You are here

More on crime and punishment in France

Another thought about the Dalrymple piece on crime in France that I commented on yesterday: one of the complaints the French make is that the police do nothing about crime, even when it happens right in front of them. They won’t even accept reports. That seems inevitable in a sensitized and politically correct society. After all, to recognize actual crime would raise forbidden issues of race and class, so for those on the official side it is much better to ignore it. The only personally compelling reason to act—especially when acting might be dangerous to oneself and one’s career—would be some notion of masculinity and honor, but such things are trained out of everyone today. So why should the police do anything but enforce regulatory laws against middle-class people who can be safely blamed for what they do and can be counted on to cooperate?

Share/Save

Comments

After reading Heather MacDonald’s recent article in City Journal, I believe the upper levels of the FBI feel the same way.

The only good that can come of this is it might generate more support for Jean-Marie Le Pen. (Of course, if it weren’t happening, there would be no need for Le Pen in the first place. So, I admit that’s kind of circular—like saying, “The only good that can come of Mr. Jones being sick is it might make him go to the doctor.”)

Nevertheless, if more people catch our disease, as the French now seem to have done, we’ll have more allies in the search for a cure. That’s not Schadenfreude, or “misery loves company”—I wouldn’t wish this disease on my worst enemy.

Unadorned,

Surely you jest…Le Pen? The right-wing extremist, with Nazi tendencies (of the same ilk as that of Austria’s Haider). This is the answer? Or am I missing something…this was humor?

Cheers

Mr. Jesus Gil says,

“Unadorned, surely you jest…Le Pen? The right-wing extremist, with Nazi tendencies (of the same ilk as that of Austria’s Haider). This is the answer? Or am I missing something…this was humor?”

Mr. Gil, Le Pen doesn’t see why the French must acquiesce in an eradication of their traditional ethnicity and culture which is not happening spontaneously but has over decades been deliberately, painstakingly planned and set in motion by governmental planners and bureaucrats. Le Pen feels Frenchmen have a right to protest against it—to protest against their own extinction. Ditto Haider in regard to the carefully planned eradication of traditional Austrian ethnicity and culture now underway. Ditto me, in regard to the same going on in the U.S as regards the undermining of the traditional ethno-cultural proportions which prevailed until the black year 1965 when behind-the-scenes forces pulling Teddy Kennedy’s strings foisted, via that swine, the Immigration Holocaust bill on this country.

In a post, Mr. Gil, you say you are in Spain. Are you a Spaniard? If so, may I ask if you favor the deliberate, politically-planned-and-carried-out eradication of Spain’s traditional ethnicity and culture and their replacement with something totally different, regardless of whether or not Spaniards want that to happen (that is, do you favor not only it being done, but it being rammed down their unwilling throats by forces they are not allowed to democratically vote against, as the poor Austrians tried to do in voting for Haider)?

Might, for example, a combination of English, Irish, Scottish, Swedish, Norwegian, Dutch, Danish, and Icelandic immigrants in massive numbers be permitted to so thoroughly swamp Spain, non-stop, over a period of a generation (in the U.S. it’s been since the Ted Kennedy 1965 Immigration Holocaust was instituted—so, not yet a generation-and-a-half) as to actually eradicate its ethnicity and culture and replace them with Nordic and Brit ones, the Spaniards being forbidden either to question it or to democratically elect representatives who’d put a stop to it on penalty of being called fascists and, as was done in the Haider case, their elected representatives forced to resign or, in the case of Pim Fortuyn, assassinated by behind-the-scenes forces?

Mr. Gil, calling people Nazis who are only trying to preserve themselves isn’t a legitimate tactic. You may get away with it temporarily but in the long run it only risks strengthening actual Nazis by pushing normal people, who are left with no place else to go, into their ranks.

Then when the next disaster comes, may we lay blame where it belongs … at YOUR feet?

Interesting. Allegedly the French authorities do nothing about crime because they aren’t bigoted ignoramuses like many Americans yet their rates for violent crime and gun deaths aren’t even one-tenth of America’s rates. Perhaps instead of assuming that the American way is the best and only way, more of you need to learn to listen and learn from other countries.

“Traditional ethno-cultural”? Do you mean the Indians who were here BEFORE Columbus “discovered” America or do you mean the era in which whites killed, maimed, raped and terrorized everyone else without consequence? Yeah, that was a good time. *yawn*

Monnica says,

” ‘Traditional ethno-cultural’? Do you mean the Indians who were here BEFORE Columbus ‘discovered’ America or do you mean the era in which whites killed, maimed, raped and terrorized everyone else without consequence? Yeah, that was a good time. *yawn* “

I mean only the brave deserve the fair and if the white Euro Christians who built this fair country with the help of minority groups (who are part of it and intertwined with it) can’t or won’t hold onto it they deserve to lose it to someone stronger and cleverer.

I don’t want to live in a Red Indian country. I don’t want to live in a Negro country. I don’t want to live in a Jewish country. I don’t want to live in a Chinese country. I don’t want to live in a Mexican country. I don’t want to live in a Muslim country. I don’t want to live in a Hindu country. I don’t want to live in a country resembling just New York City, where there would be only a collection of minority groups, white Euro Christians one among many others. With the predominant ethnic group comes the society’s predominant culture. I love all those countries. But I don’t want to live in them.

I want to live in the predominantly white Euro Christian Anglo-Saxon country I was born in, a country guaranteeing the rights of the minorities who are safe here and who flourish here, each of which has made its indelible and irreplaceable contribution to the great country America is.

The white Euro Christian predominantly Anglo-Saxon matrix in which all the rest are welcomed, protected, and embedded can and must remain.

I don’t want to live in a Red Indian country. I don’t want to live in a Negro country. I don’t want to live in a Jewish country. I don’t want to live in a Chinese country. I don’t want to live in a Mexican country. I don’t want to live in a Muslim country. I don’t want to live in a Hindu country. I don’t want to live in a country resembling just New York City, where there would be only a collection of minority groups, white Euro Christians one among many others. With the predominant ethnic group comes the society’s predominant culture. I love all those countries. But I don’t want to live in them.

I want to live in the predominantly white Euro Christian Anglo-Saxon country I was born in, a country guaranteeing the rights of the minorities who are safe here and who flourish here, each of which has made its indelible and irreplaceable contribution to the great country America is.

Uh, where do I start … no I think I’ll let you hang by your own words… Just this, sounds a bit xenophobic, or at the least, mirrors previous fears of the foreigner. And with respect to Spain, Spain to has been a country that has experienced immigration, from the Goths, the Muslims, etc.

That’s just life, no country can live behind a Wall and continue thriving.

Cheers

Senor Gil, for your ethnic group to thrive it has to first of all exist. With continued large scale foreign immigration it will gradually be replaced. It won’t exist any more.

How odd, too, that you view the invasion of Spain by the Islamic Moors as being “just life”. In fact, the fate of Europe hung in the balance when the Moors went on to invade France. Fortunately, the Carolingians were more protective of their own people and culture than you appear to be and defeated the Moors in battle.

Mr Gil, what if gaining a sense of self-identity from membership of an ethnic group is connected to something spiritually positive? Why assume that it must be connected to negative emotions, like fear?

Greetings,

Perhaps, I’ve mis-stated myself. I’m all for having ethnic differences and supporting them. I seek to teach my own children to be proud of their history and cultures (Scottish-Cherokee-Peruvian-Spanish, etc).

But that must be balanced against “ethnic isolationism,” or building Chinese Walls. I admit I trivialized the subject when I said “that’s just life.” Sorry. But, the face of all countries is changing, a mixture of factors coming into play, such as religion, and economics, and the ease with which people can move around now (a lot different 100 years ago).

What I’m trying to say, and struggling to do so, is that every culture, every nation has had constant influxes of peoples from various ethnic groups. One thing is to expect those people to integrate to maintain a National identity, another is to implement policies that are disguised rascism.

I ask, since Unadorned seems to be arguing for racial purity, in a “white Euro Christian Anglo-Saxon” country. But that very definition causes some problems, and seems to suggest only Protestant folks from northern Europe would be acceptable. It appears to me, that if Unadorned had his/her way, my children wouldn’t be very welcome in the US (and yes they have US passports also).

And that makes me ask why? Because they have a “mixture of blood” that means their not 100% Anglo-Saxon? Because we’re Catholic? Because their tri-lingual (and like to speak to themselves in whatever language they want)?

If it’s not fear, what is it?

Thank you Mr. Kalb for this forum, and apologies for the long post.

Respectfully,

I’m not Protestant or of Anglo or northern Euro ancestry. I’m white, of Central and Eastern Euro ancestry.

Mr. Gil, if the predominant ethnicity here can be overwhelmed by indiscriminate mass immigration which every non-rigged public opinion poll has shown that majority ethnicity to oppose by a large margin, then so can the predominant ethnicity everywhere in the world. Two can play THAT game. What farms may I and other whites take over right now in Rhodesia?

You’re partly Peruvian? Good. Let’s put the indigenous Peruvians next on the list for ethnic extinction. I’m up for it this morning! You’d like that? Ohhhh …. you WOULDN’T???? But … but ….. but ….. how can that be???? You don’t mean to say, Mr. Gil, that these ethnic attacks can go only one way, do you???? Can target only one race???? I’m SURE you CAN’T mean THAT, Mr. Gil—CAN YOU?????

I don’t want to live in a world without different distinct countries and ethnicities. If you do, then that’s where we part company. Bye.

I would note, however, that your ilk would be the first to howl like stuck pigs if white people overwhelmed and extinguished people of color in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and if Christianity overwhelmed and extinguished other cultures such as the Muslim one. If “Cultures must change” is the mantra, why the howls of protest when Ann Coulter said we should invade the Muslim countries and convert them all to Christianity? Were YOU among those howling, señor Gil?

The difference between you and me is I want these extinctions done to no one, while you very much want them done to one particular group and to no others.

You may use your Leftist code-word “xenophobic” all you want. No one on my side is xenophobic. The truth is we love the world’s diverse ethnicities and cultures more than you do, which is why we want to see them preserved—all of them, even—HORRORS OF HORRORS—our own. On the other hand, everyone on your side is ethnophobic—you experience fear and trembling unto death and rabid, unquenchable ethno-hatred whenever you contemplate the existence of certain ethnic groups and cultures … and we all know which ethnic groups and cultures those are which have this effect on foaming-at-the-mouth Nazis like you, Mr. Gil.

Put THAT in your extreme radical Lefty “xenophobic” pipe and smoke it! Let Monnica have a toke on that pipe while you’re at it, amigo.

Unadorned,

Greetings.
Excuse me, I appear to have upset you. I thought this was a dialogue.

As far as politics, I think you’ve pegged me wrong … as in many other things as well.

Cheers

Lies and brazen b*llsh*t upset me. You want dialogue? Don’t trot out your leftist code words.

Unadorned,

Greetings,
Again, please don’t assume you know my political leanings. I’d suggest, first off that the immigration issue isn’t as big an issue as it really is … rather it’s politics, and politicians seeking a cheap vote.

A bit of numbers (from INS, etc):

- As a percentage of total population, the foreign-born population rose from 9.7% in 1850 and fluctuated in the 13% to 15% range from 1860 to 1920 before dropping to 11.6% in 1930.

- By 1950, the foreign-born population of the US declined to 6.9% percent of the total population, it has since risen again, and according to the 2000 census, foreign born residing in the US represented around 10.4% of the population.

- Note, the highest percentages foreign born were 14.4% in 1870, 14.8% in 1890 and 14.7% in 1910. NOT, now.

- So what’s changed? the make up of the immigrants. Prior to the 1880s (and later) most immigrants were from Germany, Ireland and the UK.

- Match that up now, with the 2000 census immigration pattern: 51% were born in LatAm, 25.5% in Asia, and 15.3% in Europe.

All, to go back to my question…if immigration numbers as a percentage of population are actually lower than at other times, why does it seem that there is an issue here?

I’d argue it’s the makeup of the people, and politicians looking for an easy vote (since the numbers dont support a huge buildup). It could also be that immigrants from “Europe” blend in better, since many of these new immigrants look different, dress different and have different religious habits.

Respectfully,

The key issue is assimilation. Nobody argues that there should be no immigration ever, particularly if immigration is accompanied by the unapologetic repatriation of the unassimilable. What we have right now is not immigration: it is racial and cultural genocide by a thousand paper cuts.

Also, it seems to me that Mr. Gil has the political aspect exactly wrong. No mainstream politician anywhere is willing to address immigration in a forthright manner. It is the third rail of modern American politics. The most you can get is some seriousness about enforcement against *illegal* immigration; but nobody is seriously discussing *changing the law* in order to stop cultural genocide.

Unadorned has just gotten the “The Treatment.” Mr. gil started by saying that change is continual and there’s nothing to do but accept it: “The face of all countries is changing … every culture, every nation has had constant influxes of peoples from various ethnic groups,” it’s no big deal. Unadorned replied that this wonderful embrace of a transforming influx of aliens is in reality only being expected of America and other Western countries, and that he opposes that. Mr. gil then turned around and said that any worries that Unadorned may have about immigration are delusional because immigrants compose a smaller percentage of the U.S. population than at other times in the past.

In other words, first the liberals tell you in no uncertain terms that your whole world is about to be transformed. Then, when you protest that, they reply that the notion that your world is going to be transformed is a fantasy. Either the coming innovation (in this case ethnic transformation) is inevitable, and so there’s no point in resisting it; or else it’s an illusion, and so there’s nothing to resist. The intent of this type of rhetorical ploy, which can be seen over and over in the immigration debate and in other aspects of the culture wars as well, is to render resistance to liberalism impossible.

Read any article on immigration in Time or Newsweek over the past ten years and you’ll see what I mean.

Greetings,

Mr. Auster, you actually do me too much justice, if only my mind did work in such devious ways as to be able to actually plan out how to give somebody “the treatment.”

I’d also like to set the record straigtht with you … I’m not a liberal, and please don’t mistake my musings regarding immigration as such.

The topic in fact is, as I’m sure all will admit, multifaceted. The weak link in my argument, isn’t immigration. Immigration is a bogeyman, the issue thrown out to disguise another issue - how do we address integration, and racial discord.

Immigration, brings with it a very particular problem - second generation children. That is where the problem arises, not with immigration. It’s in the second generation where if the family hasn’t been integrated, or assimilated, that you begin to see anti-social behaviours (whatever they are deemed).

My argument is two-fold, help me with it. One, immigration is here to stay, and yes, the very make-up of cultures will change. That said, actual immigration numbers (as a percentage of population) aren’t at historical highs.

So why the unease, or concerns? I’d argue first from a point that numerically you do see more “foreign” faces, because the population itself is growing. Also these new faces are easily identified by color, dress, etc. But that in itself needs defined, because that foreign population is probably growing faster due its higher birthrates, i.e. more second generation children.

And the really tricky part, is that this integration must be balanced not only with Constitutional guaranteed freedoms, but also with the ability for ethnic groups to celebrate their own particular identity. That doesn’t seem to be a problem when we’re talking about St. Patricks, but it does seem to be when the ones wanting to celebrate come from a non-Euro heritage.

And why is that? That’s the question…

Again, Mr. Kalb excuse me for the long post, and thank you for your website, and thoughts

Respectfully

Mr Gil writes that “Yes, immigration is here to stay, and yes, the very make-up of cultures will change.” He then asks “So why the unease or concern?”

I think that sometimes people cope with the more negative effects of liberalism by refusing to see the problem. It is determinedly refused entry into consciousness.

Mr Gil, you argue for the celebration of a particular identity by immigrants, but you are refusing to even look at the idea that the established ethnic majority, facing a change to the “very make-up” of their culture, might legitimately feel unease.

I think you have your blinkers on, and don’t want to face up to the tragic side of immigration: the gradual displacement of the established ethnic majority.

One argument in your post I do agree with though is that multiculturalism is also difficult for the second generation of immigrant families. They have been effectively uprooted from their home cultures, but don’t feel entirely part of the adopted country either. The result is often a degree of alienation.

This, though, is an inevitable consequence of immigrating to a foreign country.

Mr. gil, in classic modern-liberal fashion, professes a sweet reasonableness that in practice would silence the conservative position. The very topic under discussion, immigration and its effect on our culture, is eliminated by his statement that “immigration is here to stay, and yes, the very make-up of cultures will change.” The restrictionist position, that immigration has been a disaster for our culture, that it should be radically curtailed, and that the Euro-American majority culture should once again assert itself as the majority culture (and if non-Euro newcomers don’t like it, they can leave), is simply declared off the table. Having declared our concerns moot, he then expects us to discuss the surrender terms.

I’m not saying Mr. gil has calculatedly planned this out. I’m saying these assumptions and rhetorical strategies are built in to the very mindset of modern liberals. That’s why liberalism is the effective, reigning orthodoxy that it is.

Matt,

You observation—“Nobody argues that there should be no immigration ever”—is correct, but I wonder if it isn’t about time some of us started making that argument. With our shrinking planet, due to the communications and transportation revolutions, a ban on all immigration may now be the only way to maintain a stable polity. It may be the only way to maintain a coherent culture. It may even be the only way to maintain self-government—there has to be a “we” for “us” to be able to govern “ourselves”, to know what “we” are, and to know who “we” are so that the organic solidarity that characterizes a “people” trumps our disagreements.

Kirk, I don’t disagree, particularly in the next few decades. In fact I think a net emigration is almost certainly necessary for self-preservation (although I also view it as unlikely). As a practical matter there will be immigrants and emigrants over the centuries, though, and it is of little use to be categorically opposed to immigration under all conceivable circumstances.

Greetings,

I admit I assumed that immigration would always happen. That’s because there are so few examples of countries - non-democratic - that have restricted travel, immigration.

So, let’s look at the opposite…Can we seriously think that countries can remain economically viable without immigration/emmigration? Or restriction on movement? Is that possible in this age of mobility, with the ease of travel?

Isn’t that ability also part of our basic package of “pursuit of happiness?” Are these guaranteed rights? And if the government is to restrict totally the inflow of people, does that mean we’re also in danger of the govt restricting the outflow (again a question)?

And I just throw this out as an idea (as most of my postings are), but how do the example of China and Russia fit into this…if anything they would seem to suggest that restrictions of movement have seriously hurt their economies, and are one of the main reasons for the current “opening” - if that’s really what they are. It would seem that countries that practise isolationism run the risk of harming their economies…or am I mixing “metaphors” so to speak.

Again, by asking these questions, please do not assume that I am a liberal, or a modern liberal.

Respectfully,

Although economic prosperity is damaged by restricting immigration. Immigration itself causes problems that are as yet not measured by economic indicators. I’m sure if the large increases in crime seen by say a country like France after letting in large numbers of permanently residing immigrants to join its work force were measured economically, it would be shown I would imagine that the damage done to the society and the future economy would then make immigration unattractive in such a sense.

As of Russia its non history of immigration is due mainly to its shambles of an economy not its rubbish economy being caused by lack of immigration. China is basically becoming a right wing dictatorship as far as i can see and its becoming rich!

Woah! What the hell?! I honestly can’t believe that such unadorned ignorance still exists in what is meant to be a progressive and educated society, which meant to embrace others and support the cultural differences not just use them so the ‘whites’ can feel more dominant. You do realise that your whole national identification is based on immigration. What goes around comes around, you wait some day, these suppressed immigrants will discover your ‘uninhbited’ land and instead of embracing your culture they will just wipe out your existence. Sound familiar?

“Pissed English’s” placing of the word whites in quotation marks illustrates one of the weapons used by those forces seeking the eradication of the white race—to wit the neocons, the Country-Club Republicans, U.S. Big Business & Industry, Wall Street (what whites consider a living wage is WAY too high, so for the good of Big Business’s and Wall Street’s profits whites have to be eliminated as a race), the left-liberals, the Marxists (whites aren’t docile enough to accept the imposition of communist governments under the overlordship of obscenely privileged Nomenklaturas consisting of the leftists, while many non-white groups ARE sufficiently docile, so whites must be eliminated as a race), and other groups allied to these—this tactic illustrates one of their favorite weapons: they simply deny the white race’s existence. One way I can see to counter this particular attack is to agree with them that “there’s no such thing as the white race” and thenceforth never again speak of the white race but only of its individual constituent ethnic groups: Basques, Berbers, Croatians, Poles, Ukranians, Czechs, Slovaks, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Kurds, Iraqis, Iranians, Bengalis, Pathans, Bavarians, Swabians, Prussians, German Saxons, Pomeranians, Alsatians, Thuringians, Luxemburgers, Flemish, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, Lombard Italians, Sicilians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Anglo-Saxons, Highland Scots, Lowland Scots, Catholic Irish, Welch, Norman French, Provencal French, Icelanders, White Russians, Friesians, etc. Each and every one of these sub-groups would lay claim to ethno-cultural preservation and group rights in every conceivable sense—but there would be no mention of anything known as the white race. Such a strategy, if carried out, would make it impossible for the enemies of whites to extinguish them: our line must be, “There ARE no such things as “whites”—we completely agree with you! There are only these specific groups. White race? Never heard of it.”

Then let’s see the looks on their faces.

Unadorned’s analysis of why both Wall St. and the Marxists oppose the interests of whites is extremely plausible. Alas, splitting the white race into its constituent parts, while an amusing idea, wouldn’t stymie our opponents—they’d just draw up two lists, a Schedule A (nationalities to be protected) and a Schedule B (nationalities to be liquidated). Schedule B nationalities would be deemed unfit to survive because of their incorrigible opposition to………….equality!

The other thing that makes certain races unfit to survive is their physical beauty: the jealousy factor. Nordics (a race I am not a member of) are widely admired as being perhaps the most beautiful race (not necessarily by me, but that’s their reputation in the eyes of many). This makes members of some other races and ethnicities extremely jealous, to the point of wanting to actually eliminate Nordics as a race. (In a different venue we saw this same phenomenon play out in Rwanda-Burundi, where between half-a-million and a million members of the Watusi tribe were slaughtered by the Hutu tribe in very large part because they were physically more attractive—taller, and more graceful and refined-looking. In our developed world jealousy-motivated genocide isn’t carried out with machetes but through slower, more subtle means, means which are just as effective in the end.) If a Nordic-looking family is shown on television in, let’s say, a cereal commercial for example, there’s a boycott or something, and the howls go up from the usual suspects—the company goes down on Morris Dees’ “Anything-but-Southern Poverty-Pimp Lawless Center’s” official “Haters” list, let’s say, and it gets attacked by Abe Foxman’s ADL as being a bigoted hate-group, etc. I mean, HOW DARE that cereal company show those perfect-looking platinum-blonde kids and fair-haired, fair-skinned, nice-featured parents! You can only show Negro, Chinese, and Mexican kids and families in TV commercials now (especially on the Disney channel, a channel which deliberately makes this country appear about eighty percent non-white, as does everything else Michael Eisner touches). It seems nobody gets filled with insanely jealous rage when they see Chinese, Mexican, or Negro kids and families on TV because, I can only guess, no one wishes they themselves or their kids were Chinese-looking, Mexican-looking, or Negro-looking. They only wish they were Nordic-looking. It’s like what I once heard in reference to TV commercials, that they could never use full-busted actresses to sell women’s type products such as household cleaners, things for cooking, etc., because the women watching would feel extremely antagonized at seeing large busts on the actresses, and wouldn’t buy the product. For lots of people who wish the extinction of various groups of whites the real reason behind the made-up ones is simple outrage brought on by jealousy—unadulterated life-long blind jealous rage and hatred at those they find better-looking—but they’ll never admit that, of course, cloaking their hatred instead in political/economic/sociological jargon, fed to them by Marxists, having to do with the Nordics’ or whites’ oppression of other groups or something. The problem is, a jealous person feels “oppressed” merely by SEEING a better-looking person, without that better-looking person having to do anything. So, the better-looking group gets blamed as an oppressor merely by living and breathing.

I read somewhere that among the exact same Hollywood types who constantly try to promote the non-white races over the white ones there is a disproportionate personal preference for choosing Nordic-looking women as their own wives.