PARIS RIOTS (AN E-MAIL FROM A FRIEND)

This is an E-mail I recieved today from a friend who has lived in europe quite some time now. He is probably the last of what I would call a true Independent, although most of the time he leans Conservative. He is very credible to me, and has even appeared on various European political shows as a pro U.S. pundit.

This is what he replied when I asked permission to put his article here. (Incidentally he know's me as Tex)

It’s a good idea to keep my name out of it. They do have international phone directories with addresses these days. It should be passed on as something I sent you personally, as a friend (i.e. it was not written with public consumption in mind – just in case your conservative chat lines do have a wide audience).

I’d be interested in how you preface it, i.e. your own view (I suspect we are not that far off on the immigration problem at least – something conservatives seem to find more common ground on these days since the neo-con schism.)

I lived in Aulnay sous Bois north of Paris in 1971, with a group of young people from the US, Europe and (one) Japan. Stayed there for a few months after returning from Germany to start work at CBS News, while looking for an apartment in Paris itself. There were lots of Africans (mostly north, but some sub-Saharans) already in the area then, a few of whom once mugged the American girl from our “commune” as she was walking home from the metro after work, about this time of year coincidentally. Others from our house had occasionally been harassed. This was only a few years after my old neighborhood in Brooklyn went belly up, and rioting in US cities had become commonplace. My warning to the French then (and subsequently to German friends years later when I went to work at RFE in Munich – where the so-called Gastarbeiter program was in full bloom) was that they were setting themselves up for the same kind of problems we were having if they didn’t get their immigration under control.

When I returned to live in Europe (specifically, Austria) in 1991, I saw just how much major sections of cities I once lived in like Paris and Frankfurt had been turned into ghettos by 3rd world immigrants – just like at home. Vienna wasn’t so bad, but a right-wing populist politician named Joerg Haider was making tremendous inroads by warning against Austria’s complacent immigration policy. In order to combat Haider’s growing popularity, the 2 main political parties started tightening up a bit on immigration, while at the same time bemoaning his crude, direct speech. Not long after I returned from Africa, Haider’s party became the 2nd most popular in Austria, and formed a coalition government with the main center-right Christian democrats. Upon which demonstrations broke out here and all over Europe, and Chirac and his Belgian counterpart led a movement to isolate Austria diplomatically, a movement which the US government gladly jumped on board. Hungarian immigrant Congressman Tom Lantos – Israel’s self-proclaimed voice in the US congress and the man who would (will) be chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee should the Dems again become the majority, called for a boycott against Austria.

One of Haider’s more colorful remarks was that Austria didn’t turn back two Turkish invasions of Christian Europe in order to later turn the country over to the Turks through incompetent immigration policies. Ariel Muzicant, the new head of Austria’s main Jewish lobbying organization, unlike his mature, discreet, effective and well-liked predecessor, had already embarked on a very public, media savvy campaign to warn that Haider’s anti-immigration rhetoric augured a return to Nazi-like conditions here (Haider had previously been bending over backwards to convince Jews he was their friend, despite his softball treatment of some right-wing veteran organizations). The US embassy duly broke off contact with that part of the coalition government. Muzicant on several occasions followed the new US ambassador on her periodic trips to the States, making sure Jewish groups would keep up the pressure against the new Austrian government, a pressure Muzicant felt the Ambassador might be trying to loosen through her direct talks in Washington. Because Haider – who with his potential coalition partners realized how untenable his position was internationally – allowed his charming, moderate female deputy (Susanne Riess-Passer) to take the vice-chancellor position that he would normally get as party leader, and because the center right coalition government quickly showed itself to be extraordinarily moderate, reasonable, and more market-oriented, Haider’s deputy Riess-Passer eventually got something of the red carpet treatment in Washington (it helped that she was also in favor of buying a bunch of US made fighter jets). Haider remained ostracized, started getting more radical instead of less, and eventually became outspokenly anti-US government, helping turn more of the right as well as the left against us. Haider’s party itself then broke up into radical (extreme anti-immigration) and moderate elements, with Riess-Passer and others resigning. The more moderates nevertheless held out, but the right-wing party itself was very weakened, and now the center-right, moderate, main stream party pretty much controls the government.

But: the government seems to have learned a lesson or two from events elsewhere in Europe and adamantly opposed Turkey’s membership in the EU. This has outraged the Bush Administration, which openly lobbies for Turkish membership that Austrians fear will lead to an even greater flood of Islamic immigrants here, immigrants from the most backward areas of Asian Anatolia. Austria is again on the US shit-list (how dare they not welcome the chance to enhance the country’s wonderful multi-cultural mosaic!). As if we don’t have enough enemies, little Austria is tow telling the US to shove it – to mind its own g.d. business. I forgot to mention that the US Embassy established a new position here a few years ago (after earlier having decided that - with the cold war over - we could easily merge and reduce the size of the political-economic section). The new US embassy position: a “diversity officer.” Yes, that old missionary wing of our foreign policy establishment deemed we need an American official here to enlighten Austrians on the joys of ethnic and religious diversity. Well, what the hell, there is so little else to do with all that tax money we have.

So Tex, your “Uncle Busy Body” school of foreign policy has still been very much in the ascendancy under your guru president. If he has his way, Vienna will go the way of Paris, London, Amsterdam etc. in this regard (the way major areas of US cites went long ago – but that’s OK for you I suppose; you’re a country boy at heart and don’t like cities per se). You’re all worked up about Islam – but have been crusading for our dim-wit President who has become addicted to meddling abroad, just like those ex-imperial powers of Europe who paved the way for massive immigration from their old colonies and the creation of ghettos such as in my old Aulnay sous Bois. Yes, those north Africans are doing the work that the European natives won’t do (the 50% who are not unemployed at least), so the economic argument goes, or went (familiar?), an argument that ignores the fact that countries that don’t rely on cheap 3rd World labor, like Japan, are much more apt to develop robots and other technology to do the routine work. That plus a decent wage for shit jobs can have an amazing impact on solving the labor shortage problem that ostensibly has provided an additional justification for 3rd world immigration on top of the perceived “obligations” stemming from an imperial past. It will be interesting to see how many more Iraqis the US will eventually have to provide refuge for as a result of our continued “obligation” to them stemming from intrusive attempts to save their country.

The barbarians, my friend, are inside the gates, not at the gates, something I noticed a long time ago at home as well. I don’t mean to equate immigrants with barbarians – but they have a fairly high percentage among them who don’t bring out the best among our own home-grown barbarians. Neither our Republicans nor Democrats are likely to do anything effective about the problem. Nor will Chirac or a French socialist if one eventually replaces him. The local moderate, anti-socialist government in Vienna has pretty much learned to ignore (quite a change) the intrusive platitudes from Washington policymakers. The latest Paris mess has helped shore up its resistance to the airy-fairy politically correct immigration grandstanding of the American and European political class. Margit and I still go to sleep summer nights with our door wide open to the terrace and roof (easily reachable by a potential intruder). And without a gun in the house! The already low crime rate has been declining even further. But the immigration door is far from secure, and the pressure to deal with immigration issues the way the Bushes and Chiracs of our political classes have dealt with them continues. And guys like you still think the answer is for American soldiers to prance around the world armed with incantations and bullets that will turn these medieval societies into thriving democratic economic miracles where the emigration urge will subside. Good luck!

I don't see how the rioters in USA have anything to do with the lawlessness of the North Africans in Europe.

What am I missing?
////////////////////
Bush's insistance on Turkey becoming a part of the EU is part of a quid pro quo by which Turkey would be incorporated into a greater EU and and Mexico would be incorporated into a greater north american superstate.

When the europeans recently sounded like they wouldn't let turkey in--bush called their foot dragging catastrophic. Why? the turks don't need europe and the europeans don't need the eu. The reason bush called it catastrophic was because the EU was threatening to welch on the deal made by the internationalists.

The reason bush doesn't halt the invasion coming over the US border is because he has sold out to the internationalists agenda. The Mexicans coming over the border are the frontline troops for a greater north american superstate.

Now understand that the greater north american superstate is only a stepping stone to a New World Superstate and this is only a stepping stone to ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

We are basically being sold into slavery by the people whom we elected and who claim to represent us.

"And guys like you still think the answer is for American soldiers to prance around the world armed with incantations and bullets that will turn these medieval societies into thriving democratic economic miracles where the emigration urge will subside. Good luck!"

"Prance around the world"..?OUTRAGEOUS! That seems more like what he is doing..Our guys are fighting and dying fighting for our country.

AMERICA... HOME OF THE FREE BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE.

Typical Euro-snob type attitude. From what I ascertain, he's American. But he speaks from the POV of a right wing European. (And in Europe, right wingers are socialist, too.)

The lesson he's trying to impart? What, that the immigrant problem over there is partly the Bush administration's fault? Obviously, they are far from getting a handle on this thing.

"So Tex, your 'Uncle Busy Body' school of foreign policy has still been very much in the ascendancy under your guru president. If he has his way, Vienna will go the way of Paris, London, Amsterdam etc."

Ha! Hope so! The people in those cities are pretty much all anti-American these days, and except for London, for most of the past couple hundred years.

The "Israelification" of Europe is something I look forward to. I sincerly hope that future administrations fully back Turkish entry into the European Union. I hope that millions of poor Turkomans then stream throughout the continent, and undermine it. Perhaps, then, they can all go to hell.

It is an interesting email, but lacks any solutions. His complaint is that the US has an engaged foreign policy, implying that we should be isolationists.

Secondly, he provides no options better than planting some democracies in the middle east. Should we just nuke them now?

Complaining about the current situation is very easy. Offering reasonable and attainable solutions is a completely different matter.

I suggest:

Close borders to illegals
Deport all current illegals
End the practice of giving citizenship to children born of illegals
Create a realistic guest worker program that only allows foreigners when there are no citizens willing and able to perform the job
End all government services for illegals including welfare, schooling, drivers licenses, etc. Deport them instead
Develop domestic sources of oil
Build new refineries
Build nuclear power plants creating a system with at least 70% of all electricity generated by nuclear power
Continue to use a pro-active anti-terrorist policy (military, economic and diplomatic) with governments that pose a threat, including Iran, North Korea and Syria

I am neither a racist nor a Nazi. I do, however believe that citizens of every country deserve the first shot at any opportunity within their own land. Immigration should only be allowed when it benefits the existing citizens of the country.

So... If your country is lousy, change it! Need help? Ask and you might recieve (if it is in our best interest). Otherwise, we're sorry you were born in a rotten place and that your parents didn't do anything about it.

It's time for a little tough love with the rest of the world.

"If he's a National Fronter, why doesn't he spit it out."

Looks like you can smell the sh*t through the text, also.

I don't think he's too fond of blacks, either:

"This was only a few years after my old neighborhood in Brooklyn went belly up, and rioting in US cities had become commonplace."

Whatever else you can say about that era, those folks in Brooklyn and Detroit are more American than rock58seg's friend is.

In the '70's, the guy is a commune progressive, and now he's a right wing "populist" supporter? Good lord, it's true that it's a short trip from far left to far right. Too bad guys like him skip over the libertarian part.

A"truism"about another race?No such thing,my friend.There are huge variances among racial groups that makes your truisms,well,UNTRUE.
Example-in my city the vast percentage of murders are committed by Latinos and blacks.Yet 99.9 percent of these groups do not commit murder in my city.So I refuse to label these groups as killers or criminals of any sort.

Googled "diversity officer".

I googled those two words in quotes and got 69,900 hits. You couldn't have read them all that fast! :-)

(Kidding, honest--I have a nasty streak in my humor.)

It is also scary that there are thousands of "diversity officers" running around on the planet. Gag me with a spoon!

(Off to see if I can find a "diversity officer" in the US embassy somewhere in Austria--background music, Schubert's ninth symphony. :-) )

"His idealism and a desire to help the Iraqis propelled him into Iraq along with the WMD issues. "

I think that’s out of balance. I can’t read Bush’s mind, but as far the Administration goes, helping the Iraqis is a means to the goal of US security rather a primary goal for being there . Saddam’s willingness and potential to WMD enable future 9-11 style attacks is why we’re in Iraq. Helping the Iraqis is just what we have to do to keep a tyrant like him from reappearing.

I agree that Saddam had to be brutal to rule Iraq, but he did not have to invade Iran, Kuwait, employ WMDs or bring genocide on the Marsh Arabs. He didn’t have to spend tens of billions on WMD programs while Iraqi children starved. He didn’t have to give his sons free reign to rape and torture for sport. But getting rid of that was just a bonus, not our primary motivation. Maybe it’s over promoted because getting rid of tyranny plays well politically.

We’re helping the Iraqis to build their freedom because it’s the best long term defense from Islamist terrorism, not because we love Iraqis so much that we’ll sacrifice a few thousand lives for them. Bush may be idealistic to think that a Middle Eastern nation can be this democratic and free, but it has never been tried like this, not with a complete dismantling of civil service and military. We at least have to try. If not now with Iraq, when and with whom?

RE: our "dim-wit" President

The European problems started at 12:01PM 20 January, 2001? I didn't know that.

Were the millions of Ottoman Turks from all over the Middle East and Africa lined up and just waiting for a U.S. dim-wit president? I'll do some googling. Fascinating.

Also, I thought modern Turkey was a constitutional republic and secular. I'll be. . . .

"Oh! I thought he was making a case against illegal immigration, and the allowance of a foreign culture to overwhelm the indigent one. Especially when the indigent one is in every aspect superior."

The solution is simple. Given that the welfare state doesn't work, why not dismantle it before it collapses?

Without the entitlements, many immigrants will be dissuaded from seeking opportunities in places like Austria. Why move to a place without a social safety net?

The real problem is, western Europeans seem to think they can make socialism - and the post-nationalist superstate - work. Perhaps if the state is ethnically homogenous, with a tradition of egalitarianism, and the repression of individuality, it can work for a longer period of time. But that isn't the case in the EU.

The idea that France would be able to avoid the ill will of Islamists by not "entangling" itself in the Iraq War, while an appealing conceit, could not be further from the truth.

Yes, we are despised by the Arab "street," but personally, I would rather be loathed and feared, then beloved and looked upon with sneering disdain.

Though, I think that the recent intifada that has erupted in France-and the reaction among Muslim immigrants to its ban on the hejab-is a vivid illustration-as if any were needed-that the French are not any more beloved by the Arab street than the Americans or Brits.

By doing everything in its capacity to block the Coalition's invasion Chirac was merely insuring that the frothing, benighted Muslim hordes were clued in to what the rest of us already were aware of.

Namely, that France is a nation of Petains, which will stop at nothing to avoid confrontation with its enemies.

They saw the French reluctance to take on Saddam, to take on Hezbollah, and realized that they had the whip hand.

Yes... Such a nice pro-American guy, moaning and bitching about out dim-witted President while supporting rightwing radicals like LePen and Haider. Didn't Europe already try that solution already??

The issue with Europe and immigration is not that there's too much of it; it's just that the immigrants haven't been assimilated. Europe has always been more class-based, closed society where it's very difficult to move up in the world. In contrast, America has always been welcoming of immigrants and willing to give them chances to succeed, which makes it easier for the immigrant to become assmilated.

"As far as a split in the neo-cons, I would venture to guess that while most neo-cons are strong on defense and fiscal constraint, there is probably a wide variety of opinion on most other issues. I'm proud to call myself a neo-con, and I enjoy the free exchange of ideas."

Apparently, as far as many are concerned, there was no such things as "war hawks" in the U.S. before the term "neocon" came into favor.

Some people need to read their history books.

If 9/11 didn't happen, the Bush administration would have focused more on confronting communist China and North Korea, two long standing concerns for pro-war Republicans, going back decades.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.