RSS

Surely Zemmour is the real deal

27 Jan

Great thread starting with this:

Go read the whole thread.
 
13 Comments

Posted by on January 27, 2022 in Fuck Yeah!, good news, The Kulturkampf

 

13 responses to “Surely Zemmour is the real deal

  1. Elusinia Squelch

    January 27, 2022 at 10:28 pm

    Real deals are like trolley cars.

     
    • Will S.

      January 27, 2022 at 10:50 pm

      ?

       
      • okguy

        January 27, 2022 at 10:58 pm

        They can only go along a route laid out for them by others….meaning he’s just another puppet.I’m guessing.

         
      • Will S.

        January 27, 2022 at 11:04 pm

        Maybe he is. But doggone if he doesn’t say all, and I mean all, the right things…

        If he shifts the Overton Window… even that is a victory.

         
      • Elusinia Squelch

        January 28, 2022 at 9:14 am

        There’ll be another one along in a minute, when this one (inevitably) doesn’t pan out.

        Sorry, that was a bit too oblique.

         
      • Will S.

        January 28, 2022 at 11:42 am

        We’ll see…

         
      • c matt

        January 28, 2022 at 12:34 pm

        In that sense, he seems a lot like Trump. Said a lot of the right things. Only Zemmour appears far wiser/savvier than Trump in the political arena. But who knows: Saying is one thing; doing is another.” Even if Zemmour wants to walk the talk, how feasible is that without dictatorial powers?

         
  2. Will S.

    January 27, 2022 at 11:21 pm

     
  3. Will S.

    January 27, 2022 at 11:22 pm

    The format of the program was a moderator, Caroline Roux, along with several members of the media, asking pointed questions and debating. The tone was contentious and at times tense. Zemmour was self-possessed and firm in his responses.
    Roux began by asking Zemmour if he takes Donald Trump as his foreign policy model.

    “No,” Zemmour answered. “If I take anyone as a model, it would be Charles de Gaulle.”
    Asked what displeased him about the way Trump conducted himself on the international stage:

    “I didn’t say he displeased me. But I don’t take a President of the United States as a model. I try to define a foreign policy for France.”
    “Make France Great Again?” Roux asks in heavily accented English.

    “For me France is always great, so I don’t need ‘again’,” Zemmour replies.
    Next, Zemmour is questioned by a French military reserve colonel and pundit named Pierre Servant. He asks, “Do you think the election was stolen from Trump? Do you think American democracy is functioning normally?”
    Zemmour replies, “I have doubts. I’m not aware of anything. I have no proof. I don’t want to get ahead of myself. I’m thousands of kilometers away.
    “I remember the election of John Kennedy in 1960 having been stolen. I remember the election of George Bush Jr. in 2000 having been stolen. So it wouldn’t be a novelty in American democracy. But I don’t have any proof.”
    Servant follows that by asking, “If you are elected and meet with Joe Biden, would you regard him as a usurper?”
    “I am an adept of realpolitik. So I take other nations as they are. I don’t give moral lessons. I don’t judge others more or less democratic, more or less liberal, etc. I do not define my foreign policy in relation to human rights.
    “Joe Biden is elected. He’s the legal President of the United States. So I know only Joe Biden.”

    Next they turn to Zemmour’s well-known plan for France to exit NATO. Zemmour states:
    “What is the legitimacy of NATO? You asked me about the legitimacy of Joe Biden, which of course I don’t contest at all. On the other hand, I take the liberty of contesting the legitimacy of NATO.
    “I think NATO is an organization that should have disappeared in 1990, 91, 92, when the USSR collapsed and the Warsaw Pact fell apart. Today, NATO only serves to justify American industry and the enslavement of European countries.
    “It’s what De Gaulle called back then ‘the Protectorate’. I don’t see the interest in continuing. I think France should be independent, and to show it symbolically, I would leave the integrated military command.”
    But he says he would not leave NATO entirely, for two reasons: to veto a possible admission of Ukraine, and to prevent NATO from becoming an anti-China pact.
    Next they discuss arms manufacturing. Zemmour advocates for a fully independent French arms industry, “from the atomic bomb to the FAMAS.” [FAMAS is an old French assault rifle.]
    He says that since Sarkozy brought France back under the integrated NATO command, France has “taken the easy route, and forgot the golden rule of Gen. De Gaulle: to be completely autonomous in our defense industry.”
    “Today we have a military of samples. We have everything, but just a little bit. We could make war for three, four, five days, and then after that we need the Americans.” To rectify this situation, he would increase the French defense budget.
    Next, he is asked what he would do as President of France if Russia invades Donbass. “Nobody should fight for Donbass. Not the US. Not France. Nobody, in fact. This is some unrest.”

    “Is it necessary to set limits on Vladimir Putin?” the moderator Roux asks.
    Zemmour replies, “But you know Putin is not a child? You don’t set limits on him. He is a head of state. A major head of state. Leader of one of the biggest countries on the planet. He is very respectable. We should respect him.”
    He goes on to discuss the history of the immediate aftermath of the fall of the USSR, when Bush Sr. and Gorbachev came to a tacit agreement that NATO wouldn’t expand into the former USSR.
    “Obviously, the Americans haven’t respected their word…. Putin has tried, like all Russians for a thousand years, to have a protective zone. And the Americans have spent the last 30 years eating away at that zone bit by bit.
    “They took Poland. All the countries of Eastern Europe. Next they went into Georgia, Ukraine.”

    Roux points out America didn’t annex territory.

    “You know, the Americans are intelligent imperialists. They don’t annex, they protect. Like all intelligent imperialists.
    “I would like to know what the Americans would do today if the Russians started putting missile defense or troops in Cuba, or Mexico….
    “What I want to say is, the Americans don’t belong in Georgia or Ukraine. Putin’s demands are legitimate. And that would normally be the role of France–– to say, in this situation, Putin’s demands are legitimate.”
    Pierre Servant then debates with Zemmour, by casting Ukraine as a ‘dwarf’ nation threatened by the immense Russian military. Ukraine doesn’t threaten Russia, he argues, they simply want protection.
    Zemmour responds, “It’s not little Ukraine that threatens Russia. It’s the United States.”

    Servant replies, “But the US has lost interest in Europe. You know that has been the case since Clinton.”

    Zemmour disagrees but is cut off. (He will return to this point.)
    Servant then raises the post-Soviet agreement with Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons that were stationed there, in exchange for an agreement for inviolate borders. Nevertheless, Putin in 2014 annexed Crimea.
    Zemmour answers, “Did you think it was good for global security for NATO to bombard Kosovo and Belgrade, when Kosovo wanted to leave Serbia? Those were inviolate borders. And yet that doesn’t bother anyone.
    “As for Crimea, you know it has been Russian since the 18th century. To make a comparison, Lorraine and Corsica joined France at the same time, under Louis XV, and Crimea under Catherine the Great.
    “And you know very well that Crimea was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev during a night of drinking. And more seriously, you know that the Russians would never accept the occupation of the Port of Sevastapol by NATO forces with American arms and ships.”
    Roux and Servant both press Zemmour, saying he’s avoiding the issue by giving history lessons.

    [This is a common complaint from the French media, that he goes on long digressions about history in interviews.]
    The question is what would be his plan as President in this or a similar situation. Would he accept one nation invading another on based on historical justifications?
    “You can’t plan if you don’t understand the past. Now if you say should France defend the inviolability of borders, I would say to you, yes, obviously, that has been the policy of France since ’45.
    “But you really have to understand history if you want to plan. You have to figure out what is going to happen. I think we have entered a new era. That is to say, I think that the postwar world is dead.
    “I think there are going to be more and more conflicts, and we have to learn how to manage them. And that won’t be easy.”
    Later Zemmour says, “I’m not Vladimir Putin’s advocate. I simply think we ought to be the friend of Russia, and we ought to stop being the instrument of American maneuvers.”
    Then Zemmour returns to Pierre Servant’s claim that America lost interest in Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union: “That’s not exactly the case. That is to say, America spends its time setting up the European countries against Russia.
    “The great anxiety of the US for a very long time, since the geopolitical theorists of the end of the 19th century, and throughout the 20th century – Brzezinski, the advisor of Carter and Obama, has written very clearly about this model –
    has been to separate Russia from Germany and France. Each time there has been a rapprochement – we saw this during the 2003 Gulf War – the Americans set about finding ways to divide them….
    “Russia conducts a policy that effectively wants to defend and develop its influence. I think that France can and should show signs of friendship toward Russia, for example in removing the sanctions.”
    Asked about Russian election interference, he says he’s not worried about it. “I thought I heard it was above all the Americans that listen to their allies, not the Russians.” [Here he is referring to the Obama-era spying scandal.]
    reuters.com/world/europe/u…
    And asked about building up an EU military force instead of relying on the US, Zemmour says,“European defense is NATO. And NATO is the United States. I think there can only be, as De Gaulle said, national defense. One only defends one’s own country. And Europe is not a country.”
    Other subjects were discussed in the hour-long interview, but I have elected to pass over them, as this thread is already very long. Here is a link to the full video.

     
    • feeriker

      January 28, 2022 at 1:49 pm

      [This is a common complaint from the French media, that he goes on long digressions about history in interviews.]

      Zemmour: “But you really have to understand history if you want to plan.”

      THIS. The Neocon warmongers are either pig-ignorant of history, or, much more likely, ignore it because it leads to factual conclusions that they don’t like.

       
      • electricangel

        January 28, 2022 at 6:42 pm

        “The man who has no past, has no future.” As Israelis say: “The tree without roots cannot grow.”

        They’re neither ignorant nor ignoring it. they’re suppressing it to cut us off from the past.

         
      • awildgoose

        January 28, 2022 at 8:12 pm

        Angel-

        That’s why the Wokes are furiously trying to delete Western history and replace it with crap like the 1619 Project.

         
      • Will S.

        January 29, 2022 at 1:46 am

        Yep.

         

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: