Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:05 | #

One of the most intelligent articles I have ever read. Many think that in the end Europe will perish due to the low birth rates of its constituent nation-states. However, Europeans will overcome their problems as they resist waves of barbarians entering the continent. Already, Italy has dispatched its military to key cities in order to remove foreigners who’ve only provided misery and grief to native Italians. Austria is experiencing a resurgence in nationalism that will soon spread across the continent. Other nations like Greece and Germany are resisting Islamization and other forces that if left unchecked will herald a new Dark Ages in Europe.

Let the “multiculturalists” drown in their own hypocrisies. If Muslims tells you that they have the right to build massive mosques in Europe, then tell them to allow Christians to build huge monasteries (or Jews to build massive synagogues) in Mecca and Medina. If they disagree, then tell them to take their hypocritical bullshit back to wherever they came from.

Multiculturalism is in retreat, which is why the European pro-immigrant elites are accelerating their efforts towards destroying the native cultures of Europe by demographically drowning local communities with foreign elements from God knows where.

For every action, however, there is a reaction. If immigrants (legal or illegal) can be brought in, then I am sure they can be kicked out. This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the survival of European cultures and ethnic groups. If these self-righteous pro-immigrant elites are content in committing acts of cultural genocide, then they should not be offended when Europeans decide to brand them as hypocrites, fascists, racists, and traitors.

Good day and keep up the good work.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:48 | #

Notice there are no announcements as to why it’s being done, only threats not to resist, warnings not to be “intolerant,” “racist,” “xenophobic,” etc., in response to it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:50 | #

only <strike>threats</strike> orders not to resist

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:01 | #

“If these self-righteous pro-immigrant elites are content in committing acts of cultural genocide,”  (—Anonymous)

That which is being subjected to genocide, “Anonymous,” is more than just the culture.  It’s the race too.  You understand that, don’t you?  Of the two, in fact, race is more important.  Worlds more.  There’s literally no comparison.  What’s more important, whether your child be raised a Frenchman, Dutchman, or German, or whether or not your child will live? 

What we’re talking about is analagous.

Posted by silver on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 04:26 | #

The message conveyed to them is that we are weak and scared and this makes them despise us for not standing up for ourselves. When immigrants arrive they are welcomed by hordes of do-gooders - they can tell any lie and it is accepted. The elites hope there is no threat from them, and pretend they are essentially good.  They appeal to their good-will by being fawningly nice to them, hoping they will reciprocate by being nice back.

The only people who welcome them are the green-haired lesbians with eyebrow rings set.  Normal people are horrified and disgusted.

The immediate problem this causes is that the people making up the welcoming committee are the type most despised by the immigrants.  (Who’d want his daughter to become a green-haired lesbian marxist?) 

When the immigrants begin causing mayhem, there’s no respite in turning to the authorities, because the institituions that might help are manned (“personed”) by the same deluded set as the geen-haired lesbians, like this overweight police commissioner

The same set which takes upon itself to set up “diversity commissions” which function to quash any avenue of redress, often manned by the self-interested, eg

That’s Peter Herbert, who’s currently the chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, but has sat on various other committess and panels which serve the aforementioned function.  He doesn’t look particularly black, though.  Herbert’s a Jewish surname and he does have that Jewish look to him.

One thing I can unequivocally agree with Scrubby on is you give free reign to women and you can kiss your country, your culture, your race, near everything good-bye, since the Irrational Woman will quickly adduce everything which came before her as the reason her quest for Personal Freedom falters and frustrates her, never pausing to consider that the quest itself was false.  Even at this late date, with all the havoc thus far wreaked, for the love of God, even at this late date, the Empowered Slut still reacts with all the fury of a Woman Scorned at the mere suggestion the quest was false.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 06:43 | #

The bottom line is that it is a terminally sick society (civilisation) that allows all this to happen, the most basic instinct in any living creature is survival, the fact that Western society is so passive in the face of such aggression must tell us something.  Is Western civilisation terminally ill?

This state of resigned acceptance of its fate has been engineered over many years, was it intentional or is it just a natural conclusion brought about by the unnatural way we live?  (High - tech civilisation)  Take your pick.

Remember it is early days, I repeat, this situation is unique in the history of man, it’s not all over till the obese lady sings.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:03 | #

When the normal societal channels for honest appraisal of a new situation and for changing course are blocked, the “activation energy” of effecting a change rises, going from whatever energy input is involved in the normal process of the people getting mad and the rulers listening, to whatever energy input is needed for a violent explosion.  Because violent explosion is at present the only course open to us (the overlords having blocked all other, more normal avenues), and because we don’t want to violently explode, we absolutely abhor the idea of violently exploding and place it dead last on the list of options (which is precisely what makes its activation energy, the activation energy of a violent explosion, so high:  we absolutely don’t want to do it), nothing changes.

Now the question as I see it is the one asked by Steven Palese:  Something’s blocking the democratic process.  What, exactly is it, and DON’T give me vague miasmas such as po-mo liberalism and managerialism.  A real flesh-and-blood hand is on the levers of power.  Whom, exactly, does that hand belong to?

What are the normal avenues by which redress of political-social problems comes about?  1) For one thing, new leadership arises in response to the new needs when the old leadership shows it can’t think straight on certain issues and is getting nowhere from making all the wrong decisions.  But where this present problem is concerned new leadership can’t arise because the instant it so much as stirs it gets nipped in the bud by means of systematic demonization for being “racist,” “intolerant,” and so on.  Who exactly is chiefly responsible for that demonization (not solely responsible but chiefly)?  2) Redress comes about by candidates for office listening to what the people dearly want.  But where the problem under discussion is concerned, no candidates listen:  again, as Steven Palese said, “Something is blocking them from listening.”  What is that something?  Again, DON’T give me miasmas.  No ghostly miasma is blocking them from listening, but a flesh-and-blood hand which says to them, whether they be Tory or Labour, Democrat or GOP, “See all this money I’ve raised for your campaigns?  See all this favorable press I’ve gotten for you through my press and media brethren who are my network of contacts?  All that, ALL of it, will dry up the INSTANT you don’t support open borders or talk of creating any kind of hindrance whatsoever to the flourishing of racial/cultural aliens in this country, their well-being, their ability to advance.  Every penny will disappear and you can kiss your political ambitions good-bye.  Oh and the other thing that’ll bring about that result is if you EVER breathe one word to Israel’s detriment.  Do we understand one another?”

That’s no miasma that gives that warning to John McCain, Tony Blair, or David Cameron behind closed doors.  It’s not po-mo liberalism or managerialism but a real flesh-and-blood person.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:09 | #

Excuse me, I neglected to say my comment just above was a reply to the following idea presented in Bill’s post which came right before:

“The bottom line is that it is a terminally sick society (civilisation) that allows all this to happen [...].  Is Western civilisation terminally ill?”

If something’s got a man by the throat and keeps squeezing, that man can be brought to the verge of dying but can’t be said to be “sick.”  The question of course is exactly what is it that has him by the throat and DON’T give me miasmas as the answer.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:26 | #

The absolute demonization of recognition of race didn’t have to come about.  It was chosen in the aftermath of WW II.  There’s nothing whatsoever uncivilzed or evil or even just “not nice” in the recognition of race as it affects a nation’s identity and other aspects of society and ordinary everyday life and in setting immigration policy accordingly.  It’s normal to recognize race, and needless to add, every race outside the Eurosphere does it automatically as a matter of course, has absolutely no plans to ever stop doing it, and simply couldn’t conceive of not doing it. 

Why have we demonized it?  Answer:  maybe it wasn’t “we” who have demonized it. 

Maybe something’s gotten control over parts of our nervous system? 

Who controls certain parts of our nervous system, us?  Someone not “us” but who loves us?  Of maybe someone not “us” who .... doesn’t particularly love us?

If Turkish Cypriots got control of the Greek Cypriot nervous system, does anyone suppose the “Greek Cypriots” (now under control of the Turkish Cypriots) would continue espousing policies favorable to themselves and antithetical to the Turkish Cypriots?  Or is it possible such policies would start .... getting demonized?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:33 | #

And if the Turkish Cypriots did get control of part of the Greek Cypriot nervous system (via monopoly control over its press and other media for example) would they trumpet the fact or try to hide it?  Might they even try to demonize anyone who blew the whistle on them (together with their demonization of pro-Greek-Cypriot policies)?

Any of that sound familiar?

Hey I’m just trying to use common sense, guys.  Just opening my eyes, looking around, and trying to use common sense.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:34 | #

Speaking of the threat of violence from our side, when a relatively staid blog on the order of BrusselsJournal.com starts hinting at the possibility of full-scale violence erupting from our side,

Perhaps the single greatest structural weakness of Antifa is that its entire operational doctrine, at least with respect to mass action, is predicated on the existence of a powerful apparatus of state, which sets the constraints within which it must work.  Should the breakdown of civil order that I and others have envisaged ever occur in any European country, Antifa will find that its baseball bats and steel toecaps do not represent the cutting edge of early 21st-century military technology.  If that day comes, there may well be a belated discovery that walking into a gunfight without a gun is the most unforgiving of errors,

you know that folk are starting to get ....... more than a little annoyed, shall we say? ...... OK, let’s use that word:  more than a little annoyed ..............

You’d think at this stage the powers would start listening to the people.  You’d think wrong.

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:25 | #

First silver lowers the standards, making the site repulsive to outsiders: “... like this overweight pig of police commissioner.”

“Herbert’s a Jewish surname and he does have that ratlike Jewish look to him.”

Then he uses his usual divisive methods; any division will do:

“... you give free reign to women and you can kiss your country, your culture, your race, near everything good-bye, since the Irrational Woman ....”

It is nice to notice that trolls are given free reign in Majority Rights.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:15 | #

There you go, Finn.  Silver’s trollish hallmarks have been erased.

Posted by Tom Morris on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:31 | #

Speaking of the threat of violence from our side, when a relatively staid blog on the order of BrusselsJournal.com starts hinting at the possibility of full-scale violence erupting from our side…
you know that folk are starting to get ....... more than a little annoyed, shall we say? ...... OK, let’s use that word:  more than a little annoyed ..............

I’ve noticed it too.  And I welcome it, as I believe the time for debate, dialogue, and reform is over.  Violence works. The paradigm is shifting. Fjordman has also broached the subject in his recent columns.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:49 | #

There are two ways to look at proposed new explanations of the things that you see going on around you, things that have you puzzled.  1) You can rule out this or that new explanation right away as being too implausible, even impossible, and just forget about it, not giving it any more thought; or 2) without knowing whether or not it’s true you can deduce, in theory, the new characteristics of reality it would imply in the event it were true, see if those might be plausible, and if they might, go back and say the decision to rule out the new explanation might have been a bit hasty, since it may have merit when the new understandings of how things work, which it implies, are taken into consideration.  In fact, the proposed new explanation can even function in that way as a tool (can so function before it’s known whether or not it’s true) for advancing one’s understanding of how things work.

Example:  Alfred Wegener looked at the way the coastlines of Africa and South America matched, and wondered if that meant they had split apart.  Others rejected that idea, since continents don’t move.  But another way to look at the proposed “splitting-apart” explanation was it might be teaching us something we didn’t know:  continents do move.  For this to be the case, you have to work out the science of the way continents move, which was done decades after Wegener’s proposal. 

Ernest Rutherford shot alpha particles at foil and was amazed that while most went through straight or only a little deflected, some bounced almost straight back.  Rather than reject what he was seeing as impossible he used it as a tool to teach himself something:  atoms, mostly empty, have extremely dense centers.  Then the way in which those centers get to be extremely dense was worked out over the ensuing decades.

Back to the subject of the log entry:  When we look at what seems to some observers like a small hostile group strongly influencingi things, even controlling them in some degree, we can react to that thought by 1) deciding it’s impossible and discarding it, or 2) thinking up what it would mean about the way things work in society and in politics if it were true, then looking to see if those things it would mean can be made to come out seeming plausible, the way moving continents and dense atomic nuclei finally were. 

Example:  You’d need overwhelming numbers, overwhelming strength, to get society to steer a suicidal course, so no small hostile group could accomplish it.  That’s one way to look at it, followed by discarding the proposed explanation and not thinking about it again.  But there’s another way to look at it:  maybe that proposed explanation itself is telling us something we didn’t know about the way societies work, something we can learn if instead of discarding it we think about it some more:  might the proposed explanation be true if, for example, it turned out that it only needed small pushes of a certain kind in order to effect certain kinds of drastic change in society, the way it only needs a small drop in average temperature to bring about an ice age?  If so, perhaps the proposed explanation shouldn’t necessarily be rejected so fast, but thought about some more?  Maybe in fact it’s teaching us something about the way societies work, something no one knew?  Maybe lots of drastic shifts in societies down through history were determined by relatively small groups exerting pressures.

This idea can be applied right down the line in looking at possible explanations of what’s going on:  don’t always be so quick to reject an explanation that looks implausible or impossible.  That explanation might in fact be telling you something new about the way things work.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:19 | #

Rutherford’s experiment is one of the great stories in physics, for those who may not be familiar with it:

According to the then-dominant “plum-pudding model” of the atom, in which small negative electrons were spread through a diffuse positive region, backscattering of the high-energy positive alpha particles should have been nonexistent.  At most small deflections should occur as the alpha particles passed almost unhindered through the foil.  Instead, when Marsden positioned the detector on the same side of the foil as the alpha particle source, he immediately detected a noticeable backscattered signal.  According to Rutherford, “It was quite the most incredible event that has ever happened to me in my life.  It was almost as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you.”

Rutherford interpreted the result of the Geiger-Marsden experiment as an indication of a collision with a single massive positive particle.  This led him to the conclusion that the atom’s positive charge could not be diffuse but instead must be concentrated in a single massive core:  the atomic nucleus.

Posted by Old Raven on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:50 | #

Dammit Scrooby!  Your insights above are causing my computer to overheat!  You’re making TOO MUCH SENSE!

Posted by Bill on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:30 | #

From the the BNP website. 05.10.2008

Will the Media Admit That the BNP Has Been Right All Along?

For decades, the British media has attacked and slandered the British National Party for warning that mass immigration was a danger to the continued existence of British society.

The BNP was called all sorts of names and slandered in the pages of the press and on TV. Fictitious and made-up criminal charges were levelled against BNP leaders in an attempt to railroad them into jail. Personal smears and physical attacks were encouraged and even applauded in the media.

But now, even the media has been forced to accept that the thing for which they pilloried and slandered the BNP so much, has come to be reality.Will the Media Admit That the BNP Has Been Right All Along?

An article in The Spectator, reproduced in The Mail on Sunday, confirms everything about mass immigration which the BNP, and the BNP alone, has been warning.

According to The Mail, “The influx of the past ten years has been the largest in Britain’s history, changing the country for ever.”

“Immigrants now make up a ninth of our population, produce a fifth of our babies and fill (or create) most of our new jobs.”

“The migration boom started long before those who govern us realised what was happening. In recent months The Spectator magazine has been assembling pieces of the statistical jigsaw to reveal the picture not only of immigration in Britain, but of the problems that the newcomers, through their industry, have inadvertently helped to cover up.”

“Take, for example, the Prime Minister’s mantra-like boast that he has ‘created three million new jobs’.”

“The Statistics Commission discloses that 68 percent of this increase can be attributed to immigrants. These new jobs were filled: but not by Britons.”

“Even this figure includes pensioners returning to work. Narrow the field to working-age people, and immigrants account for 82 percent of the job increases.”

“According to Office for National Statistics information obtained by The Spectator, there were only 300,000 more UK-born working-aged people in employment in June 2007 than there were in June 1997: a tenth of Mr Brown’s oft-repeated figure.”

“And there is yet another layer to peel back: the Prime Minister’s substantial expansion of the public sector at huge expense.”

“Strip away the growth of the state-as-employer, and the number of UK-born employed in the private sector actually fell over the decade — from 18.1 million in June 1997 to 18.0 million in June 2007, according to the ONS Labour Force Survey.”

“The corollary is that shockingly little progress has been made with the great mass of home-grown British unemployed.”

“Official figures provided to The Spectator show that there were 5.1 million people on out-of-work benefits when Labour took office.”

“As of last February, that figure had fallen by just 867,000 — not much to show for what Mr Brown likes to describe as the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in a century.”

“It was Ken Livingstone who once complained that in all the time he was mayor he had never been served a cup of coffee by a Londoner.”

“The capital is, as the current mayor says, a world city, and Rome to the empire of the globalised world.”

“A full third of its citizens are immigrants, a greater proportion even than in New York City.”

“But the grim fact remains that there are still 700,000 Londoners on benefits.”

“Mr Livingstone’s cup of coffee conundrum illustrates perfectly Mr Brown’s failure to match the country’s unemployed to the country’s vacancies.”

“So perhaps it was guilt which led Mr Brown to adopt his curious and mercifully shortlived slogan, ‘British jobs for British workers’ — given that the Prime Minister, a demon for statistical knowledge, would have known perfectly well that this motto is the precise opposite of what has happened.”

“The truth is that foreign workers have taken most of the new ‘British jobs’.”

“Much less attention is paid to a trend which, in truth, is no less striking: the number of British workers seeking foreign jobs.”

“The quiet path out of Britain starts with the queues to the various emigration fairs popping up around the country, where the governments of Canada and Australia set out their stalls to lure Brits with the right skills.”

“One company is preparing for an exhibition at Aintree Racecourse in Liverpool next month with the slogan: ‘Over 200,000 skilled workers and professionals turned their backs on the UK and left for good last year to start a new life abroad’.”

“It is all true. Government figures this week showed in the year 2005-2006 that 75,000 ‘white British’ men and women moved out of the country but the population still rose because of an influx of ethnic minority groups.”

“The Home Office argues that, through their tax and spending, immigrants contribute £2.5 billion more in taxes than they cost in public services.”

“Professor Robert Rowthorn of Cambridge University has shown how this utterly changes depending on what’s included in the calculation.”

“Add the full costs of those services to which they are entitled (NHS treatment, schooling, welfare etc) and immigration incurs a £5.6 billion loss.”

“One of the few times I have seen David Cameron lost for words was when Eileen McCloy, a Glaswegian mother who had come down to London to hear him talk, asked him what he could do to help her husband, a joiner, who had been put out of work by Polish competitors who worked for £6 an hour.”

“Mr Cameron told her about his plan for an Australian points-based system to bring order to immigration, but admitted that, under European Union law, this would not apply to Poles.”

“He had no answer for her.”

“When the general election is finally called, Mr Cameron will meet many more people like Mrs McCloy on the campaign trail.”

“At the back of Mr Cameron’s mind will be the fear that the immigration debate — which Westminster has had on ‘mute’ for years — may soon start blaring.”

Indeed. Now that the first chinks in the media’s assault on the BNP’s political position have appeared, we look forward to their final admission: that the BNP was right, all along.

————————————————————————————————————————

Posted by Bill on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:41 | #

Re -above BNP post

Will the Media Admit That the BNP Has Been Right All Along?

It’s like I’ve been saying all along - where’s the Beef?  Someday, they’re going to have to start fleshing it out and tell it like it is. (not easy I know)

Posted by Bill on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:32 | #

The followingwas posted onthe above BNP website.  It is posted underthe the moniker ‘stringbag’ who I think is on the website payroll.

“From around the late seventies the liberal left intellectuals seemed to turn their backs upon the working class - particularly the English working class. Previously they had eulogised them, though now it is obvious they never liked them, despised indigenous working people at bottom. They just used them in the mad effort to create a Marxist society.

When they decided the working class had failed, they had no further use for them - and they moved from class to race base politics; as the basis for another go at a revolutionary transformation of society.

These liberal lefties obviously hate Britain, England particularly - and especially its history. Whether they set out deliberately to destroy us, or to fashion a new society which would factor us out, and destroy us as a consequence, I am not very sure. It doesn’t make much difference, it’s an academic point really.

I do know that our enemy is evil incarnate however, managed to work that bit out”

—————————————————————————-”———————————————————————————————————-

Out of something numbering 40 posts, this is the only enlightened piece among them - still, it’s a start.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:15 | #

Stringbag’s got it essentially figured out, Bill.  Bravo to him!  It took me years to get where he is now.  Good job!  Guy’s got a head on his shoulders!

Posted by Glyn Roach on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:18 | #

The quote from Strinbag is similar to this from Sir Alfred Sherman. In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003 Sir Alfred Sherman, former senior advisor to Mrs Thatcher, recalled a friend in race relations had asked him to take a look at the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60’s, “ I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left,  had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:27 | #

The (fill in the blank) _______ want more of exactly this for your schoolchild.  They love it, love when it happens, love seeing it.  How do we know?  Because it’s easy to stop but they won’t let anyone stop it.  How do you feel about it?  Do you love it?  No?  Had enough, then?  OK, if you’ve had enough, DON’T, as in DO NOT, forget next time you’re in the voting booth.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:38 | #

That white boy, who was beaten up by the Negroes for no reason (they showed what his face looked like; they didn’t show the doubtless cracked ribs, internal injuries, and concussion he must have received, plus who knows what else in the way of injuries and lasting chronic pain) didn’t figure in a two-page centerfold spread in the Jewish press (the Jewish press is the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and LOXNews) the way he would’ve had he been a 13-year-old Negro boy or a 13-year-old Jewish boy instead of a 13-year-old Euro boy. 

The 13-year-old Euro boy got what he deserved in the eyes of the Jews who run the Jewish press.  Why did he deserve it?  Because Euros, in the eyes of the Jews, are born anti-Semites.  It was sweet payback for his innate anti-Semitism.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:00 | #

The Pope basically admits, I suspect, the Church isn’t saying anything against race-replacement because non-Euro races are showing greater interest in Catholicism than Euros are currently, so the Church is siding with the former.  That was my tentative interpretation of one line in the excerpt posted here but if anyone can shed additional light I’d be interested (there must be an English translation posted — it was apparently a speech given today).

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:23 | #

“there must be an English translation posted — it was apparently a speech given today.”

7054-ITALY-POPE SYNOD

MOD-DATE: 10/05/08 11:40:29

BREAKING10-OCTOBER 5, 2008 -7054-ITALY-POPE SYNOD

BREAKING10: STORY   7054
7054-ITALY-POPE SYNOD
ROME, ITALY
OCTOBER 5, 2008  
NATURAL WITH ITALIAN SPEECH
DURATION:02:57
SOURCE:CTV

INTRO:
HEADLINE: Pope opens synod, warns of modern godless societies. 

TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS~** NONE**~

Pope Benedict opens the Synod of Bishops and urges man not to brush God
aside by declaring himself master of the world.

SHOWS:
(BN10)ROME, ITALY (OCTOBER 5, 2008) (CTV-ACCESS ALL)
1. BISHPOPS AND ARCHBISHOPS ENTERING INTO THE BASILICA OF ST. PAUL
2. POPE BENEDICT ARRIVING
3. BISHOPS AND PARTICIPANTS WALKING
4. POPE BENEDICT
5. PARTICIPANTS ATTENDING THE MASS
6. INTERIOR OF BASILICA OF ST. PAUL
7. POPE BENEDICT PRESIDING AT MASS
8. (SOUNDBITE)(Italian) POPE BENEDICT XVI SAYING:
  “Nations that were once rich in faith are now losing their
identity under the harmful and destructive influence of a certain modern
culture. There are those, who, after deciding that ‘God is dead,’ declare
themselves to be ‘god’ and the artisan of their own destiny, the absolute
master of the world”.
9. PARTICIPANTS LISTENING
10. (SOUNDBITE)(Italian) POPE BENEDICT XVI SAYING:
  “When men proclaim themselves to be absolute masters of themselves
and sole masters of creation, can they truly build a society where freedom,
justice and peace reign? Or doesn’t it rather happen, as widely witnessed by
current events, that there is an increase in the arrogance of power, in
selfishness, injustice, exploitation and violence”
12. WIDE OF AUDIENCE INSIDE THE BASILICA
13. PARTICIPANTS
14. POPE BENEDICT HANDING OUT THE COMMUNION

STORY: Pope Benedict opened a major Vatican meeting on Sunday (October 5)
by decrying a modern culture so devoid of faith that some people declare God
‘dead’ and substitute him with a notion that man can be master of the
universe.
  The 81-year-old German pope made his comments in the homily of a mass
opening a month-long synod of Roman Catholic bishops from around the world who
will be discussing God’s message through Scripture.
  “Nations that were once rich in faith are now losing their
identity under the harmful and destructive influence of a certain modern
culture,” he said.
  Since his election in 2005 the pope has been decrying a loss of
Christian identity in most developed countries in Europe and has recently been
speaking out about the need to re-inject moral values into Europe’s political
arena.
  “There are those, who, after deciding that ‘God is dead,’ declare
themselves to be ‘god’ and the artisan of their own
destiny, the absolute master of the world,” the Pontiff added.
  Attempts to “brush God aside” lead to arrogance of power,
selfishness, injustice, exploitation and violence, he said at
the Basilica of St Paul’s in Rome.
  “When men proclaim themselves to be absolute masters of themselves
and sole masters of creation, can they truly build a society where freedom,
justice and peace reign? Or doesn’t it rather happens, as widely witnessed by
current events, that there is an increase in the arrogance of power, in
selfishness, injustice, exploitation and violence” he said.
  The synod, whose formal work begins on Monday, will be discussing
scripture and will see a first when Rabbi
Shear-Yashuv Cohen becomes the first Jew to address such a Vatican
gathering.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:53 | #

Here are the passage in French (see the link I posted above), and what I make of it in English:

Quand les hommes se proclament propriétaires absolus d’eux-mêmes et uniques maîtres de la création (…) la chronique quotidienne (montre) que s’étendent l’arbitraire du pouvoir, les intérêts égoïstes, l’injustice et l’exploitation, la violence dans toutes ses expressions. (Mais) si dans certaines régions la foi s’affaiblit jusqu’à s’éteindre, il y aura toujours d’autres peuples à l’accueillir.

“When men claim to be absolute masters of themselves and sole masters of Creation [...] daily events [show] a spread of arbitrary power, selfish interests, injustice and exploitation, and violence in all its forms.  [But] if in certain regions faith weakens to the point of dying out, there will always be other peoples to welcome.”

Knowing that adherence to Catholicism has been on the decline in Europe for decades, do you make anything of that last sentence, along the lines of its being perhaps an oblique reference to immigration and the Church’s welcoming thereof?

Posted by Z on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:55 | #

Rampant, non-sustainable, and ultimately destructive Jewish-hypercapitalism along with the ‘culture of mass consumerism’ which the Jew-laden media strongly promotes is what’s behind much of the immigration invasion…Whites in America and Europe simply do not breed fast enough to produce the kind of profits the Jewish plutocrats and Jewish businesspeople desire, so in order to increase their profit margins they seek to flood the most economically advanced (i.e., White majority) countries with more and more and more super-consumer slaves with which to further fill their coffers and keep the millions of paper-pushing Jewish middlemen and bureaucrats busy/distracted from the utter misery and futility of their money-driven lives.  Think about the Soviet Union—it was completely dominated by urban-dwelling Jewish bureaucrats during the first few decades of its existence until other ethnic groups became urbanized, educated, and networked enough to compete with them, at which point the Soviet Union became increasingly anti-Jewish; but for decades these bureaucratic Jews basically leeched off of the work, raw materials, and productive capacity of the native peoples in the small/medium towns and, of course, the countryside.  The same thing is now happening in America, the UK, and other countries.

The fact is that the capitalist systems in the UK and the USA would have stagnated long ago if it wasn’t for masses of new (non-White) super-consumers who show up every year in these countries.  This ridiculous obsession with “GROWTH-GROWTH-GROWTH” is most vigorously promoted by delusional urban-elite (managerial) Jews in business/finance, the media, law, academia, etc. along with a veritable army of (middle-tier) Jewish bureaucrats who always toe-the-line of their more elite co-ethnics because their salaries depend on it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:58 | #

I made a mistake:  make that, rather,

“there will always be other peoples who will welcome it [or who will receive it].”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:59 | #

What the Pope seems to be saying there is, “You dropped us, so we’re getting others to take your place.  Too bad for you.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:03 | #

If the Catholics are intent on pulling that stunt it’s high time for everyone to leave the Church.  Let it be all-Negro from now on, with all the Catholic-Moslem ecumenism and genuflexion to the Jews it could want.  God I wish the Vatican weren’t run by a bunch of elderly fairies!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:08 | #

“This ridiculous obsession with ‘GROWTH-GROWTH-GROWTH’ is most vigorously promoted by delusional urban-elite (managerial) Jews in business/finance, the media, law, academia, etc. along with a veritable army of (middle-tier) Jewish bureaucrats who always toe-the-line of their more elite co-ethnics because their salaries depend on it.”  (—Z)

That sounds right.  Good analysis.  Good post.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:10 | #

Notice the culprit Z implicates is different from po-mo liberalism and managerialism.  It’s something tangible, definite, remediable.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:43 | #

Fjordman’s got a book coming out.  It should be a good read.  I hope he mentions race in it.

Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:45 | #

@ Z,

I’ve said many a time that capitalism and communism are pretty much mirror images of one another.  After your post I’ve come to see that I was right all along.  The West has become the USSR, and we will share a similar fate.  This may be a strange time for optimism, but after the collapse of Russia, good things have slowly emerged there.  Could the same be true for us one day?  If we have the “will to power” then yes.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:04 | #

What the Pope seems to be saying there is, “You dropped us, so we’re getting others to take your place.  Too bad for you.”

The Pope is only saying that Christian faith will not die everywhere in the world. It has nothing to do with immigration. In the same text, he says it is sad that nations are losing their particular identities due to a certain form of modern culture. When he says that national identities should be preserved, it doesn’t sound like an encouragement to immigration.

Note to Guessedworker:

Silver put up the picture of a policewoman and said she was an “overweight pig of police commissioner”. It is a good thing that you cleaned up his rude and trollish message. But you forgot to clean up Finn’s message where he quotes Silver’s ungracious statement that the pictured policewoman was an “overweight pig of a police commissioner”.

Posted by Montherlant on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:00 | #

I’m looking forward to Fjordman’s book too. But in my conversations with him, he seems particularly determined, to the point of paranoia and rudeness, to distance himself from those he wrongly perceives as “fascists” or “neo-nazis”.  I fear he’s a triangulator trying to suck up to the globalists, Jews, and Antifa. We’ll see.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:22 | #

See my quotes from the Pope’s speech yesterday, several comments above.  Here, quickly translated (I’m rushing to get to the office), are a couple of letters from the Fdesouche.com thread (I zipped through; hope I didn’t make any mistakes):

http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=4679#comment-201874

Nan, c’est encore BIEN plus triste : ce passage dit que l’Église a plus ou moins archivé la civilisation occidentale, et qu’il n’y a plus rien à en attendre.
D’autres peuples qui attendent qu’on les évangélise, et c’est ceux là qui doivent retenir l’attention. Il faut donc pas trop se chialer dessus avec l’occident, ce vieux mouroir à gauchistes stériles et infantiles, parce qu’il y’a du boulot sur la planche, AILLEURS, là où se joue la vraie modernité, le futur => la Chine (où il y a 10 000 baptêmes par jour), et l’Inde (où 25% des enfants sont scolarisés dans des instituts catholiques).
Parce que pour l’Église, la mort de l’Europe par l’immigration, c’est pas la maladie elle-même, c’est juste un des effets de son apostasie (le Pape et son prédicateur officiel, Cantalamessa, sur la question, ont cité en quelques jours Sartre et Nietzsche). Si le malade veut pas se soigner, s’il ne s’aime plus, s’il veut crever sans se reproduire, s’il ne veut pas écouter son docteur, y’a pas grand chose à faire….
On réouvrira le dossier Europe dans un siècles ou deux.

Nah, it’s even MUCH worse:  that passage says the Church has more or less filed Western Civilzation away and expects nothing more of it.  Other peoples await conversion and it’s they who command our attention.  No more sniveling over the West, that “mouroir” [unknown word: ? = something like funeral parlor, place of death?] full of sterile infantile leftists, when there’s work to be done ELSEWHERE, where true modernity is in play, the future:  China (where there are 10,000 baptisms daily) and India (where 25% of children are educated in Catholic schools).

Because for the Church, Europe’s death by immigration isn’t the disease itself but only an effect of its apostasy (on this question the Pope and his official preacher, Cantalamessa, have quoted, in the space of a few days, Sartre and Nietzsche).  If the patient doesn’t wish to treat himself, if he no longer loves himself, if he wishes to die without leaving children, if he won’t listen to his doctor, there’s not much to be done .... 

We can come back and re-open the case of Europe in a century or two.

http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=4679#comment-202264

Le Pape dit une chose, mais son Eglise fait le contraire.  Ce qui intéresse le Vatican ce n’ est pas la survie des identités européennes et encore moins celle de la race blanche, quand à ses prérogatives historiques n‘en parlons pas.  L’Eglise est l’ennemi des suprématistes, l’adversaire des racialistes et est indifférente aux identitaires.  Elle n’est préoccupée que de sa propre survie et vous, européens conscients de votre identité, elle vous passera par pertes et profits si elle y gagne des ouailles bien dociles.  Le Vatican raffole de Chrétien de modèle haitiens ou camerounais, bien obéissants, prolifiques et peu contestataires.  Entre des ruraux analphabètes émergeant à peine de la superstition et des allemands post gauchistes et stérilisés, son choix est vite fait.  Les fins de l’Eglise sont eschatologiques, pas ethno culturelles.

The Pope says one thing but his Church does the opposite.  What interests the Vatican isn’t the survival of the peoples of Europe, still less of the white race; and let’s not even mention its historical prerogatives.  The Church is the enemy of supremacists, the adversary of racialists, and is indifferent toward racial nationalists.  It cares solely about its own survival and as for you Europeans who are aware of your [ethnoracial] identity, for the Church you’re nothing but figures on a profit-and-loss balance sheet if it stands to acquire flocks of nicely docile sheep.  The Vatican adores Christians of the Haitian or Cameroonian variety, very obedient, fertile, and unargumentative.  Between illiterates from the countryside barely emerged from superstition on the one hand, and post-modern leftist sterilized Germans on the other, its choice is clear.  The Church’s goals are eschatological, not ethnocultural.

These letters are appraising the situation correctly:  the Vatican is saying to whites, “Drop dead” on the immigration issue, and siding openly with non-whites.  Let this fact be understood by all, especially by Catholics.

Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:11 | #

I think the Vatican is saying: if Europeans keep embracing “The Culture of Death” in lieu of Christianity, they will inevitably end up extinct. It’s all up to the Europeans to choose which direction they want to take. It’s about free choice and all that… The Church is offering a path to survival, both corporal and eternal, but the people are rejecting it.

The Left is kicking our asses ... right into extinction!

Posted by Montherlant on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:25 | #

...the Vatican is saying to whites, “Drop dead” on the immigration issue, and siding openly with non-whites.  Let this fact be understood by all, especially by Catholics.

Well said, Fred, as usual.  This is why, though educated at Jesuit prep school and a well-known Jesuit university, I’m an ex-Catholic now. Good riddance.

Posted by torgrim on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:58 | #

“The fact that the capitalist system in the UK and the USA would have stagnated long ago if it wasn’t for the masses of new (non-White) super-consumers who show up every year in these countries”—(Z)

Good post, “Z”.

The thing is we really do not have a capitalist system, at least since 1913 in the US. It more resembles the old Charter System of the 18th century or more commonly known as Merchantile capitalism. Whereas, those that have access to capital are granted by, “charter”, as in a decree, from the Crown, in the past, only to be replaced, by the cabal of banking houses today.

“The ridiculous obsession with GROWTH-GROWTH-GROWTH is vigorously promoted by delusional urban-elite (managerial) Jews in business/finance the media, law, academia, etc. alng with the veritable army of (middle-tier) Jewish bureaucrats who always toe-the-line of their more co-ethnics because their salaries depend on it.”(Z)

So true, in fact, this delusional urban-elite, requires this sort of insane, unsustainable growth, it works for them.
However, in nature, there are checks, and like the wise man once said;

“Growth of growth’s sake, is the ideology of the cancer cell.”

This is not a fit model, in the long run, for Euro folk, and we may see the US, repeat the scenario of the USSR.

Posted by torgrim on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:02 | #

Pardon me, should read;

Growth for growth’s sake is the ideology of the cancer cell.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:34 | #

Today’s Quiz

Who said this in the 1950s?

“The fate of the white races of the West will be decided at the century’s close, demographically.  These races certainly aren’t innately superior to others but in view of the pre-eminent role they’ve played over the past four thousand years in the general evolution of civilizations their decline will weigh heavily on the future of mankind, and politicians will bear responsibility if they’ll have done nothing in time to reverse the fall in births.” 

(“Le sort des races blanches d’Occident se jouera à la fin de ce siècle, et ce démographiquement. Ces races ne sont sans doute pas supérieures aux autres génétiquement, mais en raison du rôle prééminent qu’elle ont tenu, depuis près de quatre milléaires, dans l’évolution générale des civilisations, leur déclin pèsera lourdement sur l’avenir de l’humanité, et nos hommes politiques en seront responsables s’ils n’ont rien fait à temps pour enrayer la chute des naissances.”)

http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=4679#comment-202374

(P. Boyer de Belvefer, Les Prophéties du Pape Pie XII, p. 81)

(Answer:  Pope Pius XII said that during the ‘50s)
______

Tomorrow’s Quiz

Hey how come we get all the lousy popes, but in the fifties they got all the good ones???

(Answer will be posted tomorrow)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:14 | #

Come to think of it, isn’t Pius XII the one the Jews don’t like?  Maybe now I can see why ...

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:20 | #

“These races certainly aren’t innately superior to others”...and so it begins.”

What a wonderful vision, which makes us contemplate the human race in the unity of its origin in God in the unity of its nature, composed equally in all men of a material body and a spiritual soul; in the unity of its immediate end and its mission in the world; in the unity of its dwelling, the earth, whose benefits all men, by right of nature, may use to sustain and develop life; in the unity of the redemption wrought by Christ for all.|Pope Pius XII|referring to racism and anti-semitism in 1939[1]

In his first encyclical, Pius XII Summi Pontificatus, developed a main theme of his pontificate. Christianity is universal, and therefore opposed to racial or national hostility and superiority. He continues this theme in other encyclicals, such as Mystici Corporis, and Mediator Dei and in numerous speeches and addresses. There are no racial differences, because the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”.

Nations, despite a difference of development due to diverse conditions of life and of culture, are not destined to break the unity of the human race, but rather to enrich and embellish it by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts and by a reciprocal interchange. [2] All races, the human race are loved by Christ without exception or exclusion. Differences in nationality and race do not matter. True love means loving all, if they are Catholic, Christian or not.

Because of this divine law of human solidarity and charity, and because God loved the whole human race, we are assured, that all men are truly brethren, without excluding the rich variety of persons, cultures and societies, even if they do not belong to the Catholic Church or share the Christian faith Divine precepts contradict belief in “superiority”. Superior and inferior cultures do not exist and different levels of development within and between nations are source for enrichment and not discrimination of the human race. [3]

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:26 | #

Mystici Corporis

Exclusion on the basis of race or nationality

And first of all let us imitate the breadth of His love. For the Church, the Bride of Christ, is one; and yet so vast is the love of the divine Spouse that it embraces in His Bride the whole human race without exception. Our Saviour shed His Blood precisely in order that He might reconcile men to God through the Cross, and might constrain them to unite in one body, however widely they may differ in nationality and race. True love of the Church, therefore, requires not only that we should be mutually solicitous one for another[16] as members and sharing in their suffering[17] but likewise that we should recognize in other men, although they are not yet joined to us in the body of the Church, our brothers in Christ according to the flesh, called, together with us, to the same eternal salvation.[18]

There are some who extol enmity, hatred and spite as if they enhanced the dignity and the worth of man. Let us, however, while we look with sorrow on the disastrous consequences of this teaching, follow our peaceful King who taught us to love not only those who are of a different nation or race,[19] but even our enemies.[20]

While Our heart overflows with the sweetness of the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles, We extol with him the length, and the breadth, and the height, and the depth of the charity of Christ,[21] which neither diversity of race or customs can diminish, nor trackless wastes of the ocean weaken, nor wars, whether just or unjust, destroy[22]

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:30 | #

Important announcement:  It is with regret that I must announce that tomorrow’s Quiz will be canceled.  (Something has come up, I’m not at liberty to say what.)  The day after tomorrow’s Quiz question will be posted tomorrow.  Sincere apologies for any inconvenience.

—MR.com Today’s Quiz editor

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:42 | #

Notice that there happen to be perfectly good grounds for classifying chimpanzees as human beings, making at least three distinct species of human alive today (True Europeans, True West-Central African Negroes, and chimpanzees).  Does the Vatican have contingency plans for when this view gets widely accepted if it ever does?  Will it be telling Catholics they have to accept chimps as their fellow men, Catholic women they must not reject chimp suitors for their hand in marriage solely out of prejudice, and so on?  Or what if they clone Neanderthals and bring them back as a population?  Will the Catholic Church be telling us likewise in regard to them?  They’re humans after all, and prejudice is prejudice.  (Right, we know what the Jews will be doing, but I’m talking about the Catholics here ....)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:48 | #

Incidentally, Koko the talking gorilla had her IQ tested a number of times and consistently scored around 70.  This is the IQ of native Sub-Saharans.  So gorillas and native Sub-Saharans have the same IQ.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:01 | #

Koko’s IQ test results:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444337/My-friend-Koko—22-stone-gorilla.html

(Hat tip:  TheCivicPlatform.com )

Posted by Dave Johns on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:42 | #

Re Fred’s post on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 10:42 PM

Well, since Father Phleger is a Catholic Preist, and the world is becoming more bizarre by the day; I’m afraid the answers to your questions might someday be, yes. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWigzBClEk8

Posted by Bill on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:23 | #

Evolution is complete: so where do we go from here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid;=&xml;=/earth/2008/10/07/scievolution107.xml

Posted by EA (European American) Steve on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:12 | #

That telegraph article is depressing, Bill! I want our specisis (or at least race) to continue evolving. Even more importantly, I don’t want the whole world to melt into a ‘Tan Everyman.’

The article is an example of the far-left’s way of thinking. It’s biased, and apparently in favor of the extinction of all distinct races. And yet, I am called a “racist” (even by close friends and family members) for not wanting Whites to become extinct, even when I want the other races and sub-specisises to exist.

I want all of the races preserved, and yet somebody called me a skinhead. This is despite (the fact that), she knows I am not a member of any Skinhead organizations (or fan for that matter); and she knows I like the Jews, who are more hated by the Skinheads than even Blacks and Brown Hispanics are.

Posted by Armor on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:30 | #

I think the Pope has made speeches both in favor and against immigration.

This speech seems to be rather against immigration:

“Unfortunately, from a demographic point of view, one must note that Europe seems to be following a path that could lead to its departure from history. This not only places economic growth at risk; it could also create enormous difficulties for social cohesion and, above all, favour a dangerous form of individualism inattentive to future consequences. One could almost think that the European continent is in fact losing faith in its own future.”
(source)

I think the loss in social cohesion and the increasing individualism are caused by immigration, although the Pope does not say so clearly.

This speech is clearly in favor of immigration:

“Brother Bishops, I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials, and to help them flourish in their new home. This, indeed, is what your fellow countrymen have done for generations. From the beginning, they have opened their doors to the tired, the poor, the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (cf. Sonnet inscribed on the Statue of Liberty). These are the people whom America has made her own.”
(source)

But unlike some Hispanic catholics, the Pope does not support population replacement as a way to increase the number of catholics in the USA.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:29 | #

New three-part interview with Peter Brimelow just up.  Both he and the interviewer talk a little fast part of the time, and also the non-studio acoustics have a very slightly muffled, indistinct quality, so you may have to listen closely in order to catch everything that gets said.  But well worth it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:51 | #

But unlike some Hispanic catholics, the Pope does not support population replacement as a way to increase the number of catholics in the USA.

It’s like saying Genrikh Yagoda did not support genocide as a way to increase collectivization. What exactly does the Pope expect the outcome of mass Catholic migration from Mexico to be? What exactly did Yagoda expect the outcome of mass collectivization to be? Rome’s position, at least since Pius XII Summi Pontificatus, is that despite the preeminent role of European peoples for, according to Pius XII, the past four thousand years, “These races certainly aren’t innately superior to others”... In other words they’re interchangeable parts.

Preeminent; Superior to or notable above all others; outstanding.

What other conclusion can be drawn? The Roman Church recognises the superiority of the role Europeans played but deny it, in order to increase “the number of catholics in the USA.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:32 | #

Pius XII insisted that immigration is a natural right and duty. In 1946, he declared, that all people have a right to immigration, because the Creator himself demands access to material goods. In addition, compassion supports immigration rights. Conversely, no state which can support additional people, has a right to close its immigration doors without reason.[4]

Natural law even more than mere compassion compels States to secure people a chance of immigration, because the Creator demands that the goods of this world should be at the service of all mankind. Therefore no state whose territory is in a condition to feed more people, has the right to refuse admission to foreigners without good and acceptable reasons.

Acta Apostolica Sedis, XLI, 1949, pp. 69-71

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

1st Session of the 51st Legislature (2007)

HOUSE BILL 1804 By: Terrill

The State of Oklahoma finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state and that illegal immigration is encouraged by public agencies within this state that provide public benefits without verifying immigration status.  The State of Oklahoma further finds that illegal immigrants have been harbored and sheltered in this state and encouraged to reside in this state through the issuance of identification cards that are issued without verifying immigration status, and that these practices impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, undermine the security of our borders, and impermissibly restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Oklahoma. Therefore, the people of the State of Oklahoma declare that it is a compelling public interest of this state to discourage illegal immigration by requiring all agencies within this state to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.  The State of Oklahoma also finds that other measures are necessary to ensure the integrity of various governmental programs and services.

Author Michael A. Scaperlanda writing in the Daily Oklahoman characterises the plight of illegal immigrants as the Jean Valjeans of Oklahoma, and the state as the relentless Inspector Javert on a mission to hunt them down. This, according to Scaperlanda, “offers the Church an opportunity to rise above partisan politics in a legally and morally complex situation” and offer Christian charity as given to the hardened criminal Valjean, in Hugo’s Les Miserables.

The archbishop of Oklahoma City, Eusebius Beltran, and the bishop of Tulsa, Edward Slattery, have recently made attempts to do exactly that…Faithfully and courageously teaching Catholic social doctrine, each bishop has attempted to put a desperately needed human face on the “illegal alien.” Echoing the words of Pius XII, these two pastors remind us that “Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and places, the models and protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind who, whether compelled by fear of persecution or by want, is forced to leave his native land, his beloved parents and relatives, his close friends, and to seek a foreign soil.”

Posted by Armor on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:06 | #

What other conclusion can be drawn? The Roman Church recognises the superiority of the role Europeans played but deny it, in order to increase “the number of catholics in the USA.

The Pope wants westerners to keep their Christian faith. He doesn’t believe in replacing Americans with catholic Mexicans, although this method is recommended by some people.

What exactly does the Pope expect the outcome of mass Catholic migration from Mexico to be?

Indeed, there is a lack of coherence in what he says.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:57 | #

Catholics who oppose stealth Jewish-and-Catholic-engineered genocide of whites effected throught the demography weapon (no longer “stealth,” actually — it was “stealth” in 1965, when it was, as now, a joint Jewish-Catholic project) will simply no longer be able to remain Catholics.  It turns out the Ku Klux Klan, in bundling Catholics together with Jews as those who wished to harm Euros in this country, was right.

Posted by Armor on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:46 | #

There may have been a time when Irish and Italian organizations were in favor of immigration so as to hurt American protestants, but it did not reflect the opinion of the Pope! The Pope would not have been in favor of immigration in the USA, and againt immigration in Ireland and Italy.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:49 | #

Re: immigration to Italy.

Pope calls for immigrant welcome

But Northern League proposes points- based residence permits

(ANSA) - Vatican City, October 8 - Pope Benedict XVI made a renewed appeal for the international community to welcome immigrants in a message released on Wednesday.

The pontiff said ‘‘special attention’’ should be given to refugees and exiles in the message for the next World Day of Migrants and Refugees on January 18.

Benedict also urged people to ‘‘live fully in fraternal love without distinction of type and without discrimination, in the conviction that anyone who needs us is our fellow man and we can help them’‘.

Presenting the pope’s message, the president of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, added that ‘‘the problem of immigration is not resolved by closing borders’‘.

‘‘There are over 200 million people who live outside their countries of origin, driven by misery, hunger, violence, wars, ethnic rivalries, but also by the desire for a better life,’’ Martino said.

The influx of immigrants into the world’s richer nations is ‘‘often experienced by the host country as a sort of ‘invasion’, with negative repercussions on (social) stability and public safety issues’‘.

The cardinal said the negative climate ‘‘makes human life even more sad and bitter for many immigrants’’ and can drive them further to the margins of society.

‘‘The problem is not resolved by closing borders but by countries welcoming the immigrant influx, with the right balanced and solid rules’’ in order to ease integration, he said.

In response to a question about whether new mosques should be opened in the European Union, Martino said that while immigrants should respect the culture and laws of their host country, their religious and cultural needs should also be provided for.

’‘Europe must not see immigrants as invaders but as collaborators,’’ he said.

Posted by silver on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:11 | #

A simple explanation is the Catholic Church is happy to have one of its ‘doctrines’ be in accordance with liberalism for once. 

Benedict also urged people to ‘’live fully in fraternal love without distinction of type and without discrimination, in the conviction that anyone who needs us is our fellow man and we can help them’’.

Bit of a change from the days of Urban II.  What a royal piece of excrement the pope is.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:21 | #

In reply to Cardinal Martino’s comments just above, quoted by Desmond:  I’m waiting for the Vatican to auction off all its art treasures and real estate, with the proceeds going to reimburse the tax payers who are being fleeced by government demands for money to fund immigration-related social programs and to pay for immigration-caused problems such as increased crime and so forth.  When’s the big Vatican auction?  Do these aging, self-interested, dishonest homos plan on putting their own property where their big mouths are?  (And I’m not even talking about the most important hit Euro populations are taking because of the Vatican, race-replacement:  they’re losing their race, something which cannot be reimbursed by all the money in the universe.)  Until these narcissistic old fags put their own money, Vatican money, where their mouths are they need to STFU about immigration.

Posted by Matra on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:57 | #

armor: There may have been a time when Irish and Italian organizations were in favor of immigration so as to hurt American protestants, but it did not reflect the opinion of the Pope!

That was the case prior to the immigration restriction bill in 1921. The Knights of Columbus and organisations representing ethnic Catholics fought against the WASP restrictionists but there’s little evidence to suggest the Catholic Church itself participated in such battles. That changed in 1950s the Church under Pius XII declared (Exsul Familia) immigration and family reunification a human right.

Exsul Familia

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:30 | #

The Catholic Church also took a very strong position, in the 1950s, in favor of the forcible dismantling by the feds of segregation in the South.  Catholic influence in this regard down there was felt mainly in Louisiana, Dixie’s Catholic state.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:34 | #

The Protestants from the Know-Nothings of the 1850s on down turn out to have been right about the Catholics after all:  Catholics never should have been let into this country in large numbers.  And the reason is the same as the Prods have always said:  their loyalty will be first and foremost to Rome and the Pope, not to the country itself.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:43 | #

Which explains Catholic race-traitors like the Kennedys, John Zmirak and likely William F. Buckley, Jr., as well as explaining the bizarre total lack of concern about immigration on the part of Joe Sobran, Catholic, and John O’Sullivan’s insufficient concern, also Catholic.  I could name tons of others.  Needless to add, there are exceptions, just as with the Jews (Joe Guzzardi and Tom Tancredo, and tons of others I could name as well).  But there’s a valid point in here which I think stands nonetheless, exceptions and all:  Catholics are too little geared to the nation-state they live in, and too much geared to the Pope and Rome.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:50 | #

Steve Sailer, Catholic, and James Fulford (one of the editors at Vdare.com), also Catholic, are another couple of exceptions I’ll hasten to name, and of course there are many more.  The numerous exceptions do not invalidate the main point, though.

Posted by Matra on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:38 | #

Which explains Catholic race-traitors like the Kennedys, John Zmirak and likely William F. Buckley, Jr., as well as explaining the bizarre total lack of concern about immigration on the part of Joe Sobran, Catholic, and John O’Sullivan’s insufficient concern, also Catholic.

I disagree here, Fred. I think it is more a case of religion being an ethnic marker. That is, they are not old stock Americans and that is what matters more than how they worship. In the case of O’Sullivan he’s not culturally or politically Irish Catholic but a Brit who has lived in the US and Canada for a couple of decades. Sobran is of mixed ethnic background, possibly part Arab. Zmirak is half Croat, half Irish. Buckley was probably a pro-WASP Irish Catholic but he became successful at a time when Jews were taking over and he spent part of his childhood in Mexico. Besides, his worldview had more to do with maintaining his lifestyle than a genuine commitment to ideas.

Needless to add, there are exceptions, just as with the Jews (Joe Guzzardi and Tom Tancredo, and tons of others I could name as well).

Tancredo converted to Protestantism.

Catholics are too little geared to the nation-state they live in, and too much geared to the Pope and Rome.

Religious Roman Catholics perhaps. (Many religious evangelical Prods seem geared towards Israel!) But most of the open borders RCs in the US punditocracy are secular.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:02 | #

“But most of the open borders RCs in the US punditocracy are secular.”  (—Matra)

Secular or not, Matra, they still identify with their group, their tribe, no?  Most open-borders Jews in the U.S. punditocracy are secular as well, but to me it’s clear as crystal Jewish motivation in this boils down to a variety of Jewish nationalism, exactly as it would boil down to Ulster-Catholic nationalism if Ulster Catholics kept supporting some policy that “stuck it to” Ulster Prods (or, mutatis mutandis, vice-versa).  Same exact mechanism in the case of Jews resident anywhere in Euroland:  by “sticking it to” Euros by supporting policies that damage them, weaken them, give them a hard time, make them look bad and decline, they’re fighting for themselves rather than going along with what’s “good for the non-Jews who are established in the place,” and thereby helping to support the ascendancy of “the other”, the non-Jews (us) over their own group, which they’ll naturally never do.

Posted by Armor on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:29 | #

Unless the Pope takes a really strong stand against immigration (which he will never do), it makes little difference whether he says a few words in favor of or against immigration. I think the Catholic hierarchy in each country will continue to support or oppose immigration regardless of what the Pope says. Among European Americans in 2008, is there really more support for immigration from the Catholics than from other Christian churches?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:24 | #

Armor, the Catholic Church’s influence and moral authority are huge, far bigger than the Church of England, the Lutherans, the Mormons, and so on.  They could be a powerful voice questioning the morality, justice, and wisdom of the current genocide efforts leveled against Euros.  But they refuse to question that.  (It can’t be an oversight, of course, because what’s happening immigrationwise and its inevitable genocidal outcome are crystal-clear.)  Not only do they refuse, they are actually joining in the genocide, essentially telling Euros, “You guys dropped us.  Now you expect us to come to your aid against the non-whites when those very same non-whites love us and want to join us and support us?  Come to your aid when you spat on us and made fun of us while they loved us and embraces us?  You’ve got to be joking.  Here’s what you Euros can do:  you can go take a running leap.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:36 | #

I think the number-one rule for whites at the present juncture is very simply “Don’t miscegenate.”  Whatever else you do, that comes first:  it comes before every other rule.

Posted by Armor on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:31 | #

I agree that the Catholic Church has been encouraging “the genocide campaign against white peoples”, although the Pope has also said that the identity of European peoples should be preserved (it’s a shame he didn’t say the “racial” identity!). What is misguiding is that the Pope is supposed to provide moral guidance, and some people will expect that his advice about welcoming immigrants has been carefully thought out from a moral point of view, when in fact, he simply goes along with the dominant ideology on this issue.

But the Pope has not named immigration as a means to maintain Christianity in the West. He did say that Westerners should welcome immigrants. He did say that Christianity would be embraced by other peoples if it died out in the West. But he kept the two issues separate.

Some Hispanic immigrants will tell Americans that “we” (speaking for Americans) should welcome our replacement by Mexican catholics in order to preserve American catholicism. But I don’t think the Pope ever said anything of the kind.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:58 | #

“He did say that Westerners should welcome immigrants.”  (—Armor)

We can welcome some, Armor, and to welcome some is assuredly the christian thing to do.  But we can’t welcome race-replacement quantities of them if they’re racially too different from us.  That’s NOT the christian thing to do.  That’s misguided auto-natiocide and isn’t called for by any religion and never has been since the beginning of time.  That Rome refuses to clarify that simple truth, when they’ve got theologians galore just sitting around with time on their hands and nothing to do, is a crime.  It’s a religious crime, a crime against Christianity.  This pope should be gotten rid of, encouraged to take early retirement, and a new pope chosen who’s not a hundred years old to begin with so senility doesn’t ensue within two years of his taking office as generally happens with popes nowadays, and he should have race-realist views on things and a decent respect for the racial as well as ethnocultural elements of healthy communities and nations.

Posted by silver on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:14 | #

What is misguiding is that the Pope is supposed to provide moral guidance, and some people will expect that his advice about welcoming immigrants has been carefully thought out from a moral point of view,

That’s why I called him a piece of shit.  There’s nothing in Christianity which requires welcoming immigrants.  If there is, why wasn’t it enunciated 1500 years ago?  Why did popes give their blessings to crusader armies which killed and expelled “immigrants” from lands they weren’t wanted? 

And how is welcoming immigrants even “moral”?  The church supposedly enjoins that which leads to harmony, brotherly love, justice etc.  Immigrants rip societies apart.  If the pope cared about immigrants he’d tell them to go back home and help build their communities instead of abandoning them in search of the almighty dollar.  That’s what a pope seriously concerned with morality (instead of power) would say. 

when in fact, he simply goes along with the dominant ideology on this issue.

The Church is finally on the liberal side of an issue and it’s milking it for all it’s worth.  Maybe the great pontiff thinks he’s going to sneak his way back into moral legitimacyin in the eyes of liberals this way.  But neither liberals nor greedy capitalists need him to cheerlead immigration. It’s the act of a desperate man, of a dying institution, nothing more. 

If the Church had any brains it would realize the only reason it still has European followers (apart from the tiny percentage of true-believing fanatics) is the cultural familiarity it provides and thus market itself as a “bastion of Western Civilization,” rationalizing the ploy with some of the reasoning employed by Pascal’s Wager—give people a reason to consider faith, then your faith, then practise the motions and hopefully have them eventually reach a full level of religious devotion.

Posted by EA Steve on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:51 | #

I agree, Fred. Not race-mixing is rule number 1. On an individual level, we technically can’t change immigration laws, but we can avoid procreating our own non-Whites. Non-White immigraton adds one non-White person, per capita (of one individual, chain immigraton notwithstanding). Race-mixing adds a non-White person, and cuts off (unofficially killing) a White person, per capita (of one person); additional mulatto children notwithstanding. Another negative to race-mixing, is that it puts White genes into the non-White genepool, thereby making it even easier for non-Whites to pick off our impressonible. Immigration actually throws in more non-Whites, hypothetically for the other non-Whites to marry.

Both are bad, but I agree with you, that the best advice to the average White, is to just not race-mix. Changing immigration policy will take time, and should be temporary (in Europe); whereas miscegenation is permanent and even avoidable on an individual basis. This principle is akin to ‘damage control.’

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:18 | #

Excellent comment just above by EA Steve.

Posted by silver on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:51 | #

Both are bad, but I agree with you, that the best advice to the average White, is to just not race-mix. Changing immigration policy will take time, and should be temporary (in Europe); whereas miscegenation is permanent and even avoidable on an individual basis. This principle is akin to ‘damage control.’

FFS, it’s the whole point, not a point (Scrubby), not merely sage advice, an astute principle (“damage control”) or noteworthy appurtenance.

Posted by Guest on Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:37 | #

You must surely envy us in the States, we have been so blessed with CHRISTIAN immigration!
Not to mention our own “native” Christian elements breeding so successfully. Of course there is also the blessing of established and immigrant Hindu and Buddhist stocks.

It is NOT about religion, it is about race. Keep it in perspective.