That's not the best debate, but they were surprisingly polite for how much venom they seemed to have for each other. The translation wasn't great (especially for chatgpt who can smooth over those irregularities pretty easily), but I agree with Gluksmann's definition of secularism, but I think he misses his own point by his definition. If secularism doesn't look at who you are then how can it support any of his points about diversity and humanism being the core of French identity. It, by itself, affirms Mr Zemmour's criticisms and contradicts Mr Glucksmann's points. I would've hammered on that more. The appeals to sensational anecdotes don't really work in a debate like that, but I appreciated both sides and the moderator. I appreciate the debates and discussions. Thank you for posting.
Aïe aïe aïe pauv’ petit Éric… petit Éric Zemmour (زمّور - “klaxon” en arabe libanais) dont les grands-parents (berbères juifs arabophones) ont été arraché de leur terres ancestrales millénaires en Algérie par les tours de passe-passe anti-juif de Crémieux et Vichy.
Comme son homologue anglais Melanie Phillips, il croit à une France (Angleterre) mythique fondée sur un soi-disant patrimoine « judéo-chrétien » qui n’a jamais existé (le christianisme a cherché à détruire les juifs et le judéité pendant 2000 ans). Quant à elle, Phillips a même affirmé que le christianisme est la « foi fondatrice » de l’Angleterre. MDR, comme ils disent.
Heureusement, personne ne prend leurs clowneries au sérieux, ni en France ni en Angleterre, surtout Zemmour qui a été condamné pour haine raciale à plusieurs reprises (Phillips le sera bientôt).
(No ChatGPT was harmed in writing in this comment)
Reaction to the Zemmour vs Glucksmann debate from a friend of mine:
"The Zemmour vs. Glucksmann debate is the same old story: right vs left, anti-immigration vs pro-immigration, anti-Europe vs superficial Europeanism, pro-Russia vs pro-Ukraine, liberal-conservatism vs socialism.
Always the same worn-out reference points, always the same fixed poles.
But Europe’s future will pass through neither one nor the other.
We need a 100% identitarian, rooted, clear, and unapologetic Europeanist axis: the European peoples against the globalist elites, Europe as a sovereign civilization, extra-European re-migration, a continental nationalism that is pro-Ukraine, a third economic way adapted to our peoples rather than to external blocs.
Neither right or left: 100% European.
Neither national retreat or Brussels-style dissolution: 100% European civilization.
Neither nostalgia or utopia: “the European tradition is to innovate,” as Guillaume Faye said.
Our loyalty is not to repeat the past, but to extend the creative dynamic that made Europe: to invent, explore, conquer, transform.
European identity is not a museum; it is a driving force".
So… had to look Glucksmann up.. psh psh married to a Georgian/Ukranian… mm … member of EU parliament.. hmm.. supports every atrocity by Israel.. Jewish, of course..
Do they make them according to some pattern? The same story over and over.
Thank you for posting this debate. I don't think it's the best discussion I've read, especially because I got the feeling that they were always talking about different things that the other person didn't understand. I wish there had been more time to discuss these topics, because it's important to ask more questions and explain each person's opinion in more detail.
It was an interesting read, thank you. Neither debater seemed to know what to make of the very real Muslim woman in the audience, which makes me think this debate is irrelevant to the future of France.
That's not the best debate, but they were surprisingly polite for how much venom they seemed to have for each other. The translation wasn't great (especially for chatgpt who can smooth over those irregularities pretty easily), but I agree with Gluksmann's definition of secularism, but I think he misses his own point by his definition. If secularism doesn't look at who you are then how can it support any of his points about diversity and humanism being the core of French identity. It, by itself, affirms Mr Zemmour's criticisms and contradicts Mr Glucksmann's points. I would've hammered on that more. The appeals to sensational anecdotes don't really work in a debate like that, but I appreciated both sides and the moderator. I appreciate the debates and discussions. Thank you for posting.
Aïe aïe aïe pauv’ petit Éric… petit Éric Zemmour (زمّور - “klaxon” en arabe libanais) dont les grands-parents (berbères juifs arabophones) ont été arraché de leur terres ancestrales millénaires en Algérie par les tours de passe-passe anti-juif de Crémieux et Vichy.
Comme son homologue anglais Melanie Phillips, il croit à une France (Angleterre) mythique fondée sur un soi-disant patrimoine « judéo-chrétien » qui n’a jamais existé (le christianisme a cherché à détruire les juifs et le judéité pendant 2000 ans). Quant à elle, Phillips a même affirmé que le christianisme est la « foi fondatrice » de l’Angleterre. MDR, comme ils disent.
Heureusement, personne ne prend leurs clowneries au sérieux, ni en France ni en Angleterre, surtout Zemmour qui a été condamné pour haine raciale à plusieurs reprises (Phillips le sera bientôt).
(No ChatGPT was harmed in writing in this comment)
Reaction to the Zemmour vs Glucksmann debate from a friend of mine:
"The Zemmour vs. Glucksmann debate is the same old story: right vs left, anti-immigration vs pro-immigration, anti-Europe vs superficial Europeanism, pro-Russia vs pro-Ukraine, liberal-conservatism vs socialism.
Always the same worn-out reference points, always the same fixed poles.
But Europe’s future will pass through neither one nor the other.
We need a 100% identitarian, rooted, clear, and unapologetic Europeanist axis: the European peoples against the globalist elites, Europe as a sovereign civilization, extra-European re-migration, a continental nationalism that is pro-Ukraine, a third economic way adapted to our peoples rather than to external blocs.
Neither right or left: 100% European.
Neither national retreat or Brussels-style dissolution: 100% European civilization.
Neither nostalgia or utopia: “the European tradition is to innovate,” as Guillaume Faye said.
Our loyalty is not to repeat the past, but to extend the creative dynamic that made Europe: to invent, explore, conquer, transform.
European identity is not a museum; it is a driving force".
I think the AI swapped the two debaters from time to time, which makes the whole thing a bit confusing.
Of course the Ashkenaz is a leftist and the Sephad a rightist.
So… had to look Glucksmann up.. psh psh married to a Georgian/Ukranian… mm … member of EU parliament.. hmm.. supports every atrocity by Israel.. Jewish, of course..
Do they make them according to some pattern? The same story over and over.
Thank you for posting this debate. I don't think it's the best discussion I've read, especially because I got the feeling that they were always talking about different things that the other person didn't understand. I wish there had been more time to discuss these topics, because it's important to ask more questions and explain each person's opinion in more detail.
It was an interesting read, thank you. Neither debater seemed to know what to make of the very real Muslim woman in the audience, which makes me think this debate is irrelevant to the future of France.