Right wing /lit/

[Anonymous No.17578342]

I'd appreciate some recommendations on the topic of eugenics (fiction or non-fiction), preferably books that could convince normies (aka something that doesn't advocate for killing dysgenic people)

[Anonymous No.17578353]

[Anonymous No.17578370]

>>17578342
What are the most important things to you as a right winger OP

[Anonymous No.17578376]

>>17578353
>Nietzsche, Adam Smith, Darwin
>Left-wing

[Anonymous No.17578379]

>>17578342
Anything on IQ leads to those conclusions.

[Anonymous No.17578381]

>>17578370
Creating a functional national community

[Anonymous No.17578392]

>>17578381
Define functional

[Anonymous No.17578393]

>>17578342
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24115049_The_Population_Cycle_Drives_Human_History_-_from_a_Eugenic_Phase_into_a_Dysgenic_Phase_and_Eventual_Collapse

This is a pretty famous paper about the subject. Though it's more descriptive of cycles of civilization than some kind of political program.

If you trust governments to implement effective and humane eugenic programs you're a bit naive/optimistic. I'm not sure eugenics can even be 'humane', there is probably just an unavoidable amount of human suffering if you are going to keep the genetic detritus that washes up each generation at bay.

[Anonymous No.17578409]

>>17578392
No

[Anonymous No.17578442]

>>17578393
>I'm not sure eugenics can even be 'humane', there is probably just an unavoidable amount of human suffering
I'm fine with some amount of suffering as long as the benefits outweight it. The only thing I'm worried about is how to sell this to normies, because - unfortunately - the anti-eugenics conditioning is very strong in them

[Anonymous No.17578503]

>>17578409
Based

[Anonymous No.17578557]

>>17578442
You don't need a policy to be explicitly eugenic to achieve eugenic results. An income tax exemption for families with say 4 children would incentivize people to have them in relation to their productivity.

[Anonymous No.17578582]

>>17578557
Yes, this is the type of policy I'd like to learn more about (along with more "classical" eugenics policies)

[Anonymous No.17578590]

I don't know about eugenics (greatly disapprove, good guys won the second WW, etc etc), however conservatism has been in many different writings in the past in various degrees.

Would suggest Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, and Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

All beautiful works.

[Anonymous No.17578607]

>>17578557
Abortion works similarly.

[Anonymous No.17578608]

>>17578594
Wrong picture

[Anonymous No.17578630]

>>17578607
abortion and birth control are very dysgenic, higher IQ, more responsible women are much more likely to not have children, to have fewer children, to have them at a later age. Well this is in conjunction with women going to school and having careers.

[Anonymous No.17578759]

>>17578409
Based

[Anonymous No.17578785]

>>17578342
The most-sure fire way to change someone's ideology is if you can make them laugh along with your politics.

Pic rel is a masterclass in demonstrating this.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08WX5QC9Y

[Anonymous No.17578890]

>>17578630
>higher IQ, more responsible women are much more likely to not have children, to have fewer children, to have them at a later age.
I'd dispute this.

[Anonymous No.17578944]

>>17578342
Charles Murray's The Bell Curve' obv.

[Anonymous No.17578941]

>>17578890
You would simply be wrong
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/5/E727
You can also look at stuff like violent criminal men having more children than the national average

[Anonymous No.17578958]

>>17578376
all affirming with Marx

[Anonymous No.17579317]

>>17578890
It's a function of the female dating strategy. They mate upwards and on the same level which means that if they're succesful (+which means after a degree and in their 30s) they're competing for succesful men with attractive women in their 20s. It's a dysgenic catastrophe because men are attracted to fertility.

[Anonymous No.17579401]

>>17578958
>all affirming with Marx

[Anonymous No.17580182]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17580450]

>>17578630
I know a lot of wealthy college educated white women who are ostensibly liberal, as is the fashion these days, but who only live around other wealthy college educated whites, have >5 children with their husbands, and make all their kids perform at high levels in athletics and academics.
They're like Republican dream families except they're Unitarian and live in the bay area. This is a genuine trend, not an outlier.

[Anonymous No.17580493]

>>17580450
Yeah i know what you're talking about, there is a group of elites(well not really elite, but the upper middle class types) that do have a lot of kids, although even those tend to start having kids in their late 20s. But the population as a whole has an inverse correlation between IQ and fertility, there are not a lot of elites after all.

[Anonymous No.17580495]

You can't convince normies with a book about a taboo subject that they'll never read

[Anonymous No.17580500]

>>17580450
also those women are the winners so to speak, many other upper middle class women don't end up in that situation.

[Anonymous No.17580660]

>>17580493
>>17580500
straight up, I think the ladies I mentioned are doing what everyone above a certain level of intelligence dreams of doing- which is to attain a high enough level of financial stability that they can have a fuckton of blonde tan sweater-wearing precocious angel children.
And those who actually do live this dream are those who've reached a level of wealth.
So, to the right-wing tilted question of "how do we encourage intelligent (white) people to have more kids," I think the patterns of these ladies indicate that the solution is to improve financial stability for the upper middle class.
Because social welfare disproportionately goes to tiny ethnic sections of the working class, and in general skips over the "middle class" (upper section of the working class) before dumping financial wealth and raining gold on the beneficiaries of capital (those who hole the marxist "means of production," in post-fordist finance capital, or those whose financial situation improves with the general growth of funds in global investment markets).
Develop a universal social welfare like that seen in the nordic countries so we can allow intelligent americans to have kids without fucking themselves financially, basically. Right now they work too much and are too broke to have a ton of babies, which they clearly want to do. Those at the bottom of the working class are already financially fucked either way so they have as many babies as they want, all you do by creating some type of universal welfare is incentivize the best people to make more of the best people.

[Anonymous No.17580726]

>>17580660
Subsidizing middle class does seem necessary but in countries with strong welfare states(scandis and whatever) the birth rates are still fucked. The only developed country that has solved this is Israel, and they have the benefit of an extremely strong ethnic/national identity, and a culture that doesn't denigrate women for being mothers but praises them. Israel is also a pretty new country and its birth rates could drop in the coming decades, but at the moment it is the great anomaly in the developed world fertility story.

[Anonymous No.17580779]

>>17580726
Nope bullshit Israel has higher birth rates because of religiosity. Religious people make more children.

[Anonymous No.17580813]

>>17580726
I'm gonna come across as a bit of an american exceptionalist here, but I think that americans are better than the rest of the world and generally when we try shit it works better than it would with other people. If we subsidized the middle class here, because we have the best middle class in the world who still believe in this american dream which includes large families and strong communities, we would have large families and strong communities. Scandinavians are great but they don't have anywhere near our raw libido. Look at the average scandi middle class guy vs the average american middle class guy. Even in our most liberal and cosmopolitan communities, men still are men. They lift, they have close-cropped hair, they're competitive with each other, they like to fuck, etc. This character gets called out as "natural fascistic tendencies" when criticized, but I think it's better understood as an enduring grain of american self-sufficiency and frontier masculinity. Another example- everybody here bets and gambles, even though autistically gambling doesn't make sense (the house always wins,) the american man realizes that the thrill of the possibility of winning far outweighs the actual loss of funds. I doubt scandinavian guys have such a strong culture of sports betting and casino culture.
Israel is unsustainable, they're getting big short term rewards for a strategy which essentially sacrifices their future. A propaganda campaign as blatant and antisocial as theirs has never worked.

[Anonymous No.17580815]

>>17580779
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion
Israel is actually a very atheist country, around 58%, puts it with Canada and South Korea. This is in 16th place overall

[Anonymous No.17581038]

>>17578409

[Anonymous No.17581047]

>>17578608
Yea this pretty much starts it off

[Anonymous No.17581106]

>>17578590
If you want to learn how to lose ever political/cultural battle and eventually your people your nation and your life, then check these guys out, conservatism does that best.
As for RW lit recs there's unironically some excellent charts on litwiki. Also, for modern stuff read (I'm going to misspell a lot of these) revolt of the elites, parreto, nemesis or de Jouvenel, Alasdair McIntyre, anthropomorphics, Joseph De Maistre, Carl Schmidt and Carlyle. That's a weird mix of books and authors some from past few decades some from past few centuries that have a lot of superior info to give.

If you want intro to critiquing liberalism check out Deneen's Why Liberalism Failed, which references a lot of the authors that the anon I'm replying to did

[Anonymous No.17581542]

>>17580815
https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2013/02/28/israel-demographic-miracle/
>Religious Sect /Average No. of Children per Woman
>Ultra-Orthodox - 6.72
>Modern Orthodox - 3.39
>Conservative = 1.74
>Reform - 1.36
>Secular - 1.29
It's religion, babe

[Anonymous No.17581654]

>>17581542
If 58% of the country identifies as irreligious then the numbers don't add up. Some of the people put into religious categories technically must actually be atheists

[Anonymous No.17582006]

>>17581654
Nevermind I fucked up, what I posted is about American Jews.

However the article still supports my argument:
>In Israel, the so-called secular (a designation that in actuality covers a wide spectrum of religious belief and practice) account for Israel’s uniquely high fertility rate. In fact, the line between “secular” and “religious” is blurred in the Jewish state.
>Israel’s Jews are not divided into two groups but into four: ultra-orthodox, religious Zionists, traditional Jews, and secular. Some 8 percent are ultra-Orthodox.
>The third group consists of the vast majority of Israeli Jews, some 55 percent, who define themselves as “traditional.”
My guess would be that the "58% irreligious" figure you found is misleading and includes all the non-orthodox Jews as well.
>That Israel’s exceptional fertility stems from religious commitment rather than ethnicity is suggested by the enormous contrast between orthodox and secular Jewish birth rates in the United States. Nowhere is the fertility gap between religious and non-religious more extreme than among American Jews. As a group, American Jews show the lowest fertility of any ethnic group in the country.
>The American data suggest an explanation of fertility similar to what is encountered in Israel: the stronger the Jewish commitment, the more likely Jews are to have children. Living in Eretz Yisrael is one of the strongest manifestations of Jewish commitment, such that Israeli Jews within a broad spectrum of religious observance have as many children as the most religiously engaged American Jews.
Seems religion is the main causal factor

[Anonymous No.17582243]

What eugenics policies would a government need to enact to create a race of 6 foot, hyperintelligent, big dicked Überchads?