Skip to comments.FrontPage Magazine's Woman of the Year: Oriana Fallaci
Posted on 12/30/2005 4:39:35 AM PST by unionblue83
After spending most of the last century fighting against fascism, Oriana Fallaci continues to demonstrate the enduring grip of Orwellianism: she is to be tried in Italy for thought-crime. For spending her childhood fighting Hitler and Mussolini, and for dedicating the last four years of her life to rousing the West to the danger posed by Islamofascism, she more than merits designation as FrontPage Magazines Woman of the Year.
Oriana Fallaci has rebelled against fascism most of her life. She is not an ideologue, bound to implement any given ideology. Hers is a defensive mission. She is, by her own designation, neither a conservative nor a leftist, finding defects with both. Like FrontPage Magazine, her main concern is fighting encroaching totalitarianism, not advancing a narrow partisan agenda ruled by either orthodoxy.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
I don't know how Ms. Falacci could have spent most of the last century fighting "fascism," since fascism died, as a coherent political philosophy, in 1945. It survives only as a cuss word, describing things leftists don't like.
At any rate, she shore don't like them islamics.
Unrepentant, Miss Fallaci calls the downing of the Twin Towers an act of cultural war and says the superior Western civilization must stand up and defeat Islam.
"War you wanted, war you want? Good. As far as I am concerned, war it is and war it will be. Until the last breath," she writes.
In any event, I trust you don't consider her a leftist.
What do you think of her vis a vis the reality Islam, which, after all, is what the article is really about.
I never heard of her before this article. Interesting to know about her.
I just wish I knew how to express support for her, either moral or financial. This lady is one of my heroes. Her books are as un-PC as they can get; hence the cockroaches hope to hurt her in the courts. At her age, she should not fight alone.
I don't know. She interviewed Arafat years ago and exposed him as a thug. I think the PA (in their governing of the Palistinians) certainly qualify as fascists, don't you?
I found my soulmate.
I read this one on FrontPage some time ago. Thanks!
Hadn't seen this one. It's good. I'm with you in wishing I knew how to support Oriana's fight.
The Koran was written in the 7th century and has nothing to do with fascism, which was a European movement with intellectual roots in 19th and 20th century Europe. This isn't too say that Islamic fundamentalism isn't evil. But it's not "fascist."
So the Satanic Verses, er, I mean Koran, was the earliest form of fascism? To continue the semantics argument, it seems that Islamofascism is "a movement" that "stands for a centralized autocratic government" (the caliphate) "headed by a dictatorial leader" (ayatollah or mullahs), "severe economic and social regimentation" (dhimmitude)," and forcible suppression of opposition" (the constant references in the text itself to the killing of infidels/non-believers). I am still calling it Islamofascism.
To take one small matter, fascism was marked by extreme nationalism and generally white racism. Islamic extremism contains neither element--the Islamists want to destroy all nations and unite the world under a caliphate and they are, obviously, not white racists.
So it's a version of Islamic "anti-religious everything that isn't Islam fascism", totalitarianism, or whatever other word you would prefer to use. So what if it's a made up word? Does that really matter other than semantically? Would it be Islamist or Islamics? I know what their goals, unstated or stated, are for the world at large. Which is exactly why we need to squash this movement with extreme prejudice. Peace through superior firepower. A great Briton understood this "movement" -- Winston Churchill and we are suffering for not listening to him then.
How about "Islam?" I object to labelling everything we dislike "fascist," because it is a trick started by the Commies, for Commie reasons. By perpetuating it, we implicitly endorse the view that fascism was worse than Communism, even though Communism had a much higher body count.
Communism, fascism and Islamic fundamentalism are all bad for the world, any way that you slice it. I don't think that the semantics argument makes any one of them "better" than the others. We destroyed the Hitler-Mussolini versions of fascism, we destroyed Communism on a grand scale thanks to Reaganus Maximus, and God willing we will destroy the Islamo fanatics the same way; terminology is irrelevant as long as the end-game is the same.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
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.