Join 3,377 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Conspiracy?
March 31, 2006 5:20 PM   Subscribe

The Fallaci Code. via
posted by semmi (50 comments total)

 
Yes, they are British, they are French, but they retain their loyalty to their greater nation, that of their religious bond. We need to end the worldwide muslim conspiracy to inappropriately burst into white people's midst by riding on the excuse of globalization. We need a Final Solution.
posted by Firas at 5:39 PM on March 31, 2006


Actually, I think we need a new planet to discover and populate. Let the Muslims and Christians and Jews fight over this one.
posted by billysumday at 5:41 PM on March 31, 2006


Her name is so close to "fallacy".
posted by telstar at 5:54 PM on March 31, 2006


Economic opportunity, the great capitalist conspiracy.
posted by kowalski at 6:02 PM on March 31, 2006


> We need a Final Solution.

Starring Charlton Heston as El Cid. Also, after Arnold retires from being governator he'll be old enough to play Conan the King, script based on Isidore of Beja's Chronicle of Charles Martel at the battle of Poitiers/Tours. Actually it doesn't have to be a Final solution--we'll be entirely satisfied if it's just as good as Charles', which lasted from 732AD until a couple of years ago.
posted by jfuller at 6:04 PM on March 31, 2006


For some reason this reminds me of Eric S. Raymond's rants about how Communist fifth-columnists have poisoned the West with their evil anti-intellectual anti-patriotic relativism, or whatever the hell.
posted by edheil at 6:21 PM on March 31, 2006


I'm through with revealed religion. You knuckleheads are on your own from now on. Don't say I didn't warn you.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:01 PM on March 31, 2006


Oh dear.
posted by jokeefe at 7:02 PM on March 31, 2006


This sort of thing is never taken seriously here. It's not the "political correctness" of the "cicadas" as Fallaci calls the "chattering class" in Europe, but just laughing it off, dismissing the idea of cultural takeover.
posted by jam_pony at 7:47 PM on March 31, 2006


She finds clues about an Islamic takeover of Europe from George Habash, a secular Christian? Arab countries with oil agree (and somehow have the authority) to send Arabs from countries with no oil to Europe to work? Why does anyone take her seriously?
posted by laz-e-boy at 9:40 PM on March 31, 2006


I'm sorry, but they're a little late to the party. We Jews have been working on world domination for a long time now, with our cleverly mapped out scheme in our Protocols, and no Johnny-come-lately is going to knock us off our rootless cosmopolitan perch.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:01 PM on March 31, 2006


"In The Force of Xenu, the controversial MeFi newbie and musician sparkletone illuminates one of the central enigmas of our time. How did America's entertainment industry become home to an estimated 20 million Scientologists in a mere five decades?"

A gripping read, to be sure!
posted by sparkletone at 11:25 PM on March 31, 2006


Yeah, but being prosecuted in France...and now Italy...for "insulting a religion"? I don't know about anyone else, but that bothers me, as does cutting off limbs, stoning, beheading as the punishment for "crimes".

"At the heart of her thinking is the following reasoning: the fight against Islamic terrorism is made more difficult by intellectual terrorism cloaked in anti-racism," via
posted by sluglicker at 11:49 PM on March 31, 2006


but being prosecuted in France...and now Italy...for "insulting a religion"?

Remember WWII? Perhaps they're being a bit over-cautious, but can you blame them?
posted by sacrilicious at 12:13 AM on April 1, 2006


see also: "Yellow Peril" in late 19th century

we all know how _that_ worked out, right?

Fallaci is just trying to give her prejudices a more presentable image; she fails. also, the smoke from her strawman-burning is just annoying
posted by matteo at 12:57 AM on April 1, 2006


How did Europe become home to an estimated 20 million Muslims in a mere three decades?

By being really close to lots of places where muslims live? By previously having empires in most of those places? By counting Turkey as part of Europe? By already having a population of about 700 million, so that extra 0.001% a year didn't really cause much in the way of alarm? By really not giving a flying fuck? WHAT CAN THE ANSWER POSSIBLY BE?
posted by flashboy at 5:04 AM on April 1, 2006


Perhaps they're being a bit over-cautious...

Maybe a tad.

...but can you blame them?

Yes.

There are only two (main)religions that advocate the execution of non-believers and/or the execution of "sinners": Islam and Judaism. That is what they believe in, according to their sacred texts (not so of Christianity or Buddhism). That, and the fact that they are inextricable to race (particularly regarding the Jews) is what makes them so dangerous, volatile, and worthy of contempt. I have nothing against the Arab or Hebrew "race". I am opposed to their concepts of good and evil and how those beliefs should be enforced politically. Christians have undoubtedly been responsible for their share of human suffering during the past 1700 years or so. But Bill Maher does not need to fear for life...or prosecution... for this anti-christian diatribe.
posted by sluglicker at 5:24 AM on April 1, 2006


Wow, are you stupid.


Or was that just a very oblique April Fools joke?
posted by flashboy at 5:44 AM on April 1, 2006


@flashboy
Rather than attack me my calling me stupid (which is pretty easy, dumbass...see?), point out the stupidity of my statements. Prove them wrong.
posted by sluglicker at 5:59 AM on April 1, 2006


Fine. Some of the more obvious wrongnesses:

Islam is "inextricably linked to race"? What race would that be, out of interest? Seriously now. Muslim ≠ Arab. That's beginner's stuff. (And the Jewish stuff probably isn't as simple as you think it is either.)

And in any case, how exactly does a cultural belief being tied up with a particular population group make it "dangerous, volatile, and worthy of contempt"? If, say, only Italian-Americans supported a flat rate of taxation, would that automatically make it a more dangerous and unstable idea than it otherwise would be?

And your claim that these are the only two major religions that advocate the execution of sinners - well, last time I checked, Leviticus was part of both the Torah and the Bible. Sacred texts, and all.

(I think that the Dharmashastra also advocates execution for certain sins - correct me if I'm wrong, people who know about Hinduism - but the religion in general comes out fairly strongly against killing, so we'll let it pass.)

And some examples of the strands of modern day Jewish thought that advocate the execution of non-believers would probably help your case as well.
posted by flashboy at 6:43 AM on April 1, 2006


> we all know how _that_ worked out, right?

Still working out, I think.



Oh, and 967,912,347 1,307,000,000.

posted by jfuller at 7:58 AM on April 1, 2006


(I think that the Dharmashastra also advocates execution for certain sins - correct me if I'm wrong, people who know about Hinduism - but the religion in general comes out fairly strongly against killing, so we'll let it pass.)

Agreed.

Islam is "inextricably linked to race"? What race would that be, out of interest? Seriously now. Muslim ≠ Arab

Yes. About 98%.

The principle sacred text of christians is the New Testament. There are no commandments to execute non-believers or sinners. There are however in the Torah and Koran.

And some examples of the strands of modern day Jewish thought...

That's the best point you brought up? How could any modern person believe in anything that the Torah reveals as the nature of God? It boggles the mind. Have you read it? Do you believe it reveals essential truths? The main point of it is "We are the chosen people of God. Everyone else on this planet is called a gentile. All gentiles are worthy of death by default." The Jews are the ultimate rascists. Islam is not far behind.

Seriously, have you read any of these texts?

This is the argument I make: If you believe that your race or religion is superior to another, then I oppose you.
posted by sluglicker at 8:01 AM on April 1, 2006


What the fuck are you talking about?

Flagged as offensive trash. You might want to actually learn a little something about Judaism before you post next time.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:45 AM on April 1, 2006


Ah, here we go. You are offended because i stated that your race and religion is not superior to anyone else's?
posted by sluglicker at 8:59 AM on April 1, 2006


Yes. About 98%.

What does this mean? 98% of what is what? What on earth are you talking about?


But there seems to be little point in arguing with you. If you're incapable or unwilling to distinguish between the "sacred texts" of a religion and the actual interpretation, beliefs and practices of the modern-day people you condemn, then your position is every bit as inflexible and closed to debate as a fundamentalist of any religion.

But of course, that sort of scriptural absolutism isn't actually your perspective, is it? Because you're quite happy to allow Christians that "the Old Testament isn't really part of Christianity" get-out clause. You're perfectly happy cherry-picking bits of ancient text, and remaining willfully blind to everything else - in text, in history, and in modern, real-world examples. Because really, you just don't like Jews or Muslims.
posted by flashboy at 9:12 AM on April 1, 2006


Yes. About 98%.

Hah. India/Pakistan/Indonesia/Iran/Bangladesh/Southern African Regions/North Africans Who're not Arab/etc. = 2% of the muslim population?
posted by Firas at 9:14 AM on April 1, 2006


There is no commandment in the Old Testament to kill non-Jews. And the concept of "chosen people" in Judaism is not one of superiority, but of having chosen a covenant, and been chose, to enter into a covenant with God, meaning Jess take on unique responsibilities.

Judaism is not racial, despite your assertion. Jews can convert into the religion from any race, and Jews do not view themselves racially; rather, historically, they viewed themselves tribally. There are no racial characteristics that define Jews.

I'm offended because you're an ignorant ass who shows an breathtaking willingness to state nonsense in a public forum.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:23 AM on April 1, 2006


chosen and Jews, of course, is what I meant. Not chose and Jess.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:24 AM on April 1, 2006


Sluglicker

Take your absurd untruthful screeds to LGF or stormfront.

" All gentiles are worthy of death by default."

I missed this bit in my yeshiva classes, but perhaps they reserve it for ordained rabbis. Uncle ZOG will see you now.
posted by lalochezia at 9:26 AM on April 1, 2006


Uncle ZOG, i mean.
posted by lalochezia at 9:27 AM on April 1, 2006


That's what you guys can come up with? That I'm stupid or an ignorant ass? None of you have addressed anything I've said. Let me see, God made a contract with you stating that you can have that land over in what is now called "Isreal". Well, if God said it, then it's OK with me.
posted by sluglicker at 9:33 AM on April 1, 2006


I just wanted to say that I am part of an international anti-jewish conspiracy. Take what I say with a grain of salt.
posted by sluglicker at 9:39 AM on April 1, 2006


Huh. What has changed since your claim that God told the Jews to kill unbelievers?

Oh, I see. Now it's all about the Book of Joshua. The land is called Canaan, by the way. Israel (you mispelled it) was the name Jacob recieved after wrestling with an angel; the land is called Israel now, but only took that name in 1947.

Seriously, have you read any of these texts?
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:40 AM on April 1, 2006


I'm really thinking that my original response of "wow, are you stupid" was actually the only sensible one, but here goes:

You assert that Islam is inextricably linked with race. We point out that it's not - just considering the populations of Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Iran and Turkey alone, you've got somewhere north of 600 million Muslims who aren't Arabs. This does not involve calling you ignorant, although it may demonstrate that you are.

You assert that Judaism is inextricably linked with race. We point out that it is not - it's tribal rather than racial, that you've misunderstood the meaning of the term "chosen", that anybody may become Jewish, and that there are numerous divergent populations within Judaism, some of whom could in fact be considered "Arab", depending on your definition. This does not involve calling you ignorant, although it may demonstrate that you are.

You assert that the Torah instructs Jews to kill all Gentiles. We point out that it does not. This does not involve calling you ignorant, yadda yadda yadda.

You assert that Christianity has no sacred text which advocates death for certain sins. We point out that the Old Testament most certainly does, and that this is actually still a sacred text in Christianity, and anything you may have read to the contrary was probably an April Fools joke or something. Once again, not so much with the calling you ignorant.

We ask you to explain better what the fuck you're on about. You suggest that we feel threatened because we're all Jews. This does not involve... ah, sod it. You're ignorant.

Now please bugger off.
posted by flashboy at 10:03 AM on April 1, 2006


Israel (you mispelled it)

Yes I did. Sorry. Let me recap: Oriana Fallaci is a brilliant interviewer/writer. My argument is this: If you believe that your race or religion is superior to another, then I oppose you.
posted by sluglicker at 10:10 AM on April 1, 2006


So what? Bully for you.

Enough of your derail.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:11 AM on April 1, 2006


> Seriously, have you read any of these texts?

Well now, Bible-quotin' fundie that I am, I have read them--and recently. The book of Joshua does indeed chronicle an outstandingly bloody invasion of the land of Canaan, justified by Hebrew priests purportedly relaying orders from the Hebrew God. I was also struck by the accounts of later occasions when, during Yahwist kulturkampfs cultural revivals, all those Jews who were found to have taken Baal-worshiping Canaanite wives were commanded to slay them with the edge of the sword, and did--or so it says.
posted by jfuller at 10:28 AM on April 1, 2006


Here's an intellectual exercise for those of you who seek real insight...
Re-read Fallaci's artcle, but substituting...
U.S.A. for Europe
Latin America for Islam
Mexican for Arab
Vincente Fox for any Arab ruler mentioned
Suddenly you have the Congressional Republican's immigration policy in a nutshell! Isn't that amazing?

Seriously, "demographic war" is going on all over and the over-simplifiers say it's going to be won by the side that reproduces fastest. (Is THAT why the Catholic Church opposes birth control?)
posted by wendell at 11:16 AM on April 1, 2006


I just love when immigration is turned from an economic phenomenon into a giant conspiracy in some executive room.

I imagine Arab leaders sitting at a table telling the Europeans "ok we'll sell you the oil for very high prices, we're really doing you a favour here, you understand, but in return, let us send you all these workers, because we can't use them here, we have a deal with Bangladesh and the Philippines to take in their construction workers so we can do them the favour of selling them oil at very high prices", and the Europeans going, "dude, that sounds like a brilliant plan, let's knock down those really high walls all around the place and finally open our borders!".
posted by funambulist at 12:28 PM on April 1, 2006


You know, there's no historical basis for the Book of Joshua -- it's myth, completely unsubstantiated by historical record; neither is it evidence of a Jewish program of mass extermination against non-Jews that, apparently, we are to believe continues to this day.

But, if you want to argue that Jews are somehow historical equivalents of Nazis, feel free. I'm sure you'll be the hit at white supremacist cocktail parties.

Now, can we get back to the topic at hand?
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:27 PM on April 1, 2006


Which one? We have a choice of several now. There's

There is no commandment in the Old Testament to kill non-Jews.

and there's

Seriously, have you read any of these texts?

...both of which my post, supra, addressed directly. But I expect you're uncomfortable with these by now and would rather revert to how Oriana Fallaci hates the ragheads. Fine, zo beet.


> But, if you want to argue that Jews are somehow historical equivalents
> of Nazis, feel free. I'm sure you'll be the hit at white supremacist cocktail parties.

Oh, get down off that cross, Astro, it's ethnoculturally inappropriate. People will think you're a Jew for Jesus.
posted by jfuller at 5:45 PM on April 1, 2006


Yes, I would like to get back to a discussion of Oriana Fallaci. It is, after all, the topic.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:54 PM on April 1, 2006


Getting back to what laz-e-boy said above, here's a bio of George Habash:

George Habash was born 1925 in Lydda and left during the 1948 war. He is Greek-Orthodox. In the early 1950s, he was a member of the Organization, 'Oppose to Political Settlement with Israel.' He associated with the Pan-Arabist movement of Gamal Nasser and called for fighting the national struggle for Palestine in a united Arab struggle. He graduated medical school in 1951 from the American University of Beirut and founded the Arab National Movement. After the 1967 war, Habash adopted a more radical socialist philosophy and established the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in 1968. In 2000, Habash retired after 32 years as head of the PFLP.

Whatever he is, he is not a Muslim.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:11 PM on April 1, 2006


how Oriana Fallaci hates the ragheads

are you trying to argue that she doesn't? I hope not. just read her, it's there
posted by matteo at 8:15 AM on April 2, 2006


Oh, of course she does. Remember who you're talking to--not, to say the least, one of the kneejerk all-hate-is-always-wrong crowd. The proper question regarding Fallaci's book is, is she right? not does she hate?

To keep things in perspective, I don't imagine Europe has any more to worry about now that Islamic immigrants are showing up in such numbers and breeding more like themselves than the indigenous Americans had to worry about when Europeans first showed up here and started to breed. After all, we know how _that_ worked out, right.

posted by jfuller at 10:28 AM on April 2, 2006


Because all the European conquerors needed to do to Native Americans to conquer their land was breed, right? that is very, very funny. Retroactive demographic wars!

I have to go breed more like myself now.
posted by funambulist at 10:47 AM on April 2, 2006


Thinking with your other head again, a funambulist? Nothing new for you.
posted by jfuller at 10:57 AM on April 2, 2006


tsk, wrong chromosomes assumption, hilarious and impressively well-argued retort nontheless!

Anyhow, back to Fallaci and demographics - maybe someone should introduce her to Prof. Pianka?
posted by funambulist at 11:54 AM on April 2, 2006


Weird thread. Like seeing all the participants putting more logs in the fire but the kettle not getting any warmer.
posted by Firas at 3:04 PM on April 2, 2006


I guess it's just rather hard to comment on an article that consists entirely of uncritical paeans to Fallaci, taking everything she says at face value, without even a mention of the debate and criticism directed at her (it only mentions the trials, as if to show, see, she's a lone voice in the wilderness and they can't find anything better to attack her with than bringing her to the court to try and suppress free speech!).

The article is also disingenous in putting her in the very same category as Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It's not just that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is actually a Muslim apostate so she's speaking as an "insider". I may be wrong, but seems to me there is some substantial difference in the level of discourse there, and the intent, too. Fallaci takes the issues of women in Islam, fundamentalism, immigration, etc., and then makes a mockery of the whole thing by exploiting and fuelling a lowest common denominator approach, all populist rage and hatred, doom and terror, conspiracy theories and her own fatwas, and a very careless approach to the facts and figures. She's no longer a journalist. She's a preacher.

And all that stuff about " a world-class journalist’s dismay that she could have missed the story of her lifetime for as long as she did"?

Yeah, right... Or maybe, following her career, one could easily get the impression that there was also a degree of convenience in making such a u-turn. She's always been an outspoken atheist and identified as a feminist but now, suddenly, Christianity is a bulwark against the conspiracy-prepared Muslim invasion. She was very anti-war and anti-american in the 70's, now she's acting like that was some little passing error of youth that doesn't even deserve a mention, or maybe something that makes her best qualified to to be the scourge not only of those who embraced her same ideas when it was most fashionable, but also of those who have not followed her 100% in going from one ideological extreme to the other, and those who never had those ideological extremes in the first place. To her, the moderates on all sides are just conniving cowards.

Of course, she really believes what she's saying now, too, I'm not doubting that. She believes she has a mission, even if it's not clear what the conclusions of her rants are, apart from apocalyptic nihilism. But it's a fact she's been selling a lot more books in recent years than she ever did before.
posted by funambulist at 3:20 AM on April 3, 2006


« Older Window Exchange, Snowflake Series....  |  The History of the Metropolita... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments