THANK GOD THE FRENCH HAVE THE CHINESE TO STAND UP TO MUSLIMS.

Via Galliawatch, June 21, 2010. If you thought muslim "youths" - or make it muslims by extension since the "elders" don't give a flying shit about what their degenerated offspring is doing in the streets - well, if you thought muslims in Europe only harass indigenous Europeans, you are mistaken. Literally everywhere on the planet the adherents of this criminally insane, cruel, isgusting, inhuman and utterly contemptible "religion" are a royal pain in the *ss for decent, productive and law-abiding non-muslims, and it is no different in Europe, host to a plethora of ethnic minorities.

Southeast and east Asians are a hardworking class with close to nil criminality among them. They work (very) hard, respect the law, pay taxes, and their personal behavior vis-à-vis indigenous Europeans is almost unanimously very decent and courteous. They are your dream immigrants.

Alas, for the paedophile worshippers that does not make any difference at all. Like their indigenous French co-citizens, Chinese immigrants in France are legitimate targets too.

And last weekend, they had enough. A pathetic Apéro-party by mostly indigenous Frenchmen to protest the relentless and state-sponsored islamization of their country barely mobilized the pathetic number of 800 Claudes, Jacques, Virginies and Isabelles.

But the small Chinese community in Paris managed to produce a demo numbering more than ten times that number:

"The Chinese residents of Paris demonstrated on Sunday against acts of violence by Arabs. There was a huge turnout - 8500 people according to the police, (over 10,000 according to Novopress), in the neighborhood of Belleville, in East Paris, the largest demonstration by Asians ever organized in France. The organizers of the demonstration spoke of a "growing climate of insecurity". Included among the demonstrators was the adopted daughter of Jacques Chirac - Anh, Dao Traxel of Vietnamese origin. There are an estimated 600,000 - 700,000 Asian residents in France, most of them in Paris and its suburbs.





However, the rally turned violent when, according to one demonstrator:

"Someone stole a Chinese lady's purse. The Chinese caught him, and alerted the police, who let him go. We are not violent, but it was too much."

At 7:30 p.m. young Chinese were still throwing glass bottles at the mobile gendarmes, lined up with their shields, who threw tear gas in turn. Earlier, the gendarmes had been targets of the demonstrators, some of whom threw tables and chairs taken from the La Vielleuse Bar.

Another report adds these details:

"Stop the violence, We want to live in security. We've had enough of these attacks. Respect for all." These words were written on tee-shirts, caps, and banners.

"There are too many people attacked by Arabs. They grab purses, they break shop windows, we no longer feel safe," cried out a young demonstrator as gongs and drums sounded.

According to Philippe Costa, president of the France-China Club, elected officials have demonstrated their inability to deal with crime in this multicultural neighborhood. "Many people won't come into Belleville from fear of attacks. Those who live there and work there are easy targets, because a lot of money circulates. We are asking for surveillance cameras. We do not want any more thugs in Belleville."

A spokesman for the Chinese associations says that the Chinese community can no longer keep silent. "It is not usual for Asians to demonstrate, but this has been going on for 20 years. Everybody passes the buck. This is a neighborhood that borders on four arrondissements."

Note: Paris seems to be dividing up, fragmenting into livable and non livable areas, with the livable areas slowly but surely giving way..."

It takes a village of Chinese to come up for the rights of Jean-Claude and Jacqueline.





If France is to survive in any meaningful way, it will probably depend just as well on non-muslim foreign ethnicities as on autochton Frenchmen and -women. Probably more so. What to think, e.g., of French Prime Minister François Fillon, a multiculti lunatic, of Sarkozy's party no less, who is hellbent on issuing 170,000 visas a year to Algerians (a trebling compared to 1997's 57,000) and who will inaugurate on Monay June 28 yet another new mosque, at Argenteuil. Via Observatoire de l'Islamisation:




Meanwhile, the "bleus", the French soccer team, has become so overwhelmingly islamic that it demands a halal meal whenever it is invited somewhere:


"Cela me choque par exemple que l’équipe de France demande un buffet halal pour être reçue quelque part."


France will be the first European country to go down in flames. May it be a final wake up call for the rest of Europe to arm itself and use, if necessary, Deadly Force against the muslim cancer destroying the continent from within.



MFBB.

THE NEW DEAL: NOT EXACTLY A "BIG F*CKING DEAL".

To the point column by His Master's Voice Thomas Sowell over at National Review:

"Sometimes you can read a book that will change your mind on some fundamental issue. Rarely, however, is there just one page that can undermine or destroy a widely held belief. But there is such a page — page 77 of the book Out of Work, by Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway.

The widespread belief is that government intervention is the key to getting the country out of a serious economic downturn. The example often cited is Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s intervention after the stock-market crash of 1929 was followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, with its massive and long-lasting unemployment.

This is more than just a question about history. Right here and right now, there is a widespread belief that the unregulated market is what got us into our present economic predicament, and that the government must “do something” to get the economy moving again. FDR’s intervention in the 1930s has often been cited by those who think this way.

What is on that one page in Out of Work that could change people’s minds? Just a simple table, giving unemployment rates for every month during the entire decade of the 1930s.

Those who think that the stock-market crash in October 1929 is what caused the huge unemployment rates of the 1930s will have a hard time reconciling that belief with the data in that table.

Although the big stock-market crash occurred in October 1929, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months after that crash. Unemployment peaked at 9 percent, two months after the stock market crashed — and then began drifting generally downward over the next six months, falling to 6.3 percent by June 1930.

This was what happened in the market, before the federal government decided to “do something.”

"What the government decided to do in June 1930 — against the advice of literally a thousand economists, who took out newspaper ads warning against it — was impose higher tariffs, in order to save American jobs by reducing imported goods.

This was the first massive federal intervention to rescue the economy, under Pres. Herbert Hoover, who took pride in being the first president of the United States to intervene to try to get the economy out of an economic downturn.

Within six months after this government intervention, unemployment shot up into double digits — and stayed in double digits in every month throughout the entire remainder of the 1930s, as the Roosevelt administration expanded federal intervention far beyond what Hoover had started.

...

If more government regulation of business is the magic answer that so many seem to think it is, the whole history of the 1930s should have been different. An economic study in 2004 concluded that New Deal policies prolonged the Great Depression. But the same story can be found on one page in Out of Work.

While the market produced a peak unemployment rate of 9 percent — briefly — after the stock-market crash of 1929, unemployment shot up after massive federal interventions in the economy. It rose above 20 percent in 1932 and stayed above 20 percent for 23 consecutive months, beginning in the Hoover administration and continuing during the Roosevelt administration.

The very fact that we still remember the stock market crash of 1929 is remarkable, since there was a similar stock-market crash in 1987 that most people have long since forgotten.

What was the difference between these two stock-market crashes? The 1929 stock-market crash was followed by the most catastrophic depression in American history, with as many as one-fourth of all American workers being unemployed. The 1987 stock-market crash was followed by two decades of economic growth with low unemployment.

But that was only one difference. The other big difference was that the Reagan administration did not intervene in the economy after the 1987 stock-market crash — despite many outcries in the media that the government should “do something.”"

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


I have unfortunately been unable to retrieve the notorious graph on page 77 of Vedder and Lowell's book. I have however found a similar one which tells basically the same story. The numbers stare you in the face:





Note that the mean unemployment percentage and the median unemployment percentage are practically equal, 18.23 vs 18.10. This means that there are few extreme values in between the "lowest" percentage, 8.7% (!) and the highest, 24.9%. (yeah, that's twenty-four point nine per cent unemployment). Bottom line: pretty constant misery and no matter how much the FDR administration tried to "create" or "save" jobs in this lost decade, it had no influence at all. The only "influence" it had was the dull pain caused by the intrinsically wrong premisse - that the State can create jobs. A state can, apart from the working places with which it necessarily has to fill its administrations, not create jobs. And the number of those working places should be modest. Dick Armey did some useful research regarding the maximum desirable size of government. Yet what FDR was determined to do was the same as what the current occupant of the White House does (or wants us to believe to): "create jobs". In the 1930's, Roosevelt basically extended the brief 1929-1930 recession to a full blown depression lasting a decade. And his "famous" New Deal... actually destroyed the lives of tens of millions of ordinary Americans.

It should of course be noted that it was actually Hoover, a Republican, who gave the opening shots in this dismal adventure. Of course, FDR took it a step further, or rather, a whole flight of steps. But Hoover's decision to impose higher tariffs through the notorious Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a typically leftist mechanism, reminds us that long before George W. Bush and Paulson tried a leftist method (their 2008 168 billion$ "mini stimulus" package, which achieved nothing), other rightwing presidents made the mistake of picking a recipe from the leftist cookbook.

They shouldn't.

Never.

I shudder at the thought that people in positions FAR HIGHER than mine in life, indeed, a person supposed to be the mightiest man in the world, fails to learn simple lessons from history. And that he gets away with it. More, that he is actively supported in his devastating schemes by people who should know better.



MFBB.

NEW BOOK BY MELANIE PHILLIPS: THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN.

Melanie Phillips has written a new book, The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power. An interview you shouldn't miss, in which she discusses it with NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez, can be found here. Some exerpts:

"... KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: What’s notable about the current “apparent mass departure from rationality”?

MELANIE PHILLIPS: What I have found so striking is that, in this supposed age of reason, there is such an implacable refusal, over a wide and disparate range of issues, to acknowledge the authority of factual evidence over opinion, or distinguish truth from propaganda and lies, or differentiate between justice and injustice, victim and victimizer. More than that, this phenomenon is confined to the supposed custodians of reason, the intelligentsia; and some of the most prominent of these often-militant “rationalists” propound assertions that are demonstrably irrational.

Even more striking is that this repudiation of reason is associated with the most fashionable and progressive causes — anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, environmentalism, moral and cultural relativism, multiculturalism, scientism. Yet they promote not just irrationality but a return to primitivism, pre-modern levels of social disorder, and the persecution of dissenters.


LOPEZ: What does a self-described “agnostic” care about God?

PHILLIPS: You don’t have to be a religious believer to understand that if religion — more specifically, the Hebrew Bible and the Christianity that built upon it — underpins Western civilization and the codes of right and wrong — putting others above yourself, freedom and equality, and belief in reason — that form the bedrock of that civilization, then eroding or destroying that religion will erode or destroy those virtues and the civilization they distinguish..."

"... One of the mysteries of the age is the way “progressives” who fetishize sexual freedom, gay rights, female equality, and the like march shoulder to shoulder with Islamists who stone adulterers, kill gays, and subjugate women. They share a common desire to destroy the cultural traditions and normative values of the West — all in the cause of creating the perfect society, which creates in turn a totalitarian mindset, which links religious fanatics and the political tyrannies of both Communism and fascism.

LOPEZ: Why do you put the word “progressives” in quotation marks?

PHILLIPS: Glad you asked that! Because there’s nothing progressive about the totalitarian fanatics of the Left, even though they claim that label for themselves. One of our biggest problems is the hijacking of language by the Left, which has turned words such as “liberal,” “tolerant,” and “progressive” into their very opposites. I do believe in being progressive in the true sense — the authentic, classical-liberal goal of creating a better society by encouraging the good and discouraging the bad. But to achieve that, we have to reclaim the language of social progress for its true meaning, which is based on a proper differentiation between right and wrong, truth and lies, justice and injustice. Until we do that, we allow ourselves to be co-opted into the discourse of moral and intellectual inversion, and we allow the lunatics to run the asylum.

I do hope that this language is not politically incorrect.


LOPEZ: Are there really a hundred thousand practicing pagans in Britain today? There’s a Pagan Police Association?

PHILLIPS: Yup! It’s testimony, is it not, to the rich diversity of diversity in Britain? We all have to keep straight faces while our police officers take official leave to dance naked ’round a pile of stones..."

"... LOPEZ: What is the “Middle East Witch-Hunt”?

PHILLIPS: Medieval witch-hunts involved singling out certain women as scapegoats and then killing them for crimes of which they were innocent but of which they found themselves incapable of proving their innocence because the case against them was rigged. In Britain in particular, but also in parts of Europe and on American campuses (see the Mearsheimer/Walt calumny), there is an obsessive malice toward Israel which goes far beyond reasoned debate and has become a pathological scapegoating of a nation.

The treatment of Israel by the left-wing Western intelligentsia is unique in its irrationality and moral and historical inversion. It takes a nation that is the historic victim of aggression and blames it for jeopardizing peace in the region and causing Islamic extremism worldwide — despite demonstrable evidence that this is simply untrue. It accuses Israel, wholly falsely, of “apartheid” and ethnic cleansing when Israeli Arabs have full civil rights and the Palestinian population has increased many times over — and when Jews are excluded from parts of the Arab world (including the putative state of Palestine).

It takes a nation that has been under exterminatory attack for six decades (nine, if you include the Palestine Mandate) and insists that it make compromises with its attackers, even as they continue to attack it. And if any Jew dares protest at the manifest injustice, lies, and bigotry in this unique delegitimization, they find themselves accused of “dual loyalty” or being part of a covert global conspiracy to put the world at risk..."

Hat tip American Power. Stole their pic too. Being an outlaw's easy.


MFBB.