@ Armor

Let's clarify two things, shall we?  First, I know little to nothing about the French national soccer team, and I do not care about it.  Second, I am not a naive-leftie, which means that for me there are much worse things than "racism".  I do not always use that term in a pejorative way, but simply in a 'factual' way (of observation).

Having said that, I repeat that 'Carmela' made a "racist" statement.   She talked about "true Fenchman" IN THE CONTEXT of a complaint by Monsieur Freche "that there were too many black players on the national soccer team".   The logical implication is very clearly that "black" players cannot be "true" Frenchman.  Thus, Ms 'Carmela' EXPLICITLY linked true frenchness to skin color.  That is "racism", pure and simple. 

I repeat that I know nothing about the composition of the French national soccer team, and I know even less about the 'background' (or personal history) of the players on that team.  But, since it is the national soccer team, I presume that they all have French nationality.   

I do NOT dispute your analysis about the follies of French immigration policy, and about the "sick ideology" being promoted by most of the French media, academia and politicians.  But, linking "true Frenchness" to skin color is "racist", and exclusively equating "European" with "white" and "African" with "Black" is racist.   

You must make an honest distinction between 'physical' features (like race) and 'cultural' features (like behavior patterns and 'legalities').  And, judge every person on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

marcfrans: 4) And, yes, 'Carmela' has made a racist statement.

No, Carmela has not made a racist statement, but marcfrans, the free speech supporter, has made a very agressive statement. When you take a look at a mostly black french soccer team led by an Kabyle captain, it obviously makes you think of the rapid change in population which is occurring now. It isn't just on soccer fields. The same change is occurring in the rest of the country, although at a slower pace. What could be more racist than deliberately replacing Europeans with Africans, and calling the protesters racist? This is exactly what is happening now, and the French media are using soccer to push their sick ideology. How can you ask Europeans to say they are happy to be represented by Africans? Just ask the Africans living in france if they feel french, they will laugh at you (but you won't call them racist, because of your point #3).

marcfrans: 2) Monsieur Freche is intolerant for seeming to argue for a quota system for whites in sport. He does not appear to judge fellow citizens on the basis of their individual characteristics and skills for a 'job', but rather on the basis of superficial physical 'group' characteristics.

I wonder how you can read so much in Freche's remarks. Anyway, your idea that Africans differ from Europeans by "superficial physical 'group' characteristics" is ridiculous. You won't find two groups more dissimilar. Africans living in Europe don't care about us. They should be sent back home, and Europeans should be allowed to continue to exist. What's important is not the territory or the papers you have been given, but the people you belong to.

"No, I do not believe that "most of the western world is in favor of mass immigration". But I do believe that most of the western world is responsible for its own predicament."

How do you explain that we have mass immigration even though most people do not want it? And how is it their fault?

"people are responsible for their own actions, i.e. votes at election times"

Being asked to cast your vote is not enough. The determining factor is the media. Currently, television is at the hands of the loony left, even though it is a political minority. It is not a small detail ! If you gave me one hour's television time every evening in every European home, I would soon enlist people's support to start massive repatriation to the third world, and get European democracy working again.
Before you are asked to cast your vote, it is important to examine how the political debate has been framed. As long as it is mainly framed by the loony left mass media, there is little hope for democracy. When the most important issues have not been debated because the media and the main political parties would not allow it, the result of the elections has little significance. When just two parties are given most of the airtime on television, there is no use voting for anyone else because you know that politicians from other parties won't make it. When the two main parties both support mass immigration, as is the case in France, you have little hope of influencing anything by casting a vote.

"I do not believe that people in a democracy can 'hide' behind their politicians. They are the ones who put these politicians there in the first place."

How do you explain that in the USA, most Republican voters oppose immigration, whereas Bush seems to be pushing for a merger with Mexico? How can the direction of a conservative party stop defending conservative positions, even though it relies on the vote of conservative voters? It clearly shows that democracy is not working at the moment.

"it is always 'hard' psychologically to face the folly of one's fellow citizens."

Most Europeans are not crazy. They have always remained opposed to mass immigration even though they are brainwashed by the media, the schools and the administration. Most politicians are not even in favor of immigration, but they are so afraid of the media that they won't say a word against it. My local political representative was never heard saying a word about immigration (against or for). When he goes to the french parliament in Paris, he just votes as he is told by his employer, which is Chirac's party. The alternative would be for me to vote for the socialists. It would make no difference.

PS: what is the best way to insert a double line break?

....by Armor, le Breton (?).

@ Armor

To answer your question.  No, I do not believe that "most of the western world is in favor of mass immigration".   But I do believe that most of the western world is responsible for its own predicament.  In other worlds, people are responsible for their own actions, i.e. votes at election times,  and that includes the degree to which they take politics 'seriously' and the priority they give to this particular issue.  I do not believe that people in a democracy can 'hide' behind their politicians. They are the ones who put these politicians there in the first place.  And, for a true democrat, it is always 'hard' psychologically to face the folly of one's fellow citizens.   I am sure that applies to the few true French democrats as well.

"I am only "following Voltaire" as far as his defense of 'freedom of speech' is concerned."

I know, but it is funny that a French fraud like Voltaire should be cited in defense of free speech. It is the equivalent of quoting Chirac in defense of honesty or cultural diversity.

"Also, I do believe that the French people at regular intervals can express their 'opinions' at election times, and in between through numerous media and 'social' organisations."

Views critical of mass immigration are not really allowed in the French media or in the two main political parties. The media keep lying about the extent of the disaster, and no referendum on immigration is to be allowed.

By the way, do you think that the western world by and large is in favor of mass immigration from the third-world?

@ Armor

I am only "following Voltaire" as far as his defense of 'freedom of speech' is concerned.  His investments and his literary quarrels are of little interest to me.   But, I thank you for useful information.

Also, I do believe that the French people at regular intervals can express their 'opinions' at election times, and in between through numerous media and 'social' organisations.   

"If the French people, through their freely-elected (but shortsighted) elected officials hand out pieces of paper to newcomers, and these papers state that they are "French", then they are French."

In fact, french people have not been asked their opinion. It is a safe bet that most of them would disapprove of handing out french identity cards in Africa.

"following Voltaire I wouldn't dream of denying her the right to make any statement she wants. That makes democrats, like Voltaire and me, very different from most contemporary French people."

In fact, Voltaire was as duplicitous as Chirac :

- According to wikipedia: He "made an investment in a slave-trading enterprise in Nantes, which, according to the contemporaneous observers, made him one of the twenty richest men in France. However, some passages of Candide reveal hostility to slavery, although in Essai sur les moeurs he states that Negroes are born to be slaves."

- Voltaire is also known for his quarrel with the literary critic Élie Fréron who had been critical of him. It seems that Voltaire became obsessed with Fréron in a bizarre way. His friends had Fréron's literary journal suspended for a time.

Let's state the obvious.

1) The French socialist party is intolerant for "expelling" a member who does not agree with the party line on 1 specific subject.  American political parties (and society at large) are much more tolerant for diverse opinions within their midst. That unables them to adjust easier to new circumstances and to evolve to new 'orthodoxies'.

2) Monsieur Freche is intolerant for seeming to argue for a quota system for whites in sport.  He does not appear to judge fellow citizens on the basis of their individual characteristics and skills for a 'job', but rather on the basis of superficial physical 'group' characteristics.   

3) French socialists are hypocritical, since they argue for quotas for nonwhites in many other spheres of human endeavor.  Perhaps they follow the dictum of that famous Belgian politician who stated that nonwhites cannot discriminate or, alternatively, that whites cannot be discriminated.  This is what happens when victimology is pushed to its extremes, and society is no longer governed by and guided by empirical observation but by ideological dogma.

4) And, yes, 'Carmela' has made a racist statement. If the French people, through their freely-elected (but shortsighted) elected officials hand out pieces of paper to newcomers, and these papers state that they are "French", then they are French. Now, while Carmela has made a racist statement, following Voltaire I wouldn't dream of denying her the right to make any statement she wants. That makes democrats, like Voltaire and me, very different from most contemporary French people.

In all honesty, at first glance you would not think this was a French team. Would anyone actually disagree? How is it racist for a true Frenchman to want his own representing France? How would it be racist for a true African to want his own representing Africa?

Only in a politically correct world does a piece of paper make one French. In reality, this couldn't be further from the truth.

If the French Socialists want to act in this way, that's their good right. However, I am waiting for the moment where any political party will exclude an individual who claims that there are not enough immigrants as elected officials, or that there are too many whites. I guess this is a reasoning the (French) socialists are not willing to understand.

I don't care about the color of skin of any soccer player. As long as the game is good.

If the French Socialist want to act in this way, that's their good right. However, I am waiting for the moment where any political party will exclude an individual who claims that there are not enough immigrants as elected officials, or that there are too many whites. I guess this is a reasoning the (French) socialists are not willing to understand.

I don't care about the color of skin of any soccer player. As long as the game is good.

 ...Ya have to love them....So tolerant....So caring toward the common man and the common good.....so feeling to the needs of the people......(uncontrolable laughter about to begin!).......

Pashley, you must be relatively young.  The NBA was well integrated long before Michael Jordan.  And you must have little knowledge of what was played on "mainstream music stations" before the early 80's, because music from black artists was widely played on radio and even TV before Michael Jackson was even born.  There were black superstars in both sports and music long before Jordan and Jackson came along.  Have you ever heard of Dr. J and Willie Mays, or Louie Armstrong and Jimi Hendrix (to name a few)?

that would have been the 70's.   The superstars like Michael Jordan seem to break the sterotypes.  Michael Jackson had to do the same thing for mainstream music stations in the early 80's.

Perhaps this is merely a result of specialization. It is not as though Blacks are found in disproportionately large numbers amongst the French business and political elites. Does he advocate affirmative action for White football players? Nor are Whites being discriminated against here. Unless Freche is a true supporter of affirmative action for all interests in all areas of society, which I doubt, he is a hypocrit.