“What I do question is the timing of those remarks.”
I understand.
“There is a narrow window here to unite the West.”
That won’t happen.
“Charles-Philippes remarks do not advance that cause.”
They don’t hurt it either. The simple fact is that those who agree with D’Orleans are the ones who most likely understand true western unity more than those who championing Charlie Hebdo. True western unity is based on the real religion and culture of the west - not a vulgar, leftwing French rag.
Interesting discussion.
After consideration, I would have to say that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is actually a stronger and more moral statement than “identifying” with “Charlie”, when one actually does not, in many ways. Perhaps the Frenchman, Charles-Philippe, should have used the Englishwomans words!
On the other hand, I dont know that well ever get True western unity based on the real religion and culture of the west. The culture within so much of the Western population has decayed so far, that, that sort of true unity is probably long gone. Likely, the best well get is a shaky coalition based on fear and anger. Those may be legit emotions, but if not channeled adroitly by capable leaders (eg., WW2), such coalitions tend to get a lot of their own blood spilled, unnecessarily.
As an aside, IMO, the idea that the US angered the Japanese into attacking is a less than straw, strawman. The Japanese at the time deserved an all out attack by the Allies, not just an oil embargo ! But pacifism was still strong in the US, Hitler was a greater danger in Europe, and we were not ready If anything, the Japanese probably saw weakness in our response (embargo), even though it would have hampered them, with time.