Anybody like what they see in Paris? This is what happens when you create a serf class - they get tired of it and they certainly don't feel like a part of the nation. I don't blame them, either. Too bad the innocents will get to suffer from their rage and the crackdown that's coming.
18 comments:
Could be that France allowed too much immigration too fast. I wouldn't doubt that they had people lobbying for a good supply of cheap labor.
Steve Culley said...
Could be that France allowed too much immigration too fast. I wouldn't doubt that they had people lobbying for a good supply of cheap labor.
11/29/2007 04:18:00 AM
AHH Steve and Chuck: WHO IS RIOTING ?
WHO IS RIOTING???? Is Detriot next?
Just one little example of the problem, and it hasn't a damn thing to do with "cheap labor."
The façade of Islam as a peaceful, tolerant religion can be shattered by a single story of today. Sounding like something from the dark ages, a 19 year-old girl who was the victim of a brutal gang rape by six heavily-armed men was originally sentenced to receive 90 lashes for "being in the car of an unrelated male at the time of the rape," has now been sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in jail for talking to the media about her plight.
mentioned the gang rape. Could mention the teacher that got deported for letting her kids name a Teddy Bear Mohammed. Real bunch of geniuous over there, can't see wasting American blood trying to save them from themselves.
Let's think about this, is it Islam or is it the socio/economic status of those who happen to be Muslim? I'll grant that the Muslims seem a little more capable of getting real pissed than the Illegals in this country, but that may be a matter of time. The conditions provide a real fertile ground for Loon Preachers. We had the KKK in this country if anybody wants to stop and remember about loon preachers.
The mid-60s show that we're not immune nor that we should be. I'll be damned if I'll tolerate the establishment of a serf class in this country to satisfy the plutocrats and I'll certainly not dispute the right of any human in serfdom to rise up against his oppressors - even if that is us.
All the racist, nativist BS to the side, the consequences of a serf class and the attendant crushing of labor are horrid. We can either stop the magnet or watch this stuff happen because we cannot keep amnestying forever.
Chuck,
You say you study history.
If so, you ought to know what serfs are.
The North Africans living in metropolitan France's suburban housing projects are not serfs: i.e., persons who are lawfully bound to the land they till, and legally unfree to move elsewhere.
They are instead, economic and political refugees from dysfunctional cultures and value systems they seem still to cherish; voluntary welfare clients of a state and culture they despise, despite the shelter and support it has provided them; and the ungrateful beneficiaries of a political ideology that proclaims the value of communal "Liberté, égalité, and fraternité " in preference to the personal rights of life, liberty, and either property, or the pursuit of happiness.
France is now hoisted on it's own sanctimonious humanist petard.
Much to the amusement of some onlookers.
In response to your request, I indicated that I would likely provide you with a reply in your own blog.
I also said that when I did so, you would know it was me.
Consider it done, and the promise met.
Sincerely,
A Reasonable Conservative.
I recognize the tag, and what you asy has a great deal of merit. Right up to the point where you make the implied assertion that they are willingly welfare clients. I recognize the definition of serf as bound to land or agency by law but is also was a binding by custom, which is the usage I intend. The binding by our socio/economic construct is no less binding than the period this word is drawn from. If you have a better word for disenfranchized, socially stigmatized, underground, exploited, illegal work force I'm open to it. The consequences to my own blue collar segment of the economy are horrid, as well.
They need to not be here, agreed, they also meet " They are instead, economic and political refugees from dysfunctional cultures and value systems they seem still to cherish", and that is not going to work here, either.
I may be somewhat "cold hearted" in my assertions that we need to remove this element from our society, but I cannot look at France with amusement any more than I was ever amused by the plight of those under the thumb of the USSR. It serves as a useful example, which was my point.
We also support the corrupt, racist, xenophobic plutocrats of Mexico and the trade policies with "unintended" consequences at our own peril.
Your voice, in this iteration, is always a welcome addition. I doubt you have sufficient interest to look, but contained in the archives of this blog are numerous statements regarding the value of a reasoned opposition party to whomever holds power at a given moment and a sincere desire that the Republican Party fix itself.
I do not censor this blog beyond irresponsible profanity, real personal attacks, and illegal usage. I recently removed a responsible comment with an author linked to a white supremist site, they can advertise that stuff on some other site. And, I'm sorry about the word verification, but I don't have time to go through the entire blog de-spamming it.
I don't know that I'm a "reasonable lefty" but I do stop to think and evaluate an argument and I'm also not afraid to take the useful from the rest.
You are right Chuck about the effects of poverty. Being poor results in a bad education, poor health and maybe joining an insurgent group of some kind. The problem is in the Muslim world it is just too big for us to remedy the situation. We are bogged down in a war that surely will bankrupt us while even worse threats like the rise of China are being ignored.
You'll have to excuse me and many others from having a bad image of Islam but we do watch the news. Tell ya what, when I see Islamic women burn their Burquas and put on a good pair of Blue Jeans I might think they are on the road to recovery. Until then I can't see wasting a lot of lives and dollars on them. A challenge to their religious leaders needs to come. I think maybe some copies of our Bill of Rights should be printed in Arabic and distributed far and wide over there. Maybe on second thought we should try it at home first.
Real bunch of geniuous over there, can't see wasting American blood trying to save them from themselves. SAID MR CULLY
STEVE: Congrats on the letter you had in the "fishwrapper".
Now let me try to tell you their not over there..they are here.
PDX SIX(or was it seven terror group) Right here, Detriot,Chi-town, Seattle...if you care to do a bit of research....more terror groups, plans, CAIR,incidents on planes both Domestic an Interational flights, unexplained bomb threats, a truck stopped at the Mexican border recently with enough fire-power for 5, 20 man teams equipped to do alot of damage.
You better shake or kiss the hand of any soldier that has served "over there" to keep a bunch more from coming here..period.
You can't avoid or hide, their here, and when we really find out what I posted is true...more AMERICANS will die then in 911. you ever thought possible.
DIVERSITY SUCKS!!! AND SO DO MOST LIBBERS THAT PRAISE IT.
DEAR CHUCK AND STEVE:
Last summer, my wifes best friend who she knew since 3rd grade,came home to visit.
She married a man from Kuwait, she is devout Christian, he is(are you ready for this..a Muslim).
They were in Kuwait, when Saddam attacked the country, he got her and the 3 little kids out of the country in a "great escape" tale that would make a great movie.
That being said....He and I shared a 2 hour walk in a park in Vancouver, each had our 2 years old grand daughters with us, we sat down, and I asked him if there could ever be a peaceful middle east, or if Islam, could ever work in a fashion to blend with us all in this country?
He said.."Jack, there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, and 10 percent have sworn on all that is true to their beliefs to kill as many of us as they can....YOU DO THE MATH.
There is no hiding, there is no "over there' anymore, and anything we can do to eliminate that 10 percent, we better do it.
One thing is true, they will follow us home, right through GWB's wide open borders. Guess if I kicked a hornet's nest and pissed them off I would close the damned door so they couldn't come in the house.
Which fish wrapper?
Which fish wrapper?
The zero!!!
Damn Culley, I think they kicked our nest...like most D'S, 9II was just an event ,and not an attack on us all.
I like Tobey Keiths song about 9II, perhaps you need to be tied to a GD chair and have it played 1000 times to get the point.
like it or not...we are at war for reasons that didn't start with issues of poverty or GB 43'S politics.....10 percent of one BILLION MUSLIMS WANNA KILL US(YES THAT WAS SCREAMING AND NOT SHOUTING!)
The next president better close more then the borders...and it better be Romney or Duncan Hunter, or Tom Tancredo...cause your blessed D's will not. DAT
Think I would like Hunter to be in charge of homeland security, secretary of state would be ok and Tancredo could handle the borders. This might work too. Ron Paul on the Supreme Court. Byron Dorgan in charge of trade deals if Lou Dobbs wouldn't take it.
Guess I should write an article about what happens if we pull out of the middle east. I see widespread warfare, more or less like what is coming anyway. The question is, will having the various factions of Islam, and Iran and other interests help or hurt us? It's an old principle of warfare. Having your enemies fighting each other weakens them and allows you to conserve resources.
(little note here, my 4 year old grandson interupts, thinking is hard enough without that)
Again, almost not a day goes by without some Islamic fiasco. Now they are rioting in Sudan because the teacher who let her kids name a Teddy Bear after the profit wasn't executed. Where is that 90 percent of Islam that is educated and reasonable?
Chuck,
I am not certain where this conversation would lead were I to try and pick up and comment on all the various strands of your thinking with which I disagree.
Probably it would eventually lead in circles. And that would do neither of us any good.
However I think it worth noting that the premises that make up your "philosophical anthropology" and mine, are seemingly at fundamental variance, and probably irreconcilably contradictory, ultimately.
The key to the root distinction lies in the leftist, and to some extent extreme rightist, concept of "society", versus my more libertarian, and I think logical, view.
Both of these extremes, right and left, conceive of "society" not so much as a shorthand description of a system of human associations and exchange relationships, as they do a kind of organic and transcendent entity (within the limits of a strictly materialist world-view) , with it's own supervenient existence (once it's discovered by the sociologists), and moral claims on its supposed "members".
The near-verb, or construct "society", becomes a concrete noun or organism, and the tendency toward totalitarian claims flows hence. Unmitigated, I might add, by offering even so much as the public and unchanging set of dicta provided by religions.
This ideologically shaped concept thus construes "society" as if it is or ought to be more than a description of a fluid and changing and properly voluntary scheme of active relations between persons who choose to relate.
Thus, under the leftist view, we witness the reification of a mere concept ("society") into a kind of super-organism with its own moral claims upon its "members"; who are thereby mutated via this re-conceptualization, from persons accounted for or counted, into elements of the mystical "whole".
It's really a pseudo religion, and a mystery faith, composed of blatant logical errors. But it is one that enables its adherents to make authoritative sounding rhetorical claims on others in the name of some "higher" yet still mundane authority.
This is seen explicitly in Comte, and implicitly in Marx. Though the latter does publicly toss this concept of society out the front door, he ushers it in again through the back ... with all his welcoming blather about men as "species beings". This tends to make the leftist's claims of social justice at least sound as if they have real meaning, even if by every other standard of the leftist world-view, they definitionally don't.
Your case appears somewhat different, though the principle you employ to make your judgment is not yet clear to me.
Far from universalizing society and demanding rights for illegal aliens in the United States under the rubric of universal social justice, you are willing, wisely I think, to limit their access to our polity ... on practical grounds if on no others.
On the other hand, you take a phenomenal approach to the question of Muslims and their discontent, in France: taking the foundness of their current psychological situation as analytically prior and conditioning, and seeming therein to assume as following, that what the political class has stupidly wrought in the name of Gaullist ideology, the French people must to live out in their daily associative lives.
Sincerely,
A Reasonable Conservative
Insofar as I am actually a "conservative", that is.
Just swell, 45 min of writing and thinking gone...f**king word verification
I do not see society as a concrete entity, it is a constantly morphing short hand for the agreements we make to live in close proximity. This is successful to the inverse extent of those excluded.
France has rioting problems with Muslims, we have occasional localized loons. There must be a fundamental difference, and I assert that it is the willingness of the US to assimilate. We have alot of practice at it, though pretty rough patches are included, and France has virtually none. France imported Muslims as cheap labor and left them out of their society, deliberately and also though their nationalist nativist attitudes (prejudices).
Ghettoization resulted which furthered the divide. Welfare is a bribe paid by the state for stability, the problem is that if the bribe does not continue to grow it becomes inadequate to the purpose of tamping down disorder among the repressed or exploited. We refer to it as a social safety net and justify its existance though a moral appeal. Now, while I certainly cannot morally justify starvation in the US, I also cannot rationally accept bribery as a solution. So here we are at a major disconnect between the rational and the moral. If we have such a disconnect occurring, then attacking the symptoms, ie bribery/starvation is no more than an invitation to its continuation, the parameters are not changed.
What is driving this disconnect is the socio-economic system. We have agreed that capitalism is the best system as a base but then problems immediately crop up. Part of this is a general refusal to recognize that the system is rigged. All such systems are rigged, the winners will find ways to protect and expand their winnings. Putting an end to the myth of "free market economics" is first, it does not exist except in a very bastardized form.
If the system does not promote the general welfare it is in need of work or if it fails sufficiently the result will not be work, but rather destruction. I don't care for chaos. Removing reward for work and initiative and innovation is destructive, but we are cutting the legs out from under much of that, today. The middle and upper middle class will tolerate a lot of nonsense in the system if they are not losing, the opposing ends are where the activism exists. The wealth/power agenda and activism are obvious, but it gets very muddy on the lower end. For example the immediate gratification of a couple hundred dollars of return of taxes outweighs the thousands lost across a year in depressed wages, lost jobs, and higher external costs. Resistance to illegal hiring is expressed as racism/xenophobia rather than outrage at the plutocratic agenda.
The social contract begins to break down, but becomes expressed as nativism rather than as an economic grievance, hence the difficulty in getting Democrats or other progressives to address the issue from an economic societal point. It becomes moral, but the blinders are applied, the focus becomes ameliorating the plight of the "brown" while ignoring the plight of the legal.
We begin to approach the condition of France as resentment grows, a class of underpaid and resented people grows, the bribry system fails, and the bottom 30% of the scale is threatened and the upper ends are increasingly dislocated from the issues and the middle blithely wanders.
We have progressed through the abuses of the 19th century robber barons, through Depression, general prosperity, back to robber barons leaving us with more severe disparity of wealth than in the 19th century. The scale has slid upwards, aided primarily by the social safety net, but that is running out of resources. Bribery is increasingly failing, the rise of criminal gangs is evidence of that.
We had better fix our house, the problem is that it has become so ingrained and entrenched from RR on that nobody has a clue how to do it. Societal response is frozen through apathy and helplessness, the contract is broken, but reaction to that is not occurring. If it continues to stay jammed, resentment will build and its end point is extemely undesirable. If societal pressures cannot address this it falls to governmental interference.
This is the divide between "libertarian" and my leftism, I will not accept the natural progression toward violence that leaving it to "natural" or "free market" will involve. I am willing to use the tool of governance to address it. The system has been rigged from the top down continually and to hope that changing the rigging is going to occur bottom up through markets will leave it entirely too long and to more drastic resolution.
In short, if our culture, broadly speaking, refuses to move toward an ordered solution, I am willing to reach for another tool. I don't use tack hammers to move walls, but I also don't use sledge hammers to drive tacks. I am not ideologically bound to a tool and that is one of the differences between me and conservatives.
Just swell, 45 min of writing and thinking gone...f**king word verification
Chuck...LET NE ECHO THE ABOVE !!!
had a reply to Culley that went POOF!
Welfare is a bribe paid by the state for stability: SAID CHUCK
DAMN..Chuck, you keep making statements like the above, I will start you a write in campaign for Gov.
You would not be as bad period as what we have.
Maybe a NHRA TRACK in Portland you could work on.
Post a Comment