Home » Another changed mind, this time in France

Comments

Another changed mind, this time in France — 19 Comments

  1. “Does he understand the principle of cause and effect? Did he lack the capacity to understand the reasoning behind the wall?”

    How dare you question the resoning capacity of the French! Why in the 20th century alone they made all the right moves, just ask them!

  2. Glad you’re home. For some stats on the small part of the wall on our southern borders see this blog:

    http://www.limitstogrowth.org/index.html

    Scroll down to the interview with Lou Dobbs,which is titled
    “Lou Dobbs Tonight Transcript Oct. 26 [10/27/06]”

    I can’t find any permalinks on the page so you’ll have to go about halfway down.

    Lots of information to be had there, including a link to a 2003 piece by Stanley Crouch, of all people calling for a moratorium on all Muslim immigration for ten years…

  3. I’m not going to say “enjoy your visit to paris, Neo”, but I will say that I wish you the best and am glad of your safe return.

    I read a couple of very good articles in No Pasaran about France awhile ago, but this was when I was reading Melannie Phillips at the outset of the French riots.

    Here is an interesting statistical breakdown of… paris.

    Link

  4. Wonderful. Now Israel knows it can prevent attacks by erecting a wall, it can now go about putting the wall on it’s own territory rather than encompassing illegal settlements, water sources and fertile land on Palestinian land.

  5. No transcript of the trial?

    How are we to know the full extent of corruption in the French justice system without an accurate, verifiable record of the trial?

  6. Go to France as a tourist, neo-neo, but learn to view it through the eyes of a historian and archeologist.

  7. For France and Europe the best wall would be 20 million one-way plane tickets. Get over it, Eurripins. This lot is not going to pay for your false teeth when you’re old, so chuck them.

  8. If France really is going to change it’s mind, this will be a spectacle not for feeble nerves. As Mark Steyn recently commented, usial French reaction to a problem is ignore it as long as it is possible; but when they eventually react to repeated provocation, it tends to be nuclear option. They did not have 30-years long war with Protestants, they simply slaughtered them all in one night. And all their revolutions, restorations and new revolutions follow the same pattern: demolish anything to the ground and declare a new era (with new calendar and a new system of measurment).

  9. This is an interesting development.

    I had thought the purpose and effectiveness of the wall, before it was built, and the results of its partial building, was so obvious that nobody could miss it.

    That being the case, objections could only have been based on the presumption that inconveniencing terrorists in their attempts to kill Jews was immoral.

    Now we find there were, indeed, people so stupid as to not know what a wall is for, and so stupid as to miss the results of the partial building.

    As to where the wall is to be built;
    I don’t think the Israelis owe the terrorists and their supporters much at all, much less a less efficient defensive position because somebody claims a cabbage patch would be cut in half.

    By this time, the purpose and attitude of the Palestinian population is well-enough known that there’s no longer any point in pretending this is about anything but the long-running attempts to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

    Any reasons are excuses. If they did not exist, others would be found. If they are remedied, others would be found.
    If none existed, sufficient would be made up.

  10. “And all their revolutions, restorations and new revolutions follow the same pattern: demolish anything to the ground and declare a new era (with new calendar and a new system of measurment).” (sergey)

    I think you might be acknowledging the limits of human ‘reason,’ whether in politics or in other human pursuits. Certainly the French seem to have been reason’s chief proponent for several centuries.

    Is that reason always reasonable?

    I wonder how it has served the French, particularly in the 20c?

    neo is giving us some insights..

  11. To jgr:
    The most wise French thinkers (Pascal, Descartes) also understood these limitations without neglecting reason. But they were devoted Christians. Dementia began with advent of atheism, with Laplace, Rousseau, Voltaire and others reacting on excesses of Catholic obscurantism. (Revolutionaries went as far as to declare Cult of Reason as official religion.) And this obscurantism also was direct consequence of slaughtering of Huguenots. So the pattern is the same: overreaction on overreaction. But in clash of civilizations reason is a poor weapon against fanaticism, so they failed badly, surrendering to Nazi, and now are going to surrender again to Islamonazi.

  12. But in clash of civilizations reason is a poor weapon against fanaticism (sergey writes).

    One wonders what belief powered those Europeans who resisted the first Islamic assault?

    The legend of Roland is certainly not consistent with today’s French culture.

    Islam, I know in part, once held Sicily, and most of Spain, and, apparently, even the Eternal City for a period.

    One of my English folk tales from the 10th century tells of the Saracens overwhelming a Cornish kingdom along the shores of Southern Britain.

    The Saracens were devils who massacred innocent women and childen, even then.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>