Coveting Thy Neighbor’s Country

I’ve spoken many times on the inevitable disappointments of those who seek shelter in comforting words found on dry paper. Whether or not reason can invade their reverie, the fact remains: the constitution says exactly what a cloistered panel of jurists can agree that it says. Nothing more, nothing less. And given the lengthening strides of America’s executive, that interpretative chore has been efficiently streamlined to the musings of only one man. As Louie XIV is alleged to have reasoned: I am the state.

The effect extends noticeably beyond secular institutions. For I understand Christians also have a revered charter, including a raft of edicts and injunctions that flow therefrom. These also falling under the interpretive purview of those residing on Earth rather than heaven. And by their obvious estimation, the creator of the universe has re-prioritized to better align his agenda with man’s more keen modern insights. He is a deity willing to learn from his mistakes.

And so surely the time must be brief before clergy adopt an improved Decalogue more meaningful to a diverse, tolerant, and inclusive society. I think we all know what God would have wanted the new First Commandment to be, had he the benefit of foresight. Though no one is perfect. So the devout must focus where we now realize it to be righteous: moving africans into Europe.

Spain’s Conference of Bishops has slammed a government proposal which would allow for the instant deportation of migrants who clamber over border fences into the country’s north African enclaves of Melilla and Ceuta.

The secretary of the bishops’ commission on migration has joined hands with several other Catholic organizations including the charity Caritas to denounce the proposed change.

The Spanish government in October announced that it would include a legal amendment in its planned new Citizen Security Law authorizing police to expel migrants who climb the fence around Melilla and Ceuta, without giving their asylum claims a hearing — a move slammed by opposition parties.

But the Catholic groups on Monday expressed their “energetic rejection” of the plan saying in a statement that any such changes would effectively make borders “a human rights-free zone”.

They said the new law would only increase people’s suffering and would not provide solutions for the people “who abandoned their countries of origin, to, after an arduous journey, arrival at the borders of Ceuta and Melilla”.

The UN’s refugee agency has also criticized Spanish government plans saying the country call break international law by doing so.

Spain has since responded by announcing it will create “centres of attention for asylum seekers” at border posts in the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla.

The Interior Ministry said that the plan to build special asylum posts, to be put into action in the coming months, “will strengthen the system of international protection and meet more fully the requirements of the Common European Asylum System”.

A spokesperson for the UN said in late October that around two thirds of those trying to cross the seven-metre (23-foot), triple-layer border fence into Melilla were from countries torn by war, violence and persecution, including Syria, Central Africa Republic and Mali.

In 2013, around 4,200 people entered the enclaves illegally by land and sea, he said.

“So far this year, over 5,000 people have arrived, including 2,000 people fleeing the conflict in Syria, of whom 70 percent are women and children,” he added.

One can understand God’s evolving position on this matter. The bishops are only asking Spain to accept those fleeing “war, violence, and persecution.” And since all of those are temporary events (particularly in Africa) it’s simply a humane gesture to accommodate a few straggling refugees. Probably no more than half a billion Africans would relocate if given the chance. Taking them in is a moral obligation: see new commandment #4.

And so the church makes its position clear: God has changed his mind, why can’t Spain?

31 thoughts on “Coveting Thy Neighbor’s Country

  1. Since it’s obvious that most Africans want to live under white governments, and it’s also equally obvious that they can’t all get to Europe or America without serious hardship, the answer is, of course, re-institute colonialism. Then millions of Africans could enjoy the benefits of white rule without even leaving home, all those E.U. bureaucrats would have somebody to boss around besides the poor Greeks, and someone might even make a tidy profit on the deal. And there can be no possible moral objection, because we have it on the authority of the New Catholic Church (TM), the Soros Evangelicals, and every pro-Immigration liberal on the planet, that colored people can ONLY live worthwhile lives under white rule. So there you are, Q.E.D.

    To keep the Catholic Church happy, we could even call those Europeans bringing the benefits of white rule “Conquistadors”. I mean, they went for it once…

    • Unfortunately the left has already detained that infiltrating proposal. Here is the first comment at the linked site:

      There is no such thing as “illegal immigration” – the right of moving is a basic human right. European colonization – now this was illegal.

      Understand bigot? Africans can move to Europe at their convenience. Europeans to Africa? NOT ok.

      the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.

      • FM, that requires more of a response than I can provide at the moment. Though as an institution it’s as fallen and subverted as any other in the West. Which is deeply unfortunate given its historical role.

        As a personal faith, I respect its honest adherents.

  2. Just for the record, here are a few countries that are NOT war-torn that are closer to Syria than Spain;
    Turkey
    Iran
    Lebanon
    Egypt
    Morocco (where they already are, for Pete’s sake!)
    Tunisia
    Malta
    Azerbaijan
    Armenia
    Russia
    Vatican City (refugees, take note!)
    and of course…..
    Israel

    So of course, since these refugees are only fleeing for their lives, not for anything as mundane as opulent EU welfare benefits, they would have no problem stopping in any of these countries. And, just as the Catholic Church is always volunteering primarily Protestant America to take Mexicans, I, in the same ecumenical spirit, volunteer Vatican City to take at least a couple of thousand ululating, ISIS loving Syrians. After, diversity is our strength…

    • The point TC makes here should be emphasized wherever this debate occurs. These “refugees” pass through multiple non war-torn countries to reach their desired roost. It has nothing to do with “escaping violence” which they have already accomplished by alighting in Morocco. Though whites are always available to play the stooge.

      • Don’t get me wrong, as a Protestant Christian, I believe in helping real refugees. But it should be noted that 1) People simply trying to improve their economic circumstances whose lives are not in danger are not true refugees; 2) Being a refugee is supposed to be a temporary status, not a permanent condition, in most cases, and 3) One will note, in Scripture, the Good Samaritan helped the injured man to survive his temporary hardships. He did not take him home, adopt him into his family, and care for him and his children for the rest of his life. As a Christian, one is required to help those in dire need, i.e. those whose lives or souls are at imminent risk. We are not required to do everything that might be advantageous to someone who happens to have less money than we do. The Pre-Vatican II Catholic Church knew this. The current Pope has obviously forgotten it.

  3. Seems all major religious authorities are backing the alien invasion…of the US and the EU. Why not China? Why not Russia? Why mot Vatican City (as suggested above)? Why not Israel?

    I’d like an Anglo-Saxon variant on the immigration policy of Israel or Mexico. If they can have theirs, why can’t we have ours? Why are we wrong to think of such a policy, and they are not?

    How silly of me. I forgot that only the Left gets to play moral equivalence.

    • And here’s a further irony: there’s still no mention of this murder on the site of the SPLC, despite the victim’s having written pieces on white privilege for them over the last 17 years. I suppose an anti-hate group struggling with limited funds can’t update its site that often.

      • Probably someone made a racist comment on the cobweb. You can’t really expect a respected organization like the SPLC to focus on the slaughter of their own colleagues when there’s that to report. Priorities.

  4. Admin – do you have a gallery of your mastheads? One of them contained a definition of “privilege” that invites further commentary.

  5. Since the Second Vatican Council the R C Church has become an organization of happy clappy, kumbaya, warm and fuzzy superannuated hippies. In the US their churches look like abandoned Pizza Huts with a cross on top. Their priests, when they’re not molesting the altar boys, don their polyester vestments and stand behind the bar (altar) serving Jesus to any and all who drop by for the floor show. Since the numbers of Anglo-Irish are dwindling they welcome the illegals with open arms. In order to attract more of these border jumpers they hire mariachi bands to provide the entertainment. Once the bastion of Western Civilization the R C Church is nothing more than a breeding ground for the Democratic party and all other left wing socialist organizations. The Episcopal Church has gone over to the Dark Side and Orthodox Church is headed in the same direction.

  6. Here’s an entertainment only perspective on how religion intersects with prohibited world views. If we accepted Kakistocracy readership as a proxy for the dissident right, this statistical absurdity would reveal some interesting points.

    Catholics:
    22% of “Americans.” 25% of readership. +3 representation.

    Protestants:
    48% of Americans. 27% of readership. Negative 21 representation.

    Agnostic and Atheist:
    Approximately 3% of the population each.
    Readership at 22% and 21%. +19 and +18 representation.

    Jewish:
    2% of Americans. 3% of readership. +1 representation.

    How interesting. First, given their over representation in the ranks , I’d like to welcome our jewish brothers in the struggle. Few would have thought the offices of the ADL to be more arable ground than the pews of a Presbyterian church. And by a wide margin.

    Catholics, in comparison, are holding relatively neutral.

    The most amusing to me is the vast over representation of agnostic and atheists. The SJWs of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are conspicuously proud of their “rational” rejection of both religion and racial awareness. To think that it is most notably the Protestant “fundies” that share their perspective on the latter must surely curl many neck beards.

    Furthermore it would indicate, counterintuitively for many, an improvement in alt-right prospects with the ongoing secular trend.

    Ahh well, little ado about nothing.

    • When I was a liberal I was convinced that my worldview was rooted in a commitment to the seeking of truth to improve society.

      I believe most atheists hold the same belief, they just have not digested fully truth as a result of truth being systematically with held from the masses and culturally repressed. Most liberals are well intentioned bit have no exposure to conservative thought. Most people graduate school, get a job and reproduce leaving little time to explore social policy.

      • People who flatly deny the possibility of God possess a certitude of the universe that I do not. Though their belief isn’t at all insufferable until paired with a fanatical determination that everyone around them share it.

        When Christians proselytize, they do so with the conviction that they are bringing someone into communion with Christ and the everlasting life he offers them. With atheists it’s typically just YOU’RE A GLOB OF MEANINGLESS MOLECULES, WHY CAN’T YOU ACCEPT IT?!?! The logic is understandable to me. The desire to spread the joy is not.

  7. “The logic is understandable to me. The desire to spread the joy is not”. Are you not filled with the desire to spread the ‘joy’ through this blog that the peoples who nurtured newton and the atheists is being eroded by enemies which you are deemed insane for noticing?

    If one believes that one sees a truth which most others cannot see, one is often gripped with a desire to warn his fellow man.

    I do completely agree with the insufferable nature of liberals and atheists to sway all around him in public life. A blog is not such a campaign. I have noticed that liberals and atheists are very publicly certain about their beliefs of the world.

    Let’s build on this from a strategic perspective: charisma brings people together. I do believe that liberalism is disproportionately powerful because its’ adherents are more willing to proselytize than their conservative competitors. Liberalism, while not factually based, is effective. Islam, while a barbaric system of life, is successful in that it draws adherents.

    The thesis of my original post is that I am not surprised that atheists are drawn to this corner of the cobwebs. Libertarians will be as well. Both groups are on the road to truth, they are just not yet at their destination. Libertarians do not grasp the importance of culture, atheists are stuck on questioning their religious upbringing without allowing for a full spectrum of possibilities to permeate their mind.

    But yes, I agree that the denialists are insufferable compared to proselytizing Christians who proselytize to raise people to a higher spiritual level than do atheists who seek to…help us find no meaning in existence?

    • That’s a good solid comment. I think your last paragraph addresses the quandary proposed by the first. Continuing to survive as a discrete people in secure habitats is bringing the flock to a higher plane of existence than being hounded, guilted, and brutalized into genetic subsumption.

      Though that’s no more than saying life is superior to death, which is itself contestable. One side sees it as self-evident, the other as a hateful stereotype.

    • If one believes that one sees a truth which most others cannot see, one is often gripped with a desire to warn his fellow man.

      That’s a typically reaction when one realizes the Jewish role in our sickness.

  8. I’ve spoken many times on the inevitable disappointments of those who seek shelter in comforting words found on dry paper.

    I think this faith in laws and constitutions is a part of our pre-rational past that we mistakenly believe we’ve left behind. It belongs with spells, elixirs, druids, etc. People who believe Constitutional “guarantees” will protect them when they’ve become outnumbered in their own country by hostile aliens are no better than savages who believe a witch doctor will cure their cancer.

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