Richard Hoste, Taki’s Magazine, November 3, 2009
{snip}
It’s no secret that Western man has given up breeding. A society needs to have 2.1 births per women in a lifetime if it’s going to maintain a steady population. Besides the U.S. and Iceland, no western nation is even close.
{snip}
It can be projected that the total number of white people lost from the EU, Canada, Switzerland, the Balkans, Norway and the ex-Soviet states including Russia will be around 279,000,000. To put that in perspective, that’s more than the losses due to World War I, World War II, the Nazi regime and all communist governments in history combined. Of course, deciding against having children is not equivalent to starving people in gulags. Still, whatever the causes of the birth slump, the result is hundreds of millions of lives not existing that otherwise would have.
Perhaps low birth rates are not a cultural phenomenon and the number of children people have is based more on economic considerations. Looking at birth rates for the world as a whole casts doubt on that possibility. The top five countries are Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger and Afghanistan. Not exactly places known for their prosperous middle-classes. Even within first-world countries, if there’s a correlation between wealth and fertility, it’s negative. In the U.S., black and Hispanic households are worth about one tenth of what white household are. But according to estimates, Hispanic women have 3.0 children each, blacks 2.2, and whites 2.0. Ukraine’s nominal GDP per capita is less than $4,000 a year while its TFR is indistinguishable from that of Italy ($39,000), Spain ($35,000) or the Czech Republic ($21,000).
We must conclude that there is something besides economics that is going on here. If you find a white population somewhere, it’s almost certain that it’s not going to be reproducing itself enough to survive.
There is one major exception.
After the 2004 presidential election, Steve Sailer famously analyzed Caucasian fertility rates in Red (those that voted for the Republican candidate) and Blue (those that voted Democratic) states. He found that the top 19 states in fertility (and 25 out of the top 26) voted for George W. Bush. Amongst the 50 states and Washington, DC, the correlation between white fertility rate and the Republican share of the white vote was 0.86 (0.84 in 2000).
Sailer hypothesizes that the lower cost of living in Red States makes child bearing more feasible.
{snip}
While this kind of thinking is on the right track, it doesn’t address why some women choose carriers and others families as much as it does why those with particular characteristics end up in one place rather than another. After all, those from New York are free to move to Idaho and vice versa. But it does show that we’re dealing with a cultural issue—one of the soul, not the pocketbook. Utah, the only majority Mormon state in the Union, has a 2.45 TFR. That’s pretty impressive, especially considering Utahans watch the same TV and listen to the same music (both of which encourage libertinism and nihilism) as the rest of America. While cost of living considerations may explain some of the difference in TFR between New York and Utah, they do less to shed light on the disparity between Utah and the rest on the socially conservative and sparsely populated heartland.
Taking an international perspective, there seems to be two ways to have a replacement fertility rate in the modern world.
A) Be really religious.
B) Be really r-selected.
Since Europeans aren’t Africans, that leaves option (A) as the only proven method for replacement Caucasian fertility. The potential success in this area of any secular philosophical system is speculative. Remember that next time you see Bill Maher on TV foaming at the mouth about those stupid Christians who won’t bow before the god of evolution. The ultimate irony is that championing Darwinism has, as Katarina Runske wrote of feminism, been a Darwinian dead end.
Put bluntly, liberal secular humanists are on the verge of extinction.
To get an idea of the cluelessness of the evangelical Darwinians, look not further than Richard Dawkins’s recent article “What Use is Religion?” {snip}
{snip}
Dawkins’ answer to “what use is religion?” has something to do with children, but nothing to do with the likelihood of having them.
{snip}
Dawkins compares religion to an Internet virus in this way. A good computer does what you tell it. That makes it a wonderful machine capable of doing spreadsheets, but also likely to follow harmful instructions. To Dawkins, religion is a late arriver like the artificial light which kills the moth that is behaving in ways that in other conditions were evolutionarily adaptive.
The problem with using that explanation for religion is that spirituality has been around for too long. There has been plenty of time for evolution to preserve the positive results of blind obedience and do away with what’s harmful and wasteful. For similar reasons, Harpending and Cochran theorize in The 10,000 Year Explosion that Jewish intelligence was a recent adaptation. The Jews have unusually high intelligence and a susceptibility to a group of similar diseases. The genes for disease may have not had time to be selected against. They are around because they are part of the package that includes traits which are adaptive and make up for the fact that the carrier is more likely to die from a particular group of illnesses. Had Jewish intelligence been around for much longer—Harpending and Cochran say it reached its abnormal level in the Middle Ages—then evolution would’ve had time to create a healthier high-IQ race. If man’s spiritual side goes back tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years, it’s unlikely that he couldn’t have evolved to both obey elders as a child and as an adult only believe things that he has empirical evidence for, if such a thing was adaptive. After all, evolution does produce secular, empirical-minded men (Dawkins and I among them). We simply haven’t been able to outbreed believers.
Since man’s been talking a lot longer than he’s been writing, it’s hard to date the birth spirituality or belief in life after death. As good a guess as any for the start of religion is when humans started taking the trouble to ceremoniously bury their dead. That’s been happening for at least 100,000 years. We may trace spirituality even further. OriginsNet.org has put together the evidence for religiosity in the great apes in their “Appendices for Chimp Spirituality.” As the article recounts, after a 10-year old female bonobo was killed by a leopard, the tribal elders encircled the body almost immediately, some making loud displays and calls, others sitting in solemn silence. The body was eventually groomed and cared for, and the high-status apes wouldn’t allow any other apes access to the body. Surely if these alpha apes could talk, they would’ve declared themselves a priesthood and said they were praying for the poor child’s soul!
{snip}
Religion may have evolved to protect us from slipping into hedonism, or to instill a sense of duty in order to go bear the difficulties of childbearing. It may simply be that those who thought God was on their side exterminated the prissy atheist cavemen (who probably also believed their women should be “liberated” and hunt for themselves.) The issues of the evolution of religion and exactly why it’s good for the fertility rate in the modern world are outside the scope of the article. There isn’t even an established theory on the evolution of the brain yet. (I’m partial to Geoffrey Miller’s belief that it has something to do with sexual selection, but I wouldn’t bet a week’s salary on it.)
What we can say with certainty is that Dawkins’s idea that religion brings nothing to man, or, indeed, harms him, is patently false, whether we see things from the perspective of how long faith has been around or what’s happening today to people without it. A quick look at the CIA Factbook proves that Dawkins is very wrong when he claims, “religion has no survival value for individual human beings, or for the benefit of their genes.” If, in the end, all evolution cares about is survival, it’s liberalism that must be considered the virus. Our ancestors who had religion survived while those of us without it might not.
The two most evolutionarily successful men in written history were probably Genghis Khan and the Prophet Muhammad. But only the latter invented a religious justification for his conquests. Now his ethny (loosely defined) continues to claim land while the Mongolians are a measly five million and dwindling. Among whites, the two most fertile groups are by far the mentioned Mormons and the Anabaptists. Though the Old Testament ignores the afterlife, the Hebrews’ great reward for pleasing God was that the they could spread their genes. Millennia later, God’s chosen are still around, while the Canaanites exist only in word.
There may be nothing we can do to stop the current trends. Whites may simply not be fit for the world they created. Perhaps the few that are have already become religious fanatics and simply need time to expand their numbers. We won’t know until there’s a white elite that doesn’t declare war on the traditional beliefs of their people. Russia may be providing a test case (albeit not a perfect one. The government may have started to encourage nationalism and religion, but there’s still the poisonous effects of the Western-American media).
Even if it was granted that the modern world, with its feminism and secularism, produced all the happiness one can imagine, it cannot last. A baby born today may live to see the extinction of the Lithuanians (projected to be a population of 760,000 by 2100, possibly all assimilated into other ethnicities). Any philosophy that guarantees that those that adopt it will be gone within a few generations can only be embraced by nihilists. The patriarchal and god-fearing will inherit the earth, one way or another.
Original article
(Posted on November 5, 2009)
Comments
Excellent article! As the great-great-grandson of an Englishman named James W. Wingham (1819-1899) who came to the U.S., was fruitful and multiplied in conjunction with his wife, and whose descendants now number in the many hundreds, I can certainly appreciate the point made here.
One slight correction: The other Christian group besides the Mormons with a VERY high birth rate is the Amish, not the Anabaptists (unless the author is using those terms interchangeably). The Orthodox Jews raise large families, too.
wrong all u peepal are be wrong saar….only athiests being scientifistific. hindu religion encouraging evolution but evil, stupeed whiety christaan religion only support psercution of the evolutan. now listen carfooly, I am hindu and am intelligent scientist in america. i say athiest people are great and religions peopel are stuped.
Great article, but I think saying religion alone is the key factor makes for an incomplete analysis. There are a lot of other elements at work among groups like the Mormons or Amish: more emphasis on family, communal patterns of living where there is mutual support among group members, etc. Religion may be necessary, but it’s not sufficient for high birth rates. Robert Nisbet’s “The Quest for Community” is great reading on this, if you can locate it.
As a white atheist I’ll support Christianity as the heritage religion of our people but it is so hard for me. Christians are all too often at the forefront of immigration and refugee support programs. The devout might be having more white babies but they are also helping increase non-white numbers. I’d like some reciprocal consideration from believers. Don’t alienate people like me by taking Christian charity to such extremes as helping non-whites and non-Christians colonize white lands and I’ll do my best to support Christianity. Deal?
To the poster #2 who says he is an “intelligent Hindu scientist” in America should learn how to spell and speak good English before trying to tell us his “qualifications”? How did he ever find Amren?
“Our ancestors who had religion survived while those of us without it might not.”
What does he base this statement upon? I can think of millions of people who have had religion who have not survived to a natural death. IN fact, most premature death since the time of the ancient world (which seems to have been much more religously tolerant) has been because of religion. Even the purges of the 20th century totalitarian communist states were ultimately over religion becuase the hegemony of the religious state (royal right by church endorsement/control) was a major cause for the rise of communism. And Nazism identified their main ideological and racial enemy by religion, due to previous centuries of religious teaching.
This little essay makes leaps of logic that should confound a six year old.
“The patriarchal and god-fearing will inherit the earth, one way or another.”
What a laugh! The new Dark Age these superstitious fools would bring will only result in further extinctions. Did you know that some God Fearing Christians believed in Paul’s idea of becoming “eunuchs for God” so much that they castrated themselves? It was a big cult for a long time.
The idea that more and more numbers will help is critically wrong. What we need is quality, not quantity. As for the non-White population explosion, it must be contained and reduced. No human hand will be able to do this, it seems. However, nature always rebalances itself, find homeostasis. The excess population of the human race will cause it to collapse. And it will be the smart who survive, not those who distain knowledge and scientific advancement. It is the viruses that will do it, this has been statistically predicted and tested, and the prayers of the God Fearers will not help them.
“Put bluntly, liberal secular humanists are on the verge of extinction.”
Are they? It seems that it is conservatives that are the real minority. Liberal secular humanists come in all colors, while conservatives are usually White. But perhaps what is going on is de-evolution. I have often thought that the human race has likely risen as high as any natural process will allow and now it is in a process of de-evolution. This is part of the necessary biological collapse. Europeans were so smart that they developed the technology and governing systems that caused two huge world wars and decemated their own numbers. Now, they are too disillustioned and tired out to carry on and resist the decline as old competitors for their riches and territory rush in. The ones who rush in will in turn destroy themselves through over-breeding and ingorance.
Its an interesting modern phenomena amongst whites..(not replacing themselves). Some of it may very well be nihilism,decadence,materialism,feminism and so on, but I think some is due to a desire to (know the self). For generations on end large family’s were necessary to tend farms or even outdo high infant and child mortality rates. With modern technology,.. and religion losing its iron grip on peoples minds people are finally able to reacess who they are and what life means to them through their own eyes. Being chained to a fear of eternal punishment if one questions the village priests authority on nearly all your domestic ongoings and burdened with many hungry mouths is not necessarilly freedom to explore a new universe. This does not mean to me however that this trend will be the end of whitey nor the end of spirituality,.. healthy people are more than sheep and are not content under fear and ignorance. As I see it the better whites that don’t succumb to miscegination or other debasing temptations of excess will re-emerge from the fires a better more refined breed.
“The poisonous effects of the Western-American media”.
I couldn’t agree with this more. Just last night flipping through channles on TV, I saw that Joy Behar was doing a segment on women who were “addicted” to babies, and she said this with such disgust and contempt, I knew I wouldn’t be able to watch it. As far as I could tell, the two women she was going to interview were white. Women who choose to have more than 3 kids are looked down on like they are freaks or something. It’s this attitude that needs to change. We need to go back to more traditional family roles, and yes ladies, I mean traditional as in stay home and take care of a large family, and put your career second.
In the absence of physical boundaries that separate the races, the selection process for being white will be much different than in past millenia. The white people of the future will be more religious, fertile, and racially conscious. And of course the reason for this is that those currently afflicted with nihilism and/or have been “deracinated” will have dead-ended for lack of reproduction or have no white descendants due to miscegenation.
[According to the Time Magazine article, “India’s Affirmative Action War”, the Indian government proposed to increase the number of affirmative action quotas at elite universities so that “nearly 50% of seats at elite universities…will be set aside for members of the lower castes.”]*
I read with much interest the words of poster #2, “dark skinned brahmin Hindu”. I have no doubt that he, or she, is “am intelligent scientist in america”.
Only a truly superior intellect allows one to understand that “athiest people are great and religions peopel are stuped” while proclaimimg that “I am hindu”.
Alas, my “evil, stupeed whiety christaan religion” background precludes me from comprehending how the Hindu religion encourages evolution, if “only athiests being scientifistific”. Is not the Hindu religion a religion? Is not evolution a science?
Be that as it may, I am so glad that my “peepal” and I have now been set right. I have listened “carfooly” and must confess the error of my ways. Yet again, the ever-enriching diversity shows us the way toward the light as it leads us out of the swamp of error and ignorance.
*Time Magazine, May 25, 2006
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1198102,00.html
Gawd almighty, this article should have been proofread before being published.
Just two of the glaring errors I noticed as I skimmed the article:
It should be 2.1 births per woman, not “women.”
People with jobs have careers, not “carriers.”
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Interesting fact is that in 50 years the Amish and Mormons will be the two biggest white ‘groups’ in the US. Perhaps micro evolution will result in more group conscious whites emerging.
It could simply be a matter of supply and demand. When the supply of something is low, the demand for it goes up.
I think another major part of the equation is the LEGAL SYSTEM. I recently saw a rather humurous article in the Wall Street Journal (Oct31-Nov 1 edition) about “The New Art of Alimony”. A smiling young couple is apparently having a light hearted discussion about divorce and the woman says “I’m taking everything.” The man replies by saying “But you make more than me!”
Anyway, I think the legal system scares a lot of white men away from marriage and having children. I would say that is the #1 reason that I am not looking to get married right now, for example, even though I make a nice middle class salary.
Think about the odds: About half of all marriages end in divorce, and that usually means financial ruin for the man. In a good portion of the marriages that don’t end in divorce, both spouses are miserable but continue to hang on.
I don’t know what the answer is, but if we whites don’t figure it out soon, we will vanish from the face of the earth.
6) I don’t understand where you’re drawing that white conservatives are on the decline while liberal secular humanists are not.
“Conservatives” at least in America, are far more likely to reproduce than liberals. The white areas with the highest fertility rates are the white republican ones. Not that I like the Republican party, but they are at least more race-conscious than Democrats, even if they refuse to admit it. Even if there are more ‘liberal secular humanists’ now, there won’t be a few decades from now, when they realize that their ideological opponents have been breeding while they have not.
Your entire post reeks of defeatism. It would be entirely possible for a human hand (specifically white ones) to stem and reverse the non-white growth explosion. The reason it’s possible is because the entire reason for this growth explosion in the first place is white food aid.
It would be good if many AmRen readers would go to their public libraries and get a copy of the original 1958 edition of “The Religions of Man” by Huston Smith. The writing here is fresh, lucid, and free of feminist influence.
He explains that religion is not essentially private, but that it begins with a need to be part of a community and support its interests, rather than one’s private aims and goals.
I would argue that religion per se is true, not the useless and sometimes dangerous ideas and practices and superstitious accretions that unfortunately oftentimes get mixed up in it.
Lately I’ve been thinking along these lines too. Almost to the point of thinking that any church is better than not going to church. Every Christian faith I look at, though, seems to do the same dumb anti-white-european things- missions to Africa, supporting resettlement of Somalians, accepting gays, etc….
Will someone please tell me, is there a denomination out there that is compatible with both pure Christian (or Jewish) worship -and- white western European culture?
Lithuania is over 80% Lithuanian. How exactly are they going to be extinct in 50 years?
Amen MBJ!
The key is not forcing though.
I am willing to reduce my career aspirations to part-time teaching while my children are in school, or I will homeschool them and when they have left the home I will teach.
We need to find an PC way to encourage women to want families again. Women must always have the right to work, but childlessness should be shameful, not glorified.
We also need to put the institution of marriage in a positive light again. No woman is going to agree with this if she is not protected by marriage. Therefore, men should not beforced into marriage, but should aspire to support a family in the traditional way.
I live in the Pacific Northwest. It seems white men are immediately scared away if the girl wants more than a one-night-stand. But I am keeping an open mind.
white advocate, I can understand your frustrations with Christianity. I still consider myself Christian even after becoming racially conscious, but I hold my shares of frustrations with the majority of the Church. Sometimes I even wonder if it’s possible to be racially conscious despite Christianity’s universal message.
And of course, it doesn’t help when the NAE endorses amnesty. Most conservative churches seem obsessed with gay marriage, rather than racial issues.
Actually #12, we might end up in the same boat again. The Mormons, though more likely the FLDS, in a future would would fight to survive. What I know of the Amish and their history they are TOTAL Pacifists. So if the remaining white world was 50 /50 between them, half would not bother to fight back if attacked by non whites.
“One slight correction: The other Christian group besides the Mormons with a VERY high birth rate is the Amish, not the Anabaptists (unless the author is using those terms interchangeably). The Orthodox Jews raise large families, too. “
Actually, the Amish are one Anabaptist group, but not the only one. All Amish are Anabaptists, but not all Anabaptists are Amish. Other Anabaptists are Mennonites and Church of the Brethren. All have large families.
As I said on another thread, I believe there’s plenty of evidence that people with more conservative religious beliefs have more children. This means that natural selection will favor genes that give people a propensity for adhering to conservative religions, independent of the truth of such beliefs.
It’s less about religion per se and more to do with the collapse of the overall culture of which religion is usually a part.
I’m an atheist because I find even fairly subtle interpretations of Christianity intellectually unconvincing, let alone the biblical literalist stuff. However, I would regard myself as culturally Christian since that is the matrix in which I have grown up and which has shaped many of my values and my general perception of the world.
It’s this cultural matrix that has been attacked (throughout the last century and beyond) in the West. The main onslaught has come, in one form or another, from Marxism, and the deadliest strain has been the Cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School (aka Political Correctness). It is this that has spawned the attack on family life (in the form of gay-rights agitation and modern feminism) and the nation-state (in the form of “anti-racism” and multiculturalism, together with a deliberate policy of mass immigration to the first world from the third).
Why aren’t whites breeding as they used to? It’s easy: the destruction of the maximal unit of their society - the nation-state - by Cultural Marxist policies of mass immigration (bolstered by the secular ideology of multiculturalism), and the undermining of the institution of (monogamous, lifelong, heterosexual) marriage (the minimal unit of a functioning society) by the “sexual revolution” (gay rights, feminism, promiscuity). Religion - except the relentless appeasement of Islam for ideological reasons - doesn’t directly come into it.
Dear Whiteplight,
Your post is so full of errors that I wrote a five page essay refuting them. I’ll have to divide it up else my reply will be too long to post.
“I can think of millions of people who have had religion who have not survived to a natural death.”
This isn’t the point of the article. The point is that people who are religious will survive as a group and replace those who are not religious. This is happening all over the world. Religious Muslims are taking over Europe and religious Hispanics are taking over the U.S. This trend will continue.
Are you seriously attempting to blame religion for the atrocities of its enemies? Stalin murdered millions of people FOR POWER. It is exactly that sort of soul-destroying and murderous lust for power that religion counteracts.
Moreover, if the communist revolution were simply a matter of eliminating religion, why didn’t Russia become a liberal secular democracy? You know the answer is because religion had nothing to do with it. If the religious state had actually followed Christianity and treated the serfs with dignity and given them opportunities for upward social mobility, the revolution never would have happened.
As for the Nazis, this is a very interesting argument for a white nationalist to make. Basically what you are saying is, religion divides people and causes them to make war and kill each other, therefore we should eliminate it. That sounds familiar. How about we eliminate race since it divides people and causes them to fight eachother? You sound like a race nihilist. Indeed, you sound like a Marxist.
To be continued…
“What a laugh! The new Dark Age these superstitious fools would bring will only result in further extinctions.”
Kindly explain what you mean by this. How exactly do you think Christians are going to cause “further extinctions” whatever that means?
“Did you know that some God Fearing Christians believed in Paul’s idea of becoming “eunuchs for God” so much that they castrated themselves? It was a big cult for a long time.”
Do you have any evidence for literal castration happening even once? The “eunuchs for God” of the Bible were celibate preachers. Celibacy has always been prized in the Church, and so has marriage. We Catholics believe that marriage is a VOCATION just like the priesthood. You have to understand that when the Church was first established, there was no birth control. None. Not even natural family planning. A man with a family was liable to have so many children that preaching would be out of the question. Now that humans have more control over their fertility, I personally think that priests will eventually be allowed to marry. I personally would favor this move and the doctrine of Infallibility would not preclude it. I generally agree with Luther on the subject.
“For those seeking a religion that will encourage the survival of their race, Christianity has to be the last choice and only someone who does not know the full history of Christianity in the West could think otherwise. It does not encourage earthly survival, let alone the survival of any race or culture. It seeks to replace all cultures with itself. It is one of the main causes for the rise of the idea of Multiculturalism.”
First of all, you don’t seek a religion that will encourage the survival of a race. That is not what religion is for. Religion helps us determine where we come from, how we fit into the world, and what is our ultimate destiny.
Now it just so happens that Christianity absolutely DOES encourage earthly survival. This is obvious from the statistics that you find so inconvenient showing that Christians have more children than secularists. Why do they have more children? There are many reasons for this.
One reason is that the Bible tells us to do so. We are told to “be fruitful and multiply”. Indeed, that is God’s very FIRST commandment to humanity after the Fall.
Another reason is that we love God. God has given us the gift of Life. The best way for us to show our thanks is to participate with Him in the creation of new Life.
A third reason is that Christ’s message is one of Hope. His Gospel, or Good News, assures us that the ultimate destiny of ourselves and our descendents, should we choose to accept his Grace, is one of paradise with Him in Heaven.
Now when you say that Christianity does not encourage the survival of any race or culture, your error is particularly grave. When God told us to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth, he also told us to “have dominion” over it. That was not only a license but a commission for farming, industry, science, and technology.
You need more than intelligence to create the kind of civilization that WHITE CHRISTIANS have created, you also need the kind of ETHOS that encourages full application of your intelligence to the MANIPULATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT for the safety, welfare, comfort and SURVIVAL of the community!
Furthermore, Christian ethics are often indispensible to group survival. Perhaps the state of the North American Indians best exemplifies what happens when you don’t have Christianity, or any other religious view for that matter. You have a sort of chaos that precludes trust and reciprocity. There is room for nothing except “looking out for number 1.” The result is a paradox. Because each clan is seeking its own survival above all else, perpetual warfare results and all fall to the unity and power of a Christian people.
Now at the end of this paragraph, you contradict yourself. First you say, Christianity seeks to replace all cultures with itself. Then you say it is a “main cause” for the rise of multiculturalism. This makes absolutely no sense.
To be charitable, I will try to reorganize your thoughts and see if I can get to some truth in them. You say that Christianity seeks to replace all cultures with itself. This is untrue. Christianity seeks to spread the Gospel, leaving as much local culture as possible undisturbed. The Catholics historically have been particularly adept at this. Salvaging much local culture through syncretism, whereby the Goddess Brigid of the Irish becomes St. Brigid. There are many examples of this throughout the history of Catholic expansion.
In some cases, the local culture is so wicked that it needs to be eradicated entirely, as in the case of the Aztecs. There really was nothing of value there for the Spaniards to salvage.
Moving on to your next assertion, was Christianity a “main cause” of the rise of multiculturalism? On its face, your assertion is absurd. If Christianity seeks to spread the Gospel, then how can it be consistent with multiculturalism, a relativistic anti-truth point of view? It is not consistent with multiculturalism.
To be fair, I do think you are right, though, that Christianity is in some way related to multiculturalism. I think that if you take Christianity and distort it, you risk falling into the kind of relativism that undergirds multiculturalism.
In some sense, Christianity is inherently relativistic in that it calls upon us to see things from someone else’s point of view. The Golden Rule requires us to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes. “If I were situated as this other person is, how would I want to be dealt with”.
Now if you take this idea literally, it can yield very absurd results. Consider Kant’s example of a convicted murderer. Suppose a man is convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. If a Christian asks, “Would I want to be sentenced to life in prison if I murdered someone?”, the answer will clearly be NO. Does that mean the murderer shouldn’t rot in prison? Of course not. So there the Golden Rule, interpreted literally, has failed us.
Like any aphorism, the Golden Rule has its limitations. It is generally a good rough and ready guide, but some refinements and qualifications are necessary and obvious to anyone with common sense.
Multiculturalism arises from an overly simplistic and unrefined interpretation and application of the Golden Rule. An uninvited Muslim invades a foreign culture and then demands segregated swimming pools. When his request is denied, he says “but how would you feel if you couldn’t go swimming without violating your religious beliefs.” The hapless European caves in to this without realizing that this person has no more right to invoke the Golden Rule than a convicted murderer seeking to escape the consequences of his actions.
Christian and post-Christian whites must stop taking the Golden Rule to such overly literal extremes.
“The idea that more and more numbers will help is critically wrong. What we need is quality, not quantity.”
This is a false dilemma. Each and every Duggar child is higher quality than most of the children you see in small families with two or three children. Without numbers we are doomed.
“As for the non-White population explosion, it must be contained and reduced. No human hand will be able to do this, it seems. However, nature always rebalances itself, find homeostasis. The excess population of the human race will cause it to collapse. And it will be the smart who survive, not those who distain knowledge and scientific advancement. It is the viruses that will do it, this has been statistically predicted and tested, and the prayers of the God Fearers will not help them.”
Of all your nonsense, this quote in particular shows your total ignorance of the genius of Christianity. First of all, Christians do not “disdain knowledge and scientific advancement”. We utterly embrace it. Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. That was her “felix culpa.” The “fortunate fault” or “happy sin” that set the stage for Christ’s redemption of humanity. When God put the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, His plan was already laid out. Human curiosity, and indeed disobedience, was part of his Plan all along.
If you do not appreciate this, then you don’t understand Christianity. Christian theology allows for BOTH trust in our Father and human independence and problem-solving at the same time. God allows us to both his children and his co-creators at the same time.
Why did the ancients not invent vaccines or computers? They had plenty of time. The classical period of Greek civilization started in 500 B.C., followed by the Hellenistic period, and Roman supremacy lasted until 500 A.D. In a thousand years, they accomplished virtually nothing in science, medicine and technology. The reason is because they were deeply fatalistic. They believed the gods to be in control of everything, from the weather to disease to crop yields. These advancements would have to wait for a world view that gave DIGNITY and EFFICACY to mankind.
“It seems that it is conservatives that are the real minority. Liberal secular humanists come in all colors, while conservatives are usually White.”
Now this is total nonsense. Conservatives are not mostly white. They are mostly brown. Indians are very conservative and so are Chinese. Hispanics are more socially conservative than most whites.
Dear Johnny English,
I appreciated your post. Thank you for recognizing Christianity as the foundation of our culture. Even post-Christian atheists owe much of their worldview to Christianity.
I bet I could convince you about Christianity. Not that it is undeniably true, for it is impossible to prove that about any worldview, but I bet I could demonstrate to your satisfaction that it makes better sense out of the world and human life than any of the alternatives. Perhaps we could chat sometime.
I think there is a great deal of truth in what you say. The attack on the nation-state and the family has been devastating to white birth rates. Still, religious whites seem to be singularly immune to the effects of the social developments you talked about. We Christians will still have children even when we have no country to produce children for because God told us to do it.
Sofita:
I am of the understanding that priest cellibacy mandates came well after 1000 A.D., at the behest of European royalty, because so many people were leaving land to the Priests in their wills in order to get on God’s good side so that he would let them into the higher place instead of sending them down to the low place, that certain priests and their offspring were becoming an alternate royalty by means of land ownership. The real royals got scared, and put the screws on.
Dear Question Diversity,
What you say may well be true. I don’t know anything about why the mandate was originally imposed. I only know the contemporary rationalization for it. Lets just hope its days are numbered. It is dysgenic.
it doesn’t address why some women choose carriers and others families as much as it does why those with particular characteristics end up in one place rather than another.
It is men and not women who are driving our plummeting birth rate. Google “marriage strike.” Even the most rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth feminazi is still a prisoner of her biology. Around age 30, most of them get baby rabies and are desperate to quit their careers and settle down and have children, but there are no good men to be found who are interested in marriage and families. And who can really blame us? Spend some time plumbing the depths of the perversity of divorce and family law in this country, and you’ll see that any man who has anything at all to lose would have to be an absolute fool to marry or father children.
If we want to raise the white birth rate, the best measures we can take are to get rid of no-fault divorce (at least for marriages in which there are children under 18) and repeal the Bradley amendment. That’s the ticket to restoring white fertility.
This article rings true to me. Most of the childless married couples I’ve personally come across are either secularists or nominal Christians, while pretty much all of the families with 5 or more kids that I’ve seen are from religious families (Evangelical Protestants, traditionalist Catholics, and Orthodox Jews). Religious families just seem to be larger on average. Christianity and religion in general provide history, tradition, purpose, and hope for people in this increasingly rootless, selfish, cynical time. I can see why people who have something to believe in would be more willing to bring children into the world.
You would think from the way some people talk that Christianity inherently was inimical to the survival of the white race. Now, how in the world did the white race manage to survive (really, to be the most powerful group in the world) for numerous centuries with Christianity at the core of its culture? Wipe out Christianity and you wipe out much of approximately 1700 years of European history. Pro-white, anti-Christian secularists are fighting against much of traditional Western culture; I hope they realize that.
Simon Jester,
You have said it all. Men don’t want to be husbands and fathers; they want commitment-free sex, unless they are religious and believe such to be a grave sin against God.
Tell me. If men are not to be held responsible for supporting their families, why would any woman be willing to have children?
This is the place that secular relativism has brought us. It is a death knell. As long as marriage and children are considered just one lifestyle among many options, secular people will avoid it. As society secularizes, we will die and be replaced by more religious people who are actually willing to bind themselves in marriage by law and in nature by having children.
I challenge you to give me one example of a man who was treated unjustly by divorce law in the country. If you are putting your own pocketbook and your own fears above the welfare of your race, you have only yourself to blame.
By the way, Simon Jester, I agree with you about no-fault divorce. Its got to go. So does unmarried cohabitation. This entire social experiment in sexual license must be ended as it has been nothing but a disaster!
“…If we want to raise the white birth rate, the best measures we can take are to get rid of no-fault divorce (at least for marriages in which there are children under 18) and repeal the Bradley amendment. That’s the ticket to restoring white fertility…”
How about if the government stops taxing us productive Whites to death?
I, like many other Whites, wanted to have more children but simply could not afford them—and it’s not because I didn’t want to downsize or I felt having a Mercedes was more important than a child (for the record, I drive a Toyota with over 100,000 miles on it).
In California, my home state, Whites must pay exorbitant prices (and taxes) to live in areas considered safe for Whites. Moving is not an option—my job is here, my extended family is here.
On top of paying all of the expenses for my own family, I am forced to subsidize a large, White-hating underclass that sees no reason to limit the size of their families. Large mexican families on welfare, generation after generation, with nine or ten or more children—that the parents (or just as likely, single parent) cannot feed, clothe or educate—are not uncommon in California.
A panoply of services are available to the underclass—WIC, AFDC, Section 8 housing, Food Stamps, Healthy Start, Head Start, Free PreSchool, Free school breakfasts and lunches (all year), Free Medical Care, Scholarships, College Tuition—largesse which I must pay for, but am prevented from accessing to support my own children. It seems as if the government is encouraging the underclass to reproduce while making it near-impossible for Whites to have more than one or two children.
How about the government lowering my taxes and mandating IUDs or NorPlant as a condition for receiving any kind of welfare benefits?
Maybe then White birth rates would start to rise.
Bon
Hoste wrote: «The patriarchal and god-fearing will inherit the earth».
If that is true, then let’s make sure Whites inherit the Earth, or at least get their fair share, rather than failing to reproduce and allowing only black- and brown-skinned people to exist on Earth in the future!
One thing’s for sure: if what the future holds is a planet Earth populated only by Latinos, Blacks, Arabs, Asians, Persians and people from the Indies, Mankind ought to give up hopes of space exploration taking men and women to Mars, or Saturn. Let alone beyond our solar system.
Sofita, many of the missing children in this country are actually living with their fathers, who snatch them from their mothers because she won’t respect the father’s visitation rights or because she’s a drunk, doper, or tramp. The courts generally give women primary custody as a matter of course, unless she can be proved to be unfit. That is unjust.
