Europe Risks Starvation?

Thanks to unbridled immigration, Jerri believes that most of Europe is now at risk of starvation and governments, socialist or not, will just sit back and let it happen -- like they did in 1847 when Ireland was hit by the potato famine -- because western civilization, based upon capitalism, cares only about profit.

“In terms of food security,” says Jerri, “the UK and Germany are now worse off than North Korea, Nepal, Kenya, Ethiopia and Colombia; Italy and the Netherlands are now worse off than Sri Lanka, Peru, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela; Belgium is now worse off than Hong Kong, Chile, Burma and Uzbekistan; and Switzerland is now worse off than Haiti, Guatemala, Rwanda, Jordan, Madagascar and Somalia.”

“Shifting a mass of starving people from non-sustainable nations (particularly China, India, Japan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Vietnam, South Korea and the Philippines) to sustainable nations, particularly marginally sustainable nations in Europe, was a short term 20th century solution that, in the long term, has caused the host nations not only to sink as far as food security is concerned but also to sink in terms of political and social stability as well,” says Jerri. “Thousands of non-Europeans pouring into Europe are being kept wholly on social welfare, and because less people in their homelands creates more breeding space, the nations they originally came from become more unsustainable than ever.”

“It will be a totally inflammatory situation for interracial relations in Europe when the food wars break out.”

“Also, allowing 91 unsustainable nations to become nutritionally dependent upon 72 sustainable nations in a spirit of globalized dependency has long term problems, too. Only one of the top ten dependent nations, China, has instituted measures to become nutritionally self-sufficient by limiting its population. The other dependent countries continue to expand their populations beyond the capacity of their arable land, and will continue doing so as long as they receive cheap food from sustainable nations and have opportunities to emigrate.”

“Increase the price of food and cut off opportunities to emigrate,” says Jerri, “and these nations will be forced to help themselves rather than accept parasitic status, and you can see this happening already.”

“In feeding these increasingly populous dependent nations, the sustainable nations are being forced to increase the yield of their arable lands by using dangerous agricultural practices. Increasing use of pesticides and fertilizers are poisoning the environment, and how many crops can be produced in a year without severely affecting the earth itself, not to mention water supplies and air quality?”

“Contrary to popular opinion, agriculture is not an environmentally friendly industry, and cheap food from sustainable nations does not come without political strings attached,” says Jerri. “Who wasn’t appalled by the food for oil scandals?”

“Europe does not have the arable land capable of supporting its present population,” says Jerri. “Most of Europe’s food is imported, and should a crisis occur in any one of the nations providing the food, Europe risks massive starvation and the breakdown in civilization that goes with it.”

See also:

• emigrate to a food secure nation!
• Echoes of Ireland’s Starvation
• time to stock up on food?
• one child is enough
• go forth, multipy and starve
• globalization promotes starvation
• are we a plague on the earth?

the empire strikes back

As the Romans and the Brits discovered -- and the USA may yet discover -- empires have a nasty habit of striking back and especially so, according to Dorcas, if citizenship is given away too freely to immigrants.

“The Roman Empire started to disintegrate when the number of indigenous Romans was vastly outnumbered by immigrant citizens,” says Dorcas. “The number of people who did care about what was happening had lost control and the new arrivals from the empire were angry about conditions in Rome being worse than those they had left.”

"The Empire then struck back at what remained of glorious Rome with a vengeance," says Dorcas. "The city was sacked, historical buildings were trashed, treasure was looted and the patrician families and their country estates were left impoverished. And all of this became the eventual fate of Britain, too."

"Having contributed towards Rome's downfall -- and no longer having a reason to stay in an impoverished city with no jobs, no action and no glory -- the immigrant families moved on to greener pastures, or returned to their original homelands laden with stolen Roman treasure."

"Sure, most of this treasure originally came from the foreign lands that the Romans had conquered and brought into the Roman Empire -- just like most British treasure originally came from the foreign lands that the Brits had conquered and brought into the British Empire -- and there is poetic justice, sort of, in this sort of thing," says Dorcas, "but it's still a slap in the face for the original Roman and British empire-builders who, after all, granted the foreigners equal citizenship as well as a right to share in the glory and wealth opportunities of the empire."

Read more by Dorcas on this issue:

social cohesion and survival

did roman citizenship cost the empire?

Let’s follow Japan on immigration

are all immigrants voracious?

did roman citizenship cost the empire?

Dorcas claims that had Rome held its foreign conquests as equal treaty states and forbidden foreign immigration and Roman citizenship it could very well have remained a great and enduring power.

“I can't prove this claim, nobody can,” says Dorcas, “but you only have to look at Japan and China to see that nations which stringently maintain social, cultural and religious cohesion by repelling immigrants and protecting citizenship remain intact!"

"It took about 300 years for Rome to become unrecognizably Roman -- racially and culturally --even to the point of having African emperors," says Dorcas. "The Roman religion had been supplanted by Middle Eastern Christianity, intermarriage had just about wiped out the indigenous Roman race, and the Roman Empire was disintegrating because there were too few indigenous Romans left to care."

Read more by Dorcas on this issue:

social cohesion and survival

the empire strikes back

Let’s follow Japan on immigration

are all immigrants voracious?

is the west an extension of the old roman empire?

In that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a way to quell rebellion and maintain in control of the known world - and the Pope chose Ireland as the last bastion of Christianity in 675 - both Christianity and Western civilization did indeed become extensions of the old Roman Empire.

At the time when Ireland became the cradle of western civilization in 675, Rome was in peril of being sacked by the Arabs and Ireland was seen as a safe haven for the continuation of Christianity but also, through it, Roman rule.

By 675, the entire Celtic Pagan population of Ireland had been converted to Christianity by Roman priests. It was more Papist than Rome itself!

In the safe and strongly Christian island of Ireland, western civilization found a fertile cradle but Rome remained in control of the administration of the Church in Ireland - and still does - and at the time, in the 7th century, it effectively controlled the entire country, too.

It was a Roman church system, not an Irish one, and - just like Rome ruled the later years of Hellenic civilization with its cradle in Greece - Rome ruled the early years of Western civilization with its cradle in Ireland.

Without the birth of Islam in 622, the birth of western civilization in Ireland might never have occurred; and, without the adoption of Christianity, Rome might never have remained a seat of power.

how did Islam affect early western civilization?

Right from the start of the birth of the new religion of Islam in 622, the Arabs that espoused it were perceived as being bent upon destroying Christianity and thus Western civilization most definitely took shape as a reaction against Islam.

By 638 the Arabs had invaded and conquered Jerusalem - creating much angst for the Christians as well as the Jews - and when the Arabs headed for Europe via Spain, there was real concern that the whole of Europe would fall under Arab rule and Christianity would die out in Europe.

The Pope in Rome was in peril. Not even the island nation of England was seen as being a safe haven for the Christian church - and Roman power - and that is why Rome chose far-away Ireland to be the last bastion of Christianity.

Actually, the Arab conquerors - unlike their Christian counterparts - were far more interested in acquiring wealth and power than converts. Wherever they conquered, Jews and Christians were heavily taxed and treated like second class citizens - like all subject peoples are, whoever the conquerors - but the Arabs did not force subject peoples to convert to Islam. Until Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Arabs at the end of the 15th century, the Arab kingdom of Cordova in Spain lasted for almost eight centuries and was highly civilized.

It was therefore not so much Christianity that was in peril by the advancing Moslem Arabs but Roman power and wealth.