Blog powered by Typepad


Tuesday, November 08, 2005


Martin Adamson

Clive, I too am in two minds about this. However, at the moment I'm inclined to pessimism. Consider this. The revolutionary history of Europe, France especially, shows that when revolutions start it's often with spontaneous violence and unformed, contradictory demands. However, when revolutions continue, they fall under the leadership of experienced revolutionaries with more coherent plans, and better tactics. Now, in the French banlieues at the moment, who do you think has the most organised, best financed and most ruthless leadership cadres? It's not any conventional European political movement, is it?


Revolutions also require the support of a large part of the bourgeoisie. A few thousands youths in the Banlieues will never form a critical mass.

Martin Adamson

But they're not seeking to overthrow the state, are they? They're only looking to expel the state from their turf. Look at the success the IRA had in creating no-go areas for the British Government in Northern Ireland. And they had far fewer militants than the muslims have in France.


Timothy Garton Ash should talk. The alternative approach as demonstrated by the British government at both national and council levels is to piecemeal ban portions of British culture deemed offensive to Muslims.

Good-bye Piglet, hello Allah!

If the US had given into the "hubris of the wounded" we would have simply flattened the Muslim worls. It is within our power to do so, should we choose to. The enormous restraint shown by Americans internationally and especially domestically may yet prove to be our own undoing.

The hubris here is not of the wounded, but of those who believe our culture to be an invulnerable hegemon.The arrogance of many government officials, academics, and their cheerleaders in the media trends towards blaming the wounded and covering up for the terrorists.

The comments to this entry are closed.