Posted on 03/16/2006 11:00:36 AM PST by Leisler
In The Force of Reason, the controversial Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci illuminates one of the central enigmas of our time. How did Europe become home to an estimated 20 million Muslims in a mere three decades?
How did Islam go from being a virtual non-factor to a religion that threatens the preeminence of Christianity on the Continent? How could the most popular name for a baby boy in Brussels possibly be Mohammed? Can it really be true that Muslims plan to build a mosque in London that will hold 40,000 people? That Dutch cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam are close to having Muslim majorities? How was Europe, which was saved by the U.S. in world wars I and II, and whose Muslim Bosnians were rescued by the U.S. as recently as 1999, transformed into a place in which, as Fallaci puts it, “if I hate Americans I go to Heaven and if I hate Muslims I go to Hell?”
In attempting to answer these questions, the author, who is stricken with cancer and has been hounded by death threats and charges of “Islamophobia” (she is due to go on trial in France this June), has combined history with snatches of riveting firsthand reportage into a form that reads like a real-life conspiracy thriller.
If The Force of Reason sells a lot of copies, which it almost certainly will (800,000 were sold in Italy alone, and the book is in the top 100 on Amazon ), it will be not only because of the heat generated by her topic, but also because Fallaci speaks for the ordinary reader. There is no one she despises more than the intellectual “cicadas,” as she calls them — “You see them every day on television; you read them every day in the newspapers” — who deny they are in the midst of a cultural, political and existential war with Islam, of which terrorism is the flashiest, but ultimately least important component. Nonetheless, to give the reader a taste of what Muslim conquest can be like, in her first chapter, Fallaci provides a brief tour of the religion’s bloodiest imperial episodes and later does an amusing job of debunking some of its more exaggerated claims to cultural and scientific greatness.
The book is also animated by a world-class journalist’s dismay that she could have missed the story of her lifetime for as long as she did. In the 1960s and ’70s, when she was a Vietnam War correspondent and a legendarily ferocious interviewer — going mano a mano with the likes of Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat, Fallaci was simply too preoccupied with the events of the moment to notice that an entirely different narrative was rapidly taking shape — namely, the transformation of the West. There were clues, certainly. As when, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her (while a bodyguard aimed a submachine gun at her head) that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”
Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism. Only later did she realize that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens … In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism.” It is a low-level but deadly war that extends across the planet, as any newspaper reader can see.
Fallaci is not the first person to ponder the rapidity of the ongoing Muslim transformation of Europe. As the English travel writer Jonathan Raban wrote in Arabia: A Journey Through the Labyrinth (1979), in the mid-1970s Arabs seemed to arrive in London almost overnight. “One day Arabs were a remote people … camping out in tents with camels … the next, they were neighbors.” On the streets of West London appeared black-clad women adorned with beaked masks that made them look “like hooded falcons.” Dressed for the desert (and walking precisely four steps ahead of the women), Arab men bestrode the sidewalks “like a crew of escaped film extras, their headdresses aswirl on the wind of exhaust fumes.”
Writers far better acquainted with the Muslim world than Raban have been equally perplexed. In 1995, the late American novelist Paul Bowles, a longtime resident of Tangier, told me that he could not understand why the French had allowed millions of North African Muslims into their country. Bowles had chosen to live among Muslims for most of his life, yet he obviously considered it highly unlikely that so many of them could be successfully integrated into a modern, secular European state.
Perhaps Bowles would have been interested in this passage from Fallaci’s book: “In 1974 [Algerian President] Boumedienne, the man who ousted Ben Bella three years after Algerian independence, spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations. And without circumlocutions he said: ‘One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.’ ”
Such a bald statement of purpose by a nation’s president before an international forum seems incredible. Yet even in British journalist Adam LeBor’s A Heart Turned East (1997), a work of profound, almost supine sympathy for the plight of Muslim immigrants in the West, a London-based mullah is quoted as saying, “We cannot conquer these people with tanks and troops, so we have got to overcome them by force of numbers.” In fact, such remarks are commonplace. Just this week, Mullah Krekar, a Muslim supremacist living in Oslo, informed the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten that Muslims would change Norway, not the other way around. “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes,” he said. “By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim.”
In other words, Europe will be conquered by being turned into “Eurabia,” which is what Fallaci believes it is well on the way to becoming. Leaning heavily on the researches of Bat Ye’or, author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Fallaci recounts in fascinating detail the actual origin of the word “Eurabia,” which has now entered the popular lexicon. Its first known use, it turns out, was in the mid-1970s, when a journal of that name was printed in Paris (naturally), written in French (naturally), and edited by one Lucien Bitterlin, then president of the Association of Franco-Arab Solidarity and currently the Chairman of the French-Syrian Friendship Association. Eurabia (price, five francs) was jointly published by Middle East International (London), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), the Groupe d’Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva) and the European Coordinating Committee of the Associations for Friendship with the Arab World, which Fallaci describes as an arm of what was then the European Economic Community, now the European Union. These entities, Fallaci says, not mincing her words, were the official perpetrators “of the biggest conspiracy that modern history has created,” and Eurabia was their house organ.
Briefly put, the alleged plot was an arrangement between European and Arab governments according to which the Europeans, still reeling from the first acts of PLO terrorism and eager for precious Arabian oil made significantly more precious by the 1973 OPEC crisis, agreed to accept Arab “manpower” (i.e., immigrants) along with the oil. They also agreed to disseminate propaganda about the glories of Islamic civilization, provide Arab states with weaponry, side with them against Israel and generally tow the Arab line on all matters political and cultural. Hundreds of meetings and seminars were held as part of the “Euro-Arab Dialogue,” and all, according to the author, were marked by European acquiescence to Arab requests. Fallaci recounts a 1977 seminar in Venice, attended by delegates from 10 Arab nations and eight European ones, concluding with a unanimous resolution calling for “the diffusion of the Arabic language” and affirming “the superiority of Arab culture.”
While the Arabs demanded that Europeans respect the religious, political and human rights of Arabs in the West, not a peep came from the Europeans about the absence of freedom in the Arab world, not to mention the abhorrent treatment of women and other minorities in countries like Saudi Arabia. No demand was made that Muslims should learn about the glories of western civilization as Europeans were and are expected to learn about the greatness of Islamic civilization. In other words, according to Fallaci, a substantial portion of Europe’s cultural and political independence was sold off by a coalition of ex-communists and socialist politicians. Are we surprised? Fallaci isn’t. In 1979, she notes, “the Italian or rather European Left had fallen in love with Khomeini just as now it has fallen in love with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Arafat.”
Considerably less intemperate than her last book on the topic of radical Islam, the volcanically angry The Rage and the Pride, The Force of Reason is despairing, but often surprisingly funny. (“The rage and the pride have married and produced a sturdy son: the disdain,” she writes with characteristic wit.) And, Fallaci being Fallaci, it is occasionally over the top and will no doubt be deeply offensive to many, particularly when, in a postscript the book might have been better off without, she claims that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Nonetheless, the voice and warmth and humor of the author light up its pages, particularly when she takes a leaf out of Saul Bellow’s Herzog by firing off impassioned letters to the famous both living and dead. She is savage about the Left, the “Peace” movement (war is a fundamental, if regrettable, condition of life, she states), the Catholic Church, the media and, of course, Islam itself, which she considers theological totalitarianism and a deadly threat to the world. She is much more optimistic about America than Europe, citing the bravery of New Yorkers who celebrated New Year’s Eve in Times Square despite widely publicized terrorism threats, but here one feels that she is clutching at straws. Though Fallaci now lives in New York, little amity has been extended to her by her peers since the post-9/11 publication of The Rage and the Pride, and she remains almost as much of a media pariah here as she does in Europe. The major difference is that we’re not putting her on trial.
As that Norwegian Mullah told Aftenposten, “Our way of thinking … will prove more powerful than yours.” One hopes he’s wrong, but if he is, it will be ordinary Americans and Europeans, including courageous Arab-Americans like L.A. resident Wafa Sultan and the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali (two women openly challenging Islamist supremacism), who prove him so, and not our intellectual classes (artists, pundits, filmmakers, actors, writers …). Many of the latter, consumed by Bush-hatred and cultural self-loathing, are perilously close to becoming today’s equivalent of the great Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun, who so hated the British Empire that he sided with the Nazis in World War II, to his everlasting shame. The Force of Reason, at the very least, is a welcome and necessary antidote to the prevailing intellectual atmosphere.
Staff writer Brendan Bernhard is the author of White Muslim: From L.A. to New York to Jihad, a study of converts to Islam in the West (Melville House).
Are you sure? A recent poll taken in Mexico indicated a clear majority of Mexicans (a fiercly nationalistic lot themselves) consider the SW United States rightfully belongs to Mexico.
That attitude might not matter much to international institutions such as the catholic church but it sure a heck matters to a large number of Americans, including your's truly.
Outstanding article.
BTTT
Cheers,
knewshound
http://knewshound.blogspot.com/
I wasn't trying to suggest that - I was just pointing out for those who don't know, that they are our second largest source of imported oil.
This is not a new idea. For decades, the left has supported the "peace" movement. Disarming us so they can win by incrementalism. Trouble is, it's working.
I hadn't heard that. Can you get me a link?
Of course, the SW USA was Mexico for at least 150 years (depending upon what year you consider that the Spanish claim was made reality, not just as a label on a map but as a fait accompli.) Throughout the 18th century, Catholic missionaries established missions in Texas, New Mexico, California, etc. and the Spanish and later Mexican authorities established towns and cities.
In the early 19th century, the English-speaking Americans established their claims e.g. in Texas precisely through immigration--- at first legal, and then illegal. And the Mexican-American War wrapped up the deal: the illegal immigrants (Anglos) stole the place fair and square.
Now before you flame me up one side and down the other, I'm just citing this as history, not policy. I am not at all an Aztlanista.
Many of the citizens of this country are armed to the teeth, just look at some of the BANG threads here. The same can't be said about Europe. We're in far better shape should the worst happen.
I wouldn't use the word 'conspiracy', but it was definitely a plan to infiltrate every country of the world. I agree with her 100%.
>"Whats alarming is the level to which the 'right' has accepted the conspirators' premise & language that has effectively blinded the west and is preventing them from doing anything to protect itself."
"For example Rush's recent adaptation (apparently without pausing to recognize the irony of it being one of his opponents' favorite tactics) of the anti-arab race card."<
-good point, very ironic. I love el Rushbo, but I've been scratching my head about that one also.
American Views of Mexico and Mexican Views of the U.S.
Submitted to: John D. Vinson Americans For Immigration Control, Inc. Submitted by:
Zogby International
John Zogby, President and CEO
Maria Bettua, Director Of International Department
John Bruce, Vice President and Systems Administrator
Rebecca Wittman, Vice President and Managing Editor
Joseph Zogby, Writer
snip
II. Narrative Analysis
7. Do you agree or disagree that the territory of the United States’ Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico?
Agree 58%
Disagree 28
Not sure/Don’t know 14
By two to one, more Mexican respondents agree (58%) than disagree (28%) that the territory of the United States’ Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico. One in seven (14%) is not sure.
A majority within almost every sub-group agrees that territory of the Southwest U.S. belongs to Mexico. Among the most likely to agree are more than three in five 18-29 year-olds (61%), those with a secondary education (64%) or who have some university education (66%), and people whose political party is mostly Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) (70%), and mostly or somewhat Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) (62% average).
More than one-third of university graduates (39%), and the adults whose political affiliation is mostly National Action Party (PAN) (35%) or who belong to no party (35%) disagree that the territory of the Southwest U.S. belongs to Mexico. Men (31%) are slightly more likely than women (26%) to disagree.
More than one in five adults 50 and older (22%) are not sure.
I don't believe Obama is a moslem. Not that I like him any more for not being one.
Thanks for this rather stunning information. Yikes. Sounds like the Mexican educational system is about as effective as the Madrassas in terms of preparing a generation of irredentists.
The SW USA was "Mexican" in a legal sense for about 27 years.
In the early 19th century, the English-speaking Americans established their claims e.g. in Texas precisely through immigration--- at first legal, and then illegal. And the Mexican-American War wrapped up the deal: the illegal immigrants (Anglos) stole the place fair and square.
"Anglo" (meaning American) immigration was not only accepted but encouraged because of mexican inability to govern the land, at least in Texas. Texas sought independence - whites and many hispanics alike - only after the constitution of 1821 was overthrown.
As far as the the rest of the SW being 'stolen' buy the US in 1848, I guess that term can be used to describe just about every geopolitical border of any consequence on earth. In this case I say thank God, as did most of the local inhabitants of those lands at the time of their annexation.
That's true only if you count from Mexican Independence. There's CENTURIES of Spanish Mexican *Nueva Espana" history before that.
By the close of the sixteenth century the conquest from Guatamala to New Mexico had been accomplished as a matter of practical fact. This made the Spanish political claim credible, although it was the issionaries who really spread Spanish/Mexican culture.
The Catholic See (Diocese) of Mexico was founded in 1530. From this and other New World dioceses missionaries were sent to evangelize the Indians of the southwestern portions of the United States. (The southeastern portion of what is now the United States --- Florida--- was ecclesiastically dependent upon Santiago de Cuba and later Havana.)
Spanish missionaries, chiefly Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits established numerous missions in what are now the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. In 1565 a royal Spanish grant was issued to colonize Florida with the condition that twelve religious and four Jesuits be maintained. This colony founded St. Augustine, the oldest Catholic city in this country.
The first mission work in New Mexico was started by seven Franciscans in 1598 at San Juan, on the banks of the Rio del Norte, thirty-three years after the founding of St. Augustine, and from this base priests were sent into the surrounding territory and the New Mexican missions established.
In 1687 missions were established in what is now the State of Arizona by a Jesuit priest from Sonora, and after 1732 St. Francis and St. Miguel became the centers of missionary work.
The beginning of Spanish missions in Texas dates from 1689, when three friars and a Franciscan established the mission of San Francisco de Los Texas.
In 1769 an expedition left Mexico for California and among its members were three Franciscans. A chapel was erected at San Diego, the first step toward planting the Catholic church on the western coast.
By 1773 there were five missions—San Diego, San Gabriel, San Luis Obispo, San Antonio and San Carlos in California. In 1775 the missions of San Juan Capistrino and San Francisco were founded and in 1777 Santa Clara mission. Forty-three years after the founding of the first mission there were eighteen missions in California.
Thanks for the info. Although I live not ten miles from two missions, Santa Clara & San Jose, my favorite has always been San Juan Batista. Even in spite of the recent development in the area the mission and town is still reeks of 'old California'.
I agree. But I fear if Mex. has economic problems the people there might elect a socialist sloganeering demogog on the order of "El Loco" Chavez in Venezuela. Such a leader might reverse the present policy and adopt one of "reconquista" militarism, you know, with the banners, parades, goose-stepping troops, tanks rumbling thru the streets, etc. I could see such a regime secretly sponsoring a National Liberation movement engaging in terrorism in order to turn CA, AZ, MN, and TX into a "people's republic" just before re-unification with the Motherland (Mexico). I don't think such a scenario is all that far from reality. I don't think our jello-spined pols would have the stones to do what needed to be done in such a situation, either. I hope I'm wrong about this, but I don't think the people would really have the stones to resist it.
**I don't believe Obama is a moslem. Not that I like him any more for not being one.**
Not sure if he is or not, but here's a thread on the subject.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts
His father was moslem but had nothing to do with his upbringing which was in christian schools.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.