Pope makes a good point: use it or lose it

A point I have made before is that there is not much sense in complaining about migrants taking over your nation (or an ethnic group taking over because of its high birth rate) if your women are not prepared to have babies.

This applies to American WASPs who let their women become feminists and of low fecundity and lost their nation to Catholics (viz. The Supreme Court), as well as to American whites in general who don’t breed like Mexicans and are now facing an Hispanic challenge.

And now the pope has quite correctly remarked that if the effete Europeans won’t breed, maybe the Muslim hordes can find a use for their land.

The Chinese had an excellent concept called The Mandate of Heaven. Obama’s America is mainly interested in spreading abortion and sodomy. It would not surprise me if America (and Europe) have lost the “Mandate of Heaven”.

Contraception, abortion and sodomy are not good for the long term survival of any nation.

Look, this is how it is done. This is not so hard to understand, is it?

Advertisements

23 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 14, 2015 at 7:19 pm

    So this Pope is now all in favor of Islamization? Reversing Lepanto is OK with him?

    That should turn out well. What could possibly go wrong? Should we ask the Syrian Christians or the Iraqi Christians or the Lebanese Christians or the Christians of Albania how this might work out? Nah. They’re surely just a bunch of bigoted, hate-filled racists who don’t have any idea what it’s like to be a persecuted minority. Unlike a Liberation Theologist from Che’s homeland, right?

    Good thing for the Japanese they aren’t Roman Catholic, then, their culture may actually get to survive longer than that of Europe. Or Australia, for that matter.

    Reply

  2. Most White populations ARE growing, and brief stagnation has NO destructive effects if borders are controlled and integrity is maintained. Look at Japan.

    The problem is the third world population growth is too high and dangerous for both their own stability and the WEst. That is the issue.

    That this ‘Pope’ would sell out Europeans for this is disgusting. Would he say that about Japan, would he say anything about overcrowding, poverty and irresponsibility??

    Nope, not a word when the anti-white PC version of morality is on display. The Catholic church is just a branch of the UN socialist network. How ugly.

    Reply

  3. Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 15, 2015 at 4:44 am

    I agree that the pope’s comments are open to some criticism. It rather depends on what kind of “refugees” these people turn out to be. It is an understatement to say that there are “conflicting reports”.

    However I think that at a broad brush level the pope makes a good point. Nature abhors a vacuum, and people will migrate to fill it. Europeans have not been replacing themselves, and this is the outcome. Pope Paul VI warned of this back in the days of Humanae Vitae.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 19, 2015 at 12:08 am

      Over 1/3 of the “refugees” are from the Balkans, not from the Middle East. This is all about money, and nothing else.

      Tell me how many “refugees” the Pope took with him from Lampadusa, to care for in Vatican City, and then we can discuss whether he’s serious about this or just another Social Justice / Che type eager to tear down industrial civilization in an extended round of Cloward-Piven.

      And to state “nature abhors a vacuum” when this is a totally manufactured crisis, created by EUcrats for the obvious purpose of smashing what’s left of European countries and cultures, is breathtaking in its ignorance. Julian, you are usually more intelligent than this.

      Reply

  4. Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 15, 2015 at 9:28 am

    Here is what I wrote in response to a Facebook comment today. It puts the point a slightly different way:

    “[The pope’s] point is not a bad one, but understanding it requires thinking in a way many Westerners don’t. If Europeans had a higher birth rate and were not so materially rich, Muslims would not be so keen to move in. The very low European birthrate has created a vacuum which migrants are able to fill.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 19, 2015 at 12:14 am

      If Europeans had a higher birth rate and were not so materially rich, Muslims would not be so keen to move in.

      That is stupid. There is no other word for it. The “refugees” are going where the free food and free money is, because the EUCrats starting with Merkel have opened up the front door and put out the welcome mat. Even if Europe’s population was above replacement, the same thing would be happening because this is a manufactured crisis.

      It’s like some cat lady piled up bags cat food on her back porch, and now has 100 stray cats competing with her own 4 spayed, domestic animals – was it the spaying of her own cats that led to a cat horde in the yard, or the free food?

      PS
      Note well that this Pope will be avoiding all dissidents in Cuba – and a lot of those dissidents are Christianss in hiding. But he’ll have plenty of time to schmooze with the Castros. So you tell me – where are his real priorities at?

      PPS: How many “refugees” is the Vatican currently housing, or otherwise paying for, vs. the taxpayers of EU countries?

      Reply

  5. The current Pope is so very easily misquoted and misunderstood. It does not help that Italian is not his native language and most news reports are english translations (truncated for agenda effect) from an already mangled and fractured spoken word.

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 15, 2015 at 10:41 am

      Yes, that is a problem. And I have also noticed a “progressive” spin at times.

      He also seems to contradict himself. He makes statements at different times which do not fit together very well.

      Of course the media, and many Catholics, seem to think that everything he says is “infallible”. It isn’t of course.

      Reply

  6. Posted by alcestiseshtemoa on September 15, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    While it is possible that the future USA will be called Los Estados Unidos de América, since it will be full of Mexicans and other Spanish-speaking Central Americans, I think that the Muslim threat to Europe is a bit overstated. I can’t envision Europe becoming Islamic, it just seems too far-fetched. How exactly would less civilized people, like Muslims, conquer the more civilized Christians?

    Reply

  7. Posted by RichardP on September 15, 2015 at 7:43 pm

    alcest – you’re making a joke, right? There are already places in English cities where the police and other white Englishmen will not go, out of fear for their lives. That ground has already been conquered. It will only continue and get worse. None of the politicians has any idea of how to stop this.

    Reply

    • Posted by alcestiseshtemoa on September 17, 2015 at 8:55 pm

      Any ideas on why the English politicians are reluctant to stop the subject of Islamic immigration? Is it due to political correctness, currying favours with financial elites of other nations, or another reason?

      Reply

  8. Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 19, 2015 at 2:36 am

    Here is what I am saying.

    If Europeans had continued breeding at high rates (say Muslim rates in many places), this would mean that there would be less material wealth left over to distribute to refugees arriving from elsewhere. So Europe would not be such an attractive destination. Also, if Europeans still had a lot of children and therefore a strong commitment to their future, they would be more willing and able to resist this new migration or invasion or whatever it proves to be.

    My argument is that the antinatalism of the governments and people in Europe has created a population and cultural vacuum that is now being filled by Muslims arriving and claiming to be refugees.

    I doubt that European elites have done all this deliberately to break down what is left of Christian Europe. They could not have predicted this latest refugee crisis. However I imagine that the average member of the European elite, sipping his drink in his cafe, does not imagine that his lifestyle will be affected by the new immigrants. (As an economist once pointed out to me, in fact the price of his drink will probably be lower because of cheap immigrant labour in the cafe). Also, he doesn’t care about the future because he has no religion he wants to see survive and no children to be concerned about.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 19, 2015 at 9:25 pm

      If Europeans had continued breeding at high rates (say Muslim rates in many places), this would mean that there would be less material wealth left over to distribute to refugees arriving from elsewhere.

      If your thesis above is true, then Japan should be stuffed with refugees. Yet it is not. Reality therefore does not agree with your sweeping generalization. Shall I choose to look at reality, or focus on your silliness?

      If your Pope’s sweeping generalization were true, it would hold in all cases, yet Japan is still Japanese, it is not being colonized by 3rd worlders. Therefore your Pope’s generalization does not hold, because the words you treasure do not accurately predict reality.

      This is a manufactured crisis. Not the first, not the last, to be sure.

      I doubt that European elites have done all this deliberately to break down what is left of Christian Europe.

      Why do you doubt the evidence that is right in front of you? The elites in Europe, North America and Australia for that matter clearly have decided that they need to “elect a new people”, and they have put into motion obvious plans to do so.

      The future of Europe right now looks like Malmo, Sweden or Rotherham, England.

      Obama has decreed that 100,000 more Moslems must be imported to the US, because Diversity or something and he has the full support of the US Roman Catholic Bishops in that nation-damaging effort.

      Birth rates are below replacement in Algeria, too, but I don’t see your Pope sending refugees there, why is that, hmm? Birth rates are below replacement in Cuba, ditto. Birth rates are approaching 2.1 aka ZPG in Mexico, yet your Pope has no interest in urging the Mexican government to accept boatloads of colonists from further south – indeed, the Mexicans are quite content to allow Central American colonists to transit their country on the way north, but they will beat and deport those who attempt to stay in Mexico. Oh, wait, a Latin American country with a declining birth rate isn’t the target of migration? Yet another reality based example that contradicts your silly notion?

      Julian, you don’t seem to really know much about this topic. Perhaps you should stick to more important things for you, such as gamine short hair, and leave the real world topics alone?

      Reply

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 19, 2015 at 11:56 pm

        Anonymous Reader, I see nothing in your response that invalidates my basic point. The reason why people move en masse in these cases is because they want to move to relatively underpopulated countries that are ALSO rich. The mullah I cited in my more recent post makes the same point about fertility. (Please see that more recent post, and note also the comments of the New York Times.)

        Japan (and Australia) are special cases being islands and, more importantly, being a long way from the main sources of migrants. This helps explain why there is relatively little attempted migration.

        As to your last remarks, normally I am tolerant of forceful argument, but if you really want to get personal, I won’t let any more of your comments through. I hope that is clear.

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 20, 2015 at 12:00 am

        Oh, and I wasn’t going to say this, but I don’t see why not, since you started the rudeness. Yes, I am interested in women. Most men are. And when somebody starts becoming abusive in a debate, it is a pretty good sign he suspects deep down he is wrong.

      • Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 21, 2015 at 4:34 pm

        Anonymous Reader, I see nothing in your response that invalidates my basic point.

        Your basic point being that low birth rate must lead to colonization from poor countries, if I understand it correctly, is invalidated by the reality of Japan. Low birth rate? Check. Masses of colonists? Not happening. Why? Because the Japanese elites prefer to be Japanese.

        The reason why people move en masse in these cases is because they want to move to relatively underpopulated countries that are ALSO rich.

        Yet they do not move to Japan. Because the Japanese won’t let them. There’s the difference.

        The mullah I cited in my more recent post makes the same point about fertility.

        So? Argumentum ad populem is still a logical fallacy. It matters not how many colonizers state a falsehood, it remains false.

        (Please see that more recent post, and note also the comments of the New York Times.)

        Are you really asserting that ‘truth” is “that which the NY Times prints”? Seriously?

      • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 21, 2015 at 11:54 pm

        You have ignored my other point about Japan – that there are no sources of migrants in the area. (Also, I suspect that the Sea of Japan is more dangerous to cross than the Mediterranean).

        Japanese ethnocentricity would also come into play if there were potential migrants. Also important though would be the sheer population density of Japan.

  9. […] seems relevant to the theme of my recent post. A […]

    Reply

  10. […] previous comments on this issue, especially the religious dimension here and […]

    Reply

  11. Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 21, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    Japan (and Australia) are special cases being islands and, more importantly, being a long way from the main sources of migrants. This helps explain why there is relatively little attempted migration.

    Piffle. Japan is a special case because the elites there wish to remain Japanese, unlike the elites of Europe. Merkel is a perfect example of the latter. Sweden and Norway are effectively islands, as the land route through Russia is not open to colonizers from Syria, yet Malmo is effectively not Swedish. Why? Because the Swedish elites have for whatever reason decided to elect a new people. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Australia has a bit of a problem with Moslem colonizers in the larger cities as well. In a world with easy jet travel, the “island” argument doesn’t wash. Nowhere is an island anymore.

    What matters is whether the elites of a society are interested in remaining themselves (Japan, Mexico, and other countries) or not (Europe / US / anglosphere).

    What’s “going on” was described in The Fate of Empires by Glubb. Suggested reading…

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 22, 2015 at 12:03 am

      There is a road and rail connection between Denmark and Sweden:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98resund_Bridge

      As for Australia, we have had illegal migrants arrive by boat in recent years. But, partly because we are an island, it has been relatively easy to contain the problem. New policies have meant that no boats are currently arriving. There are certainly Australian elite figures who would be happy with plenty of these migrants, but Australia is difficult to access.

      The problem with your argument is this. It is certainly true that leftist parties can see the advantages of allowing free immigration to their interests, but this ignores two other important factors. One is that governments have to remain in line to some degree with what the public will accept (that was the point of my thought experiment of the typical young woman in the cafe). I worked in government for many years, and governments are very driven by public opinion. Secondly, whatever elites may desire, they cannot create migrants in government laboratories. They have to come from somewhere. And they come as poor people from populous areas and they go to rich countries with relatively low birthrates. QED.

      Reply

  12. Posted by Anonymous Reader on September 22, 2015 at 7:44 pm

    One is that governments have to remain in line to some degree with what the public will accept (that was the point of my thought experiment of the typical young woman in the cafe). I worked in government for many years, and governments are very driven by public opinion.

    One word: Rotherham. Government and media turn a blind eye to evil, voila! It ceases to be an issue. It still goes on, it’s just not an issue. So public opinion would not seem to matter as much as you assert.

    Secondly, whatever elites may desire, they cannot create migrants in government laboratories. They have to come from somewhere. And they come as poor people from populous areas and they go to rich countries with relatively low birthrates. QED.

    By the way, wasn’t your first assertion that this was all about birth rates, and now you’ve chosen to modify that into “low birth rate and rich”? Bit of goalpost shifting, seems to be.

    Which reminds me, “rich” and “low birth rate” India apperently has a rather extensive border fence with Bangladesh, to keep Bangladeshis from illegally sneaking into India.

    Anyway, they only come from poor countries because rich governments allow them in. Please see this article:

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/migrant-crisis-pakistanis-others-dumping-ids-to-become-syrian-20150906-gjggcn.html#ixzz3l0ZOGodL

    Excerpt:
    EU rules say the country where a migrant first arrives must process the asylum claim. But Germany last week abolished this obligation for Syrians, triggering a surge of people trying to travel through the EU to get there, adding that only refugees fleeing for their life, and not those fleeing poverty, will be allowed to stay.

    This crisis is manufactured. And other countries are quite happy to shovel colonizers into Germany. Greece, for example, as well as Hungary have made no bones about that.

    Your original claim that this was solely about birth rates has been shown to be false. Your newer claim is closer, but still doesn’t hold up, because it’s all about the money and benefits, regardless of the birth rate. The colonizers themselves admit this.

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on September 22, 2015 at 8:03 pm

      I shall give you the last word, AR. I think I have explained my position, and I leave it up to anyone reading to draw his own conclusions.

      No further comments please.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: