I do not know what you mean by *is*. I do not believe that by having as many kids as one can in order to repopulate some minority numbers, i.e. conservative Christians. I also do not see that as a mandate in the Bible. The Bible talks about children as a blessing and not a curse. I do not see people with 2 or less kids as evil. People have many reasons for the size of their families. My concern here is that the misconceptions that are constantly being put forth. I cannot address misconceptions about left leaning liberals as that is not my experience. However, I can say with certainty, not all people with large families are genocidal racists. I have no wish to do away with any people group and neither does anyone I know.

One of the maddening things about the creationists is that they are rarely forthright about their agenda. Euphimisms like “teach the controversy” and “fairness” abound….

Again - guilt by association is easy - and cheap. Let’s see some quiverfull quotes directly.

The reality is gthat there’s a powerful continuum connecting white supremacists and the anti-choicers, especially since the former have been raving about the decline of white reproduction for the better part of a century — Lothrop Stoddard and Madison Grant being good early examples.

The suggestion that “hard” eugenicists like Stoddard were deeply involved with early feminists (whose involvement with eugenics was of the “soft” variety) is a conflation that isn’t borne out by the historical record. Nearly all “hard” (or “negative”) eugenicists advocated birth control primarily as a means of controlling the reproduction rate of nonwhites, including sterilization and other forms of coercion. “Soft” (or “positive”) eugenicists found this notion abhorrent and argued against it at every turn; for them, birth control was a means for women to gain control of their bodies. (Margaret Sanger, who I assume he’s referencing, was something of a mixed bag, someone who fell into both categories.)

In any event, the anti-feminist right today, especially the fundamentalist “Quiverfull” types, are very closely tied into the far-right continuum, especially through the whole home-schooling scene. By way of example, one of the largest suppliers of “Christian” home-schooling materials is my old friend Doug Wilson, who also touts the theory that slavery was a benign institution.

Of course, most of these believers are very coy about their beliefs on race because they know that they would be called racist and demonized, so instead they talk about fighting back on demographics — though it’s important to note that this view of demographics is basically an us-vs-them thing: white unbelievers (especially atheists, who we all know have abortions recreationially) are cast into the same “them” category as blacks and Latinos and homosexuals.

As the issue of personal fertility becomes intertwined with notions of preserving white Christian culture, this continuuum broadens and deepens. It isn’t hard to see this coalescence — just read Pat Buchanan’s latest book, or read Paul Weyrich’s many rants on the subject or wander over to the VDare and American Renaissance and see how they hold forth. If you can’t see it, you’re just not looking.

Great post. I’m especially intrigued by the graphic at the top. What the hell “anti-feminist” site ran that? I’ve seen nearly identical graphics at White Revolution and Stormfront.