Sabine D'Arc

Delphine Soulas of the Washington Times writes about Catallarchy's favorite freedom fighter, Sabine Herold.

"Behind the fight against [genetically modified] food are concealed the reactionary ideas of a French far left that have nothing in its list of honors except the defense of all the bad causes of the 20th century, from Pol Pot to [Fidel] Castro and Mao [Tse-tung]," she said.

She does not hesitate to describe communists as "disgusting" or to call the French far-right leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the best speaker, even if what he says "is so dreadful."

My kind of woman!

Now if only I could find a female libertarian contributor for Catallarchy...

Share this

What the Washington Times

What the Washington Times failed to mention is that Sabine has in the past expressed an interest in the EU, even if she wants a more right-wing version of it. However, she still seems to be making a tremendous impact in the blogosphere at least and she is testimony to the fact that there are those in France who will fiercely resist the attempts of decades of socialist government to trample them into the ground - the French government even recently conceded that perhaps imposing a 35-hour limit on the working week isn't such a good thing for the rapidly declining French economy afterall.

Personally, I'm not all that

Personally, I'm not all that impressed with Sabine Herold, though she is very pretty. I've been calling communists disgusting for years!

Why do you want a female contributor?

Why do you want a female

Why do you want a female contributor?

Because we don't have any yet and I don't want this blog to turn into a complete boys club.

You know anyone who might be interested?

um, why is she cool?

um, why is she cool? Because she is willing to look past concern about Genetically modified food and see support for Mao? Gimme a break.

Well I think that Geneticaly Modified food is really just a first step toward a human Eugenics program as advocated by hitler. That is, the roots of the movement share Hitler's ideology, and they are all Holocaust deniers, even if they don't know it. Of course they clear their throats with a "Le Pen is a bad guy," but that is only to avoid criticism for their admiration of his speaking ability (read: voiced anti-semitism.)

Am I a freedom fighter too?

We don't need Mao to get rid

We don't need Mao to get rid of GM foods. We need Adam Smith.

Just stop government funding of the R&D, stop government enforcement of the patents, and stop government food libel laws and restrictions against labelling GM foods. Get agribusiness of the government tit, and GM foods will be as much a moot issue as, say, nuclear power in a free market.

Matt- wha? Crop & Soil

Matt- wha? Crop & Soil Scientists who use modern methods to improve crop lines are holocaust deniers?

Inserting a gene/gene complex to make a plant more resistant to drought is equal to genocide?

Uh, I'm female.

Uh, I'm female.

I was sarcastically

I was sarcastically criticizing her equating GM foods opposition with Maoism.

Well, considering that GM

Well, considering that GM foods opposition and Maoism both led to the starvation of millions, it's seems like a pretty good equation.

it's been a while since I

it's been a while since I covered logical fallacies, tell me is this:
a. post hoc, ergo propter hoc
b. fallacy of the undistributed middle
c. a simple non sequitur

maybe a sprinkling of all combined with an defended proposition (about the starvation of millions from GM food.)

it's been a while since I

it's been a while since I covered logical fallacies, tell me is this:
a. post hoc, ergo propter hoc
b. fallacy of the undistributed middle
c. a simple non sequitur

maybe a sprinkling of all combined with an undefended proposition (about the starvation of millions from GM food.)

It's not a post hoc, ergo

It's not a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy because the results of the action can be clearly tied to its cause. As for opposition to GM food causing mass starvation, I would be glad to provide you with sources; unfortunately, I am late to a forum on Affirmative Action and cannot deal with this right now.

Its only a fallacy if you

Its only a fallacy if you assume that there is nothing more to the assertion than the statement itself.

But it is true that those that oppose GM foods in France are the radical left- Maoists, Stalinists, Trotskyists. Greens are radical leftists who wrap themselves up in environmental rhetoric. Greens also oppose GM foods, and are composed of many ex-communists (the German green party is the quintessential Watermelon party- green on the outside, GDR-red on the inside).

Hence it is not a stretch to say (correctly) that those fighting against GM crops have defended most every evil tyranny in the past 50 years.

Brians, you're verging on

Brians, you're verging on conspiracy theories here. You don't have to prove that those are just the same people (i.e. that only Marxists are opposed to GM foods) you have to prove that the beliefs are fundamentally linked- that GM food concern actually "conceals" closet maoism.

This was the point I was trying to get at with my "eugenics" analogy.

No, I just have to prove

No, I just have to prove that the same people who favored X opposed Y, to say that "those who oppose Y have favored X".

As Sabine's point is not that GM-skepticism leads one to Stalinism & gulags, or even the reverse, but that there is a correlation, and that said correlation shows these people have been on the wrong side of history before, and are thus likely on the wrong side now.

Brian, no fair backing out.

Brian, no fair backing out. Sabine said "conceals," you said "red on the inside" as if people mask their true desires for a dictatorship of the proletariat behind environmentalist causes.

Incidentally, you can "prove" environmentalism and communism are linked the same that I can "prove" that conservatism and fascism are linked, or that conservatism and statism are linked. I mean of course there's a correlation, it's there by definition. I just think you're trying to discount the environmental movement (or at least some of it) by throwing "guilt by association" critiques at it.