/lit/ - Literature

>>22232870

>>22232870
>>22232942
just get the light blue book listed on there
it's all you need
complete overview of all things eugenics philosophy from like 1850-1950

>>22232870
>Hereditary Genius (Francis Galton)
>The New Decalogue of Science (Albert E. Wiggam)
>The Fruit of the Family Tree (Albert E. Wiggam)
>The Next Age of Man (Albert E. Wiggam)
>The Marks of an Educated Man (Albert E. Wiggam)
These are books I have on the actual subject of eugenics. I'd post a picture but I don't have a particularly good one.
>The Passing of the Great Race; or, The Racial Basis of European History (Madison Grant)
>The Myth of the 20th Century (Alfred Rosenberg)
I own these, too. They're extremely interesting and have a bigger political call-to-action type of messaging, especially Grant's.
>>22232942
>Into the Darkness
I have this book, too. It's great, I feel really bad for Stoddard, his entire career was destroyed for this book.
>Myth of the Blood
>Notes on the Third Reich
Off-topic: I have nearly every translated Evola book, but I don't have these. I also have an interest in having these, along side a Traditionalist Confronts Fascism. They're too expensive for me at the moment.

>>22234418
>Myth of the Blood
>Notes on the Third Reich
These are great. Both short ~100 pages
In Notes, Evola destroys the worst aspects of the Third Reich, yet brings forth and highlights the good aspects.
If you have read some eugenics /lit/, then you will enjoy Myth of Blood.

It might be worth delving into deep ecology (the Pentti Linkola strain) as well, OP. To put it simply, gluing oneself to an iconic painting isn't going to fix the environment, but there's one thing that will.

>>22232942
Eugenics =/= nazism. Even socialists were proponents of eugenics before world wars. And Nazi eugenics are dogshit, they really thought that genociding the smartest people is a good idea.

>>22232870
Grant and Rosenberg are nordicist cope trash that delegitimize eugenics as a valid science. Lewis Terman is the only one who simultaneously practiced with rigor and enjoyed popular appeal in that era. Start with Genetic Studies of Genius, which is simultaneously thorough, autistically detailed, yet also easy to read and full of little bits of data that are great for trolling leftists and /pol/tards alike.

https://archive.org/details/geneticstudiesof009044mbp

kill yourselves, you will help your cause.

>>22234736
>the smartest people

>>22232870
don't fall for the iq meme

>>22235819
Sum up Gould's counter argument in three to five sentences

>>22235821
>do the reading for meeee!!!
fine, I'll play. iq is a dumb measurement."differences" in iq between groups cannot be attributed to genetic factors alone, there are far too many confounding variables. there are also more genetic differences within racial groups than between different racial groups, which makes it very, very difficult to say that iq is mostly or solely genetic -- again, too many variables. iq testing has a very long racist history. it's pretty good at differentiating between degrees of mental retardation but breaks down as it increases. but you should really read the book anon, if you believe that iq really does differ strongly between races then you don't have anything to fear from an extended counterargument. you'll avoid the book if some part of you thinks that you might be wrong, because then you have no "scientific" justification for your hate. which is a scary concept

>>22235849
>"differences" in iq between groups cannot be attributed to genetic factors alone
Only /pol/tards do this. Even scientists from 100 years ago with explicitly racist views tend to acknowledge the importance of environment. The reason that scientists care so much about the genetic component is that it's immutable; you can't simply give IQ stamps to dumb people like you can food stamps to hungry people.
>there are far too many confounding variables
But somehow these same confounding variables don't interfere with a nurture-maximalist viewpoint?
>there are also more genetic differences within racial groups than between different racial groups, which makes it very, very difficult to say that iq is mostly or solely genetic
Explain how.
>iq testing has a very long racist history
What doesn't?
>it's pretty good at differentiating between degrees of mental retardation but breaks down as it increases
Hardly. To this day IQ tests continue to show strongest performance from East Asians and Jews, who are also overrepresented in many intellectual categories. If you mean in the sense that extremely rare 5+ SD IQ scores are not great predictors of individual performance, then no shit, that's what happens with outliers, and individual experiences will be highly varied.
>if you believe that iq really does differ strongly between races then you don't have anything to fear from an extended counterargument. you'll avoid the book if some part of you thinks that you might be wrong, because then you have no "scientific" justification for your hate. which is a scary concept
I actually take a position similar to Lewis Terman's on race and IQ, which is that while racial categories can be invented and used to predict IQ on a population level, race is still fundamentally a social construct. Humans are genetic organisms and it is their nearest sources of genetic material that best predict intellectual (and other) abilities.

>>22235849
anon just asked for a summary and you gave a smug and insecure response based on your presuppositions of his beliefs

>>22232870
>In the Name of Eugenics; Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity by Daniel J. Kevles
Is supposed to be a good critique of it

So hypothetically, anons, is it possible to build a master race through eugenics?

Imagine yourself as the ruler of a country, and suppose you have unlimited control over governmental affairs, lawmaking and the courts. How would one go about it?

>>22235916
The obvious first step is to get as much top-tier cum as you can and incentivize women/families wanting to bear children to take it. It doesn't even have to be the smartest cum as long as its not dysgenic cum. For example, a handsome 6'4" white man is already near the top percentiles in terms of attractiveness. Even if he's of merely average intelligence for his race, if he can impregnate 100 average East Asian women with IQ's around 110, that will mean at least 50 children with improved attractiveness and slightly above average IQ. If he can impregnate 100 average black women with IQ's around 85, that will mean virtually all children will be far more intelligent than their mother, as well as more attractive. If you pay 1000 high-tier (145+ IQ average+ height) men for their cum, they will improve the bloodline of nearly any woman they impregnate. Ideally, since it's likely that many different kinds of intellectual gifts feed into intelligence (e.g. visual-spatial abilities, abstract reasoning, mathematical skills, trivia memory, muscle memory, determination/perseverance, etc), the government should try to obtain cum from a diverse group of high-performance men from the graphical arts to the musical arts to mathematicians and physicists to surgeons to top athletes to top CEO's.

Another critical step will be to filter out dangerous genetic cases. First step is no tolerance for highly criminal children in schools; you assault your teacher over something dumb, let alone commit armed robbery, it's prison for life with no conjugal visits. No teen pregnancies for problematic youths.

For broader impact, a good rule of thumb would be if grandparents produce two or more children/grandchildren with severe disease or violent/perverse tendencies, they should at a bare minimum be required to take subsidized genetic testing in order to identify a genetic basis for those problems. If identified, those lacking the genetic risk factors are given a bill of clear health. If none is identified, the entire branch should be sexually quarantined, e.g. mandated to use birth control and/or be adoptive parents. Sterile state-provided prostitutes can be administered to keep the balls of men from such a bloodline empty and content.

>>22235916
It's a task for several centuries and massive institutions.
1. Child subsidies programs based on voluntary applications if parents have no criminal records, no diseases and above average inteligence score.
2. Access to improved education based on positive eugenics instead of negative eugenics of modern education for kids which parents are in the subsidies program and according to eugenic evaluation of the possible student just in case we can increase those numbers without decreasing the threshold. Minimal student to teacher ratio, only gender separated schools, high quality of education. Pronatalist propaganda all the way.
3. Internship programs for students of the program for high paying jobs.
4. Reduction or complete abandonment of child subsidies for the people with criminal record, mentally ill and in case of a divorce of parents. Possibly elimination of all child subsidies for people who don't make the cut.
5. 50% tax on all operations with stocks and dividends and complete ban on all investments scores. Ban on usury. You can't make a society without destroying financial capitapism.

>>22235898
I don’t like it when someone barks an order at me, sorry. I also don’t have any respect for racists
>>22235885
>debate me bro read for me bro
nah. read the book lmao

>>22235959
Wasting all that effort on producing more genetically fit chipdren without the incentive for them themselves to grow well adjusted and reproduce plentifully is going to be pointless within a single generation. There should be selective pressure on the scale of 100 generations at least. Putting them into the disgenic society with opposite pressure is completely useless.

>>22235849
I'm not the guy who asked you but I'd like to weigh in and get a response from you, if possible.
>iq is a dumb measurement.
This is the assertion. Ok, now let's see how it is supported.
>"differences" in iq between groups cannot be attributed to genetic factors alone, there are far too many confounding variables.
Like what? Also, why are you putting "differences" in scare quotes? Do you think the word "differences" shouldn't mean (IQ_A - IQ_B = diiff_of_A_and_B) is unfair to call a difference?
>there are also more genetic differences within racial groups than between different racial groups
This sounds like the argument is that "race isn't real" so far, especially including the previous green-text quote I made.
>iq testing has a very long racist history.
Appeal to emotion, I guess? Because "racist = bad", despite no one being able to explain to me why in-group preference is worse than out-group prference.
>it's pretty good at differentiating between degrees of mental retardation
Despite being based around a racist idea of what it is to be intelligent, we can tell if someone is retarded on it. So, it works, at least towards retarded individuals and the degrees in which one is retarded. Interesting, but this does sort of support IQ as an acceptable measurement. Especially when you consider the average IQ of any given African country, we see them as averaging between 80 IQ and down into the 40's where it considered unmeasurable. All of these are considered profoundly retarded. When we compare the Africans of today and the american blacks today, we can see that american blacks have a slightly higher IQ. But we can also note that the main difference is the purity of the blood. Black americans aren't as pure as black africans. Knowing this AND the fact that american blacks have an average IQ of about 86. Well, I'm curious about your response here.
>but breaks down as it increases
In what way? This seems dishonest, the difference between an IQ of 105 - 115 is not particularly impressive, but IQ difference between 135 - 145 makes the 135 uncomfortable. When we look at this, it just means that once above a specific IQ, we probably need a different type of test that can only be taken once it is proven that the individual in question exceeds some 100 + n value of IQ.

1/2

>>22235849
>>22236042
>you should really read the book anon, if you believe that iq really does differ strongly between races then you don't have anything to fear from an extended counterargument.
Well, this is nothing I've encountered before, based on your overview. I would read it if it seemed worthwhile, that is, if it included things I've never seen before on the matter. Unfortunately, I am fairly well read on the matters as well as experiments that have been retroactively removed such as the "maximize funding for an all black school" event where they had absolutely no change in scores, which undermines the entire marxist "It's the economy" argument. I digress.
>you'll avoid the book if some part of you thinks that you might be wrong
I will avoid the book because it has no value to me, not because I'm scared of being wrong. If I were scared of being wrong, I'd still be a good little liberal that had all the right views and all the right opinions. Unfortunately for you, I'm open minded.
>because then you have no "scientific" justification for your hate.
Scientific? I'm in academia, no really, I am (Mathematics). Anyways, we are not allowed to publish things that could be harmful or could be used to break certain social conventions. For example, if I published a paper that supports [wrong opinion] they will first explain that while the paper is great, the subject is harmful, so they will dismiss the paper. I could go around them, get it published in something like research gate or some other farm, but this is less reputible and it would destroy my career, or at least my academic standing. Sometimes its just a matter of funding, but a lot of the times, there are special interest groups that monitors what is going on and bring it up the admin to get it stopped or they'll deal with serious problems somewhere down the line. It's a whole cabal, it's great. Anyways, my point is: You don't know what "scientific" means because we don't do "scientific" anymore.
[2/2]

Anyways, good luck

>>22236042
>>22236044
>MuH freeThInkinG
>racist drivel
>DEBATE ME BRO
lol nah

The real redpill is that eugenic and dysgenic processes are always already ongoing. There is no static genetic makeup waiting to be altered by interested actors. As eugenics is for the most part banned as a formal discipline, these changes are essentially governed by something close to occult forces of nature that plagued the attempts at understanding the world of pre-scientific revolution peoples. The ban on eugenics comes from an ethical and philosophical commitment to the idea that the human is not only not an animal, but not a biological creature at all. This might also be called sociologism. This leaves Western societies without the mental tools to assess biological changes going on around them

>>22236067
This is always an interesting take. I guess the gist of it is that freethinking was always historically associated with egalitarian movements. What's strange is that now all academic power centers are controlled by egalitarians. This runs contrary to people's concepts of themselves on both sides. What happens when the establishment is controlled by people possessed by revolutionary, egalitarian ideology? What happens when the subaltern and the Other are the remnants of the ancien regime or the NSDAP?
Strange stuff, reactionaries are guerilla warriors without any institutional existence and progressives are The Man. I think this causes pain guilt and confusion for both

>>22232870
https://books.google.com/books/about/Inbreeding_and_Outbreeding.html
Inbreeding and Outbreeding by Edward East. Chapter 12 is about humans. He studied agricultural genetics and breeding schemes to improve crops and livestock. He was one of the main guys in getting inbred hybrid maize economically viable.

>>22235916
https://books.google.com/books?id=DgsSAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=hybrid+corn+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi555CAw7zfAhUOU98KHankD2UQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q&f=false

Inbreeding and Outbreeding by Edward East. Chapters 12 and 13 are about man. East studied crop and livestock breeding. It's possible to improve selected traits very quickly with controlled breeding.

>>22236037
Are you suggesting a centralized mandated form of education? Because I operate on the assumption that efforts to regulate the day-to-day efforts of parents of futile. There will always be shitty parents and the state is unlikely to catch them until it is too late, but giving the children a genetic advantage will at least give them an edge.
>on the scale of 100 generations at least
Nowhere near that much is needed to effectuate significant genetic change. A child with merely 3 generations of pre-eugenics 99th percentile blood should have 7/8ths of their genome be high quality.

>>22236042
>the difference between an IQ of 105 - 115 is not particularly impressive
Not that guy but big disagree, that's the difference between a B high school student and an honor's high school student, or the difference between a mediocre college graduate and an above-average college graduate, or the difference between a struggling professional and an average professional.

Then factor in the +/- 2SD aspect and it becomes more drastic. Putting aside non-genetic/childbirth-failure/etc cases, a mean 105 IQ population of 1000 will have ~30 people at 70 IQ or below, vs only 3 from the mean 115 IQ population. Then on the flip side, you get about 10x the geniuses as well.

>>22232870
Your mother's diary desu.

>>22236212
>he thinks grades correlate with intelligence

>>22236313
They do. There's a reason blacks and Hispanics have a much higher college dropout rate.

>>22236212
>B high school student
>Honor high school student
This implies that the B-student is actively studying and trying their best, same goes for the honor student. That's not a great comparison.
I made A+ grades without trying, avoided honors and such, rarely went to class, and then I dropped out. All of my skipping school meant I didn't actually get almost any credits, but then I dropped out the moment I could (16), got my GED, then went to college for mathematics. For what it's worth, I also tested in the 160 IQ range (according to my parents), a dubious value and I have some doubts about it being as high as is claimed. But why question it? Anyways, BA in mathematics at 19, and so on. I know this is one person and that doesn't change much, but the reason why negroes and hispanics drop out is because people stop making them go. They push and push, then people eventually stop trying. If you think the reason people are dropping out is low grades, you're delusional and probably not particularly experienced with the world around you. They almost exclusively have low grades, but they can't really fail high school. But they sure can give up.

>>22232870
GOD I wish my parents had been sterilised, desu.

I'm a support of eugenics but the kind in which fetuses with disabilities are forcibly aborted and those with heritable genetic disorders are sterilised
I don't think that there's any lofty goal like breeding a superior humanity but rather just that these actions will prevent the birth of individuals who either experience very high levels of suffering or are needless burdens
What should I read?

>>22236691
Yeah obviously high school is a highly tenuous time for many individuals, but if you take population averages, there's zero doubt that Asians do the best in high school, whites second best, then Hispanics poorly and blacks the worst. You could alternatively look at SAT scores.
>I know this is one person and that doesn't change much, but the reason why negroes and hispanics drop out is because people stop making them go. They push and push, then people eventually stop trying.
Sure, but that proves my point: there are far fewer blacks and Hispanics capable of graduating college.

there are people itt with these takes
>not all X are like that therefore patterns don't exist
>if a correlation isn't perfect it is useless
>there are a lot of variables, that means we can't control for them and need to assume X position based on conjecture because I said so
>i found a 6 foot tall Vietnamese guy and a 5 foot 6 Dutch guy. that means Serbia and the Netherlands have the same average height
>intelligence can't be tested for
anti-hereditarians aren't sending their best

>>22232870
It always must be pointed out that in most cases the people pushing for eugenics would be the ones sterilized or put on the wall

>>22235849
>>22236067
>Lewontin fallacy
>appeal to progressivist wordcel spooks
>appeal to emotion
>no mathematical evidence of anti-IQ claims
>waffling and basedjaking when challenged
You just hate it because you're sub-110, nothing to see here.

>>22235959
>Given the task of overseeing eugenic selection
>immediately prioritizes attractiveness, the most subjective trait with the most questionable heritability, above all else

It really is eye-opening how many of the self-proclaimed eugenicists out there just want to turn the human race into a bunch of dysgenic show dogs

>>22236501
By that same logic, we should all aspire to be oriental supermen, dumbass

>>22236860
You're not thinking long term. If you take the effort to get a 150 IQ guy to impregnate 100 women with 115 IQ, you will produce 100 people, many also likely to have rather high IQ's, but there's no strong guarantee that they will in turn reproduce. By contrast, if you get a 105 IQ Chad to impregnate 100 women with 115 IQ, you will produce 100 people, most in the slightly-above average IQ range, but with the power of attractiveness and exponential growth, they will elevate an entire population in a few generations.

Also, attractiveness is not subjective on a population level. Most non-white cultures have women that fetishize tall stature, light skin, light eyes, light hair, etc. A white Chad can easily impregnate 100 women in developing/mid-level countries, produce women that are seen as fairer and more beautiful, and men that are taller and more muscular. If the Chad has just a modest IQ advantage, let alone a strong one, the effects will be felt rapidly through the society after a few generations.
>>22236862
Pretty much, yeah. I think there are good traits to be found in all races, but it's important to racemix with thoughtful intent instead of "Ooga booga black art black sports fuck dem yt bitches"

>>22234736
youre such a kawaii contrarian anon

>>22222222

>>22236860
>claims this is long term thinking
You were given authority to institute a eugenic program on a national scale and chose to enact a policy equivalent to Harem fantasy anime that relies pure dumb luck to continue into future instead of a creating society that propagates itself through a GATTACA-esque process of embryonic screening combined with rigorous genetic, intelligence, and physical fitness testing in order to qualify for reproduction/parenthood which is the most basic form of scientific eugenics policy.

>>22236871
>claims this is long term thinking
You were given authority to institute a eugenic program on a national scale and chose to enact a policy equivalent to Harem fantasy anime that relies pure dumb luck to continue into future instead of a creating society that propagates itself through a GATTACA-esque process of embryonic screening combined with rigorous genetic, intelligence, and physical fitness testing in order to qualify for reproduction/parenthood which is the most basic formulation of a "scientific" eugenics policy.

>>22232942
Touch grass

Its crazy how no one is willing to adress complete dysgenic collapse across all metrics from intelligence to health that will basically make advanced industrial civilization complete impossibility in the next 2 generations. Europeans are already dumber than during victorian era and this trend is drastically accelerating because of mass migration, free healthcare and welfare states.
But I guess its easier for cowardly governments to talk about things like climate change and such.

>>22232942
>Biological Racism
>Rosenberg
>Evola
Ah I see you prefer the retards and discord schizo's over actual eugenics

>>22232870
Read this:

https://adolfstalin.substack.com/p/a-short-piece-on-critical-eugenicism

>>22237271
The orientals will carry the torch of civilization. They're getting smarter by the year

>>22237271
Don’t worry, we got a plan

>>22238159
Koreans literally have 0.7 TFR

>>22236910
>sperm donors
>harem fantasy
You're insane if you think micromanaging individual reproductive events is the best way to ensure a eugenic society btw. I already said that genetic screening is important, but trying to derive phenotypes from embryonic screening is a sledgehammer approach. It's better to let people grow first and fully understand their potential rather than try to cherry pick a couple /pol/ meme genes.