The Last Taboo
As of October 31 there will be 7 billion humans on earth,. So why can't we talk about population?
—By Julia Whitty
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
45 comments:
You know what I hate about this conversation?
The fact that people on the "we need to control the population" side of things keep acting like they're breaking some big taboo.
No, you're not. There are a lot of people talking and writing about this.
It's not brave or daring - no one is going to be ostracised for it. It's not, say, racial differences in IQ or crime rates.
Now kindly get your heads out of your behinds, step off the goddamn Pedestal of Teh Brave and argue the issue.
(Minus the self congratulation about talking about something that is somehow both The Last Taboo and something that absolutely everyone is talking about. If that's possible - I know how you people like talking about how brave you are.)
Too many of y'all. Not enough of us.
-Osvaldo M.
The reason I'm a birth dearth guy and not a population explosion alarmist is simple. I don't care about foreigners.
Once I admitted this to myself it make thinking much simpler.
-osvaldo m.
Population is not a problem, that's why.
How hard is that to figure out, Steve?
What do you have against the awesome funk stylings of The Time, Steve?
Taboo? Excuse me Julia Whitty, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I've been hectored about overpopulation my whole life. It is the pet cause of many academics and billionaires. SWPL will proudly lecture you about how they aren't reproducing. White women with more than 2 children are treated rudely in public in much of the US.
Population control lost status not because it is taboo, but because idiots like the alarmist Ehrlich have had their predictions continually falsified.
The meta-taboo here is criticizing the poor for any reason.
I don't worry about overpopulation. I worry that we won't have enough when WWIII, the next Spanish Influenza, and Black Death reduce the population to smithereens.
The stupid hippies don't have a clue. Environmentalism is a product of a future-oriented society. When that society is replaced by present-oriented peoples then nobody will even remember the term. There won't be any such thing as archeology either.
Environmental groups are already throwing in the towel in Africa. Human reproduction is r-selected and they will dig up the whole continent and sell it to the Chinese. All the apex predators will be hunted to extinction along with the elephants, hippos and rhinos. Antelope and wildebeests will eat the place bare.
The Iberian ruling caste in Central and South America will hold on for a little bit longer, but then they'll start handing out timber and mineral rights too. Then North America.
This is a horribly depressing topic.
The last taboo is saying enough of them, not enough of us.
If you attack any subgroup of the Blue State Coalition, they will swoop down on you like a bunch of flying monkeys.
Groups about whom no negative sentiments can be expressed:
Blacks
Jews
Hispanics
Asians
Muslims
Women
Gays
Atheists
Scientists
Teachers
Government employees
Government employee unions
Abortionists
Southern Poverty Law Center
ACLU
Trial lawyers
Diversity consultants
Pagans
Wiccans
Persons with criminal backgrounds
It's not exactly "taboo" to say that one or more of these groups is having too many babies--but it will get you attacked by the flying monkeys. So you'd best watch what you say.
Fewer and better people.
You had better believe it is a taboo. The hysterical smear campaign against eugenics is at its height just at present, believe it or not - fuelled principally by modern holy-rollers. Their campaign is a full-court press, involving jeremiads (and political action) against bugaboos such as "death panels," abortion, sex ed, and (yes, still) birth control.
Ask a fundie who Margaret Sanger was, for example, and then stand back. Way back.
We see repeatedly that every social problem is exacerbated by the irrationality known as religion. These people come out to form the vanguard of every opposition to intelligent policy or practice, no matter what these may be.
Evolution? Opposed!
Stem cell research? Opposed!
Test tube birth? Opposed!
Etc.
In the 19th century and earlier, it was:
Anesthesia in childbirth? Opposed!
Emancipation of slaves? Opposed!
Reading and writing? Opposed!
There is something about the phrase "Family Planning" that makes a hip fundie see Auschwitz exactly as his ancestor saw, in the practice of surgery, the visage of Beelzebub.
So forget about discussing solutions to the problem of overpopulation, because it ain't no problem. According to our moral authorities, flat-earthers and bioethicists, homo sap. should keep "choosing life" until the habitable globe pops and he's raptured up to be with the Lord. Hallelujah forever and ever.
Well, the article appeared in the left-wing rag "Mother Jones," which I seldom read, so I didn't expect much. But parts of it were actually pretty good - the depictions of the heart-rending poverty of the Indian masses was chilling. And there was the nice little sidebar illustrating that two US kids cause as much carbon emission as 337 kids in Bangladesh. Since all card-carrying leftists believe that carbon emissions are causing global warming, they are not allowed to say that atmospheric CO2 really doesn't matter. So one might be tempted to draw the logical conclusion that Third World immigration into First World countries is an environmental no-no. Hah! Immigration restrictionists such as John Tanton are "natiivists" and "racists" and favor English-only and have even (gasp!) accepted money from white-supremacist groups! One might think that immigration restriction flowed naturally from the alarmist scenarios that Ms. Whity presents. But nooooooo! Lefties have never been real big on facts and logic. Much easier to blame the problem on racist, capitalism, colonialism, whatever.
And, yes, I'm delighted that you caught the Morris Dees - SPLC part.
Of course, they deleted my comment, which was basically that ZPG was preaching -- literally -- out of the pulpits of protestant churches in the midwest, for us to stop having children. We did. Then the Sierra Club, bribed by a wealthy guy with a Hispanic wife, decided to replace our nonexistent children with Hispanics who have a higher fecundity rate in the US than in their home countries. The taboo isn't against talking about population.
"We see repeatedly that every social problem is exacerbated by the irrationality known as religion."
Every social problem is exacerbated by elite liberalism and status competition among FSP whites. Go try and sell eugenics to an athiest liberal and see what kind of response you get. Atheists are the least rational and the most cowardly. If you think pozzed Christianity stands in the way of your spergy eugenicist wet dream, then think again.
We need to put birth control in the water, worldwide.
"Blacks
Jews
Hispanics
Asians
Muslims
Women
Gays
Atheists
Scientists
Teachers
Government employees
Government employee unions
Abortionists
Southern Poverty Law Center
ACLU
Trial lawyers
Diversity consultants
Pagans
Wiccans
Persons with criminal backgrounds
It's not exactly "taboo" to say that one or more of these groups is having too many babies--but it will get you attacked by the flying monkeys. So you'd best watch what you say."
That is fascinating! I had no idea women were having too many babies when compared to men. Are atheists, teachers and gays having that many more children than the general population? Obviously, I'm aware that homosexuals are responsible for overpopulation in some areas of the world, but, surely, not everywhere!
Jim: I still see the comment, which looks 100% legit to me but I have no idea of MJ's ToS. Sometimes they do bash on folks over writing in year-old articles such as that one.
For any iStevers not checked in there recently, try that Disqus thread, just for the flavor. Trust me, it's a funny one...
"The stupid hippies don't have a clue. Environmentalism is a product of a future-oriented society. When that society is replaced by present-oriented peoples then nobody will even remember the term. There won't be any such thing as archeology either."
You betcha. Future-orientation has the idea of delayed gratification with it. Good luck telling certain segments of the population to take up the spirit of delayed gratification.
"We see repeatedly that every social problem is exacerbated by the irrationality known as religion."
All my favorite sites rag on religion. Me, I'm of the Arnold Toynbee school; all civilizations that developed anything worth calling civilization, had a religion at their cores, uniting the populace around a theme and common imagery.
That said, religion is fire. Fire.
Some of the most hysterical about "eugenics" are various, "conspiracy" experts, of whom I am one, so I know whereof I speak. Many are anti-religious and most are convinced that worrying about population is evidence of a racist cabal out to get the poc's. That's their official line. They don't dare say that their own race -- as most are white (or Jewish; people here seem to make a distinction) -- is already pfitzing away.
Can't get over how often I read of some ghastly creatures (race not stated, and to be fair the best publicized are often white; but the name, an internet article, or just absense of description, tells all you need to know) torturing their children or killing them, or perhaps some stranger is their victim. Then hearing the perp has had time & taxpayer money to squirt out 10 more kids. Meanwhile, Mr. & Mrs. IQ-Above-the-Age-of-Henry-Kissinger, Any Race, USA, struggle to raise their 1.4 for a life-time of supporting the poor and the rich, both major predators.
This is the injustice we ought to be worrying about. The "overpopulation", esp in N. America, is overwhelmingly of people sucking up social resources like enormous black holes -- no pun intended (really.) And then the rich coming in like massive sharks and swallowing it all. The rich will not murder you on a dark street but they may drive you to suicide. They're more clever.
@ david Emancipation of slaves? Opposed!
Yeah, Wilberflorce, Beecher-stowe, Beecher, John Newton, all atheists.
Moron.
We see repeatedly that every social problem is exacerbated by the irrationality known as religion.
Slavery was ended exclusively by Christians.
The very basic tenet of our government is that we are endowed by our CREATOR with certain inalienable rights.
The most bloody carnage of the 18th century onward were the result of a.the anti-religious french revolution b. the anti-Christian communist movement. (both of which have the roots in the mis-named 'enlightment')
Please try harder.
Reading and writing? Opposed!
Protestants believed if you couldn't read the bible you couldn't be saved. That's why literacy in scotland was the highest in the world after it became protestant - from 4% to 95% - the protestants were more religious and more believing than the then corrupt secular Catholic Church.
Please try harder.
Yeah, if this is a taboo, it's an awfully gentle one, because I've seen it discussed in public many times with little real outrage.
Black Death:
If you won't read media from different viewpoints than your own, how do you find out when your starting assumptions are wrong?
It's only a taboo if you actually point out whose population is increasing rapidly and threatening to swamp their domestic resources (at which point they'll export even more of their surplus population to the shores of western nations whose native populations are declining). In other words, any useful conversation about population growth is taboo. So it's still okay to complain about a white couple with four kids, but not a Hispanic immigrant family with ten. The episode with the Sierra Club merely serves to illustrate the issue in its starkest terms.
The credulous attitude that Whitty displays towards Morris Dees' account, Steven Pinker's (bizarre) claim that hippies caused the trend of rising of violent crime in the late 1960s, and plenty of other incidents illustrate a salient point about the modern left: That all of their goals and causes are ultimately subordinate to their deeply ingrained loathing of white people.
If it primarily hurts white people and helps nonwhites, the left will accept policies that bust unions, enable corporate rent-seeking, and destroy the environment. They'll even support policies (like mass Islamic immigration in Europe and mass Hispanic immigration in the US) that bring in people who embody all the things that leftists claim to hate, such as religious mania, misogyny, ethnocentrism, "homophobia", and anti-intellectualism. Heck, even hating Jews is okay as long as blacks and arabs do it.
Hmm, it's becoming less and less attractive to go into debt slavery to get the credential to spend all day in a cubicle, engage in barren copulation with someone you met by looking forlornly at okcupid profiles from your cubicle, and do not even consider reproducing yourselves until you have paid off that debt!
How are we going to scare all the women away from thinking babies early in life, education and career later if at all, might be a better bet?
I KNOW! OVERPOPULATION!
What Elli said - the taboo isnt talking about over-population per se. Its the crimethink involved in allowing the idea that perhaps there are quite enough Africans or whatever in the world already and perhaps not quite enough white folks.
Some good information on taboos;
"Automatic Invocation - An effective gatekeeper of the mind does not call attention to itself. It actuates a psychological mechanism called a taboo.
Recognition - Word taboos are easily recognized by the aversion or evasion response they evoke when used.
An element of behavior that is transferred from one culture to another is likely to suffer a sea change. So it has been with taboo. Pacific islanders apparently have no hesitancy in explicitly giving taboo as a reason for stopping a discussion. By contrast, Westerners, with their cherished tradition of free speech and open discussion, would be embarrassed to say (for instance), "We will not discuss population because it is under a taboo." Instead, they change the subject.
Value - An effective taboo is worth more than the most skillful argument.
- Insights courtesy of Garrett Hardin."
read the rest here:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/toc_tabo.html
In my view countries like America and Britain would be best off if their populations didn't increase at all. In fact a smaller one would be best of all. It is immigration that causes population growth. This is a political choice and could and should be ended.
Overpopulation is not really problem. Its white people. White people exploit the envoronemtn are not in tune with nature. People of Color are at oje with nature and peaceful.
"How are we going to scare all the women away from thinking babies early in life, education and career later if at all, might be a better bet?
I KNOW! OVERPOPULATION!"
You are oversimplifying things. The reason most women who care about their future and quality of life don't have the babies first is that the overall culture doesn't support it. Quality men aren't looking for uneducated, unaccomplished women. Sure, once they start reflecting in their late thirties (or late fourties), men might conclude that having children early could be an optimal life plan for a quality woman. However, successful, well brought up, educated men don't favor youth over the other qualities when settling down. Sure, youth and beauty might be all these men want in a one night stand, but not in a life partner and a mother of their children. I'm not blaming the evil, evil men for ruining common prosperity with their evil, evil choices. The truth is that this is the current flow of our culture. Women, too, must prove themselves first in order to attract a quality life partner, even if they hope to spend the majority of their adult life at home, raising children. So, as you can, probably, see all around you, the women who choose to have children early, or before getting an education/taking first steps in establishing a career tend to have their children fathered by low quality men, or they can trick a man with potential and trap him with a baby. Neither path is conductive to a healthy family. Perhaps, there is an army of accomplished men in their forties who are willing to form stable, loving families with 19 year olds. However, looks and virility matter to women as much as they do to men. It's nice to actually want to make love with one's husband- helps to keep the family strong. The type of a woman who would give up the possibility of a romantic bond with her husband for financial security, usually, isn't very family oriented, and, most often, doesn't value the human role of a father. Obviously, I haven't done in-depth studies on the subject. However, I am in my mid-twenties, have a large, varied friend base and a lot of examples in front of my eyes, including international marriages where the brides were so desperate to escape their shitty home countries that they were grateful to marry Americans on any terms.
In conclusion: if you want American women to have more healthy kids by starting earlier, both the young men and the young women in our culture will need to radically change their views on when it's time to start a family and what it will mean for them as individuals, (meaning parenthood might be a way to grow up, but it doesn't have to be viewed as the end of one's personal growth and development).
>The most bloody carnage of the 18th century onward were the result of a.the anti-religious french revolution b. the anti-Christian communist movement. (both of which have the roots in the mis-named 'enlightment')<
Oh, come on. Both were quasi-religious, with substitute deities. How many times must one point out that atheism is not a positive doctrine, but the absence of a doctrine? The "a" in a-theist is privative.
Remember the title of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's book: "Democracy: The God that Failed." Democracy was only the latest in a long line of them.
>Yeah, Wilberflorce [sic], Beecher-stowe, Beecher, John Newton<
You got me. But where do you think these religious outliers would stand today on eugenics? With someone like Sanger or with someone like Leon Kass? It's hard to tell only to the extent that religio-crazies are hard to predict; I wager they would do the worst thing.
A recent Scientific American had two big articles.
The first (paraphrased) was, "Golly are we going to have to work to feed 9 billion people! We'll all have to give up meat and start eating beans, rice, chicken and bugs!"
The second article was "Wow, look at all the wonderful research Western scientists are doing to breed sterile mosquitoes and save hundreds of millions of Third Worlders from Dengue Fever and Malaria!"
They just don't get it. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em, and don't cure more of their diseases when their population is out of control.
Overpopulation is not really problem. Its white people. White people exploit the envoronemtn are not in tune with nature. People of Color are at oje with nature and peaceful.
Someone has a better sense of irony than I. The Germans, Swiss, Swedes, and white Americans and their national parks really exploit the environment. While slash and burn farmers in Brazil really are in tune with nature.
All non-whites have that sense of harmony, except the rotten evil Japs who must be secretly white.
"Quality men aren't looking for uneducated, unaccomplished women. Sure, once they start reflecting in their late thirties (or late fourties), men might conclude that having children early could be an optimal life plan for a quality woman. However, successful, well brought up, educated men don't favor youth over the other qualities when settling down. Sure, youth and beauty might be all these men want in a one night stand, but not in a life partner and a mother of their children."
ever heard of HBD?
Education doesn't make a woman smarter or a better mother. Rather men use education as proof that the chick is smart rather than her SAT score and family background.
Remind me what was the first taboo again.
"Education doesn't make a woman smarter or a better mother. Rather men use education as proof that the chick is smart rather than her SAT score and family background."
I completely agree with you. My point still stands: a woman who wants to form a family with a quality man must prove herself first. Men don't just want intelligent women as mothers of their children, but women who could have had successful careers if they didn't choose to be a mothers. I guess it makes sense as this approach somewhat filters for intelligence, discipline, mental strength and emotional stability.
I think it would be possible to demonstrate those things without the time consuming career development if a high school diploma could mean something again (so only those prepared for college would graduate). Also, less demand for credentials; more ability testing. If a young lady could have a piece as proof of her ability to pass calculus and write a research paper by the age of 18, and then she studied for a year and passed her teaching or accountancy exams, the young man in her life would know that she is smart, capable, and isn't entering motherhood because nothing else is an option.
And again, it's not that women choose to be accountants rather than mothers. It's what our culture demand of them. Same goes for the modern young men. They, usually, don't even consider marriage until they are thirty, not because they are out to force women into choosing between the quality of her family and her potential fertility. It's just what is considered normal today.
Sorry, the article wasn't that good, her attempt to portray Ehrlich as some kind brave intellectual fighting the good fight is laughable. Ehrlich was the original media whoring scientist, appearing on the Tonight Show twice a year for years during Carson's reign. Several years ago, my local medium city main branch library was undergoing renovation and moved into an abandoned big box store. This actually increased my visits due too the books now being all on one floor instead of three. Anyway, because of this I was able to find Ehrlich's Population Bomb, I think it was a 3rd or 4th edition, and perused it for about a half hour. Long story short, not scientific in the least, more like a factoid heavy polemic completely lacking in scientific rigor. The book would only convince someone who had already made their up mind, a non ideologue with a rational mind would never buy it. You add the fact that none of the forecasts were even close to being right only adds to it's weaknesses.
"Remind me what was the first taboo again."
I imagine it had something to do with discouraging parent-child marriages. The crack down on sibling unions came much, much later.
I'd love to live on this planet with only 3 million other people. The place is infected with people. Talking about population isn't the issue.
The problem that is hard to talk about is how to alter the planet's population, not whether or not it is a problem per se.
The Left wants to "control" it; usually through some fascist approach like coercive birth control, abortion, licenses to have children, and any number of other state/society impositions on individuals. As usual, their solutions make the next generations pay for our own.
Some of us would prefer almost anything but that. Even war, plague, and famine. Because the elite political ruling class upper crust will have a tough time keeping their privileged seats if we allow nature to take its course. Better a cage match than an execution.
Funny, but population seems eternally on the minds of actual lefties (as opposed to lefty scribblers and yakkers).
The "white" always seems implied, though. Like this:
"We've got too many (white) people in the world." "The world (of white people) is overpopulated."
My hunch is supported by the fact that reining in overpopulation, like many SWPL rules, is only applied to whites. Or mostly, anyway. It depends on the target's position in the racial teflon hierarchy: whites, yes, they get the Duggar treatment; west Asians, yes, they get the octomom treatment (not as bad as the Duggar treatment, but not immune); yellows, yeah they're probably not immune (far too competent and numerous); blacks, no way, they just get the silent treatment; Jews? fuggedaboutit - maybe, if they've got sidelocks and funny outfits.
It's a good question. I have no idea what the first commenter is babbling about though. Sometimes it seems like Sailer commenters are cruising on their own fumes.
My hope:
An organization, not funded by any entity from USA, which offers cash payments to poor women - in return for a salpingectomy. If the woman in question is young and childless, she gets a extra cash bonus.
Considering the money info in that article about India, I assume that a lot of those young women would be motivated by a few thousand dollars.
If the same thing could be done in USA it would be even better, but I don´t hold my hopes high on that score.
Money as a cash reward for male sterilization would not be as effective, but one would have to offer that also so that the program would not be "targeting women" on its face.
I found a link to some woman paying for female sterilizations of crack whores, and even that got the predictable ones huffing about moral outrage.
Also, some GOP politician in the south floated the idea, but he was shouted down, and was not reelected IIRC.
Salpingectomy? Try endometrial ablation. It has more or less the same effect on reproduction and also eliminates menstruation, which may be a further incentive.
Post a Comment