Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, Nov 7, 2005.
VDH is a weird mix of anti-immigrant sentiment and neoconnism, but he's mostly right here (I support the anti-immigration but not the neoconnism).
I say mostly --- he's dead wrong to say the U.S. is immune to what's happening in France. Just look at Katrina.
Multiculturalism, multiracialism, egalitarianism, open borders... all that crap is a bad, bad, and I say BAD idea, and now we have PROOF. It just doesn't work. It's tense and hostile when it's "good," and it's downright violent and explosive when it's bad. And, really, there is no debating this issue. It's over. Liberals lost, neocons lost, and even mainstream conservatives lost. It's increasingly apparent that traditional conservatives, paleocons, white nationalists, racial realists and others have the upper hand on these issues.
Excellent column on Paris by Fred Reed of The American Conservative:
Has no one noticed that diversity doesnt work? Putting together peoples with little in common begs for trouble, usually with success. It is the chief source of the worlds 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 hasnt 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.
Ah, sweet sense.
How does Katrina play into it WJ? Because of the stridency of the MSM that got the stories of the murder and mayhem wrong? The shooting at helos wrong?
That the 'world' criticized the US response, based on inaccurate reporting, we should change? Sorry, I disagree.
Way I see it, Katrina and Paris show what happens when minority groups cut loose. Be it a natural disaster or a police action, it takes a very small trigger to set off what the liberal media would call "the venting of frustrations." The rioting and looting are pushed along by the fact that the minorities have nothing to lose, and because they aren't part of the larger society, don't care a whit what happens to it. But they can't be made a part of the larger society because the various groups are simply too different and too incompatible. The best policy is not to mix groups willy-nilly out of a desire to be politically correct, but to keep groups separate. France never should have let in all those Muslims, Arabs and Africans. They weren't needed in the first place, and they only went there to sponge off welfare. And NOW the ninny neocons will have a very tough time arguing that "the black Africans are there in France to do the jobs the French won't do." Like, burn cars?
Good fences make good neighbors. Just ask the Israelis.
Again, I think you are missing what happened in NO. Looting, yes. Having been in a flood zone in 1987, will say that people do not have to be poor, black-or any other race, to take advantage of a situation. In our case, since it was an upper middleclass area, and certainly not a problem on Katrina scale, the national guard and police got a handle on the looting very quickly.
And the city/county had the wherewithal to deal with future problems, after they sued the municipality that caused the problem. They could not have proven their case, if they didn't have the $$ to do so. It's a vicious circle:
We are comparing apples and oranges here for sure. Yet, the criminals are ready to pounce and they don't just come from the 'poor and disenfranchised.'
Separate names with a comma.