Product Description

Blankley paints the picture of a Europe in which radical Islam is triumphant--a threat that is not only very real, but that would be more threatening to the United States than a Europe under Nazi domination. But there is hope--and a strategy--for Western survival; and Blankley illustrates what must happen to save the West.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #656030 in Books
• Published on: 2005-02-25
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 256 pages

Customer Reviews

Home Run
Tony Blankley's The West's Last Chance is a wake-up call for the West to recognize the dangers it faces from radical Islam. It draws heavily upon history and current events to illuminate this threat, makes its case convincingly, and concludes with a recommended course of action.

The author begins by exposing our disorganized and weak response which he attributes to a flaw of human nature: we tend to forget the past and focus on the present. The Islamic threat we face today is not just Osama and a few thousand followers; in the 15th century Islam overwhelmed Bulgaria, Serbia, Constantinople, Persia, Greece, and struck at the heart of Europe until King John Sobieski stopped them at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

He points out that the Protestant Reformation only became possible with the invention of the printing press, and that Islamic radicals are utilizing the internet to further their cause in a similar way. Now aspiring terrorists can train in virtual camps and learn terrorism without having to set foot in a physical training camp. I myself have read the Al-Qaeda terror training manual which is available through a quick internet search.

Blankley draws an intriguing parallel between our situation today, and that of the America Indians and the first European settlers centuries ago. The situation was similar; in both cases they were not formally at war and even cooperated with each other at times. The Indians, he points out, could have easily held on to their heritage if they had recognized the threat of Europeans to their lifestyle, because while there were only hundreds of Europeans at first, there were thousands of Indians with superior knowledge of the land. The Indians, however, didn't have a historical reference point on which to judge the situation and failed to act decisively. We, however, have plenty of historical reference points to judge the threats posed by radical Islam.

Another interesting parallel is shown: Evangelical Christians in the past didn't involve themselves in politics much for fear it might negatively taint their spirituality, but during the 1970's events arose (notably Roe v. Wade) that goaded them into becoming a strong political force. The same, he shows, is happening in Islam today.

The author points out that in 1920's and 1930's Germans were feeling humiliated and confused, susceptible to outside influences. The Nazis, although a tiny percent of the population, were aggressive, well-organized, and targeted German youth. Islam in Europe, he says, is in a similar situation. Radical Islamicists find a Muslim population humiliated by the dominance of foreign cultures, and young Muslims are increasingly disdainful of their parents' political passivity.

Blankley is careful to note that history is just a guide to possibilities, not a blueprint of the future.

Blankly points out many contemporary warning signs, one for example is a 2004 poll by the Guardian, a liberal British newspaper, in which 13% of Muslims polled publicly admitted to supporting more terrorist attacks on America. If 13% would admit this in public, how many more would admit this in private?

Blankley has a chapter on the actions America took during WWII - enlisting directors like John Ford and Frank Capra to make patriotic morale-boosting movies, censoring the broadcast of economic plans or criticism of physical equipment or troop morale, travel restrictions, etc, and in doing so shows how the Patriot Act is a fraction of what American once did to fight the enemy. He says that Americans during WWII were a little less concerned about rights, and more concerned about what the damage the enemy could inflict.

Concluding the book is a list of intelligent actions that should be undertaken. If the author is correct, and we do not heed his warnings, there could be a time some years into the future we look back and think, why didn't we take action when we still could?

Who will give warning?
Blankley convincingly demonstrates that the West is not merely faced with a few thousand terrorists. The problem is far graver and only a few are willing to say it. After the Turks were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, the Islamist threat receded and the religion had become senescent by the early 20th century.

No more! The Jews of Europe were almost completely wiped out in the Holocaust and since then, the continent has taken in millions of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East. What a horrifying exchange this was. Many of the immigrants are alienated from their host societies and a militant, resurgent Islam appeals to these individuals.

Add to that the pathetic cults of political correctness and multiculturalism holding sway over the political elites and in academia, and the very grave danger becomes obvious. Blankley points out that the West must now choose between its own survival and continuing to bend over backwards in extending tolerance to those who would destroy our civilization.

Oil money and the threat of oil boycotts have made the situation in Europe much worse as documented by Bat Ye'or in her book Eurabia and by Oriana Fallaci in her books The Rage and Pride, and The Force of Reason.

The author examines the attitudes of younger Muslims in Europe and comes up with very disturbing conclusions. He castigates the mass media for partisan bickering and obscuring the facts that really matter. One of the signs of a civilization in decline is Europe's native population's plummeting birth rate, contrasted with the growth of same in its non-integrated immigrant communities.

And the religion of the secular welfare state is no match for a fanatical faith, as has also been pointed out by Roger Scruton in The West and the Rest pieties just won't do anymore. If Anti-Semitism (even under the guise of Anti-Zionism) is the canary in the coalmine, then the poor little bird must be choking in Old Europe by now.

Blankley offers some practical steps for the USA that must be taken soon, like the use of rational ethnic profiling, improved intelligence and the securing of borders. In addition, political correctness must now be dispensed with. He is still optimistic that with correct and timeous action, the threat may be dealt with.

The West's Last Chance provides compelling reading in its description of the nature of the threat and the solutions. The USA is in a much better position than Europe who now harbours the seed of Ishmael in its bosom. What will sprout from that, and when, is the question.

Send in the clown...
Executive summary: should you read this book? Answer, if you want to see a vivid imagination at work, yes. If you're looking for a sober, carefully-argued work, no.

Author Tony Blankley is clearly a US conservative of the deepest hue. This is thus a book written by a conservative for conservatives. It is also written for a US audience, an audience with a notoriously short attention span and a love of information delivered in soundbites that require no thought. And of course that audience is deeply religious, worshipping either a conventional Deity, or the national Deity America (which can do no wrong, which is eternally benevolent), or, in apparent defiance of the First Commandment, both.

The thesis is that the West is menaced by radical Islam, which seeks the destruction of the Western way of life and its replacement by sharia law. To me, this is as far-fetched as the proverbial bucket of sugar from China. Mr Blankley makes some good points - there are indeed problems with Muslim immigrants in Europe, the proportion of radical Muslims is indeed rising and, recently, the Deutsche Oper's production of Mozart's "Idomeneo" has been cancelled for fear of offending Muslim sympathies (for some reason it featured the severed heads of Mohammed, Jesus and Buddha). And there will certainly be more terrorist attacks by fanatical Muslims. But does this amount to a resurrection of the Caliphate that knocked on the gates of Vienna in the 17th century? No. But Mr. Blankley would have you believe that it could.

In his opening chapter, Mr. Blankley paints a nightmare scenario of Muslim takeover and domination that reads like something from "Monty Python" and which, to my eyes, tears to shreds the author's credibility for everything that follows. And what follows is a bit like the British memo to Tony Blair said about the US intentions in Iraq, that the US fitted the facts around an already-decided US course of action. Mr. Blankley does this with much loaded language and strong (and occasionally questionable) statements, and ends up by saying that the USA should declare war on radical Islam and utilise full war powers, such as internment. He clearly strongly disapproves of those lily-livered, multicultural, soft, godless Europeans (I don't know whether he is religious, but he is careful to play to his US audience by invoking Providence a number of times).

However, anyone from Northern Ireland or northern Spain could tell Mr. Blankley what the West faces - a larger version of the IRA or ETA, a relatively small number of terrorist fanatics with a larger number of people actively supporting or passively ignoring them. More security, better intelligence are clearly needed, as they were with the IRA or ETA. But the British and Spanish managed without going to extreme lengths of declaring war on terrorism in the style advocated by Mr. Blankley. These are complex problems requiring compromises and adjustments on all sides; the rapier, not the bludgeon, is needed.

At one point, Mr. Blankley seems to hit on the essence of the problem, but then steers away from it. This is a war of ideas. How exactly does one declare war on ideas? It is not possible to bomb and shoot people into your way of thinking. The Irish Republicans on the Falls in Belfast are still just as ardently Irish Republicans.

The only way to combat an idea is with a better idea. And America has a better idea - democracy. However, no matter how much Americans wish it, US-style democracy is NOT the default condition of humankind; the mere displacement of a dictator or two will not make US-style democracy automatically flourish. Only by example can the USA make it appealing. If America lived up to the high ideals of its founders, not to mention the first Republican President (would Abe even recognise the present incumbent?) it would be unstoppable. Naturally, one will never please all the fanatics, who will insist on continuing to have both feet firmly planted in the air. But if the world could see an America, which gave a fair deal to ordinary Americans and minorities, in which the government wasn't totally corrupt and beholden to religious fanatics and lubricated by corporate money and backscratching, and in which it was even-handed in its foreign relations, most of that world would be impressed and want the same. The world is ready for such an America. Problem is, America, having with the recent law changes essentially acquired its first dictator, with an apparent desire to arrest and torture whoever he wants, apparently isn't. Pity.

It seems to me that this book almost certainly has an ulterior motive. Although the dreadful word "Iraq" is rarely mentioned (and then only in approval of the US actions there), it seems to me that, having invaded Iraq on a totally falsified pretext and found no WMD there, some justification was needed to cover backsides that suddenly were looking very bare indeed. Answer: The Clash of Civilisations! This book may be an attempted justification of the mess into which the USA has got itself. By holding forth the thesis that the Clash of Civilisations is the real reason that George Bush invaded Iraq, the author seeks to transform him from bumbling incompetent to great visionary, just in time for the forthcoming elections.

At one point, Mr. Blakely gets slightly carried away and calls President Bush "George the Bold". And this is quite appropriate. The previous "bold" leader in history was Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy in the Middle Ages. Charles's name in French is "Charles le Téméraire", and "téméraire" is more accurately "rash" or "foolhardy". He led his duchy into a disastrous war with the Swiss Confederation and lost his duchy and his life. France then acquired Burgundy and has been drinking the proceeds ever since. "George the Rash"; bon, n'est-ce pas?