A half-crazed Italian writer called Oriana Fallaci hates the Muslims (“Terrorists, thieves, rapists. Ex-convicts, prostitutes, beggars. Drug-dealers, contagiously ill”). This is unsurprising: a lot of half-crazed people hate the Muslims. Also unsurprisingly, she’s left Italy to move to the US, where hating the Muslims is more-or-less a national sport.
Her favourite meme – one which has been picked up by a great many half-crazed right-wingers – is the one about Muslim immigrants being a gigantic fifth column who are planning to turn the West into a Sharia state run for their own devious ends.
I live in a Muslim area; if Ms Fallaci is right then I’m extremely envious of my neighbours’ energy . I barely manage to combine work and a social life; they manage to work hard, raise families, do a lot of community/charity work, *and* plot for world domination. Where do they find the time? Maybe it’s the non-drinking…
It’s ironic that most of the people who believe this kind of conspiracy bollocks are fanatically pro-Israeli, to the extent that they view criticism of Israel as antisemitic. Because if you look at it dispassionately, it sounds like a much older and much more discredited meme about a different poor, immigrant ethnic group plotting to take over the world.
Indeed, Ms Fallaci has a Protocols of the Elders of Zion-esque quote to support her argument. She says, “in 1974, former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne said in a speech at the U.N.: “One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere to go to the northern hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
Mysteriously, this quote has never been reported in the news (no hits on Factiva or Lexis-Nexis, whether in English or in French), it appears on the Internet only sourced to Ms Fallaci on weblogs, and it is not in the UN’s archive. I guess this *could* mean that the liberal dhimmi conspiracy has surpressed coverage of the Muslims’ true plans… however, Occam’s razor would have another explanation, based on Ms Fallaci making shit up.
Islam isn’t very sensible, being a religion, and it goes without saying that Muslim terrorists are nasty fuckers who should be locked up for a very long time. But if forced to choose, I’d rather be on the side of the minority group with silly-ish views, than on the side of lying pogromists. How long before we have rumours about Muslims killing Christian babies to mix their blood with pitta bread?
"…the US, where hating the Muslims is more-or-less a national sport."
Contrast the UK, where shallow, ignorant, smug, anti-American calumny is more-or-less a national sport.
Someone got out on the wrong side of bed, didn’t they? Points for the use of ‘calumny’; I’ll also accept ‘shallow’ and ‘smug’. Not so convinced by ‘ignorant’ – the point was a flip one, but thinkers and writers like Fallaci with high levels of anti-Muslim sentiment (Daniel Pipes springs to mind) are certainly given far more respect and less criticism in the US than by their European counterparts.
Sorry if I was intemperate. But to gloss "hating the Muslims is more-or-less a national sport in the US" as "thinkers and writers… with high levels of anti-Muslim sentiment… are certainly given far more respect and less criticism in the US than by their European counterparts" is what Martin Amis would call a Tour de France of back-pedalling, and does nothing to deflect my criticism of the original allegation as ignorant. And the fact remains that levels of redneck anti-Muslim violence in the US since September 11th have been nowhere near where they would have been if hating the Muslims really were an American national sport. Nor have they been anywhere near the level at which shallow, ignorant, smug UK anti-Americans would be rubbing their hands with the glee that only a wholesale confirmation of one’s prejudices can provide.
OK. To me, "she’s left Italy to move to the US, where hating the Muslims is more-or-less a national sport" applied to a half-crazed right-wing fanatic would be akin to writing "he’s left the UK to move to France, where showering is more-or-less prohibited" about someone of dubious personal hygiene. It’s far too silly to be anything other than a gag that references and punctures stereotypes. Should anyone have thought I meant it seriously, be aware that I don’t.
If there is a germ of truth to the stereotype about Americans hating Muslims, it’s that while American Muslims have been commendably unmolested since September 11, Americans’ attitudes to foreign Muslims (or occassionally foreigners they believe to be Muslims) seem not to be quite so sanguine, and this undercurrent seems to feed people like Pipes and Fallaci.
Incidentally, do you teach alongside Chris Bertram? If I’m reading your political views correctly from this exchange, you guys must have some interesting departmental discussions…
John B, that was very very well put. It also sums up very well the opinion of Fallaci held by a lot of Italians. Too bad so many idiots still flock to buy her books like she was a Cassandra of our times… There was a comedian doing an impression of her on Italian tv, a year or so ago, she’d have Fallaci dressed in combat gear with a helmet, bemoaning her exile in her poor Manhattan apartment, and admonishing anti-global youths about their ignorance of real war. She – the real Fallaci, too – went on and on all the time about how at 16 she fought the fascists, she brings that up each time as a last resort as if that alone would guarantee her immunity from criticism, and as evidence that pacifists are really only cowards and hypocrites because they never fought the fascists in 1943 (the fact they were not born yet doesn’t matter). She infamously predicted a catastrophe of Genoa 2001 proportions for another big demonstration in Florence a couple of years later, and warned all Florentines to leave town, close up shop, and weep at the upcoming loss of *all* their artistic treasures, which would be certaintly vandalised by the anti-war hordes. She branded every shopkeeper who wold not comply with her fatwa a fucking hypocrite fat coward interested only in money. Surprise surprise, the huge demonstration was held, and she was proven wrong. No incidents, no violence, no vandalism, half a million people including nuns and priests and children and politicians were marching peacefully and having a chat with the police, the whole thing was televised and even the right wing had to concede the protesters were "well behaved" (also because, this time, the police and secret services had not invited the black block neonazis and literally allowed them to trash the place, like in Genoa) and did she write another article to say, ok, I’m sorry, I really promise to get therapy instead of continuing to inflict my demented rants on the public? Nope, she disappeared for a whole year, then came back with "Fallaci interviews herself" and another book in which she insults even more people, except for Sharon, whom she loves very much and with whom she chats on the phone about dieting, because she is so famous, Sharon actually takes dieting advice from her. The word "loon" does not really do justice to this woman.
Another pearl in her list of definitions for Muslims: rats. As in: the children of Mohammad breed like rats. I’m not making this shit up, she actually wrote that, and defended it against the outrage it provoked. Then she is suprised when in France, some Muslim groups actually try and charge her with libel.
I do teach alongside Chris Bertram, sometimes literally. But I’m not sure by what process of divination you’ve drawn conclusions about my political views on the basis of what I said. Then again, you seem to have conceded the truth of most of what I said — so perhaps the process in question is introspection? I’m confused.
Hmm. I didn’t draw conclusions about your political views on the basis of what you said, so much as on the basis as where, how and when you said it (on my weblog, angrily, and more than once after I pathetically fudged the first reply. Thanks for not letting me get away with that, incidentally).
Now, my weblog and conversation are both often gratuitously offensive; I try and mitigate the effects of this by being as equal-opportunities as possible in the soft targets that I bash. Therefore, if someone complains about a specific example of offensiveness, I tend to assume that it’s an area of particular concern for them rather than me having said something uniquely bad [1]
If someone complains about American-bashing, therefore, I tend to assume they’re either American or someone who classes themself as strongly pro-American [2]; if someone with an Irish name who I know to be a UK resident complains about American-bashing, then I’ll generally assume the latter. The set of people from the British Isles who class themselves as strongly pro-American overlaps noticeably with the set of people from the British Isles who are pro-George Bush and pro-America’s current foreign policy.
While I’m aware this is all conjecture, some of which will certainly be false and all of which may be, it’s built on steps that are reasonable…
[1] This is sometimes erroneous, if only because sometimes it’s made harder to tell from context which things are in jest and which are serious
[2] I’m thinking here of people who are *actively* pro-American. The vast majority of Brits, certainly including me, would say ‘pro’ if forced to choose between pro- and anti-American positions, but still wouldn’t take particular offence at an editorial that mocked Americans.
Amazing, Holmes! I am not pro-George Bush or pro-America’s current foreign policy. But I lived in the US for quite a long time and am highly sensitised to the way making ignorant, snide remarks about Americans functions as a kind of self-congratulatory bonding ritual among many of my socio-economic peers in Britain and Europe. (Scott Burgess is very good on this sort of thing.) What makes it even worse is the hypocrisy: the people in question are outraged at any suggestion of prejudice or stereotyping in literally any other context. Case in point: Guardian feature where people write in with questions about curious everyday phenomena (why does water go the other way down the plughole in the southern hemisphere etc). Reader’s question: "Is there a reliable way of telling the difference between Americans and Canadians? I don’t want to take an instant dislike to the wrong person." Now substitute "Pakistani" and "Indian" for "American" and "Canadian." Can anyone doubt that Rusbridger would be getting death threats? From white people?
I’ll not be getting that job as a secret investigator, then. Damn, and I was already getting excited by the thought of the uniform.
And yup, you’re completely right about the hypocrisy of the PC-ites, although hopefully the "Islam isn’t very sensible, being a religion" line in the same article made fairly clear that I’m not one of them… Maybe I’ll be more sparing with my Yank-bashing in future. Or less sparing with my everybody-else-bashing.
Jimmy Doyle, you should have checked the British tabloids when England plays Germany; or American tabloids for statements about the French or Germans, especially since that little disagreement over Iraq.
I don’t think that kind of bashing, serious or in jest, is such an uncommon thing, or exclusively targeted at Americans. It happens within every country too, people from one area will bash people from another. If you were in the US, you must have come across some forms of that. Hardly an invention of the Brits, and hardly anything new in human history. The Brits may have simply perfected the art. But the ancient Romans derided the Germanic and Gallic tribes in ways that would make you reconsider yank-bashing as an expression of fondness.
In fact, the poor krauts and frogs have probably been on the receiving end of both humourous and nasty bashing far more than yanks, if anything because they’ve been around longer.
"Also unsurprisingly, she’s left Italy to move to the US, where hating the Muslims is more-or-less a national sport."
If I may paraphrase you, I live in an American area, and based on my experience here I must say that your statement is bigoted and ignorant in a measure worthy of "a great many half-crazed right-wingers". Or is it "half-crazed left-wingers" Or in your case, perhaps, "half-crazed centrists"? If you have evidence to back up this assertion, please show it.
"How long before we have rumours about Muslims killing Christian babies to mix their blood with pitta bread?"
I don’t know. Why don’t you let me know when it happens. I won’t be holding my breath. In the meantime, please consider the worldview of a culture that regards The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a Jewish holy book (http://www.lisnews.com/~ChuckB/journal/1560), that considers Jews "the sons of apes and pigs"
(http://www.lisnews.com/~ChuckB/journal/1559), that can allege, andbelieve, that Israel supports the (Muslim) rebels in Darfur
(http://www.americanoutlook.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id3440&pubtype=DailyArticles%3E%20&id=3440&pubtype=DailyArticles), that Mossad planned 9/11 (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR00902), that has leaders "moderate" leaders who couch the "Jewish Problem" in terms like this: "The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jewsrule this world by proxy." (http://thestar.com.my/oic/story.asp?file=/2003/10/16/oic/20031016123438&sec=%20OIC). Consider that the beliefs I cite do not seem to be outlier beliefs, but rather the common currency for much of contemporary Islamic culture.
While you are choosing to "be on the side of the minority group with silly-ish views", you might encourage those on your side to read this, and to take it to heart:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=reform&ID=SP75704. You know as well as I do that ideas, even "silly" ones, have consequences.
Of course I know that, in writing the above, I don’t have to defend myself against the charge of racism from you, because you know as well as I do that Islam is not racially or ethnically defined. You see immediately and appreciate keenly that I am criticizing a culture, or rather elements of a culture, and not any race or ethnic group, just as you, in your criticism of America and of half-crazed right-wingers, are criticizing elements of a culture.
Speaking of pogroms, I wonder which one you are speaking of. I know of pogroms (against both Muslims and Christians) in Darfur and southern Sudan. Are these the pogroms you are referring to?
As for your characterization of Fallaci’s half-crazed argument ("the one about Muslim immigrants being a gigantic fifth column who are planning to turn the West into a Sharia state run for their own devious ends"), I would note this: a prerequisite for defeating a position or argument is the ability to state it correctly. Perhaps this is indeed Fallaci’s position–I don’t know, because I haven’t read a great deal of her writing. However, attacking a weak version of a position (whether stated by its advocates or fabricated as a straw man) is not the same as refuting the position when it is strongly argued. See if you can correctly state Thomas Dalrymple’s version of this position
(http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html). You can hunt for the propositions starting with the paragraph that begins "No one should underestimate the danger that this failure poses", though what comes before is excellent reading.
The America/Muslim-hating comment has already been more than dealt with in comments above. And I agree Islam isn’t a race, although a lot of racists deliberately or accidentally conflate the concepts ‘Muslims’, ‘middle-easterners’ and ‘dark-skinned immigrants’. I certainly don’t think you’re one of them. I also agree that plenty of people with really mad-crazy views claim to be Muslims, and that any prospect of significant advancement for Muslim states in the C21 is heavily reliant on long-overdue religious reforms taking place. This doesn’t necessarily mean so much for Muslims in the West, however.
Fallaci is a terrible writer; I suspect you’re right that Dalrymple would be harder to refute, and I’ll read his writings with interest. The reason I went for Fallaci (and for the tone of the post overall) was because I saw her work being praised by Daniel Pipes, and was shocked and disturbed that anyone even half-respectable could do so.
The POOR *IDIOT* who wrote the above (also shown beneath here) apparently do not find it the least bit strange that the speech *WHICH ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE* cannot be found when searching the UN site either !!!!!
I know for a fact that the speech took place !!!!
The *IDIOT* apparently do *NOT* know how search engine in some cases is controlled by those in power .
Also the *IDIOT* apparently is so stupid that the *IDIOT* thinks that criminals first calls the police themselves and then stands by the phone to wait to be picked up by the police…….
****OFCOURSE**** the UN and those in power does what they can to erase the tracks of what they do and ofcourse the UN is "in" on the whole thing – White American nationalists has said so for years , there is just not anyone who wants to listen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Indeed, Ms Fallaci has a Protocols of the Elders of Zion-esque quote to support her argument. She says, "in 1974, former Algerian President Houari Boumedienne said in a speech at the U.N.: "One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere to go to the northern hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory."
Mysteriously, this quote has never been reported in the news (no hits on Factiva or Lexis-Nexis, whether in English or in French), it appears on the Internet only sourced to Ms Fallaci on weblogs, and it is not in the UN’s archive. I guess this *could* mean that the liberal dhimmi conspiracy has surpressed coverage of the Muslims’ true plans… however, Occam’s razor would have another explanation, based on Ms Fallaci making shit up.
I know for a fact that the speech took place !!!!
How?
I searched for evidence that a specch had actually taken place and I found nothing until I realized that I had to change my strategy. At the UN it proved virtually impossible to find any evidence that an individual by the name of "Houari Boumedienne" had made any speech in 1974 .
By using an "alternate strategy" I did however find what should be termed as "proof beyond any doubt" that such a speech actually has taken place.
Because I have to get it (the speech) myself I am not ready to "share the evidence" with you now. Believe me – or not – what I have written is true.
SORRY !!!
I am also sorry for calling the "initial writer" at this page an *IDIOT* but I am just so tired from the indifference , hate and abuse from other white people when one speaks the truth – or when one just tries to explain that whites have rights too (such as the right to their own country….. ) .
Please note that anyone can post in this forum using any handle they wish…..
This is my secon post in this forum , thank you.
P.S.
Just so there is no misunderstanding… :
I have verified that a speech took place – but I have yet to verify the content….
I expect it could be difficult to verify the actual content of the speech , and even more difficult to verify the *true* content of such a speech – difficult because of the power of those involved.
Also , since I refuse to give my e-mail address to post here the e-mail addresses I have had to use to be able to post here is obviously not my e-mail address – which should be obvious for anyone with just the tinyest of common sense. (so no deceit there either)
I came to this forum by coincidence , and don’t know if I’ll come back.
This is my third posting here.
Similarly, I have verified that a speech took place in which Prince Charles announced that he was descended from lizards and that as soon as gay partnerships were registered he’d be shacking up with Peter Tatchell and former Archbishop George Carey, with whom he already has a love child.
Of course, I can’t verify the actual content of the speech, and neither am I willing to share the evidence with any of you, because those in power won’t let me. Or rather, they haven’t actually said that they won’t let me, and I’m not totally sure who they actually are, but I thought I’d play safe anyway.
Needless to say, this isn’t my real e-mail address, but because I’m telling you that it isn’t my real e-mail address I’m not deceiving you. I’m not sure why you’d actually care about this semantic quibbling as the net result is exactly the same, but it seems to be fashionable round these parts.
i’m so grateful and comforted that oriana fallaci is still alive and well on the planet with me… it will be a mournful day for me when she’s gone and a glorious one for the sons’ of allah and the sheeple on this site.
John B.is a half-crazed pathetic idiot himself with no principles or morality. He lives among Muslims, as he avers himself, but can’t tell shit from gold.Years ago, stupid people like John B.accepted nazies and collaborated with them. Today they choose Red Fascists or Muslims (who are Green Fascists) for their sleazy collaboration. Some of them do it because they are simply politically blind. Yesterday they supported Hitler, today they support Saddam Hussein and the likes of him.
Eugene Furbin, author
I think you might be getting confused between the word "author" and the word "mentalist".
Also, aren’t the Green Fascists the ones trying to make you give up your right to drive an SUV by spreading evil liberal lies about global warming?
Response to John B.
I don’t have anything to "drive" and never will, to begin with. Secondly, I am an author of books to be published soon in the United Sates. As for fascism, it can take on a lot of colors, which do not conceal its true nature violence and slavery. Like islam – the worst of all types of fascism.
Eugene Furbin, author