Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I noticed that these race riots in France have divided not just the country there, but also within the government. Some French leaders like the Interior Minister, Sarkozy say they need to take a tough stance and show the rioters who's boss. Others like de Villepin, the Prime Minister, say that the response is just making things worse, and they need to chill out. (Both want to be President in 2007, so it shows what's coming up for that election).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4407688.stm

Anyways, this seems to be an immigration issue for France, and I wondered if Americans see a parallel for themselves with Mexican immigration.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4407558.stm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,471 Posts
True.
Am I correct in thinking that again THESE riots are mostly being caused by the small black population over there?
A radio talk show I listen to regularly, recently pointed out some interesting data as produced by a recent Government report. In NJ, blacks make up something like 14% of the population yet make up something like 85% of the prison population. This disproportionate amount can't simply be written off to racism in the judicial system, as so many black leaders would have us believe. IMO, I truely believe the black population (regardless of where we are talking about) is disproportionately violent and unlawful. Am I nuts or what? I've felt this way for quite some time and I think it's getting worse. I know it's an unpopular stance to take in this time of political correctness but what else can explain this phenomenon? Doesn't there come a time when people have to take their heads out of the sand and admit to what's happening all around them? I would say the same thing about politicians in this country too, and certainly our participation in Iraq. Maybe Bush's recently polled 37% approval rate could be construed as a sign of the country waking up? Naaaa probably not. We're still a country of sheep.:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Katshot: Just *one* thingg that I would offer that would go against what you say is actually looking at the crimes. I would hardly consider smoking dope, or selling it to concensual adults a crime. That's the only thing that I can come up with that would remotely challange your point.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Katshot said:
True.
Am I correct in thinking that again THESE riots are mostly being caused by the small black population over there?
Yes, I believe so. The riots have been ongoing for over a week now with no let-up in sight. There is much debate over whether they should call in the military now or not because many think it will just escalate the situation and make it worse. Yes, it started with blacks complaining about lack of employment opprotunity, etc. but now apparently many young gangs, etc. have joined the riots and it is isn't just in ghetto areas now, they sacked the govt. buildings in Paris, and many many other cities in France according to todays news that I saw.

There seems to be a lack of communication between community leaders and these gangs and many want the govt. to use force on them.....
 

·
Cadillac Maniac
Cadillac Escalade
Joined
·
13,753 Posts
Just a quick FYI. Our media, now that the American public is hearing about this, is pushing the "fact" that these poor people (the attackers, I mean) just want to be "heard". These poor souls just want their government to know that they're "there". They exist. How else would one prove his/her existence other than burning innocent people in the streets?
 

·
Cadillac Maniac
Cadillac Escalade
Joined
·
13,753 Posts
FrontPageMagazine.com said:
Since 1972, the U.S. Department of Justice has conducted a National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to determine the frequency of certain crimes. One category is interracial crimes. Its most recent publication (1997), "Criminal Victimization in the U.S.," reports on data collected in 1994. In that year, there were about 1,700,000 interracial crimes, of which 1,276,030 involved whites and blacks. In 90 percent of the cases, a white was the victim and a black was the perpetrator, while in 10 percent of the cases it was the reverse.

Another finding of the NCVS report is that of the 2,025,464 violent crimes committed by blacks in 1994, 1,140,670 were against whites - that's slightly over 56 percent. Whites committed 5,114,692 violent crimes; 135,360, or 2.6 percent were against blacks.

In 1997, there were 2,336 whites charged with anti-black crimes and 718 blacks charged with anti-white crimes, so-called hate crimes. Although the absolute number of white offenders was larger, the black rate per 100,000 of the population was greater, making blacks twice as likely to commit hate crimes.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/

Ya know, this whole double standard nonsense is really getting aggrivating.. I can name so many instances but there's one that always sticks out in my mind. I'd never have heard about this (or any of the many other cases) if my Brother-in-law wasn't a police officer on the scene. A twenty-something African American gentleman, an employee at Good Samaritan hospital in Islip, New York, decided to take a baby by it's legs and smash it's head against all four walls until it was a dead, bloody pulp.

Is that newsworthy? Of course not. That same night, some white degenerate waste of life robbed a liquor store. THAT was on the front page of every newspaper and at the forefront of every news channel in the media.

That being said, I don't "hate" anybody. Actually, let me rephrase that. I hate everybody equally. When I was in High School, there was a shirt that got banned from school. It stated, "Most People Are Dicks". And ya know what? Most people ARE dicks.

I don't like you unless I know you and you've proven to me that you're worthy of my liking. I don't necessarily go around treating people badly. I'm very courteous to everybody - black, white, yellow, red - whatever. Everybody gets my respect until they lose it. So I'm not prejudiced. Yes, I was brought up to be that way but I like to come to my own conclusions. So while most people suck, every race has it's few good people. Whites are just as bad as blacks and vise verse. I don't trust a white any more than I do a black. Still, statistics predict that for one reason or another, the white person is less inclined to commit a violent crime against me. Why? I don't know and I don't care...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,471 Posts
Personally, I find blacks to be more likely to come to blows in most situations. I believe it's due to their race being more likely to be controlled by emotion rather than intellect. The old heart vs head scenario. For some reason violence is something that gets built into the vast majority of them. I know, and have known many blacks over the years and I've noticed that urban blacks are far more desensitized to violence than suburban ones. But isn't that the same with other racial groups too? Maybe the problem is that people living in cities are more violent and since there are more blacks in cities that whites......I guess it would make sense that if a higher percentage of blacks are desensitized to violence, there would be a higher percentage of violent crimes among blacks. I don't know, I'm no sociology expert. It just seems to make sense.
It's a shame really. Most of the blacks I've known were really great people but a lot of them DID have some psychological baggage that made it tough for them to remain calm in an arguement or similar circumstances. And when I was managing the limo fleet, it was always the black guys that got into fights in the shop, or were threatening other employees with violence.
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
So my question that yet has to be answered: Why the hell does the media, and the rest of the god damn liberals (yes, I said it) seem to be so hellbent on making whites look bad by pointing out even the most un newsworthy thing, and then hide even the baddest shit another demographic commits?
 

·
Cadillac Maniac
Cadillac Escalade
Joined
·
13,753 Posts
That's a great question, SA. But only those in power know the real answer. It's certainly not our imaginations that this is happening, however.. I think it's all about - OH - WAIT. I remember reading something about why this is happening..

There's actually something in schools now called, ahh... Damn. I forget. They're teaching something in regards to "getting comfortable with one another". I forget the word. If I could remember it, I'd remember more of the article.. Or maybe it was an email. I posted an email not long ago about how "birds of a feather flock together" and nobody thinks anything about that. And how maybe we should start forcing birds to live with other types of birds instead of with their own - whom they naturally get along with just fine...

Anyway. If the news was flooding with every black on white crime, then whites would never be willing to get along with blacks. I mean, according to the crime statistics, that seems true...

edit: TOLERANCE! Yes, they're teaching "tolerance" in schools now.. And oddly enough, they're teaching less 3rd grade material in 3rd grade than they used to - just to keep everything on a level playing field. Kids in 7th grade now learn 6th grade math, science, social studies and whatever - just because some of the other kids can't keep up.. What a backwards system...
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Well, here's an article from Capmag that fits bloody damn well with what we are talking about.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4442

Ostracism
by Amit Ghate (October 29, 2005)

Article website address: http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=4442
Summary: Only when morality is abandoned, and individual rights violated, does a monstrosity such as Churchill continue to survive and spew his venom to the detriment of us all.

[CapMag.com]Earlier this year, when the Ward Churchill essay became news, my initial reaction was that he should be charged with a crime such as ‘treason’ or ‘aiding and abetting the enemy’. But through discussion with friends, I realized my reaction was wrong, and that his comments were covered by his right to free speech -- no matter how despicable his ideas were.

So, since it would be improper to prosecute him criminally, the alternative is to ostracize him. (By ostracize I mean to exclude someone from society by neither communicating nor dealing with him in any form.) Now, in a truly free society, there would be many types of immoral actions which would nonetheless be legal, so I think the concept of ostracizing, or shunning, is one worth exploring. Consider for instance another type of immoral action which would be legal: that of a man who abuses and tortures animals for no reason other than his own sadism and cruelty. Since animals have no rights, such a man could not be charged with a crime, yet he certainly could be, and should be, shunned.

When people are informed that this is how a free society would deal with such immoral men, many object that ostracism is both unrealistic and unpractical. But there is historical precedent for the practice - the Greeks did it all the time, both formally by vote (which is not what I would advocate), and informally by consensus and common values. It is this latter type that I consider a model for a free society. In fact, the example which got me thinking about the whole subject comes from Herodotus’ Persian Wars. In it, he recounts the story of the famous battle of Thermopylae, at which two Lacedaemonians (Spartans) were ordered out of the battle due to them suffering from eye disease. One of them, Eurytus, upon hearing that his compatriots were in the thick of battle, rushed to join them and was killed. The other, Aristodemus, remained on the sidelines and survived. He was the sole Spartan survivor of the battle, and when he returned home he was shunned. In Herodotus’ words:

“When Aristodemus returned to Lacedaemon, reproach and disgrace awaited him; disgrace, inasmuch as no Spartan would give him a light to kindle his fire, or so much as address a word to him; and reproach, since all spoke of him as the ‘craven’.”

Now personally I wouldn’t shun a man who didn’t fight because he was afflicted with a disease(!), but the point is that ostracism is both realistic and practical. All it takes is a society of individuals who value morality and who have the right to act in accordance with it. The Greeks had both. They valued honor and acting for the good above all else. And they had no government regulations to prevent them from honoring those whom they found noble nor from shunning those whom they found immoral.

In today’s world both requirements for successfully ostracizing people are not only lacking, but even reversed. Consider that the subjectivists on the Left continuously cry that free speech means not just respecting a person’s right to voice his opinion, but actually respecting the opinion itself – no matter what its content (“everyone’s opinion is equally valid”). In so doing they don’t just deprecate morality, they actually eradicate it completely. For if every opinion is equally valid (which means that there is no truth), there can be no science aimed at discovering and defining the proper code of values necessary for man to succeed and prosper on earth – i.e. there can be no morality or ethics.

And when they’re not busy attacking morality, they’re assailing property rights by claiming that only by providing a man with the means to express his views, can he truly have free speech. So in the case of Ward Churchill, they not only defend his vitriolic attack on America as morally equivalent to those who defend it, but then they advocate the transfer of private property (via taxes) to allow him the podium and position by which he makes those views known. And to the vast majority of us who do not want our property stolen to support such an atrocity, they say that such is the price of free speech (with the implication that property rights are not valid, but their version of the right to free speech is).

Similarly, if all the inhabitants of the town in which Ward Churchill lives were to decide to ostracize him – say by not serving him at the local markets, gas stations, restaurants, hospitals, and not providing him with electricity, gas and water – under current law he could sue them for discrimination … and win! When a government prevents people from using their property as they see fit (of course excluding instances where they use it to initiate force against others), the government violates property rights and thereby indirectly allows abominations such as Ward Churchill to exist.

Reflecting on these issues confirms to me yet again that only a proper definition and implementation of rights, viz. prohibiting the initiation of force, and a general appreciation for the role and importance of morality in life, can foster a good and benevolent society. For in a truly free society, one in which men are held accountable for their actions and views, a Ward Churchill would never have the moral support, nor the material means, to attack that which makes life possible. Only when morality is abandoned, and individual rights violated, does a monstrosity such as Churchill continue to survive and spew his venom to the detriment of us all.


About the Author: Amit Ghate is a contributing writer to Capitalism Magazine and regularly blogs at Thrutch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,471 Posts
Interesting idea but in today's society, neither morality nor honor are valued highly enough to make something like "shunning" a viable alternative. IMO, especially in the US people are quite honorless in their lives. Immoral sayings like "if it's free, it's for me" have replaced moral ones like "As you sow so shall you reap". I'm not a particularly religious man but I believe I am honorable and moralistic (at least I TRY to be). If everyone was, this world would be a far better place. IMO, being a man of my word is extremely important but most people today would say that unless you "get it in writing" there is no binding agreement. Ahh, I guess I'm just being old-fashioned! :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Katshot: That's the beautiful thing about the concept though, it doesn't depend on other people for it to work! Let's say you and some friends all owned stores that some chump goes to all the time. For whatever reason, this chump did something that was really disgusting, but not quite illegal, or illegal, and he got off. Doesn't matter - fact is, you and your friends don't like this guy. Well, all you and your friends have to do to get back at this guy is say "we don't serve your kind here" and there you go. Unfortunately, it's Ceteris Paribus that this would work (no workers serving him, etc). Then of course this is assuming that "civil rights" laws don't apply (as mentioned in the article I posted).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,471 Posts
I get it alright. But as you mentioned, there WOULD be an issue about civil rights. Just think of the headlines:
"White business owners band together against local black man." (substitute any racial group for the "black man" if you want)
THAT would go over like a lead-balloon! Nobody would care WHY you're shunning the guy, the spotlight would be on the implied civil-rights issue(s). I mean hell, if that wasn't going to be an issue, there certainly wouldn't be such uproars from liberals about civil-rights violations concerning prisoners or even POWs for that matter. They're in the news fairly regularly. It's like so many other things these days, most people recognise the problems but nobody wants to actually DO something concrete to solve the problems. The average American doesn't have the stomach to deal with the scum of our society. Hell, they can't even handle killing off deer populations where needed.
The whole thing just makes me angry as hell! You realize how much better off this country would be if we were just able to decisively deal with the scum of our society? Killers, rapests, drug dealers, wife beaters, child beaters, child molesters, virtually any violent criminal that is either caught in the act, confesses, or is found guilty in court should be executed IMMEDIATELY upon judgement of guilt. Hell, if we even did it this way only on repeat-offenders we'd free-up so much room in our prisons and make the streets so much safer it's not funny. But we don't because why? Because we don't have the stomach for it.
 

·
Cadillac Maniac
Cadillac Escalade
Joined
·
13,753 Posts
The stomach for it... What a shame.. I wonder if there's a way, with the internet, to get as many people who understand reality together in one place. Sure, it'll be on ABC news as the most racist website in the world (racist against everybody in the world but it's members), but any publicity is publicity...

Maybe if enough people could get together to spread the word, post links to the site, etcetera - maybe it would at least get people thinking...
 

·
Registered
'05 Expedition
Joined
·
7,651 Posts
I've learned not to blame race as much as economic circumstance. People are people. They do what their parents, culture, and environment teach them to survive.

We have several minority races represented in this country and we can narrow them all down to Hispanic, Asian, African, and Middle-Eastern. The Euros have blended into American society and really aren't a factor anymore.

Only ONE of these groups didn't ask to come here. All the attitudes and problems stem from that. Even 140 years after emancipation. Granted, true emancipation was delayed by about 100 years, so we're really only 40 years into it.

I predict that the influx of Hispanics will cripple the African-American workforce, and we'll see more affirmative action and quotas. It doesn't work, but it does get the vote out. As a result, the re-building effort in New Orleans will be completed with mostly immigrant labor from Mexico. NOLA will then be settled by a mostly hispanic population.

Something to watch is the switch from black on black crime to black crime against Hispanics. In Memphis, black gangs are targeting hispanic apartment complexes. There have been several blatant home invasions and beatings that go unreported because many of the victims are here illegally.

One factor clouding the water is crystal meth. It's the perfect drug. Extremely cheap and highly addictive. Once someone is hooked, they'll do virtually anything to get their next fix. It has replaced crack, coke, heroin, and pot as the drug of choice. Why pay so much for imports when you can shoplift the ingredients for meth at any grocery or drug store?

What we haven't seen much of yet are the Mexican gangs. They are much better organized and can be a lot more violent than their African-American counterparts. Their acts aren't random, either. If they start looking for revenge you'll see street wars like this country has never seen before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,471 Posts
Actually they've either passed or are passing a law forcing all contractors doing rebuilding work in New Orleans to use local labor. It was on the news last week. Not sure if it will be spread beyond New Orleans but I'm sure they could.
As for the black on Hispanic crimes, it's been that way for some time here in Trenton, NJ. (where I work) it's been in the local newspapers a little but I here it mainly from our Hispanic workers. We have a pretty good mix at our factories, Hispanic, Asian, and black. Our Asians mainly come from temp agencies in Phila. but our Hispanics and blacks are local so we get a good feel for what's going on in the area from them. I've heard that the local blacks just roam around beating and robbing the local Hispanics and like you said, they probably go mostly unreported due to the legal status of the victims.
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Yet another article from cap mag

Cap Mag said:
Riots in France: The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris
by Thomas Sowell (November 8, 2005)

Article website address: http://www.CapMag.com/article.asp?ID=4466
Summary: European countries especially have thrown their doors open to a large influx of Moslem immigrants who have no intention of becoming part of the cultures of the countries to which they immigrate but to recreate their own cultures in those countries. In the name of tolerance, these countries have imported intolerance, of which growing antisemitism in Europe is just one example. In the name of respecting all cultures, Western nations have welcomed people who respect neither the cultures nor the rights of the population among whom they have settled.

[CapMag.com]

Riots that began on the outskirts of Paris have spread into the center of the French capital and to other communities in other parts of the country. Thousands of cars have been set on fire and the police and even medical personnel have been shot at.

Like many other riots, whether in France or elsewhere, this one started over an incident that just happened and was then seized upon to rally resentments and unleash violence. Two local boys in a predominantly Moslem neighborhood tried to escape the police by hiding in a facility that transmitted electricity -- and accidently electrocuted themselves.

This was the spark that ignited volatile emotions. But those emotions were there, ready to be ignited, for a long time.


Cartoon by Cox and Forkum

A substantial Moslem population lives in France but is not really of France. Much of that population lives in social isolation in housing projects away from the center of Paris, as unknown to many Parisians as to tourists.

Like housing projects in America, many of these are centers of social degeneration, lawlessness and violence. Three years ago, profound British social critic Theodore Dalrymple wrote of "burned-out and eviscerated carcasses of cars everywhere" in these projects, among other signs of social degeneration. This was in an essay titled "The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris" that is reprinted in his insightful book, "Our Culture, What's Left of it."

While Dr. Dalrymple called this Moslem underclass "barbarians," a French minister who called the rioters "scum" provoked instant outrage against himself, including criticism from at least one member of his own government. This squeamishness in word and deed, and the accompanying refusal to face blatant realities is also a major part of the background for the breakdown of law and order and the social degeneration that follows.

None of this is peculiar to France. It is a symptom of a common retreat from reality, and from the hard decisions that reality requires, not only in Europe but also in European offshoot societies like Canada, Australia, New Zealand -- and the United States of America.

European countries especially have thrown their doors open to a large influx of Moslem immigrants who have no intention of becoming part of the cultures of the countries to which they immigrate but to recreate their own cultures in those countries.

In the name of tolerance, these countries have imported intolerance, of which growing antisemitism in Europe is just one example. In the name of respecting all cultures, Western nations have welcomed people who respect neither the cultures nor the rights of the population among whom they have settled.

During the last election, some campus Republicans who were holding a rally for President Bush at San Francisco State University were harassed by Middle Eastern students, including a woman who walked up to one of these Americans and slapped his face. They knew they could do this with impunity.

In Michigan, a Moslem community loudly sounds their calls to prayer several times a day, without regard to whether that sound bothers the original inhabitants of the community.

The Dutch were shocked when one of their film-makers was assassinated by a Moslem extremist for daring to have views at variance with what the extremists would tolerate.

No one should have been shocked. There are people who will not stop until they get stopped -- and much of the media, the political classes, and the cultural elites of the West cannot bring themselves to even criticize, much less stop, the dangers or degeneracy among groups viewed sympathetically as underdogs.

Not all Moslems, nor necessarily a majority of Moslems, are either a cultural or a physical danger. But even "moderate" Moslem organizations in the West who deplore violence and try to discourage it nevertheless encourage their followers to remain foreigners rather than become part of the countries they live in.

So do our own intelligentsia and political and cultural elites.

Balkanization has been glorified as "diversity" and diversity has become too sacred to defile with anything so gross as hard facts. But reality is not optional. Our survival may in the long run be as menaced by degeneration within -- from many sources and in many ways -- as was that of the Roman Empire.

Editor' Note: For those who are seriously interested in this issue I recommend Ayn Rand's brilliant essay "Global Balkanization" posthumously published her book The Voice of Reason.
 

·
Registered
'98 Buick Regal LS - '91 Caddy Seville - '87 Caddy Seville!
Joined
·
4,425 Posts
Katshot said:
I get it alright. But as you mentioned, there WOULD be an issue about civil rights. Just think of the headlines:
"White business owners band together against local black man." (substitute any racial group for the "black man" if you want)
THAT would go over like a lead-balloon! Nobody would care WHY you're shunning the guy, the spotlight would be on the implied civil-rights issue(s). I mean hell, if that wasn't going to be an issue, there certainly wouldn't be such uproars from liberals about civil-rights violations concerning prisoners or even POWs for that matter. They're in the news fairly regularly. It's like so many other things these days, most people recognise the problems but nobody wants to actually DO something concrete to solve the problems. The average American doesn't have the stomach to deal with the scum of our society. Hell, they can't even handle killing off deer populations where needed.
The whole thing just makes me angry as hell! You realize how much better off this country would be if we were just able to decisively deal with the scum of our society? Killers, rapests, drug dealers, wife beaters, child beaters, child molesters, virtually any violent criminal that is either caught in the act, confesses, or is found guilty in court should be executed IMMEDIATELY upon judgement of guilt. Hell, if we even did it this way only on repeat-offenders we'd free-up so much room in our prisons and make the streets so much safer it's not funny. But we don't because why? Because we don't have the stomach for it.
PC kills!

You see, when someone ingests PC, they are soon to become prone to certain types of ulcers that are called "pussiness" ulcers. This is a very debilitating problem that can occur when high amounts of PC is distributed.

Some of the symtoms of "pussiness" ulcers includes sweating when someone says "Black" rather than "African American." Panting and fainting may also be caused by the aforementioned mis-use of such terms. Another symtom may include something that resembles rabies, we call this "angry hippiness" syndrome. This will be when someone says "Black" rather than "African American," the person infected with "pussiness" ulcers will go into a violent rage of words describing how wrong you are.

Now that we have discussed in short some of the symtoms of "pussiness" ulcers and their destructive nature, we also must mention the worst ulcer: the "Mind Police" ulcer, or MPU for short.

The MPU is where there is such a concentration of "pussiness" ulcers, that there are a select, or rather mouthy few, that will censor such things as "Black" when reffering to what they call an "Africa American." These "ulcers" can be very problematic indeed...

Sense I have to actually go to work, I will finish this later...:D
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top