“Wake up, people. Wake up! Intimidated as you are by your fear of going against the current—that is, appearing racist (a word which is entirely inapt as we are speaking not about a race but about a religion)—you don’t understand or don’t want to understand that a reverse–Crusade is in progress. Accustomed as you are to the double-cross, blinded as you are by myopia, you don’t understand or don’t want to understand that a war of religion is in progress. Desired and declared by a fringe of that religion, perhaps, but a war of religion nonetheless. A war which they call Jihad. Holy War”
“Because there are tens of thousands of Osama Bin Ladens by now, and they’re not only in Afghanistan or in other Arabic countries. They’re everywhere, and the most hardened ones are right in the Western world. In our cities, in our roads, in our universities, in the ganglions of technology. That technology that any dolt can handle. The Crusade has been in progress for some time. It works like a Swiss watch, sustained by a faith and a malice comparable only to the faith and malice of Torquemada when he led the Inquisition. The fact is that dealing with them is impossible. Reasoning, unthinkable. Treating them with indulgence, tolerance or hope, suicide. Whoever thinks differently is deluded”
Reading the above excerpts, one would think that they come from the “fiery” political position of some far-right figure of our time or that they are part of a recent statement by some populist politician, who, through intolerant rhetoric, aims at ephemeral political benefits and a late take-off of his predetermined short career. Nigel Farage or Le Pen could have been two excellent candidates who would compete to the last drop of their Anglo-Saxon or Flemish, respectively, untainted blood for the copyright of these texts.
Some other readers, more sensitive, with a background in the field of migration, might have been tempted to attribute the above pieces either to Charlie Kirk and the MAGA movement or to the British Conservative MP Enoch Powell, who went down in history for his political pruning after delivering the “Rivers of Blood,” his famous speech in Birmingham in 1968, where the theory of population “invasion” was indirectly formulated for the first time. Finally, perhaps some more localists and “stuck” with the Greek reality considered the main inspirer of these quotes to be the former Minister of Migration and Asylum, Makis Voridis, who, due to his ideological consistency, tends to be considered by his party opponents as a xenophobic pool of Siloam.
In fact, many of the readers, being certain of the reactionary nature of the excerpts as a result of the toxic personality of their alleged authors, would be ready to unleash “shrapnels” against the racist delirium that lurks in these two bibliographical references and to “tear their robes” in relation to the incited racial and religious hatred that they are possessed by. The problem, however, arises and embarrassment emerges when it is proven that the above excerpts do not constitute a subchapter in Francis Galton’s Eugenics manual but references from Oriana Fallaci’s book The Rage and the Pride.
Oriana Fallaci: The contradiction of a revolutionary mind
For those who don’t know or have forgotten, Oriana Fallaci was one of the most famous Italian journalists, a war correspondent, and a prolific writer. Active in political developments throughout her life, she covered the most important wars of the 1970s as well as the bloody revolutions that took place between 1960 and 1980. She met with the most important political figures and took interviews from the most powerful and famous people of her time, which have been published in a book entitled Intervista Con la Storia.
In addition, she had an additional bond with our country because of her relationship with Alekos Panagoulis. She was a personality who fought passionately for human rights, defended gender equality, and throughout her life fought against oppression, imposition, corruption, and the arbitrariness of the few. Her writings were a symbol of independence, a voice that fought dogmatism and religious obscurantism, a personality that, no matter how hard they tried, they could not fit into any party stereotype.
So, what happened to a multifaceted person, an integral character, a woman with ideals and revolutionary spirit, to reach the point of condemning the value base of Islam in her book? How is it possible that a person who dedicated her existence to highlighting the struggle of the poor and oppressed everywhere against the capitalist establishment can attack the Somali “poor devils” who “occupied” the central square of Florence with their tents, characterizing them as despicable invaders? And to what extent is it consistent for a defender of human rights to directly confront those who are victims of cruel exploitation and cogs in the machine of smuggling?
Migration, security, and the European dilemma
All of the above demonstrates that since the reasonable concerns of the past decades about uncontrolled mass migration—and especially its effects on security, social cohesion, the burden on infrastructure, the degradation of social services, and the shrinkage of the welfare state—were ridiculed and deconstructed as absurd and contrary to the “natural flow” of things, opinions, sometimes documented and sometimes bordering on coffeehouse discussion, about a clash of cultures, population invasion, and demographic change are now gaining ground in the public sphere and across a wide part of the political spectrum, with all that this entails in terms of taking measures.
These measures are not the monopoly of conservative parties or the so-called “far-right” formations. They are positions that are now often expressed openly by people with deeply liberal and progressive backgrounds, by personalities who have the courage to express their opinion even when it is not convenient or does not “feed” their bank accounts with millions in European subsidies.
From inaction to reaction
It is well known that action (or inaction) inevitably provokes reaction, and therefore it was inevitable that Europe’s ostrichism in promptly managing illegal migration would sooner or later lead to drastic and unprecedented countermeasures. Recently, Austria and Germany sat down at the negotiating table with the Taliban to achieve the deportation to Afghanistan of a few dozen Afghans convicted of criminal offenses.
A move of less practical value and more for political show and the reassurance of public opinion, which nevertheless highlights the desperation that European governments have fallen into, faced with the impasse of managing millions of displaced people on their territories.
The risk of losing Europe’s moral compass
However, in order to correct the results of the disastrous open-border policies that were naively implemented in previous years, and in order to relieve the very justifiably repressed emotions of European citizens who have experienced the gradual shrinkage of their quality of life for the sake of the few, there is a risk of demagnetizing Europe’s moral compass and leading us to extremes.
For example, accusing Islam of expansionism and identifying it with terrorist attacks in Europe is a dangerous simplification—a generalization that legitimizes collective stigmatization and the criminalization of diversity, undermining the foundations of any prospect of peaceful coexistence within the continent.
The real danger that lurks, therefore, is not only the observed increase in extreme Islamist enclaves but also the simultaneous strengthening of internal extremism in Western societies, either in the form of Islamophobia or the revival of movements fueled by fear, as an outgrowth of the past obsessive policy of protecting the few that ignored the needs of the many.
Between security and humanity
Fundamentalists and religious fanatics have existed on both sides throughout the centuries. The superiority of European civilization lies, among other things, in the fact that it has managed to limit them over time, to curb their actions, and to make them picturesque by promoting respect and tolerance, while on other continents, the marriages of adults with twelve-year-old children, the rape of women and their forced female genital mutilation, the stoning of “infidels,” and the blowing up of Christian churches with explosives are something morally acceptable that often receives the praise of the community.
In conclusion, the need for security measures against all forms of violence is indisputable and absolutely necessary. European societies can neither operate in a state of fear nor allow their normality, as it was shaped by centuries of struggle, to be questioned.
If Europe, however, in the name of security, chooses the unilateral solution of generalized repression, it risks undermining the very principles on which it was founded. Thus, the visible danger is not limited only to the “invasion” of the foreign but also extends to the erosion of the European democratic model itself from within. And if this happens—if Europe loses its core values—it will be even more vulnerable, as happens with any patchwork of heterogeneous and opposing forces that ultimately collapses like a house of cards.
* English reprint of an article first published on the website tovima.gr on September 25, 2025.
** Marios Kaleas is General Director of the Greek Asylum Service and Deputy Chair of the Management Board of the European Agency for Asylum (EUAA).