"an MP for the formerly neo-fascist National Alliance..."
-- from the article in The Guardian above

That little phrase is put in, by The Guardian, in order to blacken the Itallian MP in question, Daniela Santanche, in the minds of its readers. But the Alleanza Nazionale under Fini distanced itself in a thousand ways from Fascism, not least in Fini's declared disgust for the "racial laws" (legge razziali") of 1938 and for any form of antisemitism. Mussolini's granddaughter left the party in a fury a few years ago at its clear new direction. It is not "neo-fascist." Real fascists have gone elsewhere.

The Guardian has no history of using any Homeric epithet to describe, and therefore "place" in the reader's mind, any political figures or writers whom it likes, whom it approves of, whom it finds "on the left" but never needs to say that, because the "left" is the "center" and there is no need to describe the previous positions, left or right, of those it approves of, if it would harm them.

A newspaper such as "The Guardian" -- it bears the name, but nothing else, of C. P. Scott's Guardian, could, with reason, routinely describe a certain German political figure as "the former Baader-Meinhof sympathizer Joschka Fischer" or a certain LSE professor (despite the best efforts of Donald Watt and Kenneth Minoque to stop it) as "the former Trotsykite Fred Halliday" or a a late French prime minister as "the former Vichy collaborator Francois Mitterand."

But why stop there? George Galloway deserve a Homeric epithet to spare readers the effort of finding out all about him -- "the louche George Galloway." Or what about inventing a new adjective -- eurabisant, on the model of marxisant, so The Guardian could helpfully describe Solana and Patten and others of that ilk as "so many former or presesent members of the eurabisant E.U. which poses a threat to the continuance of the nation-states of Europe and that intelligent interest and love for the national and local that helps to immunize against the menace of pan-national Islam"?

The Guardian could do all kinds of thiings. It could begin to see that it is a defender, not of "neo-fascism" -- what it accuses the Italian MP above of being connected to -- but of outright Fascism. For that, in the end, is what the Total Regulation of LIfe, and Complete Explanation of the Universe, that rejects or limits almost every form of artistic expression, and every kind of free and skeptical in quiry -- that belief-system or as Bush and Rice would have it, that "religion" with all that word's ----- called Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at October 29, 2006 8:51 AM

The Guardian is the modern equivalent of "Der Sturmer" and "Die Völkischer Beobacher". This time not targeting the Jews (they do, but they call them "Zionists"), but the average man on the street who supports the pro-Western order. The Guardian-logic doesn't go any further from "Colored Muslims are good, white people are bad". That its remarkable because the people who actually read this crap call themselves "intellectuals" and do not operate from outside the British society, nor are they poor or otherwise not happy with themselves from a social-economical perspective. The only conclusion that seems to be the right one, is that these people are just plain evil. No more, no less.

Because of these moral and political alliance with totalitarianism it is imperative that someone shuts down the Guardian. It doesn't matter how, it just needs to be done.

I must say that the Guardian is truly unique in its kind. Not even the traditional anti-American newspapers in Holland, Germany or even France are so deeply anti-everything we stand for.

Posted by: DrWolffenstein at October 29, 2006 9:37 AM

"Daniela Santanche, an MP for the formerly neo-fascist National Alliance"

National alliance is not NEO fascist. You brits are obsessed with the term.

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 29, 2006 11:13 AM

another bullshit thanks to the guardian

"As for the headscarf, it is not so very long since it was commonplace for Roman Catholic women, especially in the south, to cover their heads when outdoors with a triangle of cloth tied below the chin."

that kind of veil has not religious tradition. And it's not a sign of submission.

I guess the brits know it all about pakistani customs but they know shit about a country that's in europe.

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 29, 2006 11:16 AM

Ten to fifteen years ago the various political parties of Italy had a Re-Naming Day in Eden. The parties of the left ended up with such names as L'Uliva and La Margherita and La Rosa. Only one party, Rifondazione Comunista, failed to do so. Nowadays, when you read about the parties maneuvering and squabbling over power in Italy, you might be forgiven for thinking you have come to a meeting of some Horticultural Society, or dropped in on Amos Pettingill's White Flower Farm.

The parties on the right did the same -- the Christian Democrats were no more, and the party that was once the truly fascistic (in the days of Giorgio Almirante) Movimento Italiano Sociale, the "missini," was given not merely a new name, Alleanza Nazionale, but a new moral structure, especially under the perfectly respectable --and in many ways attractive -- Fini. So strong was Fini and so open in his denunciation of policies associated with real Fascism, and especially of any hint of antisemitism, and broke so openly with the hideous fascist past, that Alessandra Mussolini left the party in figlia-di-papa fury.

The complexities of Italian politics, the diffreence between Veltroni, say, and Caruso (compare their statements on Israel's counter-attack against Hezbollah), or the difference between Berlusconi (a crook) and Fini (not a crook), though both may be said to be "on the right," are great and sometimes are larger, morally, than the supposed differences in their parties.

But the same is true everywhere. What does an intelligent and decent man (but wildly wrong on Iraq, alas) Senator McCain, or an intelligent and decent man (yet to speak out on Iraq, alas) Tom Tancredo, have to do with the likes of Pat Buchanan? And what does an intelligent and decent man (but wildly wronng on Iraq, alas) Senator Lieberman, have to do with the likes of Representative Jim McDermott, or Jim Moran (both of whom object to the war in Iraq, but for all the dangerously wrong reasons)?

"Left" and "right," "Democrat" and "Republican" -- terms of limited use, and often of limited shelf-life, unless constantly refreshed and mentally updated.

Posted by: Hugh at October 29, 2006 12:10 PM

Islamic rules say that anyone trying to change what the Koran says is a heretic.

If she is right, then all these religious authorities claiming the Koran requires the veil are heretics.

That ain't gonna fly too good.

Posted by: Phillep at October 29, 2006 12:30 PM

what that politician said however had a wider meaning. She said that the "veil" issue is the tip of the iceberg.

Today she wrote a piece talking about how muslim women in italy that want to marry italian christian people are harassed and offended by the people at their embassies when requesting papers for the marriage.

They are called whores at best and denied those papers.

Posted by: StillFedUp at October 29, 2006 12:51 PM

Ali Abu Shwaima, angrily replied: "I am an imam and I will not permit those who are ignorant to speak of Islam. You are ignorant of Islam and do not have the right to interpret the Qur'an."

A person can read the Koran cover to cover and disect every sentence in it but if you don't agree with an Islamaniac you are "ignorant" and wrong to interpret this "holy" book. Sure-protect the source of evil by accusing those who learn of it by saying they're ignorant. Yet there are still people out there who think there's nothing at all wrong with Islam or its founding document. Simply incredible!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 29, 2006 4:59 PM

Why, do you think, is there so little discussion out there about the *psychology* of veils and burkas and such.

Among the civilized, concealing one's face, say at carnivale or halloween has all sorts of emotional juice. Masks, disguises, anonymous erotic encounters, ete, etc...

And it has a whole literature, both highbrow and low, of its own, extending from Casanova to the Lone Ranger and Batman.

The only other part of life associated with concealing your face is criminality, the bandit's ski-mask and such.

What's up in a society that expects you to conceal your identity, face and form as a normal matter of everyday living?!?!?!?

How weird is that?

And how much weirder that nobody discusses in detail the mentality behind that?

And here's a tasty bit... when a woman lives out her life in that bizarro mental universe, what does she pass along to her little male children???

Posted by: joeblough at October 29, 2006 6:00 PM

"Geeez! Can someone tell me what the latest definition of a 'feminist' is?"

Mother Ecclisiastica, I agree. I've always seen myself as a feminist - a woman who wants, strives for, and enjoys equal rights with men. I get annoyed when some women say 'oh, I'm not a feminist', while using all the privileges that feminists have struggled for.

In this context, it is weird that women who speak up for equality and express concern about islam, like you and me, are not counted when people (including some on this site) rather smugly ask 'why don't the feminists do something?'

Organised feminist groups dwindled when their purposes were achieved - that is normal. But do we really have to form an official 'Feminists Against Islam' group? Nonsense, we're women, we want our rights, and we're doing what we can against islamism.

Posted by: Lili at October 30, 2006 2:43 AM

Good questions, Joe Blough. What do women in Hefty bags have to teach their male children? And why do they continue the cycle? I guess because they have seen what happens, swiftly, to anyone who has a free thought and expresses it. But we here in the west should be thinking about your questions. What is the purpose of "bagging" every woman in Islamic society? And imagine what a world entirely controlled by Islam would look like. Honestly, imagine what a world with all men outside and all women, inside, would be like. Would there be peace on earth? I don't think so. When the men are outside, with no civilizing influence from the women, there will probably be testosterone driven battles to see whose male group is superior. The killing will go on and on forever. Since there is no respect for human life or someone else's feelings the retribution against the families and property of the opposite groups will be fair game for more murder, rape and theft. There will be no refuge. Everything will be dismal.

Since Islam is based on beliefs that are opposite to what the west has seen works for over a thousand years, the idea that reinstating the Caliphate will bring peace to the land is merely a dilusion. Since Islamists twist their laws to suit themselves, there will be no absolute law to go by if they are ever completely in power. Institutionalized Islam will be the death of us all.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 30, 2006 7:23 AM