Post: #1

A former beauty miss (Miss Jeanne d’Arc 2002) has become a famous red-pill political writer, in France. She writes about the dangers of terrorism, of illegal-migrants, about the loss of traditional values, gay-marriage, slaughtering of Oriental Christians...



She's 29 and regularly quoted by political heavy-weights (usually from the FN), like conservative Gollnisch...



And she does "more" (concrete) things than writing, mind you: she also co-founded an organization (SOS Chretiens d'Orient) to help endangered Christians from Syria and Lebanon...

http://www.larep.fr/loiret/actualite/201...20056.html

"Charlotte d’Ornellas, Orléanaise de 29 ans qui a incarné Jeanne d’Arc en 2002, est devenue une plume de l’extrême droite en France. Bien au-delà du FN.

Depuis quelques années, une Orléanaise écrit pour ces publications. Elle y pourfend le mariage gay, défend les « racines chrétiennes de la France », et appelle à « l'instinct de survie d'un pays menacé par la vague migratoire ».

Cette femme de 29 ans, c'est Charlotte d'Ornellas, qui incarnait Jeanne d'Arc lors des fêtes de 2002.
Elle est aujourd'hui régulièrement citée par les ténors du FN comme Bruno Gollnisch,"

translation:

"Charlotte Ornellas , Orlean-resident of 29 years, who acted as Joan of Arc in the 2002 festival, became a writer of the "extreme-right" in France . Well beyond the FN .

In recent years, she has written for many publications. She loathes the gay marriage , defends the " Christian roots of France ," and calls for "survival instinct of a country threatened by waves of illegal migration".

This woman of 29 years is Charlotte Ornellas. She is now regularly cited by tenors of the FN like Bruno Gollnisch"

Post: #2

How many kids does she have? If she doesn't have any then all of her complaints against immigration are moot.

Post: #3

WB, then discuss politics as pillow talk and then WB again.

Post: #4

(12-27-2015 04:08 PM)scotian Wrote:  How many kids does she have? If she doesn't have any then all of her complaints against immigration are moot.

You've got a point here, but, she's 29 and still thin and cute, so she still can have children easily, I guess...

Post: #5

(12-27-2015 04:08 PM)scotian Wrote:  How many kids does she have? If she doesn't have any then all of her complaints against immigration are moot.

If this is all the forum is becoming now... lolol.

OP - thanks for posting.

Post: #6

I bet she secretly loves taking Arab dick.

Post: #7

(12-27-2015 04:57 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  I bet she secretly loves taking Arab dick.

Why do you say that? Are you an arab?

Post: #8

(12-27-2015 04:57 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  I bet she secretly loves taking Arab dick.

Freud was just trying to troll people with psychoanalysis.

Post: #9

Beautiful huh.

Post: #10

(12-27-2015 04:08 PM)scotian Wrote:  How many kids does she have? If she doesn't have any then all of her complaints against immigration are moot.

lol wut? Do you have kids, and if no, can I just walk into your house and all your complaints about my intrusion will be moot?

Post: #11

^^^
It would be moot if his house was empty, because he died of old age and had no kids to replace him in said house

Post: #12

(12-28-2015 04:06 AM)262 Wrote:  ^^^
It would be moot if his house was empty, because he died of old age and had no kids to replace him in said house

Fine. But until such a time, it's his house and he has every right to control who gets to come in, if anyone. Same with France and the French. Once they are all dead due to having no kids you will obviously not hear them complaining about immigration, but until then it's their country and their rules.

And btw guys, if you believe the old "they will die out because they're not having any kids" canard I have a wonderful bridge in a vibrant neighborhood to sell you.

Post: #13

Continuing to play devil's advocate ...

While his house isn't empty yet, could you say he has empty rooms, and needs to rent them out to make the mortgage and interest payments? As you may know, the house has only a few mortgages on it

Also curious - how do a people not die out if they have no kids?

Post: #14

It's actually an interesting debate, but guess what, it should also be extended to... (conservative) men (over 40? over 50?)!

I mean, quoting Scotian, could you say: "How many kids does HE have? If HE doesn't have any then all of HIS complaints against immigration are moot."

A conservative man also should have kids... only difference being, he has more time (than a woman), more years to do it... (until his fifties I'd say?)

Post: #15

A country might go from 80 million to 65 million over 30 or 40 years with a negative birth rate, then stabilize. This is only a bad thing for welfare states (which are ponzi schemes) and leftists by extension.

It is a natural occurrence in any population and the tapering off is a useful feature, not some deadly flaw. You don't need immigration to solve it, because it is not a problem.

Its not like with a low birth rate that we all go hand in hand towards a terrible "breeder event horizon" where eventually everybody is too old to have kids, there's no turning back, and it's like Children of Men meets the Golden Girls.

Post: #16

(12-28-2015 05:24 AM)262 Wrote:  Continuing to play devil's advocate ...

While his house isn't empty yet, could you say he has empty rooms, and needs to rent them out to make the mortgage and interest payments? As you may know, the house has only a few mortgages on it

Also curious - how do a people not die out if they have no kids?

You are absolutely right. Making mortgage payments on a house is a difficult business. So the last thing you want to do in such a situation is complicate matters further by inviting a bunch of hoodrats off the street into your house, thrashing the place, and extorting food, pussy, and other amenities from your family. Have you seen the immigrants in France, brah? These guys are not helping anyone pay any mortgages, you can be damn sure of that.

And yes, people will die out if they have no kids. What is happening in the West right now, however, is not "people having no kids." We have a temporary reduction in the birth rate that will over very long time frames lead to an aging and shrinking population until such a time as equilibrium is reestablished. The only way this problem becomes terminal is if you "solve" it by demographic extermination via mass immigration. Do you start writing a will bequeathing all your worldly possessions to charity every time you get a slight cold? Because abandoning your country to hostile outsiders whenever the fertility rate happens to drop below 2 is tantamount to doing just that, and it makes no fucking sense.

I wrote about this in detail in a previous thread:

Quote:I feel like a broken record because I keep saying this, but there is nothing inherently wrong with a shrinking population, especially in densely populated regions like Europe and much of East Asia. Were the European peoples on the brink of extinction back in 1500 when Europe's population was a fraction of what it is today? Clearly not. Even at today's birth rates, it would take centuries for the current European population to shrink to 15th century levels. If we hit that level and continue to shrink it will be time to start thinking about maybe getting worried. But today, with well over 600m people occupying an area much smaller than the continental United States (pop. 320m) the idea that we must try and cram even more people else risk "going extinct" is ludicrous at face value and insidious as an agenda.


On the other hand, free trade has made a big chunk of the labor force obsolete and we keep hearing how automation will adversely impact much of the rest in the not too distant future. What sense does it make, then, to shill for a continually expanding population? Who exactly is made better off by throwing in another few hundred million people on top of the existing 600m+ that inhabit the EU now? Surely not the people who live here already and are squeezed in like sardines. If anything, we should be happy that automation's coming massacre of the labor market will occur in tandem with the shrinking of said labor market. Welcoming automation while pushing for an ever expanding labor force is an exercise in stupidity of mind numbing proportions. When the agricultural revolution allowed .5% of the population to feed the remaining 99.5%, nobody tried to artificially maintain agriculture's share of the labor pool at the historic 70%. So why are we insisting that our society's natural evolution toward smaller households and smaller but far more productive labor force is a bad thing and must be prevented at all costs?

Let people have 1 kid if they wish. Eventually the population will reach equilibrium and stabilize, as those from larger families naturally become an ever larger percentage of the population and as the decreasing population density makes having kids more affordable for all. For gods sake though, whatever you do, keep the goddamn immigrants out. Nobody needs that shit, whether the population is shrinking, growing, or jetting off to Mars.

Post: #17

France keep the birth rate at a high level compare to other European countries. So its quite normal for women to have 2 kids before they are in their 30s.

Post: #18

(12-28-2015 07:05 AM)Parzival Wrote:  France keep the birth rate at a high level compare to other European countries. So its quite normal for women to have 2 kids before they are in their 30s.

Parzival, I'm sorry to say your post is (hugely) misleading:

If France indeed "keep the birth rate at a high level compared to other European countries", it's because birth rates from the Black African and "Arab" women living in France are through the roof... But birth rates of true, legal French women, are very low, like in Germany.

It's pointless to analyze France (and most Western countries) without studying (within each country) separate ethnic groups and their particulars and trends.

Post: #19

Traditionalism/conservatism is always more beneficial for the feminine women. Most women are feminine, only a small percent are ugly bull dykes or low self esteem weirdo liberal hippies. Most women want to dress up in sexy feminine clothing and find a good solid man and follow his lead. They then want babies and to focus their lives on having babies.

And after 40 years of the stronger men screaming that liberalism will be the end of this for women, it seems the top line women are realizing there are very few men who can provide this great life for them with 50% income tax rates and anti-family laws scaring men away. Add to this, all the legal and illegal immigration is taking away the traditions they loved growing up with and replacing it with a much more dangerous/foreign setting.

Thank God. We made the huge mistake of giving women the right to vote, but maybe enough of them will realize what is at stake before it is too late.

Post: #20

(12-28-2015 05:46 AM)Hades Wrote:  A country might go from 80 million to 65 million over 30 or 40 years with a negative birth rate, then stabilize. This is only a bad thing for welfare states (which are ponzi schemes) and leftists by extension.

Aren't most, if not all, Western countries welfare states? Even some Asian ones like Japan seem to be.

Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate said welfare programs, thus driving unproductive people - regardless of where they came from - somewhere else?

I don't know about you, but me and my boner would rather have a hot EE/SEA/LatAm waitress in my country than a native-born fat feminist SJW who lives off her "make work" government job, for instance

Post: #21

(12-28-2015 05:46 AM)Hades Wrote:  A country might go from 80 million to 65 million over 30 or 40 years with a negative birth rate, then stabilize. This is only a bad thing for welfare states (which are ponzi schemes) and leftists by extension.

It is a natural occurrence in any population and the tapering off is a useful feature, not some deadly flaw. You don't need immigration to solve it, because it is not a problem.

Its not like with a low birth rate that we all go hand in hand towards a terrible "breeder event horizon" where eventually everybody is too old to have kids, there's no turning back, and it's like Children of Men meets the Golden Girls.

It may very well be deadly flaw, actually. Historically, civilizations do not survive extended periods of sub-replacement fertility. They are either destroyed or altered beyond recognition. The western world may prove exceptional, or it may not.

What this state of affairs invites is a scenario where members of the native population find themselves outnumbered by those from without. This is inevitable in any society in which sub-replacement fertility has taken hold and the population is getting increasingly old and less productive. Such a state of affairs is unsustainable, which is part of what invites and then sustains mass immigration as a policy solution. A strong native fertility rate would prove a powerful weapon against this reality (by either providing incentive to curb mass immigration or allowing the native populace to limit the influence of said immigrants after their arrival), but in its absence a low native fertility rate provides incentive for migration and replacement.

(12-28-2015 06:03 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

Quote:Let people have 1 kid if they wish. Eventually the population will reach equilibrium and stabilize, as those from larger families naturally become an ever larger percentage of the population and as the decreasing population density makes having kids more affordable for all. For gods sake though, whatever you do, keep the goddamn immigrants out. Nobody needs that shit, whether the population is shrinking, growing, or jetting off to Mars.

The immigrants aren't staying out. They're already there. The question is what you intend to do about them.

If your solution is simply to "have one kid" then, by all means, do so. People should be free to make that choice. They should also be free to accept the consequences, however, and those consequences will include demographic replacement and population change. The future belongs to those who procreate. If you and your conservative minded brethren have decided "1 kid is enough" while the folks on the other side of the aisle have decided "2 or 3 is good for us", you're not going to be able to avoid consequences associated with demographic reality. Those consequences are, as follows:

1. The maintenance of mass immigration. Because rapidly shrinking and rapidly aging populations are unsustainable and bad for economic health, migration will be a natural consequence of any such state of affairs since it offers a plausible short-term solution to stave off economic discomfort (at the expense, of course, of social comfort).

2. The political subversion of native views. These societies we're speaking about are democracies. Demography is power in democractic systems. Since migrants and their children tend to maintain higher fertility rates than others, they will acquire more democratic power. With that power, they will put their political will ahead of others.

The most effective way to keep a pro-migrant agenda off the table (or, alternatively, stop said migrants from becoming a dominant demographic political force once they do arrive) is to ensure that a strong, fertile native populace is in place.

In adopting such a strong sense of reticence with regard to its own demographic future, the native populace has effectively decided to take a passive approach to the demographic issues at hand. You can't engage the enemy at the gates by simply sitting back. They will merely walk in and do as they please. The future belongs to those who show up, and if you've decided not to show up then you'll have little claim to it.

A society whose people have lost their ability to carry out their most fundamental purpose (replacing themselves) is not one that can persist. A society whose people simply don't care about sustaining their own population (and, by extension, their culture and political influence) is not one that can persist.

Post: #22

Nope

Post: #23

(12-29-2015 03:26 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  ^^Complete bollocks. We don't need to breed like sub-saharans in order to keep the sub-saharans out of our nations.

Well, no, you don't. The fertility rate in sub-saharan Africa is north of 5 children per woman. Native populations in Europe don't need to reach such a high rate at all to secure their own demographic power within their countries and make a better case against mass immigration. A fertility rate in the 2.5-3.0 children per woman range would probably do.

But these domestic populations aren't even managing that. They're sporting fertility rates south of 2.0, unable to replace themselves and aging rapidly. And they don't seem to care. The more liberal among them are celebrating it and the more conservative among them are just indifferent to their own population decline, downplaying its significance and outright dismissing the importance of a population's ability to replace itself.

Reticence rules the day, but reticence cannot win the demographic war. On the contrary, reticence can lead you to one of two outcomes in a scenario like this: a) extinction or b) replacement and alteration. Those are your choices.

Those who fail to learn from their own history are only doomed to repeat it. European history (and world history in general) has taught us that old, infertile, aging, and shrinking populations do not exist to thrive, survive, grow, and persist. On the contrary, they are destined for subjugation and/or replacement at the hands of the young, fecund, and dynamic populations in their midst. Those who lack the energy, will, and drive to thrive and grow will be overtaken by those who do. This is the reality made clear to us by history, and modern Europe will not escape it. Adapt or die. Reticence is not an option.

Quote:How many people with orders to shoot to kill would it take to stop all immigration in its tracks, instantly? My guess is a few thousand, at most. Europe still has over 600m people and a combined armed forces well over 2m strong. It's not so much that we can stop the invasion with one hand tied behind our back. It's more like we can stop it with the equivalent of twitching our eyelid.

You describe the current state of affairs as you wish them to be, not as they actually are. That's fatal.

Immigration has been ongoing for generations. The immigrants are already in Europe. They aren't going to stop coming either because, regardless of any optimism you have about the rise of the far-right in some parts of Europe, much of the EU remains more than open to mass immigration and will continue to do so. The EU of today is one whose natural state of existence is equivalent to the "hand tied behind the back" scenario you discussed. It is not mentally or politically equipped to go to war against immigrants and ring the continent with gunmen order to "shoot to kill". That may be the reality you want, but it is not the reality that exists. You must engage the reality that exists, and you can't do that with sub-replacement fertility rates and zero concern for the demographic decline and diminishment of your own people.

Quote:Listen: if the third world "breeders" want to live in stinking, shit stained cesspits teeming with uncountable masses more power to them. It is their decision. But their decision to live like vermin does not compel us to accept similar conditions and to match their insane numbers and breeding patterns.

As I said above, this is unnecessary. Native western populations need not match fertility rates in the developing world in order to persist. 4 or 5 children per woman works in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europeans could do well with 2.5-3.
What they can't do well with, however, is the sub-replacement fertility they currently have. That isn't sustainable and that will lead to replacement.

Quote:Demographic power only counts if you let the fuckers in.

They're already in. They've been in for decades, and there is no hard stop on said immigration in Europe's immediate future.

Quote:If we don't let them in, their "demographic power" will be restricted to killing each other and starving in the streets of their own shithole nations.

A decent argument were it the case that said individuals weren't "in".

Unfortunately for you, they're in.

Quote:So long as we don't let them in and grant them political privileges in our societies,

Too late.

Quote:societies that they have no right to,

Too late.

Quote:it's their "demographic power" vs our firepower.

The firepower is theirs as well because, as I've been saying, they're already in.

Quote:We're talking about people who can't keep their own sanitation systems running or feed themselves without our continual aid. They pose zero threat to us. As a matter of fact, their population and effective fertility rate would drop below ours in the space of a year were we to completely cease supplying said aid.

Quote:But no, we should try to breed like Africans, that is your solution.

That was actually never my suggestion. I merely suggested that you put more emphasis on replacing yourselves, which is a pretty fundamental thing for a population concerned with cultural and demographic conflict against distinct and much more fecund outside groups to take care of.

You prefer reticence, which is your prerogative. I've no skin in this fight (I merely engage in these discussions due to a longheld intellectual interest in demography), so the inevitable demographic replacement and/or alteration that could result is not my business really. The consequences are yours.

Quote:Your claim is that the only way we get to maintain a moral and physical claim to our lands is to take the most densely populated continent in the world and continually stuff it with more people. Thanks, but no thanks.

As I said above, that call is yours to make...but so are its consequences.

Enjoy the decline.

Post: #24

There's no need to complicate it, just keep immigrants from Africa and the Arab countries out of the country. Then you can have as many or few kids as you want.

Post: #25

Those who don't breed yet are against mass immigration must be willing to live with a lower standard of living. Judging by the amount of nation wide protests which cripple the entire country of France on a regular basis, they aren't ready to give up the cradle-to-grave benefits that the welfare state provides.