Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Could this be France's 4T Catalyst unfolding before us?

They are already in a 4T in a generational sense.

And yes. I think it could. We'll have to see where it goes.

If the rioters start getting reinforcements from the Mideast (especially from al-Qaida) it will start looking a LOT more like the real deal, I'd say. More than it already does, that is. And if the rioting then spreads to neighboring countries,... Shocked

Eurabia?

Eurabia? It's never going to happen, bet on that.

It has been said that a liberal is merely a conservative who's never been mugged. Regardless of how left-wing much of Europe appeared in Third Turning peacetime, if immigrant rioting becomes so intense and pervasive that the very survival of their society appears at risk, the European Union will act. First up, the EU equivalent of Green Cards will be revoked for all immigrants from predominately Muslim countries... whether they are criminals or not... their holders rounded up and escorted to transport ships by armed troops. Their European-born children will have no choice but to join them, or risk starvation in the streets... or worse... at home (or they may be deported too, however illegally). And if Al Queda becomes involved, we'll see military attacks by the EU on Arab countries that will make our foray into Iraq look like a fourth-grade class trip to the zoo.

That is what one does in a 4T... when your society is in imminent danger of being obliterated.

It's interesting how the worst problems always seem to start in Europe.

I hope France and the other nations affected lay down the law against this infectious Islamist anarchism. If it escalates far enough, we might be seeing something like the next World War.

Germans: "Are our politicians all mad?"

Originally Posted by Andy '85

It's interesting how the worst problems always seem to start in Europe.

I hope France and the other nations affected lay down the law against this infectious Islamist anarchism. If it escalates far enough, we might be seeing something like the next World War.

Just wait until France and Germany and other western European countries go broke in the next ten years and have to really start slashing pensions and benefits. The median skin tone of the unrest will become decidedly more pale again.

Nevertheless, I do think these riots are qualitatively more important, a genuine turning point. This is not however some kind of Islamist insurgency, but a bunch of poor brown and black kids who have been systematically excluded from French society and economic opportunity by a system that favors older tenured workers and has never fully integrated its immigrant populations reaching their breaking point. 26% of young immigrants with university degrees are unemployed in France. There is a reason these riots aren't happening in America...

Originally Posted by Mr. Edward Skidelsky reviewing [i

Earthly Powers: religion and politics in Europe from the French revolution to the Great War[/i]]The problem was not that the pope had no battalions, but that he had lost the most important weapon in his spiritual armoury: the fear of hellfire. Emperors such as Napoleon were not about to go down on their knees in penitential dread. The Church was thus forced to rely for protection upon rulers whose concerns were purely worldly, and who regarded religion as no more than an instrument for the maintenance of power and wealth. Its moral authority suffered severely. "I am saddened and disturbed more than I ever have been before," wrote Alexis de Tocqueville during the reign of Napoleon III, "when I see in so many Catholics this aspiration towards tyranny, this attraction to servitude, this love of force, of the police, of censure, of the gallows." Only recently, largely because of Pope John Paul II's far-sighted denunciation of both Soviet and American lawlessness, has the Catholic Church regained something of its moral independence.
...

There was yet another reason why Protestantism was more prone to nationalist corruption than Catholicism. Whereas the Church of Rome preserved a rigid structure of dogma, early 19th-century Protestantism was very much a "religion of the heart". The quivering fervour of Pietism and Methodism set the tone; the German theologian Friedrich David Schleiermacher was typical in defining religion as "a sense and taste for the infinite". Such a fluid faith could easily spill its doctrinal mould and flow into more politically amenable channels. By the time of the First World War, there were few left to protest what the Swiss theologian Karl Barth called the "hopeless muddle" of "love of country, lust for war and Christian faith".

If Christianity had a mission in the 19th century, it was to restrain the leviathan of the nation state. This book tells the story of its failure. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :cry:

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Could this be France's 4T Catalyst unfolding before us?

They are already in a 4T in a generational sense.

And yes. I think it could. We'll have to see where it goes.

If the rioters start getting reinforcements from the Mideast (especially from al-Qaida) it will start looking a LOT more like the real deal, I'd say. More than it already does, that is. And if the rioting then spreads to neighboring countries,... Shocked

Eurabia?

Eurabia? It's never going to happen, bet on that.

It has been said that a liberal is merely a conservative who's never been mugged. Regardless of how left-wing much of Europe appeared in Third Turning peacetime, if immigrant rioting becomes so intense and pervasive that the very survival of their society appears at risk, the European Union will act. First up, the EU equivalent of Green Cards will be revoked for all immigrants from predominately Muslim countries... whether they are criminals or not... their holders rounded up and escorted to transport ships by armed troops. Their European-born children will have no choice but to join them, or risk starvation in the streets... or worse... at home (or they may be deported too, however illegally). And if Al Queda becomes involved, we'll see military attacks by the EU on Arab countries that will make our foray into Iraq look like a fourth-grade class trip to the zoo.

That is what one does in a 4T... when your society is in imminent danger of being obliterated.

I agree with essentially all that but for one point: I don't think it'll necessarily be the EU that acts, I think it's at least as likely that it'll be done by the various member-states unilaterally (or by a sort of multi-lateral agreement in defiance of the eurocratic class).

I could be wrong, crisis can bring rapid changes to institutions, but the EU has become almost an exemplar, verging on self-parody, of the 3T Elder-Adaptive mindset, from the Left side. It's governing class in Brussels is highly theoretical, academic, and they live and breathe process. I'm not sure the Eurocrats as a class could bring themselves to accept such actions in time to handle them collectively.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Their European-born children will have no choice but to join them, or risk starvation in the streets... or worse... at home (or they may be deported too, however illegally).

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in France and Italy, someone born there to foreign parents doesn't become a citizen until his/her 18th birthday. (And it isn't automatic, they have to formally claim it.)

Talk about an unexpected event. The riots may be congealing into a nationwide rebellion.

Riots Spread Into Rebellion
Julio Godoy

PARIS, Nov 6 (IPS) - Rioting by immigrant youth around Paris has begun to take the shape of a nationwide rebellion against racial and social segregation, and repressive police action.

Over the weekend gangs comprising youth mostly from the Maghreb countries and sub-Saharan Africa set fire to more than a thousand vehicles, several supermarkets, and public buildings including schools and sport facilities.

Vehicles were burnt in the centre of Paris for the first time since the beginning of the unrest 11 days ago. Similar violence broke out in other cities including Marseille, Rennes, Nantes and Lille.

The police have been unable to re-establish order despite strong action. Hit-and-run youth gangs coordinating action over mobile phones have been too quick for them. It now seems less and less likely that police action alone can restore calm.

The unrest began Oct. 27 after two immigrant children died accidentally in a high-voltage electricity facility in Clichy-sous-Bois, a poor district some 30km north-east of Paris. In the face of rumours that they were being chased by the police, which the police deny, angry youths went on the rampage.

The police reacted with force, in one instance hurling tear-gas grenades into a mosque. Most residents of the Parisian outskirts where the unrest began are Muslims. Such action was seen by many residents as provocative.

Minister for the interior Nicholas Sarkozy's remarks calling violent youth 'scum' also provoked further violence, several experts say. "Sarkozy's choice of words makes me think of the rhetoric used by military police in racial dictatorships, and of regimes practising ethnic cleansing," Hugues Lagrange, social researcher at the independent Paris Observatory of Social Change told IPS.

Lagrange said conditions of extreme poverty, high unemployment and the racial segregation that hinders immigrant access to jobs lay at the heart of the rebellion. Instead of dealing with these issues, Sarkozy is stirring up unrest "to establish tighter electoral links with a populist right-wing extremist population."

Lagrange said one of Sarkozy's first measures as minister of the interior was to disband a special police unit created by the former Socialist government in 1997 to maintain close contact with youth organisations to prevent any outbreak of violence.

"The duty of police officers is to chase criminals, not to play football with them," Sarkozy said at the time.

Deep political divisions have emerged over the violence. Neo-fascist leader Jacques Bompard and the right-wing nationalist Philippe de Villiers have urged the government to call in the army to suppress the rebellion. De Villiers said the rebellion is proof that the French model of integration "has clearly failed."

On the other hand, local Muslim leaders say Sarkozy must be sacked. They said in a statement that after the attack on the mosque and Sarkozy's abuse of youth, they "do not consider Sarkozy an appropriate negotiation partner."

President Jacques Chirac indirectly condemned Sarkozy's response. "The law shall be firmly applied, but in a spirit of respect and dialogue," Chirac had said last Wednesday.

But opposition leaders and several commentators are urging Chirac to throw Sarkozy out of government. "Sarkozy is an arsonist pretending to be a fireman" ran the title of an editorial comment in the leftist newspaper L'Humanité.

Noel Mamère, leader of the Green Party, called Sarkozy "a danger for French democracy, a danger destroying rapidly the year-long integration efforts carried out by social workers and organisations in the field." He said if Sarkozy does not resign, "the government must kick him out."

Christian Pfeiffer, a German criminologist who has been researching youth unrest in Europe, said "Sarkozy's behaviour is absolutely unacceptable."

Sarkozy has refused to apologise. "I cannot understand why people make such a fuss about words, but ignore the reality of riots and crimes," he said. He said the riots had been "carefully organised...by criminal mafias and by religious extremists."

City mayors and social workers all over France are calling for a major plan to develop low- income districts to avoid future explosions of violence. Jean-Marie Bockel, mayor of Mullhouse in the north-east, has called for "a Marshall plan for our districts."

Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité


Violence exposes France's weaknesses

By John Simpson
BBC World Affairs Editor

Last spring, over dinner in Paris, a close friend of mine who runs one of the biggest opera houses outside the French capital told me: "I've got this persistent feeling that 1968 is just about to happen all over again."

He had no idea that the violence would erupt in the dreary, featureless suburbs.

He thought it was because the French political system had run out of ideas and credibility, and he knew the French.

These moments of weakness are the times when trouble always seems to break out.

Moment of weakness?

If President Jacques Chirac and the centre-right government which supports him had been in full control of France's political life, it is hard to think these long days and nights of continuous rioting would have taken place.

The feelings of resentment and simmering anger in the suburbs would have been just as strong, but the crowds would mostly have held back.

Years of reporting on riots and revolutions have shown me that crowds display a mysterious collective sense which somehow overrides the perceptions and fears of the individuals who make up the mass. And crowds have a remarkable feeling for the weakness of government.

There is of course a huge well of fury and resentment among the children of North African and African immigrants in the suburbs of French cities. The suburbs have been woefully ignored for 30 years.

Violence there is regular and unexceptionable. Even on a normal weekend, between 20 and 30 vehicles are regularly attacked and burned by rioters.

Power decline

This time the riots are joined up, pre-planned, co-ordinated. At some level of consciousness, the demonstrators know that the governmental system they are facing is deeply, perhaps incurably, sclerotic.

Mr Chirac, standing back until his ministers showed their inability to agree a clear line on the rioting, seems not to have the answers when he speaks now. His presidency is overshadowed by an inescapable sense of past corruption and weakness, and he has governed France at a time when its economy and its position in the world have both declined sharply and markedly.

No matter that events have thoroughly borne out his criticisms of the US and British invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Muslim teenagers who briefly applauded him then have long since forgotten all that - though of course if he had supported President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair then, he would be in even greater trouble now.

In 1968, too, President Charles de Gaulle and his ministers spoke sternly of the need for order to be restored immediately, and yet they did nothing.

If the riot police could have restored order they would have done so, but they were overstretched and outwitted, and their only response was more of the kind of violence which made the crowds even more ferocious in their turn.

Anti-French tone

I remember the 1968 riots very well. But of course the differences between then and now were as great as the similarities. For a start, the riots of 2005 are still all about the bitter and genuine grievances of the Muslim and African communities, ignored and demeaned and kept in poverty by a system which cares very little about them.

Only if a much wider swathe of French society gets involved on their side will the situation become truly pre-revolutionary, in the way that the crowds of 1968 were.

And since the riots have taken on a fiercely anti-French tone, and the violence and destruction have sickened so many people in the suburbs themselves, that seems unlikely at present.

France, though, tends to move forward in fits and starts, rather than organically, and these fits and starts are often associated with violence.

Spirit of revolution

Thanks to the Revolution, violence even has a kind of virtue which it simply does not possess in a country like Britain. When government becomes incapable of change, the crowds in the streets have to do the changing for themselves.

There is a great deal that has to be changed. I have seen many times for myself how the CRS, the deeply aggressive and ferocious force of riot police, have attacked Muslims and Africans in the streets in times of trouble.

Last April, Amnesty International singled out the violence and racism of the French police towards the non-white people of the suburbs for particular criticism.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the Interior Minister, now seems to be playing politics with the situation by appealing to the most basic and resentful attitudes of conservative France.

Much of the violence on the streets of France's cities is mindless; some of it is malign. But simply stamping it down will not work - and anyway the CRS and the civil police have tried that, and their toughness has only made things worse.

France is going to have to change towards its unwilling, often unwelcome young second-generation population, and accommodate them better.

It is not enough to demand that these people drop their sense of themselves and fit in with the way France has traditionally ordered its affairs.

But most of all there has to be change in attitudes at the top. And if Mr Chirac cannot do it, he will be fatally damaged as president.

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Please edit your post and get the goatse image off our screens...

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Please edit your post and get the goatse image off our screens...

Alright, fine. I meant that as a humorous attempt at sarcasm.

Andy just informed me that the image showed up as a porn image to many people, and i apologize for that. It was supposed to be a French flag.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Could this be France's 4T Catalyst unfolding before us?

They are already in a 4T in a generational sense.

And yes. I think it could. We'll have to see where it goes.

If the rioters start getting reinforcements from the Mideast (especially from al-Qaida) it will start looking a LOT more like the real deal, I'd say. More than it already does, that is. And if the rioting then spreads to neighboring countries,... Shocked

Eurabia?

Eurabia? It's never going to happen, bet on that.

It has been said that a liberal is merely a conservative who's never been mugged. Regardless of how left-wing much of Europe appeared in Third Turning peacetime, if immigrant rioting becomes so intense and pervasive that the very survival of their society appears at risk, the European Union will act. First up, the EU equivalent of Green Cards will be revoked for all immigrants from predominately Muslim countries... whether they are criminals or not... their holders rounded up and escorted to transport ships by armed troops. Their European-born children will have no choice but to join them, or risk starvation in the streets... or worse... at home (or they may be deported too, however illegally). And if Al Queda becomes involved, we'll see military attacks by the EU on Arab countries that will make our foray into Iraq look like a fourth-grade class trip to the zoo.

That is what one does in a 4T... when your society is in imminent danger of being obliterated.

I think steps will be taken even before that to reduce tensions, such that such drastic measures may not be necessary. Britain has begun to move quickly to pitch out the Londonistan cabals that have encouraged homegrown and overseas terror, once it became clear that the deal "we don't bother you, you don't bother us" was off.

And from what I have read so far, the grievances are currently 1773-ish, not 1776-ish. By that I mean that the French Dream is still quite alive for a number of the youths participating in the riot; their grievance is that their route to that dream is blocked by unofficial discrimination. That has nothing to do with the instigators (gangsters), nor with the Islamists who are indeed lurking in the background and will turn this into a jihad if they can.

That means there may still be time to stop this insanity before it irrevocably becomes a civil war.

The fundamental question is whether these people are French or not. Right now, many of them want to be and feel that they have been excluded by their own country. They can still be integrated. But those who are not French -- or who have an incompatible idea of what France is -- must be isolated and {deported or destroyed}.

I would prefer that the latter group be as small as possible. If it's no more than a few thousand troublemakers, this remains a running heavy police action -- nasty and 4Tish but still doable, like the thirties FBI/gangster clashes. But if it develops that a population of millions must be confronted and dealt with -- well, let's say that the last time France had a problem of that magnitude was the Hugenot Question.

Under such a scenario, those who said "never again" might well revert.

I agree with essentially all that but for one point: I don't think it'll necessarily be the EU that acts, I think it's at least as likely that it'll be done by the various member-states unilaterally (or by a sort of multi-lateral agreement in defiance of the eurocratic class).

I could be wrong, crisis can bring rapid changes to institutions, but the EU has become almost an exemplar, verging on self-parody, of the 3T Elder-Adaptive mindset, from the Left side. It's governing class in Brussels is highly theoretical, academic, and they live and breathe process. I'm not sure the Eurocrats as a class could bring themselves to accept such actions in time to handle them collectively.

I agree on this description of the EU as currently invoked. Chirac '32 and his Silents thought they had achieved their crowning glory in the EU Constitution; he and his pals couldn't understand why no one wanted his glorious compromises. The voting down of the Constitution was the signal that the reign of the Silent in Europe was over.

Now it is time for the Boomers, or in their parlance "the generation of '68", to rule. de Villepin '53 and Sarkozy '55 are apparently the next contenders for the French quasi-throne; de Villepin stands for status quo and Sarkozy for change. I have been unable to determine more than that so far, as in-depth stories on Sarkozy in English have been so slanted that I have been unable to see past the alternating halo and horns.

The EU has not yet passed beyond Silent tutelage, but it probably will do so in a few years. What it does then will be quite interesting: will it become a focal point for one, two, or more Boomer factions? Or will the 4T pressures tear it apart?

Originally Posted by cumulonimbus

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Please edit your post and get the goatse image off our screens...

Alright, fine. I meant that as a humorous attempt at sarcasm.

Some of us could get into trouble over such things. Please be more [EDIT]careful in future.

Originally Posted by JTaber 1972

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Their European-born children will have no choice but to join them, or risk starvation in the streets... or worse... at home (or they may be deported too, however illegally).

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but in France and Italy, someone born there to foreign parents doesn't become a citizen until his/her 18th birthday. (And it isn't automatic, they have to formally claim it.)

I've seen the suggestion made that the United States should change citizenship law so that being born here only makes you a citizen if your parents are here legally, i.e. if your parents are in the country illegally, you don't gain citizenship from birth.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

And from what I have read so far, the grievances are currently 1773-ish, not 1776-ish. By that I mean that the French Dream is still quite alive for a number of the youths participating in the riot; their grievance is that their route to that dream is blocked by unofficial discrimination. That has nothing to do with the instigators (gangsters), nor with the Islamists who are indeed lurking in the background and will turn this into a jihad if they can.

Maybe. In fact probably so. But there is a caveat here, in the phrase 'from I have read so far'.

It's remarkable how consistant the media coverage of this in the English world has been. The spin is that this is basically about economic disaffection and a failure on the part of the society to reach out. Maybe that's accurate, but it's awfully consistant from so many different sources. We might be seeing an example of wishful thinking expressed in coverage.

Something somewhat similar happened in America shortly after 911, IMO, when media sources from newspapers to TV to broad swaths of the commentariate urged everyone to trust the experts and ignore people like Huntingdon, who was obviously wrong. (Of course it wasn't and isn't obvious that he's wrong, but that was the coverage tone.)

The fundamental question is whether these people are French or not. Right now, many of them want to be and feel that they have been excluded by their own country. They can still be integrated. But those who are not French -- or who have an incompatible idea of what France is -- must be isolated and {deported or destroyed}.

What about the native French who have incompatible ideas of what France is, and should be?

I would prefer that the latter group be as small as possible. If it's no more than a few thousand troublemakers, this remains a running heavy police action -- nasty and 4Tish but still doable, like the thirties FBI/gangster clashes. But if it develops that a population of millions must be confronted and dealt with -- well, let's say that the last time France had a problem of that magnitude was the Hugenot Question.

Under such a scenario, those who said "never again" might well revert.

It's true that 'never again' often comes around again with a remarkable regularity.

I agree with essentially all that but for one point: I don't think it'll necessarily be the EU that acts, I think it's at least as likely that it'll be done by the various member-states unilaterally (or by a sort of multi-lateral agreement in defiance of the eurocratic class).

I could be wrong, crisis can bring rapid changes to institutions, but the EU has become almost an exemplar, verging on self-parody, of the 3T Elder-Adaptive mindset, from the Left side. It's governing class in Brussels is highly theoretical, academic, and they live and breathe process. I'm not sure the Eurocrats as a class could bring themselves to accept such actions in time to handle them collectively.

I agree on this description of the EU as currently invoked. Chirac '32 and his Silents thought they had achieved their crowning glory in the EU Constitution; he and his pals couldn't understand why no one wanted his glorious compromises. The voting down of the Constitution was the signal that the reign of the Silent in Europe was over.

The eurocrats weren't happy with the rejection, either. The traditional response to a voter rejection on the part of the Brussels class would be to demand that the country in question keep voting until the voters got it 'right'. There were even some demands that this course be followed now, but France is too big, to central, and too fractious for it to be a practical option.

Instead some of the Brussels types were left complaining that the people who voted 'non' shouldn't have been consulted in the first place, since they were clearly stupid. That was the gist of several comments of the sort.

Now it is time for the Boomers, or in their parlance "the generation of '68", to rule. de Villepin '53 and Sarkozy '55 are apparently the next contenders for the French quasi-throne; de Villepin stands for status quo and Sarkozy for change. I have been unable to determine more than that so far, as in-depth stories on Sarkozy in English have been so slanted that I have been unable to see past the alternating halo and horns.

The problem is that a lot of our English-language media types are personally sympathetic to the de Villepin POV, and tend to want to see it succeed. Those who aren't tend to be equally passionately against him, which makes Sarkozy their hero, regardless of their personal views.

"Civil war" in the Paris suburbs

"The district of Seine-Saint-Denis (93) has been in "a state of emergency" ever since, and there are those that are speaking about a civil war."

Early skirmish in the Eurabian civil war

"Over at the Place de la Mairie, M le Maire himself, Jean-Louis Debré, seemed affronted by the very idea that un soupçon de carnage should be allowed to distract from the cheese-tasting. "A hundred people have smashed everything and strewn desolation," he told reporters. "Well, they don't form part of our universe.""

Ah, France.

- - -

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by catfishncod

And from what I have read so far, the grievances are currently 1773-ish, not 1776-ish. By that I mean that the French Dream is still quite alive for a number of the youths participating in the riot; their grievance is that their route to that dream is blocked by unofficial discrimination. That has nothing to do with the instigators (gangsters), nor with the Islamists who are indeed lurking in the background and will turn this into a jihad if they can.

Maybe. In fact probably so. But there is a caveat here, in the phrase 'from I have read so far'.

It's remarkable how consistant the media coverage of this in the English world has been. The spin is that this is basically about economic disaffection and a failure on the part of the society to reach out. Maybe that's accurate, but it's awfully consistant from so many different sources. We might be seeing an example of wishful thinking expressed in coverage.

The MSM media coverage is going all-out in the economic direction; the blogosphere (particularly the right-wing 'sphere) has been equally going all-out to assert that this is indeed Huntington's "clash of civilizations".

Both these sources have an obvious agenda, and after applying appropriate bias filters I find I have little agreed-upon information remaining. The motivation specturm of the rioters is quite unclear and there has been some cherry-picking going on among them. This doesn't surprise me; there are plenty of rioters to pick from. But I also can't get a clear picture of Nicholas Sarkozy, and that really bothers me: he doesn't wear a halo (as the Red Team thinks) or horns (as the Blue Team thinks), as he has taken actions which go in both law-n-order and root-cause directions. So what **is** he?

And (softly) could he become a new French GC?

The fundamental question is whether these people are French or not. Right now, many of them want to be and feel that they have been excluded by their own country. They can still be integrated. But those who are not French -- or who have an incompatible idea of what France is -- must be isolated and {deported or destroyed}.

What about the native French who have incompatible ideas of what France is, and should be?

That is for the French to decide, collectively. Let us define who is French and who is not. There are people in these places who were born in France, have never known any other land, and believe themselves citoyens de la Republique. Are they, or are they not, native French? Is being French defined by blood, by birth, by culture? hmm? Who are the French?

Once this is decided, there are mechanisms for the French to make decisions about their culture and so forth. But the question is what the rules truly are for being French. It is clear that there are nativist elements who do not consider these people French. Are they right or wrong? France must decide and act accordingly. The time when they can use these people for labor when they choose and stuff then in a bag otherwise is gone. They must be integrated or deported; and where would you deport them to?

If France didn't want Arab elements to become part of their culture, they should have thought of that before they allowed millions of Arabs to settle on their land. And yes, I know that also applies to our own Hispanic immigrants. The prospect does not scare me. America has been partly Hispanic in character since the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.

I agree on this description of the EU as currently invoked. Chirac '32 and his Silents thought they had achieved their crowning glory in the EU Constitution; he and his pals couldn't understand why no one wanted his glorious compromises. The voting down of the Constitution was the signal that the reign of the Silent in Europe was over.

The eurocrats weren't happy with the rejection, either. The traditional response to a voter rejection on the part of the Brussels class would be to demand that the country in question keep voting until the voters got it 'right'. There were even some demands that this course be followed now, but France is too big, to central, and too fractious for it to be a practical option.

Instead some of the Brussels types were left complaining that the people who voted 'non' shouldn't have been consulted in the first place, since they were clearly stupid. That was the gist of several comments of the sort.

L'etat c'est moi, no? With such comments again being made, is it any wonder Parisians are rioting again?

1789, 1830, 1848, 1870, 1914, 1940, 1968, 2005.

This is the second vital question. The ENArchy has clearly stopped listening to the voters of France, with the currently rioting Beur being the most ignored. The EUcracy has similarly stopped listening.

Originally Posted by Good old T. J.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...

In my mind the only question is whether the current electoral process will be sufficient to institute new government. The need for revolution is obvious. Fortunately, the French have lots and lots of practice at this.

Now it is time for the Boomers, or in their parlance "the generation of '68", to rule. de Villepin '53 and Sarkozy '55 are apparently the next contenders for the French quasi-throne; de Villepin stands for status quo and Sarkozy for change. I have been unable to determine more than that so far, as in-depth stories on Sarkozy in English have been so slanted that I have been unable to see past the alternating halo and horns.

The problem is that a lot of our English-language media types are personally sympathetic to the de Villepin POV, and tend to want to see it succeed. Those who aren't tend to be equally passionately against him, which makes Sarkozy their hero, regardless of their personal views.

Are you sure? There is more to the English-language media than Reuters and the AP, or even the NYT. And de Villepin is coming across as an incompetent bozo no matter who I listen to, which is a good sign that he really is one.

- - -

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by The Dude

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by The Dude

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Those poor French Muslim Kids are idiots. The next election will see every grandmother and terrified countryperson voting for the National Front.

Maybe that's the idea, a grand coalition of French and Islamist fascists. I'm still waiting for the Christianist right in America to unite with its Islamo-fascist soulmates. They appear to agree on the important issues of the day like getting women back into corsets, stoning adulters and beheading homosexuals. Why not form an alliance?

Because they agree on essentially nothing. Your analysis of their supposed similarities is incorrect.

Liar.

Linking to a page full of falsehoods doesn't help your case. She has her facts extensively wrong. That it's posted on what amounts to a left-wing fantasy page doesn't help her credibility. But let's take a look at her specific claims.

1. Yet few imagined, despite any concerns about the Bush Administration's agenda, a day when the President would disclose: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

The source for that supposed statement (which she treats as if it were an established fact) was a Palestinian claim, at second hand. Nobody's been able to confirm it, and if there was any serious reason to believe he said it, the Democrats would have used it extensively. It's crap.

2. The ramifications of that statement, and the marked deterioration of civil liberties and religious freedom in the US over the past few years, leads to a nagging question: Could the US slip into a fundamentalist mode paralleling those nations we currently deem the world's greatest threat?

Since there's been no 'marked deterioration of civil liberties and religious freedom in the US over the past few years', the author's already shaky credibility is further damaged. The claim that civil liberties and religious freedom have fallen apart gets repeated endlessly, in spite of the fact that all we have to do is look around us to see that it isn't true.

3. The role of women in Christian fundamentalist homes is generally well defined: wife, mother, and homemaker. Often, they are not allowed to work outside the home and are vulnerable to abuse, sometimes condoned, or at best dismissed, by the clergymen they may ask for help. Restrictive and unfair divorce laws and welfare reforms are also frequently proposed by the Christian right, measures that would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for women to leave lethal relationships.

This is just basic propaganda, unrelated to anything real. It's the sort of scare story liberal fanatics like to repeat to themselves rather than deal with actual facts. Some Christians do believe that the genders have defined roles, others don't. There's simply no momentum, Red or Blue, for state restrictions on such things, and you should talk to some actual Christian wives and mothers to find out their reaction to this. Most of them would laugh you out of the room.

4. Abuse of Christian fundamentalist children is well documented. As early as 1974, sociologist H. Erlanger reported in American Sociological Review that conservative religious affiliation is one of the greatest predictors of child abuse, more so than age, gender, social class, or size of residence. Other studies, reported in The Role of Parental Religious Fundamentalism and Right-wing Authoritarianism in Child-Rearing Goals and Practices by social psychologist Henry Danso and others, conclude that child discipline by corporal punishment is typically related to religious conservatism, probably stemming from fundamentalists' authoritarian nature.

Interestingly, when I googled 'H. Erlanger' in this context, the only references I found were in anti-Christian and anti-religious pieces. I didn't find any neutral references at all. Granted that was just a quick look, but it's interesting.

If you define corporal punishment as child abuse (which is erroneous), then you might be able to produce a solid connection. But otherwise it looks like more of the same list of myths. If Erlanger's claim is true, it ought to be possible to document it fairly easily.

5. Militias in the US are dangerously equipped with the skills and weaponry to manifest the kind of fear, chaos, and destruction often seen in theocratic societies.

The 'militia movement' she's talking about is a tiny froth of extremists and goofballs, who peaked years ago. They aren't even particularly relevant to today's politics or society, though they occupy a huge space in the Left's pantheon of self-created demons. What's left of that so-called 'movement' has neither the weapons nor the skills to create a theocracy.

As for the rest of the Christian Right, they don't even want a theocracy. They are a fissile, disparate, highly localized group, overall. They agree on some basic points, (many of which they share with a majority of Americans), but there's simply no movement toward nor threat of theocracy.

(Unless you define theocracy as 'any religious influence on government at all' or 'a society with a religious or faith-based underlying basis' which includes ALL societies without exception. )

But theocracy in the political sense is another empty threat that the Left likes to scare themselves with.

6. But they also believe that, with God on their side, US democracy will give way to a theocracy on its own.

No, they don't, except for the tiny, tiny fringe of nutcases that so obsesses this author. They're the Right's equivalent of Earth First or the Weatherman, except that there are fewer of that sort of nutcase on the Right, and they receive less sympathy from their supposed fellow travellers.

7. ultimately, given the right set of circumstances, the potential for inconceivable violence against those they perceive as their enemies.

That doesn't describe Fundamentalists in particular, it describes all human beings.

So, you called me a liar, and cited a page of falsehoods and propaganda as evidence. Note that I refrained from insulting you in return, since I don't know whether you realized that they were falsehoods or not.

It must be sad to have all of the answers. But you're a smart guy.

I suppose the IRS is justified in going after that Episcopal church for speaking out against Bush's War. All good Christians knew that Saddam had to be taken out for the sake of American honor. And that holy man Pat Robertson asks, "why don't we just assassinate communist tyrants like Hugo Chavez anyway?"

Not to mention the movement to allow pharmacists to get in the way of the doctor/patient relationship, and abstinence-only education that's more about religious dogma than helping kids make informed choices about their sexual behavior, and these laws enshrining heterosexual marriage as the only legally recognized partnership between two people.

The faceless, legalistic, rationalizing scribes among us say "tut-tut, don't worry your pretty little heads about these things. Torture, schmorture. A few dead or mutilated Muslims don't matter so much in the grand scheme of the Great War on Terror. We kicked Saddam's sorry butt and showed those terrorists how tough we Yanks really are. And we didn't even have to raise taxes to do it!"

Tell me about that Second Coming again. :evil:

- - -

Mary,

I really don't have an opinion on Bush, but that is unfair. I don't like to label things as right or wrong that often, but Bin Laden targets innocent civilians, Bush wants to spread democracy. Even if you disagree with Bush and his ways of acheiving it, you should still clearly see a difference between the two.

Anyway,

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/...fx2324420.html

PARIS (AFX) - Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin unveiled a raft of social and economic measures designed to improve conditions in France's tough, low-income neighbourhoods that have spawned unrest raging across the country.

The initiatives -- outlined before parliament the same day the government approved powers to declare a state of emergency in specified regions of the country -- aim to reduce chronically high unemployment in those suburbs, provide better education and address entrenched racism.

'Our collective responsibility is to make difficult areas the same sort of territory as others in the republic,' Villepin said.

But he added that 'the reestablishment of public order is a prerequisite' to the measures being implemented -- something he admitted would 'take some time.'

The intiatives are:

- the creation of an anti-discrimination agency with special officials appointed to be in charge of certain regions, and making the fight against discrimination a national priority;

- 20,000 job contracts with local government bodies or associations paid a minimum wage would be reserved for those in the suburbs struggling to find work;

- an extra 100 million euros (120 million dollars) for associations that work in the neighbourhoods;

- 5,000 more teaching assistant posts in the 1,200 schools in districts designated as troublespots;

- the creation of 15 more special economic zones that provide tax breaks to companies that set up inside them as an incentive to boost local employment.

Villepin also said 'social imbalances due to an insufficiently controlled flow of clandestine immigration' would be tackled.

Is this a sign France will cave to the demands of the rioters?
[/code]

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Anyway,

http://www.forbes.com/finance/feeds/...fx2324420.html

PARIS (AFX) - Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin unveiled a raft of social and economic measures designed to improve conditions in France's tough, low-income neighbourhoods that have spawned unrest raging across the country.

The initiatives -- outlined before parliament the same day the government approved powers to declare a state of emergency in specified regions of the country -- aim to reduce chronically high unemployment in those suburbs, provide better education and address entrenched racism.

'Our collective responsibility is to make difficult areas the same sort of territory as others in the republic,' Villepin said.

But he added that 'the reestablishment of public order is a prerequisite' to the measures being implemented -- something he admitted would 'take some time.'

The intiatives are:

- the creation of an anti-discrimination agency with special officials appointed to be in charge of certain regions, and making the fight against discrimination a national priority;

- 20,000 job contracts with local government bodies or associations paid a minimum wage would be reserved for those in the suburbs struggling to find work;

- an extra 100 million euros (120 million dollars) for associations that work in the neighbourhoods;

- 5,000 more teaching assistant posts in the 1,200 schools in districts designated as troublespots;

- the creation of 15 more special economic zones that provide tax breaks to companies that set up inside them as an incentive to boost local employment.

Villepin also said 'social imbalances due to an insufficiently controlled flow of clandestine immigration' would be tackled.

Is this a sign France will cave to the demands of the rioters?
[/code]

This sounds like the Awakening's Great Society. Where's the Job Core Option to send these energetic young people to the Jura foothills and teach them lumberjacking as they did for urban youth from Indiana and Ilinois in the woods of NE Minnesota. The youths seem to understand the formalities of fire fighting so they should have a good start at a careen in the Forest Service of France. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: