Posted on 11/07/2005 2:42:16 PM PST by B Knotts
The Romans conquered the barbarians—and the barbarians conquered Rome.
So it goes with empires. And comes now the penultimate chapter in the history of the empires of the West.
This is the larger meaning of the ritual murder of Theo Van Gogh in Holland, the subway bombings in London, the train bombings in Madrid, the Paris riots spreading across France. The perpetrators of these crimes in the capitals of Europe are the children of immigrants who were once the colonial subjects of the European empires.
At this writing, the riots are entering their 12th night and have spread to Rouen, Lille, Marseille, Toulouse, Dijon, Bordeaux, Strasbourg, Cannes, Nice. Thousands of cars and buses have been torched and several nursery schools fire-bombed. One fleeing and terrified woman was doused with gasoline and set ablaze.
The rioters are of Arab and African descent, and Muslim. While almost all are French citizens, they are not part of the French people. For never have they been assimilated into French culture or society. And some wish to remain who and what they are. They live in France but are not French.
The rampage began October 27 when two Arab youths, fleeing what they mistakenly thought was a police pursuit, leapt onto power lines and were electrocuted. The two deaths ignited the riots.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
We'll have to save ourselves first...
Your mommy wants you back at DU. She's going to play old reruns of Crossfire so you can cheer for Braden and Kinsley.
[ Multiculturalism and "diversity"...twin policies that are reflexively touted as desirable...but why? Has anyone ever explained why these things are desirable? Our unthinking devotion to these policies will be our undoing ]<>
Pat Buchanon did in one of his books.. Which is more right than it is wrong..
IMO as a non-expert on France
During the French revolution, to the monarchy and ruling class, the freedom fighters were the rabble.
The question may end up being which rabble wins.
The French it seems have a historical, cultural tendency to become a rabble, or citizen's militia may be a better term.
To not just take to the streets but to actually take the streets.
The 1968 riots are a case in point.
In a sense what the rioters are doing, at least in the beginning, was a very French thing to do.
Days ago the French were talking of forming militias and were discouraged by the government.
If the government doesn't stop the rioting soon the people will act.
12 days of this and still no real reaction?
Let's face it the government is in a difficult situation.
By allowing it to continue they risk encouraging the rioters and up the likelihood that ordinary Frenchmen are going to start fighting back.
But to go in there guns blazing may play into the islamic fanatics' hands and sow deeper discord among those immigrants that aren't involved in the present riots.
It looks like a choice of the lesser of two evils.
That's deep. /sarcasm
Can you point out how he's wrong, or are you going to fling more poop? Calling peyton a liberal certainly won't win you a bannana. There are plenty of conservatives who think that Buchannan is a kook, and he hasn't done much to convince us otherwise
Ooohh... Witty comeback by a paleo. I thought Jim R. purged all of the lunatic Brigadiers back in '00. How did you slither under the radar?
"Since the whole liberal-left establishment of the Western world is as unsympathetic to Israel's plight as you are, you may wonder why I'm singling you out for criticism. The answer, obviously, is that you are not a liberal. After all, when liberals and leftists engage in moral equivalency and seek to appease the forces of evil, when they make spurious denunciations of Western "oppression" and sympathize with Third-World liberation movements, when they side with savagery against civilization, that is only to be expected; they are expressing the leftist belief in the overthrow of traditional institutions and traditional morality. But when a conservative such as yourself adopts the same set of leftist attitudes, that is a mystery that cries out for explanation. Why, Pat, when it comes to Israel, do you make such a shocking exception from the conservative principles that you apply elsewhere? Why do you—who have always stood for strict morality and old-fashioned law and order—call terrorists "venerable"? Why do you—who throughout your career have opposed every left-wing national liberation movement—give aid and comfort to the one national liberation movement that is aimed at murdering Jews?
In fairness to you, it could be argued that your anti-Israel stand is motivated by a patriotic desire to keep America from becoming entangled in foreign conflicts that are none of our concern, and in imperial burdens that will diminish our liberties and exhaust our national strength. There is nothing wrong with believing that America should be a republic, not an empire, to quote the title of your excellent book on the subject. But your opposition to American empire, no matter how sincere and principled it may be, cannot account for your tortured attempt to legitimize Muslim terrorists. It cannot explain, or excuse, your brutal demonization of a fellow Western country at the moment of its maximum mortal peril. Sadly, therefore, I am left with only one plausible explanation for the ugly and uncharacteristic positions you have been taking on Israel: a profound, unspoken—and perhaps unconscious—animosity toward Jews.
That animus must run deep, indeed, Pat, for look where it is leading you. It is leading you to betray almost everything you've ever believed in. It's leading you to embrace utopian hopes for a blatantly fraudulent "peace." It's leading you to sign on to the "root causes" theory of evil and to use moral equivalencies that would make a Sixties liberal blush. It's leading you to erase the distinctions between terrorist killers and their victims, to justify monsters who blow up and dismember women and children, to promote the political aims of the people who celebrate such maiming and dismemberment, and to deny a brave and embattled nation's right to defend itself against these monstrosities. And it is leading you to align yourself with the European left, whose aim is not just the disappearance of the Jewish state but also the abolition of all sovereign Western nations, including our own."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3341
anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, what's the difference?
>>>>>>>Ooohh... Witty comeback by a paleo. I thought Jim R. purged all of the lunatic Brigadiers back in '00. How did you slither under the radar?
It was a witty comeback, well beyond the ability of Peyton Randolph to respond. He still hasn't answered for his absurd lies about Buchanan being a disciple of Fr. Coughlin, who disappeared from the radio around the time Pat was barely out of diapers.
Maybe you can provide the link to Buchanan claiming Coughlin as his hero. Until then, spare me your stupidity, Peyton is providing enough on his own.
As I said, Buchanan's father was a Coughlinite. Fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. Feel free continue defending the indefensible (Pat's anti-semitism). After all, if Pat is tough on immigration, as a paleo you can overlook his dislike for Israel and Jews.
Fortunately, most conservatives disassociate themselves from Buchanan the way William F. Buckley kept the Birchers at arms length. Conservatism doesn't need such allies.
In 1990, 10.4% of Chinese immigrants in the United States received welfare, as opposed to 3.7 % of British immigrants, 4.1% of German immigrants, and 4.8% of French immigrants, according to Appendix 3 of Peter Brimelow's "Alien Nation." Chinese immigrants are also quite fond of bringing over their parents, to enroll them in various government goodie giveaways. (To be fair, the Taiwanese level of welfare participation was comparable to the Europeans, at 4.2 %)
The welfare participation rate of Mexican immigrants, by the way, was 11.3%.
Those signatures have greater meaning now, and when I look at my son's handbook, I think of them first.
My son is in a great Pack and Den. I am completely satisfied.
As I said, this is a lie, one that Ted Koppel was forced to retract. There is zero evidence supporting this claim.
It is, of course, par for the course for leftists to attack the beliefs of people's parents, just as the rent-a-mob that attacked Mel Gibson for his masterpiece focused on the beliefs of his father.
And I thought FR wasn't providing a home for lefty trolls.
Did you find a link to back your charge that Buchanan claims Coughlin as his hero? I understand that it's hard to give up the sort of habitual practice that goes unchallenged at DU. Ad hominems, charges of racism, nazi sympathizing, the Golden Oldies of the hard left.
I don't know why you addressed this to me. I said I do not agree with Buchanan's isolationism and I do not see American policy toward Israel as the horrible death of us all that he does. But I do think he's quite right about the immigration problem (though I don't think we have enough culture left to assimilate anyway, so holding out the possibility of assimilation after the borders are closed doesn't make me very optimistic)--I like some of what Buchanan says and disagree with some. So why are you taking out after me?
Maybe you could phone UC Riverside and tell them that Armando Navarro of their ethnic studies department is a lunatic of the Farrakhan variety. I'll provide a link, a skill you have yet to show us- your ability to stereotype having never been questioned:
http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1536_reg_print.html
He's not likely to respond, other than to repeat the charge. It's the same old tactic the left has always used, repeat the lie often enough and it goes unchallenged. PR has his own cheering section, so maybe the two of them can do some heavy googling tonight, lol. At least they might find some old SPLC diatribe that will repeat their claim. Repetition is as good as truth for their purposes.
Buchanan is no racist! The majority of attacks on him come from Israel firsters...and work endlessly to try to paint Buchanan as a racist and obviously have deceived some. Shame on them! While Buchanan is wrong on some issues, he is ahead of his time on many others. Pat hit the nail with this piece. As you have stated, the issue is not as grave as Paris and we are very fortunate that Mexicans are Christians but our culture which our forefathers have left us will be lost. This is why it is important to slow the pace of immigraton, if not halt it temporarily, until the "new immigrants" assimilate into our culture not vice versa.
You are exactly right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.