tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post5841733118807753818..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: The Protestant View (according to Monty Python)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-40946422424519744702011-11-02T23:02:09.397-07:002011-11-02T23:02:09.397-07:00Steve, I suspect you're bang-on correct.
In t...Steve, I suspect you're bang-on correct.<br /><br />In the 1950s USA, it was the white Catholics and the blacks who were producing the most babies. (And since Mexican-Americans were at that time a quite small population, I am in fact talking about WHITE Catholics; Irish, German, Italian, Polish, etc.) Quebec in Canada was equally fecund as Mexico was back then. <br /><br />White Protestants had the lowest rates; although back then, they were still above replacement, they were decidedly lower than Catholics and blacks. This is one reason why respectable old-line Protestant denominations such as the Episcopalians and Methodists became small fractions of the overall population, despite being the majority in many states for much of the USA's history. <br /><br />After Vatican II took the teeth out of the Catholic Church, though, Catholic birth rates started to fall big-time. Thereafter, it was only non-Christians or non-whites who had high birth rates, and talking about population growth became unfashionable and racist.<br /><br />Now, even more so. Sure, you see a spate of news about the world population hitting 7 billion and increasing, but as Gwynne Dyer recently pointed out, population growth now is entirely an African problem. Europeans and East Asians are dying off, and Latinos, Muslims, and Indians are stabilizing. But very few people are prepared to turn away from the pictures of starving Somali children and say that even if a large number die off, an equal number will be born in the next year.corvinusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4482383350040112002011-11-02T19:02:08.922-07:002011-11-02T19:02:08.922-07:00Simon wrote:
"Why aren't Protestants worr...<b>Simon wrote:</b><br />"<i>Why aren't Protestants worried about being swamped by Haitians (etc), though?</i>"<br /><br />(1) Some are not concerned, because they have been trained to believe in Nonwhite Moral Superiority. (More Haitians equals more vibrancy, e.g. they are fans of the hip rap-stylings of Haitian Wyclef Jean...and most probably have no idea who the original Jon Wycliff is).<br /><br />(2) Some are not, because it does not affect them living in Seattle or Maine or Iowa.<br /><br />(3) Some <i>are</i> concerned, but self-censor in public, because they are socially-aware enough to understand that the Social Apparatus demands people act like #1s above.<br /><br />(4) Some <i>are</i> concerned and express such, and are marginalized or worse.<br /><br />White-Democrats: #1s and some #2s.<br /><br />White-Republicans: Many #2s and many #3s. Hardline #3s and #4s are generally disgusted with the Republicans, though.Hailhttp://hailtoyou.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52334782085959906482011-11-02T13:25:32.376-07:002011-11-02T13:25:32.376-07:001) Eugenics, anti-Catholicism, and secular protest...<i>1) Eugenics, anti-Catholicism, and secular protestantism went hand in hand. 2) By the1920s and especially later much of the vanguard of Unitarian liberal elite had made the transition to full on agnosticism. However this was not much of a jump from unitarianism. Ethnically these were protestant movements whatever you want to call their theology.</i><br /><br />Josh: Fair enough. But keep in mind:<br /><br />1) The 1920s, and maybe even 1949, is kind of what I meant when I wrote "a lot further back than Paul Ehrlich." Protestants of that era were indeed suspicious of the Catholic newcomers of their day for reasons good and bad. But little of this hostility remained after WWII among observant Protestants. By the time Paul Ehrlich was writing, anti-Catholicism on demography grounds was strictly the preserve of the secular Left.<br /><br />2) "Ethnic Protestant" is a <i>very</i> abstract category, if indeed it is a category at all. What you intend here is old-stock American, Northern European, etc., i.e., strictly ethnic categories. Very few Americans a generation or more removed from actual Protestant observance maintain any religious identification, and actual Protestant churches make no appeals to them on an historical or ethnic basis.<br /><br />3) As a matter of intellectual philogenesis, the progressive movement can be described as having its roots in Protestantism. But I am at pains to point out that they became progressives precisely when they <i>broke away</i> from those roots. Today's progressives bear no affinity with, say, orthodox Presbyterianism or the SBC; indeed, they are mortal enemies.Dr. Φhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14086783503820477029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-20294991755920791452011-11-02T03:02:58.243-07:002011-11-02T03:02:58.243-07:00doc,
Paul Blanhard is a pretty good archetype of ...doc,<br /><br />Paul Blanhard is a pretty good archetype of a kind of secular writer of his day. Per wiki:<br /><br />"Following graduation from Michigan University in 1914, Blanshard enrolled in Harvard Divinity School. Prior to entry, he joined the Socialist Party, of which he remained a member for 19 years. Blanshard found his studies replete with "verbal evasion" and wryly observed that "This institution was what Mark Twain would have called a theological cemetery". He joined the Boston Socialist Party and sometimes was dispatched to local strikes as a clerical agitator. Under these casual arrangements he met both Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti. Blanshard described his early preaching experience as relying more upon Bernard Shaw than the Bible."<br /><br />"Seated alphabetically for inauguration into Phi Beta Kappa, to Paul's left was Julia Sweet Anderson. A romance and normal courtship was followed by an unusual "Marriage Ceremony for Revolutionists". The eschewing of a Christian ceremony while still at Harvard Divinity School was a portent. The couple humorously described this as "term insurance for our marriage in stead of a straight life policy". The young couple became close friends with both Helen Keller and Margaret Sanger."<br /><br />1) Eugenics, anti-Catholicism, and secular protestantism went hand in hand. 2) By the1920s and especially later much of the vanguard of Unitarian liberal elite had made the transition to full on agnosticism. However this was not much of a jump from unitarianism. Ethnically these were protestant movements whatever you want to call their theology.joshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-64126791593085628812011-11-02T01:11:22.484-07:002011-11-02T01:11:22.484-07:00out of all the euro americans, mormons have the mo...out of all the euro americans, mormons have the most kids. and they have somehow mostly avoided getting bashed for this. they're a lot more serious, person for person, about being mormon than catholics are about being catholic. <br /><br />people like to focus on other peculiar features of mormon society and concentrate on bashing that, and kind of forget to take their free "and you have too many kids, too" shot on them.<br /><br />personally i think this is because liberals are so gleeful about bashing conservative euro americans for practicing any kind of religion, and so hilariously hypocritical about NEVER bashing the other groups for being even more religious, that mormons just light up their "white conservatives who practice a religion seriously?!" radar like the proverbial christmas tree - which, in some sort of pun, liberals have also set as a high priority target. they literally attack christmas trees, too.jodynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6016602427713705992011-11-02T01:06:28.556-07:002011-11-02T01:06:28.556-07:00yeah i don't think that's what happened. l...yeah i don't think that's what happened. lots of euro americans of all religions were beating the "Stop reproducing, the earth can't handle this many people" drum for a long time. then after a while when the birth rate for europeans around the world began to drop like a rock, they stopped talking about that. meanwhile the population of third worlders exploded.<br /><br />today it is all about criticizing europeans for reproducing while totally ignoring anything any other group is doing. i'd say the basic feeling now is that if some euro american family has more than 3 kids, they're being assholes. any other group is permitted to reproduce at will with no comment.<br /><br />pretty dangerous situation when you start bringing in various muslims who have kids at the same rate as serious, dedicated catholics. although not that many "catholics" are actually serious about it. and hey, it IS difficult being a highly observant catholic. there's so many rules and regulations. what an inconvenience! most muslims are deadly serious about being muslims, even demanding their employers alter their business practices and regulations to allow the muslims (only the muslims) to take breaks from work every couple hours to pray.<br /><br />but for most "catholics", they're almost like casual bandwagon sports fans. it's all "Team Catholic! I'm part of a good, major team!" when for whatever reason, religion is important for the next 5 minutes. most of the rest of the time though it's casual sex with birth control and "Yeah I'm too busy for right now for Mass/Confession/Night Prayer/observing any required practice, just gonna surf the internet for porn/play video games instead."<br /><br />i've dated several mexican women who never attended church a single time in years, observed no religious practices ever, had sex with me a hundred times without having a single child or even a marriage proposal, yet still maintained "I'm Catholic".<br /><br />LOL. no, you're not. you just wave a terrible towel when the Steelers are in the superbowl. you don't even know the name of one player. many second and third generation mexicans are classic "Team Catholic!" casual catholics IE non-catholics. they break every rule, all day, for years, then thump their chest once in a while "I'm Catholic and I'm going to Heaven!"jodynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-83246582205182876362011-11-01T17:55:15.006-07:002011-11-01T17:55:15.006-07:00The irish still have the most kids in europe and i...The irish still have the most kids in europe and it seems like they do in this country too. (among whites that is)Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-77832944649521035092011-11-01T16:08:00.297-07:002011-11-01T16:08:00.297-07:00The Sierra Club refuses to discuss population beca...The Sierra Club refuses to discuss population because their main financial benefactor has made it clear that he will not support them if it leads to an anti-immigrant sentiment.<br /><br />The other greenie organizations refuse to deal with population growth issue because it is RACIST to insist that those third world people reduce their birthrates down to Western (and East Asian) levels.kurt9https://www.blogger.com/profile/02101147267959016924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39797248554219867122011-11-01T14:52:08.150-07:002011-11-01T14:52:08.150-07:00It will be interesting to see how this plays out i...It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the UK.<br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056265/MigrationWatch-UK-Thousand-hour-sign-e-petition-calling-immigration-debate.htmlpoultry inspectornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-17879696754797519882011-11-01T12:28:24.757-07:002011-11-01T12:28:24.757-07:00The NYT article quotes John Pope, chairman of the ...The NYT article quotes John Pope, chairman of the Sierra Club, as saying that the organization wants to keep a low profile on the population issue. Indeed, there are many reasons for this. For example, a discussion of overpopulation leading inevitably to depletion of natural resources, loss of habitat and increased pollution would occur. And this might cause some to raise the issue of Third World immigration to the US and other developed nations, which causes the immigrants to consume and pollute at First World rather than Third World rates. <br /><br />In 1996, the Sierra Club changed its position on immigration in exchange for a $100 million donation from David Gelbaum, according to the "LA Times" (report no longer available on line but summarized here: http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-2005-sierra-series-by-brenda-walker-0. A brief quote:<br /><br />After all, the 1996 switch from common sense to political correctness was an abrupt change from the earlier position that the Club should work to "bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world."<br /><br />Our suspicions were correct. The LA Times article revealed that shadowy funder Gelbaum donated generously on condition that the Sierra Club not address immigration as an environmental issue.<br /><br />Said Gelbaum, "I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."<br /><br />The story continued:<br /><br />"Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I. <br /><br />" 'I asked, 'Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?' 'Gelbaum said. 'Abe didn't speak English that well. He said, 'I came here. How can I tell them not to come?''<br /><br />"I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents."<br /><br />Gelbaum's reasoning is patently anti-environmental. It assumes that this country can absorb millions of new foreign residents annually who come with dreams of American level consumption.<br /><br />....<br /><br />The NYT ran a series of articles on the Sierra Club's internal disputes on immigration in 2004-5 but curiously overlooked Gelbaum's role. In fact, the only mention of it at all in the NYT was as a side note to this article about Gelbaum's termination of his annual $20 million donation to the ACLU, perhaps as a result of the Bernie Madoff affair.Black Deathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29125088434316249552011-11-01T12:09:19.856-07:002011-11-01T12:09:19.856-07:00Josh re: American Freedom and Catholic Power.
I ...Josh re: American Freedom and Catholic Power.<br /><br />I haven't read the book, and a brief google search has not found the contents. But from Wikipedia, I read that he writes from a secular rather than protestant perspective. Nor do I find any mention of a population control program. But if this is wrong, please let me know.Dr. Φhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14086783503820477029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-2519665504901930892011-11-01T11:57:02.278-07:002011-11-01T11:57:02.278-07:00"Why aren't Protestants worried about bei..."Why aren't Protestants worried about being swamped by Haitians (etc), though? I think maybe they are, but thinking that is 'racist', so can't be expressed?"<br /><br />It's not exactly fun being a Protestant in a Roman Catholic country - yes, I speak from experience.<br /><br />I think the difference is that we white Protestants know we can dominate and isolate ourselves from Haitians.<br /><br />It's a lot harder when it comes to the Papists. (Don't whine; I've been called much worse.) White Catholics can dominate the wider society in a way that Haitians etc., just can't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75530614201473636352011-11-01T11:52:26.497-07:002011-11-01T11:52:26.497-07:00Eugenics (regulation of population quality) looks ...Eugenics (regulation of population quality) looks to me like the policy issue with the most practical potential, and the least political possibility. Even Sloterdijk's Straussian exercise was unveiled and denounced.FredRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75748057562237378322011-11-01T11:42:03.859-07:002011-11-01T11:42:03.859-07:00"while it is certainly possible that mainline..."while it is certainly possible that mainline liberal support for it may have been motivated by anti-Romanism, you would have to go a lot further back that Paul Ehrlich to find any expression of it."<br /><br />Not that much further.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Freedom_and_Catholic_Powerjoshnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-51034530563752866522011-11-01T11:35:13.831-07:002011-11-01T11:35:13.831-07:00Has the financial crisis in the Republic of Irelan...<i>Has the financial crisis in the Republic of Ireland produced an influx of young Irish Catholic immigrants on the streets of USA?</i> <br /><br /><br /><br />There are not enough young Irish Catholics to produce any noticeable influx. The entire population of Ireland is 4.5 million.Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07558322957414189512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-85277674994708595212011-11-01T11:30:41.575-07:002011-11-01T11:30:41.575-07:00San Diego Chargers QB Philip Rivers, from Alabama,...San Diego Chargers QB Philip Rivers, from Alabama, is 29 years old and has six kids already.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5783086340509702612011-11-01T10:49:16.293-07:002011-11-01T10:49:16.293-07:00Your point is very well taken. The Catholic author...Your point is very well taken. The Catholic author E. Michael Jones has written extensively on the WASP fear of Catholic ethnic political strength, and the actions taken by the Protestant elite in response to it, in his book "The Slaughter of the Cities."Crawfurdmuirnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71150401306859782102011-11-01T09:54:03.563-07:002011-11-01T09:54:03.563-07:00Similarly, imagine how popular immigration control...Similarly, imagine how popular immigration control would be if incoming Mexicans were predominantly Cristero wannabes with the mores and devout churchgoing habits of mid-20th century Irish Catholics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71458813982546507532011-11-01T09:17:34.611-07:002011-11-01T09:17:34.611-07:00I think the birth control argument was once one pa...I think the birth control argument was once one part eugenics and one part womens rights. Nazism made eugenics unacceptable so the womens rights side of the equation became more prominent. <br /><br />But while eugenics tended to suppress birth rates among the poor, "womens rights" has had the opposite effect, that of suppressing birth rates among the middle and upper classes.<br /><br />It's worth mentioning that Margret Sanger (nee Higgens) was herself of Irish Catholic background and one of eleven children.Qhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07558322957414189512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18610130464832900642011-11-01T08:56:07.470-07:002011-11-01T08:56:07.470-07:00I'll also recommend The Slaughter of the Citie...I'll also recommend The Slaughter of the Cities by E Michael Jones. It was a real eye-opener for me on these issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69698773070923216482011-11-01T08:54:01.361-07:002011-11-01T08:54:01.361-07:00"The first part of that sentence is on the mo..."The first part of that sentence is on the money, while the second part is misleading."<br /><br />Yep, it's about the money. And it's not about Catholics or Protestants but Jews and their money(and media power bought with money of course). <br /><br />Judeocentric environmentalism says the white goy animals are a danger to Jewish species, and so non-white animals must be brought to America to diversify the ecology to balance the power of white goy animals. That way, the American environment will be safer for the Jewish species. <br />So, environmentalism, like much else, has been Judeo-centrized.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-70999922978526769572011-11-01T08:28:59.339-07:002011-11-01T08:28:59.339-07:00I can't stop laughing at that picture. Is tha...I can't stop laughing at that picture. Is that woman even fertile? Probably not! And in Portland? Portland is a metro area of about 2 million in a state of about 4 million. The other 2 million people are spread out over the 98,381 square miles of Oregon. Now granted the eastern half of the state is desert and can't easily support any kind of population density, but the western half is empty. It's never been fully settled here, there is so much room. There is arable land sitting fallow from Northern CA all the way up to BC. There is water. Just.... not enough people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74183164734759120882011-11-01T08:27:46.118-07:002011-11-01T08:27:46.118-07:00A lot of the ZPG rhetoric was listened to mostly b...A lot of the ZPG rhetoric was listened to mostly by educated people in the first world, whose fertility rate declined below replacement levels. It seems to me that there has been a kind of reaction to that, with more educated people in the first world deciding they want kids and want to encourage kids (and grandkids)! <br /><br />The problems of Haitians and Sudanese and Bangledeshis and such were never the point for most of the people putting out the rhetoric. (I'm sure some of the people putting out that rhetoric were sincere about it globally, but most of the pundit class is focused on their home society, not the big wide world.) <br /><br />As I understand it, the most effective society-wide way to reduce fertility in very poor countries is to get the girls into school and get a little bit of wealth into their hands. Though making birth control free for anyone who wants it would probably be a win generally throughout the whole world.NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-5588623657940924452011-11-01T08:27:44.705-07:002011-11-01T08:27:44.705-07:00A lot of the ZPG rhetoric was listened to mostly b...A lot of the ZPG rhetoric was listened to mostly by educated people in the first world, whose fertility rate declined below replacement levels. It seems to me that there has been a kind of reaction to that, with more educated people in the first world deciding they want kids and want to encourage kids (and grandkids)! <br /><br />The problems of Haitians and Sudanese and Bangledeshis and such were never the point for most of the people putting out the rhetoric. (I'm sure some of the people putting out that rhetoric were sincere about it globally, but most of the pundit class is focused on their home society, not the big wide world.) <br /><br />As I understand it, the most effective society-wide way to reduce fertility in very poor countries is to get the girls into school and get a little bit of wealth into their hands. Though making birth control free for anyone who wants it would probably be a win generally throughout the whole world.NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33815054441374412792011-11-01T08:27:06.484-07:002011-11-01T08:27:06.484-07:00Population control was a political initiative some...Population control was a political initiative something like "hope and change." Different kinds of people could support it for different reasons.<br /><br />Jews: to prevent reproduction of goyim.<br /><br />Whites: to prevent reproduction of blacks.<br /><br />Protestants: to prevent reproduction of Catholics.<br /><br />Leftists: to attack bourgeois, religious traditional families and culture.<br /><br />At some point about 1979, leftists figured out that they were not in favor of population control of blacks and immigrants. That is when population control went out of style as a political issue.Jeffnoreply@blogger.com