Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:12 | #

The French authorities should seal off the Muslim ghettoes and send in a joint force of CRS, Paras and the Foreign Legion in order to re-establish French writ. All those resisting this law-and-order exercise should be shot and survivors deported immediately. Furthermore, the citizenship or permanent residence of the remainder should be cancelled and preparations begun for their return to the Muslim homelands.

Posted by Andy on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:29 | #

Of course, Al, a nation that had the balls and the strength to deal with Muslim troublemakers in the manner you described is probably not one that would have let them in the first place.  The flip side of this is that any nation that allows multicultural immigration is not one with the capability of dealing effectively with the problems that multiculturalism brings. 

  Things will need to get a LOT worse before they start getting better. And where will we be by then?

Posted by Top on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 05:03 | #

The math of our times.

Country-X is some random European-people country.

First two premises:

(1) Non-Europeans/Muslims doing what they have done forever - aggresively fighting to gain advantage in Country-X.

(2) Demographics project non-European/Muslims to be majorities in Country-X at some point in the (relatively) near future.

(1) + (2) = Country-X Euro natives saying:
“We are in mortal danger!”

Time to worry?

Let’s bring in the next premise:

(3) Country-X ‘liberals’ declare:
“All we need is love”
“We are all brothers”
“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”
“Country-X natives were really, really, really, REALLY bad in the past…”
“Anyone who disagrees is worse than evil - a fascist!”
“Oh yeah… abortion good, socialism good!”

(1) + (2) + (3)  = Country-X natives saying:
“Should we trust these liberals?”

Next Premise
(4) Country-X ‘conservatives’ declare:
“All we need is love”
“We are all brothers”
“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”
“Country-X natives were sort of bad in the past…”
“Anyone who disagrees is worse than evil - a fascist!”
“Oh yeah… abortion bad, socialism bad!”

(1) + (2) + (3) + (4) = Country-X natives saying:
“We are all brothers.  Abortion good?  I must be a liberal.  Socialism bad?  I must be a conservative.  Time for football!”

Posted by jonathan on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:35 | #

Very well done! There probably could be some variation on the good/bad, conservative/liberal dichotomies, but I think we all appreciate your effort, I know I do. I like math. Post more!

Posted by Jethro Kull on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:40 | #

Finally for once, France has been cracking down on these idiots.  If you all recall, those original riots by the North African hoodlums in the Paris suburbs last fall were set not even by a protest against French policies, not even by an arrest, but b/c a group of idiot young boys—seeing a cop car, and apparently in the wake of some vandalism—freaked out and ran to a power station.  The cops weren’t even chasing them, but one of the kids managed to get electrocuted.  I feel sorry for him and his family, but this tragedy resulted directly from the intransigence of these North African youths and their complete failure to engage in any kind of civilized behavior!  And then, b/c of this, the hoodlums all went merrily rioting.  Idiots. 

The fortunate consequence of this is that the French got pissed, Sarkozy got a backbone, and the French Parliament passed that tough immigration restriction law in the summer, which was recently ratified.  Among its other provisions, hoodlums like this are being deported.

Posted by Jethro Kull on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:29 | #

This also gets back to that thread from a few days ago, in which we were pondering the differences between the Anglosphere nations and the non-Anglosphere West to massive Third-World immigration.  The non-Anglosphere—primarily Central European nations like Germany and Austria, but also even France and the Netherlands in the past two years—have been retrenching against the Third World onslaught, blocking further inflows while toughening up the laws enough that they kick out tens of thousands of Third World miscreants.

The Anglosphere nations are going in the opposite direction, actually opening up their borders even more rapidly to the Third World and aggressively diluting out their founding White populations to a minority.  In the USA, the younger cohort in school already has a White minority, and within 5 years, only 40-45% of US primary school students will be White—less than 35% in Texas, 25% in states like California and New Mexico, with Arizona, Illinois, New York and Michigan all moving headlong in the same direction, with around 30-40% White school age populations.  The USA has a Third World majority future already moving through the schools. 

Furthermore, thanks to the affirmative action policies that Richard Nixon pioneered and Bill Clinton tremendously expanded—and which are far too entrenched now to be dismantled—we Whites are *literally* paying billions of dollars every year, in tax receipts and forgone opportunities, for the privilege of supporting a regime whose main raison d’etre has become the destruction of the nation’s founding White population!  Contrast this with France, which has also been afflicted by a liberal plague in its history, but which has resisted these self-destructive excesses.  The French have categorically rejected affirmative action, and with the new immigration law—which both restricts and reduces the North African population, while boosting the proportion of well-educated Eastern European and South American Whites in the population—France, oddly enough, is reinforcing itself as a White nation, to the surprise of me and I’m sure many others.

Why the difference?  Some smart commenters in an earlier thread mentioned imperialism, and I think this is the heart of it.  France and the Netherlands also were imperial nations prior to WWII, but they gave up their Empires and no longer harbor fantasies about having them.  By contrast, the Anglophone nations still seem to trapped in the belief that imperialism was a good thing and desirable, and they still believe they *are* global empires.  Britain is still nostalgic for and painfully deluded about its loss of empire—in wars (like a disaster in Afghanistan, the Anglo-Afghan War in the mid-1800s) as well as from Parliamentary action—and for this reason, still acts out the imperial role, except this time it’s the Third World invading Britain with Britain’s invitation.  The US is stuck in the trap of “white guilt” from the Civil War which, when mixed with corporatist globalist neoliberal policies here, cannot tolerate a White majority.  Australia and Canada just seem to be following the US lead as fellow Anglosphere nations.  (Why Norway and Sweden have done the same is puzzling to me, though they are the most Anglophilic countries in Europe and have maybe been infected with the same disease as a result.)

Thus the Anglosphere nations are committing suicide through globalism, a direct consequence of this infatuation with imperialism.  Non-Anglosphere ex-imperial nations like France and the Netherlands have cast off the empire psychologically as well as physically, and thus are able to muster the political will to stop the Third World onslaught.  Non-Anglosphere nations without big overseas empires—like Germany and Austria—don’t have this historical hang-up at all, and have no trouble seeing themselves as great Western nations that were great precisely because of their White populations.

This is why so many of my friends and acquaintances—most of them well-trained technicians and professionals—have been snapping up language books on German, French and Italian and emigrating from the US in recent years to the European Continent, with Germany, Austria and Italy as the main destinations, places like France, the Netherlands and Denmark in second.  My ex-roommate in college is now working as a programmer in Dortmund, Germany (one of the big tech hubs in Europe).  When my fiance and I came to his apartment a few years ago, it was filled with German language books and software, and when he told us his intentions, we were both floored.  Now, years later and in the midst of the imperialist madness of the USA, I can see his point.  I wonder if Central Europe may soon become the main refuge for what’s left of Western Civilization, as the US and UK continue to slash at their own wrists and commit national hara-kiri.

Posted by Matra on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:35 | #

I read somewhere recently (but can’t find it right now) that Le Pen has lost a lot of support to Sarkozy. He is just trying to grab some of Le Pen’s vote by appearing tough and standing up to the shrill anti-racists of the Left.  But remember Sarkozy supports affirmative action for non-whites and wants more integration between foreigners and proper French. If integration succeeded it would be an even greater disaster for the France. I think Sarko is a neocon.

Posted by Matra on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:47 | #

France and the Netherlands also were imperial nations prior to WWII, but they gave up their Empires and no longer harbor fantasies about having them.

The French were an imperial power well after WW2. They fought a lot harder to hold on to Indochina and Algeria than the British did for any of their colonies. Also the French are far more active in their former African colonies than the British. French troops have intervened regularly over the last four decades in countless African countries whilst French workers have been known to staff entire departments of the civil services in countries such as Gabon and - until recently - Ivory Coast. The term “neo-colonialist” when used in Africa almost always refers to the French. The French still have many territories throughout the world - the Dutch have a few as well. But france has territory populated mostly by non-whites in the Indian Ocean, the south Pacific, the Caribbean, and French Guyana in South America.

Posted by Jethro Kull on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:01 | #

I don’t like Sarko much either, but he’s no neocon.  The neocons in the US are all about very heavy immigration—look at the diatribes of idiots like David Horowitz, William Safire, Bill Kristol and Morton Kondracke, and every single one of them is in favor of massive Third-World immigration, WSJ-style.

I agree entirely that Le Pen was at the very heart of making that tough immigration restriction law happen, and Le Pen deserves the credit for it.  But Sarko, while he may be a cynical bastard, was at least smart enough to read the tea leaves and recognize that Le Pen had a point.  This, after all, is the only effective means that parties like the Front National can currently exercise power and have an effect—the truth is that in the current political climate, they can’t amass a Parliamentary majority, but they *can* potentially turn their goals into policy by putting pressure on the Establishment politicians.

The only way this can happen is if 1. the cultural and social bent of the population is such that is sees itself as a cohesive ethnic group, without imperialistic fantasies and 2. at least some of the Establishment politicians have enough intestinal fortitude to stand up to the inevitable onslaught and “co-opt” the agenda of the Rightist parties, at least in part. 

I have low expectations for establishment politicians in general—I only hope that, in the face of tremendous pressure from both the public and from people like Le Pen, that they respond in ways that protect their people.  Sarkozy may be oily but you have to give the Devil his due here, on the Third World invasion issue he did probably the most that any politician with power could do and passed a tough law with real teeth, that has literally changed the course of the French nation. 

It’s true that Sarkozy probably had less than admirable motives in initiating the process, and indeed he’s benefited enormously in the political arena as a result (he’s now the frontrunner for French president), but so long as it leads to the achievement of concrete goals on this front, that’s probably the best we can expect in an establishment politician—this is basically Le Pen doing his job.  Sarko’s affirmative action push was indeed slimy, but in fact he’s backed away from that just as rapidly as he started to advocate for immigration restriction in France, and for similar reasons—he realized that it would be politically costly and that Le Pen would be all over his ass for it.  The Parliamentary system on the Continent isn’t perfect, but it’s basically doing its job here through the vehicle of pressure from individuals like Le Pen—who see a crisis and draw un-PC attention to it—and susceptible “mainstream” politicians like Sarkozy who, while slimy themselves, nonetheless accept and respond to the pressures from Le Pen.  Note that Sarkozy was hit extremely hard by members from the French Left, who were excoriating him, but he stood firm b/c he’s no fool—he knew that Le Pen was right and he also knew that the French as a whole had long ago given up the fantasy of globalist imperialism, so he reacted accordingly to shepherd through a very tough law, one of the best in Europe, to be fair.

Forces like Le Pen are so incredibly weak in the Anglosphere and especially in the US, and the system so rigged against such reforms—with “conservatives” like the Wall Street Journal and corrupt businesses teaming up with Marxist liberals—that, in combination with the lethal fantasies of globalism, neoimperialism, and neoliberalism, the Anglosphere countries are literally writing their own epitaph. 

If you have any doubt about where the US is headed, take a tour sometime of the schools in Phoenix or Tucson—again, this is in Arizona, not even in Third World fortresses like California, southern Florida, Illinois and New York—and take one look at the students.  Practically every classroom has a White minority, and Whites become an even smaller minority the lower the grade that you go (the fruit of the massive Third World wave of the past 10 years).  The state as a whole has a non-White majority in the lower grades and progressively even more so. Bill Clinton snuck in almost a half-dozen “mini-amnesties” under our noses, and so the real force of this hasn’t even been felt yet—those amnesty-ees are just now sending for their extended families.  IOW, in at least a big portion of the US, we’re basically screwed, and very soon the US young adult population will have a White minority.  Our elites have slit our own throats already.

Posted by Jethro Kull on Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:11 | #

I know that France had an Empire as well as Britain, my point is that their view today is far different—they don’t see themselves as an imperialist nation anymore, while Britain, possibly affected by the US neo-imperialist mindset, still holds onto the fantasy of being a globalist meeting point.

“They (the French) fought a lot harder to hold on to Indochina and Algeria than the British did for any of their colonies.”

That’s actually not true—Britain’s “kinder, gentler decolonization” after WWII is a myth.  The Brits fought an incredibly bloody war to retain Kenya following the Mau Mau uprising, and fought for almost a decade to retain Aden before finally being defeated and expelled there.  As for places like Burma and Egypt, the Brits had shorter wars for a simpler reason—they were defeated there quickly after WWII and were so bankrupt that they had no power to take them back.  The Brits were desperate to retain their Empire postwar just as the French were.  The difference is the mindset today.  The French have no fantasies about being a global imperial power.  Even if they do maintain non-White overseas departments like French Guiana, they’re very small for the most part and they don’t have free movement between there and the mainland.  The US by contrast is basically defining itself as a modern world empire and a globalist bellwether, inviting in the Third World in the process even as France moves in the opposite direction.  the UK is following in the footsteps of the US, unfortunately.

Besides, the cardinal examples of the anti-imperialist, anti-globalist mindset are the countries in Central Europe like Austria and Germany.  It’s almost weird being there for an American so steeped in the Diversity talk, because those places have no fantasies whatsoever of being globalist nations, and no qualms about their status as European countries.  They’re of the West and proud of it, and without much of an overseas imperialist history, they’re free of the hang-ups that plague the US and Britain (and, yes, France and the Netherlands, if to a lesser degree).  They’ll probably be the strongest Western nations in a few years.

Posted by Matra on Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:33 | #

For some reason my long reply to Jethro that was here yesterday has magically disappeared!  I’m not going to waste my time repeating it but here were some of the points in brief.

Jethro - compare the death tolls in the French and British post WW2 colonial wars.

You are dead wrong to claim the French are less imperialistic than the British. The French are exceptionally vain about expanding their influence in the world. When Africans use the word “neocolonialist” they are almost always referring to the French.

The liberal internationalist Dutch, like the French, had hoped to use the EU to expand its influence. The French still believe they have a “mission to civilise” others.

Did you know the French goverment is now sponsoring the construction of mosques in Paris?

I’m a francophile myself but you are looking at the French through rose-coloured glasses.