Re: [FairfieldLife] Paris Burns Again

2005-11-07 Thread Peter
Some nasty cracks in this article, but he does voice a
grave concern in Western Europe regarding a Muslim
underclass. They don't/can't assimilate into the
dominant culture and are really frustrated at their
outcast status.

--- Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Paris Burns Again
 
 Let's Roast Frankfurters
 
 
 by Fred Reed
 
 November 7, 2005
 
 Paris burns, crackling and popping as merrily as a
 Yule log when  
 England was still Merrie and still English. Moslems
 prance about  
 setting things alight, cars incinerate briskly, and
 the police suck  
 their thumbs. Diversity. Oh yes. And more to come.
 
 Time and again these days, national governments let
 in all sorts of  
 people who belong somewhere else. Pretty soon the
 country has so many  
 that the government comes to fear them. At that
 point the problem  
 passes beyond easy solution. So politicians paper
 over everything,  
 and make concessions to buy a year’s peace. The
 newcomers breed and  
 increase. By and by the remaining possibilities are
 acquiescence or  
 civil war.
 
 Which latter, boys and girls, isn’t impossible.
 
 The assiduously courted invasion usually rests on a
 curious idealism  
 that I find hard to credit in adults. The notion is
 that we are all  
 just people, brothers under the skin, that all we
 need is love and  
 understanding, black and white together, kum bah ya;
 only a few  
 reactionary forces need to be stilled to bring about
 universal bliss.  
 This happy thought doesn’t surprise me among
 students in high school.  
 Politicians aren’t.
 
 Has no one noticed that diversity doesn’t work?
 Putting together  
 peoples with little in common begs for trouble,
 usually with success.  
 It is the chief source of the world’s bloodshed and
 enmity.
 
 Look around you. Start with Canada, where the Brits
 and French detest  
 each other. Drop down to the USA, where black,
 white, and brown wait  
 uneasily for no one is sure what; the lid is held on
 by Washington,  
 which acts as a sort of federal Tito. There are
 Hindus and Moslems in  
 India, Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, blacks and
 whites in South  
 Africa, Moslems and Buddhists in Thailand, Turks and
 Germans in  
 Germany, Vietnamese and Montagnards in Vietnam,
 Moslems and animists  
 in the Sudan, Jews and Moslems in Israel, Cambodians
 and Vietnamese  
 in Cambodia, Protestants and Catholics in Ireland,
 Indians and  
 Mexicans in Chiapas, Basques and Spaniards in Spain,
 Indians and  
 Fijians in Fiji.
 
 But what have facts to do with foreign relations? It
 is much more  
 entertaining to base policy on adolescent theories
 and see what happens.
 
 When the anticipated melding fails and riots ensue,
 the response is  
 to try to buy, or legislate, the impossible.
 Invariably the cry  
 arises that the government hasn’t done enough for
 the indigent  
 arrivals. We must spend more money on welfare, on
 schools, on special  
 programs to raise the unraisable and mix the
 immiscible. It is our  
 fault really. We need to change our outmoded
 attitudes, require  
 classes on ethnic sensitivity, celebrate the culture
 of the new  
 incompatibles. We will have National Islamic History
 Week, and  
 children will make mosques from construction paper.
 That will fix  
 everything.
 
 Instead the problem gets worse. The majority
 population becomes  
 angrier, but has no recourse. The government is
 against them. The  
 immigrants can loot and burn, and nothing is likely
 to happen to  
 them: Punishing their misbehavior would engender
 more violence, which  
 the government wants to avoid at any cost. If the
 citizenry defend  
 themselves, as for example by shooting arsonists,
 the government will  
 put them in prison. Citizens have much to lose; the
 malefactors do not.
 
 A spring is thus wound.
 
 Moslems in particular are poison. A failed
 civilization, Islam sends  
 its unsuccessful, thus double failures, to Europe.
 They gravitate to  
 slums because they can do nothing else. Cohesive,
 angry, ineffectual,  
 with no loyalty to their new home, they neither
 flourish nor  
 assimilate. Resentment grows among them. And so the
 cities burn.
 
 Which is interesting. In the United States, the
 hostility of Islam is  
 often attributed to American support of Israel.
 Beyond doubt, there  
 is truth in this. It does not explain the riots in
 Paris, the papered- 
 over violence in other European countries, the
 Islamic terrorism in  
 Russia and in southern Thailand, the anti-Christian
 fighting in East  
 Timor, or the terror in Kashmir. Moslems are
 trouble.
 
 Immigration is not prima facie a bad idea. It
 depends on who you let  
 in. Some immigrants can assimilate. If for example
 the United States  
 allows the entry of moderate numbers of reasonably
 educated Chinese,  
 nothing untoward will happen. The Chinese share such
 crucial European  
 traits as studiousness and respect for law. In fact
 they are superior  
 to the white population in both 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Paris Burns Again

2005-11-07 Thread Bhairitu
The riots in France are probably another NeoCon false flag operation.

- Bhairitu

Vaj wrote:

 Paris Burns Again

 Let's Roast Frankfurters


 by Fred Reed

 November 7, 2005

 Paris burns, crackling and popping as merrily as a Yule log when  
 England was still Merrie and still English. Moslems prance about  
 setting things alight, cars incinerate briskly, and the police suck  
 their thumbs. Diversity. Oh yes. And more to come.

 Time and again these days, national governments let in all sorts of  
 people who belong somewhere else. Pretty soon the country has so many  
 that the government comes to fear them. At that point the problem  
 passes beyond easy solution. So politicians paper over everything,  
 and make concessions to buy a year’s peace. The newcomers breed and  
 increase. By and by the remaining possibilities are acquiescence or  
 civil war.

 Which latter, boys and girls, isn’t impossible.

 The assiduously courted invasion usually rests on a curious idealism  
 that I find hard to credit in adults. The notion is that we are all  
 just people, brothers under the skin, that all we need is love and  
 understanding, black and white together, kum bah ya; only a few  
 reactionary forces need to be stilled to bring about universal bliss.  
 This happy thought doesn’t surprise me among students in high school.  
 Politicians aren’t.

 Has no one noticed that diversity doesn’t work? Putting together  
 peoples with little in common begs for trouble, usually with success.  
 It is the chief source of the world’s bloodshed and enmity.

 Look around you. Start with Canada, where the Brits and French detest  
 each other. Drop down to the USA, where black, white, and brown wait  
 uneasily for no one is sure what; the lid is held on by Washington,  
 which acts as a sort of federal Tito. There are Hindus and Moslems in  
 India, Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, blacks and whites in South  
 Africa, Moslems and Buddhists in Thailand, Turks and Germans in  
 Germany, Vietnamese and Montagnards in Vietnam, Moslems and animists  
 in the Sudan, Jews and Moslems in Israel, Cambodians and Vietnamese  
 in Cambodia, Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, Indians and  
 Mexicans in Chiapas, Basques and Spaniards in Spain, Indians and  
 Fijians in Fiji.

 But what have facts to do with foreign relations? It is much more  
 entertaining to base policy on adolescent theories and see what happens.

 When the anticipated melding fails and riots ensue, the response is  
 to try to buy, or legislate, the impossible. Invariably the cry  
 arises that the government hasn’t done enough for the indigent  
 arrivals. We must spend more money on welfare, on schools, on special  
 programs to raise the unraisable and mix the immiscible. It is our  
 fault really. We need to change our outmoded attitudes, require  
 classes on ethnic sensitivity, celebrate the culture of the new  
 incompatibles. We will have National Islamic History Week, and  
 children will make mosques from construction paper. That will fix  
 everything.

 Instead the problem gets worse. The majority population becomes  
 angrier, but has no recourse. The government is against them. The  
 immigrants can loot and burn, and nothing is likely to happen to  
 them: Punishing their misbehavior would engender more violence, which  
 the government wants to avoid at any cost. If the citizenry defend  
 themselves, as for example by shooting arsonists, the government will  
 put them in prison. Citizens have much to lose; the malefactors do not.

 A spring is thus wound.

 Moslems in particular are poison. A failed civilization, Islam sends  
 its unsuccessful, thus double failures, to Europe. They gravitate to  
 slums because they can do nothing else. Cohesive, angry, ineffectual,  
 with no loyalty to their new home, they neither flourish nor  
 assimilate. Resentment grows among them. And so the cities burn.

 Which is interesting. In the United States, the hostility of Islam is  
 often attributed to American support of Israel. Beyond doubt, there  
 is truth in this. It does not explain the riots in Paris, the papered- 
 over violence in other European countries, the Islamic terrorism in  
 Russia and in southern Thailand, the anti-Christian fighting in East  
 Timor, or the terror in Kashmir. Moslems are trouble.

 Immigration is not prima facie a bad idea. It depends on who you let  
 in. Some immigrants can assimilate. If for example the United States  
 allows the entry of moderate numbers of reasonably educated Chinese,  
 nothing untoward will happen. The Chinese share such crucial European  
 traits as studiousness and respect for law. In fact they are superior  
 to the white population in both respects. Consequently they arouse  
 little hostility and not a little admiration. They may congregate for  
 a generation or so in Chinatown, but the term designates a place  
 where a lot of Chinese live, not a hostile ghetto.

 Other