heroic behavior, and the dead soldier can be argued as to have good, self-sacrificing genes. Yet, his good deed got him killed, and his genes died with him. This really illustrates the principle I mentioned above. Or, consider people who decide not to have children, because they don't want to bring a baby into a world with pollution, violence, misery, and suffering. These people are truly noble, and are actually the kind of people who should make the most babies, yet their advanced morality and noble intentions paradoxically limit the spread of their genes.

By the way, the voluntary human extinction movement does nothing to help the environment, all it does is remove good people and their good genes from the gene pool.

It just seems that the bad have an advantage over the self-limiting good people. I remember this case, where the doctor that ran a fertility clinic, secretly used his own sperm to fertilize the eggs of couples that sought his help. Apparently he thought his genes were superior because he was very smart, or some such. Now we all know that this person is bad, or at the very least very unscrupulous. However it doesn't change the fact that his bad, unscrupulous behavior helped him enjoy great reproductive success. I believe he had fathered hundreds of children. Now I am not saying that all bad people will father this many children. But rather, I am trying to illustrate the principle that good people and their good genes are self-limiting, whereas bad people don't experience this problem. In fact, in quite a few cases, bad people even enjoy having a greater number of children compared to good people. I mean, think about actual experiences from your own personal life. You must have observed similar things.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 21 2025 09:40pm

Another spammer desperate for attention is spiraling out of control.

Its only been a day, give it a rest.

I would make it so that news media of any kind, be it TV stations, cable channels, newspaper, magazines...etc, have to operate on a strictly non-profit basis. They cannot be bought or sold by someone with money. This is so that the outlet will not maintain its spirit passed down from its founder and through the many successors, and not become yet another among the many things that the wealthy can simply purchase by whipping out their check-book. If the owner of an outlet wants to retire, or otherwise does not wish to continue owing the outlet, he has to select a successor and then pass on his torch to him/her. And if the owner hasn't got the chance to do that or if he for some reason is unable to find a successor, the government will take over temporarily, run the paper for the time being until such a time comes that a successor that can successfully maintain the spirit of the outlet can be named. The reason is this: These news outlets are charged with the incredibly important function of keeping the population up-to-date with what's going on in the country and the world. People rely on them to make informed choices about not just politics, but literally about everything in the public sphere. And we have been letting these institutions become sellable to the highest bidder, and it hasn't been working out well. People with money to burn are now the gatekeepers of information. They put stuff that they want us to think in their programming, and we gobble it up. If they want a certain candidate to win an election, they promote him and we elect him. They want the country to go to war with another country, they put that in and we go to war with that country. They want to demonize someone, they make him look like the Devil and we demonize him. They have an editorial section in the newspaper, which really is just about opinions, and that actually has nothing to do with news, and we say, "I don't see why we can't have an editorial page!", with the end result editors getting to shape and influence and manipulate the public opinions because most people lack the ability to think for themselves and they blindly follow these editors, whose views are pre-approved by the rich owners. They also put slants as well as spins in their "news" reporting, and the public follows them unquestioningly. News media being sellable means extremely wealthy people wield even more power that their already impressive riches grant them. These uber-rich media moguls staff their teams with people who will do their bidding and say whatever they want, so as to advance the moguls' financial and political agendas further. If occasionally they get resistance, they will just very simply and easily replace him/her with someone more obedient. There is no transparency, there is no real, objective news reporting. It's just endless mass manipulation and the shaping and re-shaping of public opinion disguised as news.

News media should NOT be treated like a product that has a certain price tag on it. Because it serves a very important function, which is to inform the public. This is why I don't want newspapers, TV networks to be able to be bought and sold. Now, this is easier said than done. However, I believe that the technical details can be worked out later. But first we need to have the realization that an apparatus that serves such an incredibly important social function cannot be commercialized, otherwise it becomes a commodity that someone with the deepest pocket can just scoop up. We should keep this in mind.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I would also make certain that news media outlets conform to certain rules to ensure the quality of their news reporting. The first one: on TV, there cannot be any music accompanying news. The reason is because they can play ominous-sounding, "evil" music so that people will associate someone or something with being evil. Manipulation of this kind will be made illegal. The reporting of news and consumption of news should be very sober processes. Newspaper also will be forbidden by law from putting spins on things. This is otherwise known as spin-doctoring. Again, the reason is that the public is easily fooled, they cannot tell when a spin is being worked into the story, and they get influenced in a way they otherwise wouldn't have. I consider this to be a highly unethical, manipulative act, so it must be banned. Also, newspapers will no longer be allowed to have an editorial section. They also cannot have a section where they show reader feedback that they receive. The former because a newspaper is for the dissemination of news. It's not about the opinion of a few editors. If they want to display some dude's opinion, then the "newspaper" is no longer newspaper, it needs to be called opinion-aper. In fact, I would ban the expression of opinion altogether in all newspapers. If we cannot give equal representation to all points of view, then we shouldn't be giving any to any views at all, because that would be the unfair promotion of certain views over others. And I want to ban newspaper from having a reader feedback section because what they actually do is selectively show certain kinds of feedback while deliberately withholding other kinds, or in plain language, they withhold the kind of feedback that does not align with what they already believe. Again, they do this to shape public opinion. They create the illusion that the public consensus is such a way, and the public being the intellectually unsophisticated fools that they are, lap it up. This is incredibly bad and dangerous for a free democracy. It needs to be banned. I will also be playing watchdog to inconsistent reporting. For example, in reports of crimes, if the perpetrator is a minority, and the newspaper or TV neglects to mention this, but in another crime where the perpetrator is white and they make his race front and center, I consider this to be a deliberate act and the agency in question will not simply be fined, it will be forcibly confiscated by the government and the government will assign a new owner to it, someone who pledges that he will not engage in such a dishonest, manipulative behavior. The message I want to send to these news media: I expect you to be honorable, ethical, consistent, and honest in your reporting. If you can't do that, then you shouldn't be owning a paper or a TV station. And the above are just the few instances I can think of at the moment, trust me there are many, many more cases where they engage in manipulative, subtly misleading manners. As I encounter these, they will all be punished. Extremely harshly. There needs to be standards in the news media industry. There needs to be an agency that oversees them, regulates them, and punishes them whenever the situation calls for it. It shouldn't be this big open free-for-all where the person with the most money can buy things up and play with them like they are his personal toys.

If I ever come into power, I will ban day-trading. Day-trading is not investing. It also does not provide a good or service, it's just making money for the sake of making money. It does not contribute to the society in any way. Yes it's legal, but that does not mean it's right or that it should be tolerated. What it really boils down to is just financial sleight of hand. Clever? Yes. Meaningful? No.

Another activity I will ban is interest rate arbitrage. Basically, it means borrow money at a place that has lower interest rate, and then loan it out at a place that has higher interest rate, thus making money through the spread. The exact details aren't important; the important thing is that this activity does not generate any goods or services. In other words, it's making money for the sake of making money, just like day-trading mentioned above. As such, I will ban it on the grounds of it not contributing to our society.

Some people might say that interest rate arbitrage performs a service. They say that they make markets more efficient because by buying low and selling high, they minimize the differences in prices or rates between two markets. To me, this is an incidental benefit. It's not a real benefit. People only mention this "benefit" after the fact. They cite this benefit because they want to legitimize interest rate arbitrage, a useless, parasitic behavior, that nevertheless provides an easy, cushy way to make money. That's why these investment bankers try so hard to persuade lawmakers about these sorts of things. I will not allow this. Until such time comes that people can actually convince me of any real, meaningful service interest rate arbitrage provides, it will remain banned. The above are but a few examples off the top of my head. Believe me, there are a lot more useless commercial/financial activities that do not provide any sort of real benefit or goods or services, nor do they contribute to society in any way, they exist solely for the reason that greedy and lazy people can make money quickly and easily. All such behaviors will be banned. You want to get rich? Work or produce something.

I want to encourage more businesses, but with an emphasis on the manufacturing sector. I have seen a lot of small businesses, which is good, however they are mostly service-based. Businesses like, sandwich shops, restaurants, hair salons, bakeries...etc, you get the idea. Some operate consultancy firms. some started with a small restaurant and turned it into a chain. Others produce products like scented candles, little keepsakes, stickers, hand-made jewelries, ...etc. These are fine, I don't have a problem with them, and in fact, they produce real products and services, and they are good for the economy through the taxes that they pay and the jobs that they create. However, selling candles and making sandwiches and the like do not build a nation. What I really want to see is steel manufacturing, the laying of cables, building of ships, cars and planes, manufacturing of turbines, heavy machineries and engines, constructing of power plants, things of that nature. These are in the manufacturing sector, and they do more than contribute to the economy, they form the backbone of a nation. But we do not see too many of these kinds of businesses, and I think it's because they require quite a bit of start-up money, specialized skills, knowledge and technical expertise, which a lot of people simply don't have. I want to know if there's anything I can do to help encourage regular people to star a business in these areas. Maybe we can provide them with the capital or expertise through government funding. I will also clear away any barriers to entry. I firmly believe that by encouraging growth in the manufacturing sector, everybody wins. The country wins, because it has a base that manufactures anything it might need. Workers win because they get jobs. Businesses win because they get to make money. It's a net positive, with absolutely no negatives.

This post was edited by JessiWan on Oct 21 2025 09:44pm

Some random thoughts:

If we have people starving on the streets or senior citizens having to skimp on food in order to afford medicines while there are multi-billionaires drinking champagne out of diamond-encrusted glasses on a yacht, then there is something seriously wrong with the way we organize our society. Especially in regards to how resources like money are divided among us.

If there is one bit of advice I can give to white people, it is this: do not be so trusting. Always be a little suspicious when you deal with someone, especially when that person is someone you don't know very well. And this especially applies to your government, which is all made up with people you don't know. I am telling you to do this not because I like to make things difficult for myself (I am someone you don't know either, so you should also be a little suspicious of me); but rather, it's because this is what's truly good for you.

We should pay attention to the physical attractiveness of our would-be children. Not because physical attractiveness can advance society like intelligence can, but rather, because it's good for the child's happiness. It should not all be about what our children can do for our society; it's also about them having some semblance of a happy life. It is cruel to deliberately give birth to an ugly child when you can help it. An ugly child will most likely go through life miserable; and an ugly as well as intelligent child will have an even worse time. We should avoid this whenever we can.

Imagine that I am an employer interviewing applicants. One applicant has angelic blue eyes and a gorgeous smile, and the other is an ethnic with a dark, ugly face. Guess who I am gonna hire? I guess this fits the definition of what a lefty would call racism, but to me there is nothing bad or malicious going on in my mind at all. I'm just doing what comes to me naturally. In fact it comes to all humans naturally, and that is to give a good-looking human preferential treatment. Lefties don't like this when it happens in a racial context, but it's simply just a natural human instinct. Besides, if I don't want to be fair in my hiring decisions, that is none of a lefty's or the government's business. I don't owe anybody a job. I am under no obligation to be fair to anybody. I will hire whoever I want, for whatever reason I want. If I want to be "unfair", then guess what? That's my freedom. If the government tries to use its coercive power to force me to hire who I don't want to hire, I will tell it to fuck right off.

Banks now have to report deposits of cash that is over 10k. But, there are secret bank accounts in Swiss banks where autocrats of the world stash hundreds of millions of dollars. This is messed up. Governments try hard to catch a common criminal but they leave the true criminals alone. You might think governments are being stupid, but the truth is different. The truth is that the people at the top of our very own governments probably also have huge amounts of money stashed away in secret Swiss bank accounts themselves. In fact, if you try and advocate for laws that would require people to declare how much cash they have with foreign banks, the minute you start making any kind of headway is when you will start getting threats. And if you keep soldiering on, you might even be murdered.

Some people are stupid enough to believe that their unhappiness actually means something to the government. They believe that if they say they are unhappy enough times, the government will listen and there will be changes in policies. The only time that that seems to work is when the government has already made up its mind about what it will do, and if your complaint happens to be in the same direction, it will use it as the reason for their policy. This gives people the illusion that their government listens to them.

A lot of people from third-world countries like to say that their country is a shithole because they were colonized by white people. The reason they say this is not because it's true, but rather, it's because they need it to be true. Yes it's true that white people colonized a lot of places and were the aggressors. However, part of the reason they were able to colonize our countries in the first place is because we were easy targets. Some of us are extraordinarily stupid compared to white people. Some of us are undisciplined. Some can't fight. Some can't strategize. So, we are shit so we got colonized. It is not that we got colonized so now we are shit.

Politicians love being generous with other peoples money. They give our tax money away, often to foreign countries and they get called a humanitarian. Meanwhile, some of us yell at the rest to keep working hard to make money for politicians to spend and give away. They don't think there is anything wrong with the picture I painted. These people apparently don't know what the word "chump" means.

I still remember this from many years ago. I wasn't super into US politics, but I paid attention from time to time. I remember that one day reading about Obama in a newspaper. The article about him ran multiple pages. He was making quite a splash. I remember thinking to myself, "Who is this guy? I have never heard of him before, he didn't seem that important to me. Why did the newspaper suddenly start talking about him so much?" And then a few days after that, I noticed that people in real life started to talk about him a lot. Looking back, I recognize that this was one way how the elites controlled public discourse and shaped public consciousness. They had already decided that Obama was going to be the president, so they told the newspapers that they controlled to talk about him a lot, such that the masses would start to know about him, with the end goal of voting for him. This is how the elites work. And what really amazed me was that people didn't ask why Obama seemed to have appeared on the scene overnight. They didn't suspect anything, they just talked about whatever they read in the newspapers without any critical thoughts or questions. And you wonder why those at the top have so much contempt for us the common people. It's because we truly are stupid.

I have been thinking about people who are against vaccines. Not just covid vaccines, but vaccines in general. I am not saying I agree with these people. However, there has never been an open debate where we get to hear their arguments. Instead they get made fun of in the media. The media would just mock and ridicule them without giving them a chance to tell us why they believe the things that they do. I remember this episode of the Simpsons. Ned Flanders was seen as telling someone that he didn't believe in vaccines. And then the next second the cartoon showed his two children in the background, pale-faced, shaking and just generally being really sick . This is TV studio executives blatantly trying to shape public perception. The cartoon show was sending the message that its stupid to refuse vaccines; if you don't vaccinate your children, they will become very ill. This is bull. I want an open debate. If some people believe that refusing vaccines is dumb, that's fine. But they should give the other side the chance to present their views. They shouldn't just abuse the power that they have through the media that they control, to sway the public's opinion like they did in the Simpsons. Anyway, this is one of the reasons why I stopped watching that show. The show had a lot of biases and they pushed certain views. Here's another one: I remember this one episode about children fighting. And then at the end, the character Bart was seen as directly addressing us the viewers with the message that war is never good, except WW2. This was blatant brainwashing. I was thoroughly disgusted. Whether the WW2 was the "good war", should be up to debate. We shouldn't be told it was good by the writers and TV studio executives who are behind the show. Sometimes you have to wonder why these people care so much. Nobody I know in real life cares about convincing other people that vaccines are good or that the WW2 was the good war. Like, nobody. Normal people simply do not care about stuff like that. Sometimes you have to wonder. Who are these people who care so much about these things, to the point that they would push it so relentlessly on TV?

I was arguing with someone about whether racism is morally wrong. I said that it isn't, and he said that it is. So I want to say something to settle it once and for all. Throughout most of white people's evolutionary history, they were isolated from other races. They only had contact with other whites. And since they didn't know about the existence of other races, racism couldn't have been a thing. If racism wasn't a thing, then the morality that racism is wrong, could not have not evolved, either. The reason for that, is it is impossible to evolve morality towards something one didn't even know existed. Therefore, not feeling that racism is wrong is natural. It is the normal, default state of being for white people. As such, people who claim that racism is wrong have to convince white people why racism should be wrong. White people don't need to prove anything to them.

I remember two stories that I read about in my language. Even though technically they were stories, however I believe they were inspired by actual events. Which means something similar probably actually happened in real life. Anyway, onto the stories. In the first story, there was a huge famine. People were starving. Now, there was a rich man who owned lots of land. He was able to produce food. So he stood by a gate to hand out food to people so they would not be hungry. Along came one person. The rich man saw him and said to him, "Hey, you, come eat". It's hard to describe, but basically he was addressing the person in a very disrespectful manner. So the person responded, saying, "I may be starving, however my pride will not let me be treated like this". And then he stood next to the food, not taking one bite, until he starved to death. The other story: there was a man who always kept his word. One day, he made a promise with someone to meet under a bridge. Suddenly, a flood came, threatening this man's life. But the person he was supposed to meet hadn't shown up yet. So he thought to himself, "I made a promise to him to meet him here; I will not go anywhere, not even if it means I will lose my life". Then the flood got really bad, the water level rose, and he drowned. Now, the takeaway of these stories isn't that if these two men had been more flexible, they would have lived. But rather, they showed that in hard times, people who are dignified or who have noble character, tend to die off easily. These people would not compromise on their noble qualities and in doing so, they tended to die, and their genes that encoded for these noble qualities became lost. There was an inflexibleness to them, making them much like the unyielding branch of a tree. Think of an unyielding branch of a tree. The more unyielding it is, the more easily it will snap off in a storm. Whereas people who easily compromise are like a pliable branch and as a result, it does not break easily. They just go with whatever. And as a result, they live and pass on their genes. So what does this tell us? It tells us that the more adversity a population faces, the more the noble people among them will die and their good genes will be lost.

In fact, consider the country China. The Chinese started out a very accomplished people. They made numerous contributions to science and literature....at the earlier periods. But, look at the state it is in today. Thievery, dishonesty, and corruption permeate all levels of their society. There are materialistic women everywhere who see nothing wrong with whoring out their bodies for money. Men rob, cheat, and steal, and then they become politicians. And this is because the Chinese people have gone through many many hard times throughout their history, and many good people and their good genes have been culled. Which brings me to another point. China has seen many wars, because of its central location. It is situated in a place where a lot of military forces would have to go through, in order to conquer other peoples. These wars are another form of hard times, except that their effects on the Chinese gene pool are even more devastating. People with noble-ness in their character, those who were unyieldingly good, were removed from the gene pool at an even faster rate during times of war. This is why today's China is a far cry from the nation it was ages ago. Now, look at places like Japan, and the more remote parts of Europe like the Scandinavia, and western Europe. These countries and places are situated on the edges of the world, they are not in a central location that warring forces of the olden days would have to go through. Therefore, they were not subjected to wars too much, and this is one reason why their genes haven't deteriorated much. As a result, they become the advanced, prosperous, peaceful nations that we know today. Now, consider the Middle East, which is in an even more central location than China. Look at the current state of various middle eastern countries. We see violent, harsh, war-like people everywhere. This is due to the fact the entire Middle East has seen far too many wars, which had a devastating effect on the gene pool of people located in this general area. Imagine the many warlords that had either arisen in or gone through this area and who had raped many women, leaving behind their war-like, raping genes in large quantities (Genghis Khan comes to mind). Another thing to note: once the gene pool of a people becomes bad it will be on a downward spiral. It will get worse and ever worse. This process is irreversible, until the advent of genetic engineering. This technology has the potential to remove evil, bad people in a gene pool, in theory. I say "in theory", because a people will actually need to have the ability to realize what is good and what is bad. When a people have gotten to a really bad place, genetically speaking, very often the people at the top, the policy makers, fail to understand which traits to get rid of and which to keep, because one would actually have to have pretty good genes in order to have the ability to make good judgment like that. So basically, you would have to be not too shitty genetically in order to be able to use genetic technology to improve the gene pool successfully. In fact, very often the people who are at the top are the very ones who need to go, but I don't think there is a good chance they will voluntarily edit their own shitty genes out of the gene pool.