Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Natalism revisited

I’ve been thinking a lot on religion these days, as you can see in some of my last posts. In part it’s because of Vox Day’s blog, where he has been talking theology a lot lately. I particularly enjoyed his debates with what he calls “Team Calvin”, which is a bunch of american calvinists. In Europe religion is mostly a thing of the past, and discussions on religious doctrine is seen as a freaky medieval pastime. But I’m fascinated by it, I always liked reading philosophy, and theology is the most hardcore part of it.

Now Vox, and many on the reactionary sphere are partial to Catholicism. I understand the attraction. We all like European Civilization, and the Church mostly built it. Catholicism evokes a distant past where men were men, women were women, and everyone knew its place.

Fair enough, but a closer examination of Catholic doctrine, and the actual behaviour of the Catholic Church quickly breaks the charm. The Church doesn’t acknowledge hbd, and it insists in its futile efforts to christianise African and South American savages.

And what personally bugs me the most is its passion for natalism. No abortion, no birth control. Keep the babies coming. It’s just nuts. We don’t need more people. We need better people. I simply cringe everytime I hear a bishop say that Africans shouldn’t use condoms.

But then I thought perhaps there’s something to the idea. Now there’s this old idea that the Roman Empire collapsed because of affluence. People had it good, free food and circus, no fear of deprivation, so they went all out on having fun with wine and buttsex. Over time the social capital that made the women raise good soldiers, died out, the empire depopulated and died. The idea being that we are seeing a similar thing today. Amusing ourselves to death and all that. Societies simply can’t function properly without the pressure of poverty.

See, the idea for eugenics and population control is that, with the proper technology, less population means more wealth per person, a more pleasant life. But the Roman argument is that a more pleasant life is bad for society. It looses morals and induces collapse. It necessarily leads to a Brave New World.

So perhaps the Catholic Church pushing for natalism is a conscious drive of pushing for poverty, because some degree of poverty is the only way our Civilization may survive. India is an abject shithole, but it’s still India. Christendom is quickly devolving into a Jewish Lesbian suicide cult.

Or maybe they  push natalism just because they the bishops get a bonus out of every 1000 converts. We need a foseti in the Roman curia to gives us the inside picture.

Advertisements

7 responses to “Natalism revisited

  1. The Reluctant Apostate April 19, 2012 at 03:23

    European and post-European peoples probably need a good dose of natalism for their native populations in conjunction with much tighter immigration controls to maintain control of their lands against what amounts to a slow motion invasion.

    On the Eugenics side, it would be desirable if there were a differential birth rate within the native population such that those whose genetically-rooted abilities had the most utility for society would reproduce at a greater rate than those lacking in such abilities. Unfortunately, it seems that we have a reality where the reverse of both desired dynamics is occuring, and the Catholic Church isn’t really that helpful on either front.

  2. zhai2nan2 April 19, 2012 at 06:12

    I tried to use the WordPress “like” function on this post and an error got returned. So WordPress won’t let me “like” this. However, I find this post most noteworthy, regardless of what WordPress says.

  3. Matthew April 19, 2012 at 21:36

    The proper response to “All Cretans are liars” is not, “Let’s encourage them to breed.”

  4. jamesd127 May 4, 2012 at 04:55

    Since the west is depopulating, natalism is hardly a problem. Everywhere we see old people regretting the absence of children and grandchildren.

    And, in any case, Christianity is dead, having mutated into progressivism.

    Paul on slavery: Christians should urge slaves not to run away and to obey their masters, but should not participate in the nasty stuff needed to make slavery work, should not be party to forcibly returning runaway slaves. Freeing your own slaves is virtuous, but not mandatory. Freeing other people’s slaves is improper, but so is assisting in keeping them enslaved.

    Paul and Jesus on marriage: Wives should obey. Men may not divorce except on grounds of adultery and lack of virginity. Wives may not divorce on any grounds whatsoever. Ever. If separated, may not remarry.

    Paul on homosexuality, cross dressing, and so on and so forth: Eternal damnation, and in this world, exclusion from the congregation.

    Pretty soon ever church’s position on homosexuality will be as unchristian as their position on slavery and disobedient wives.

    When the churches lobbied to have the British empire liberate slaves with fire and steel, they had abandoned Christianity, and gay bishops are the predictable result.

    • spandrell May 4, 2012 at 22:25

      It took them a while to get there, though.

      The west isn’t depopulating. Rents are still sky high. Send the superflous NAMs back home and then people will think on having children. The idea of sending my own kid to public school makes me think of having a vasectomy.

Please comment

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