A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
March 9th, 2008
1) The real life of a terrorist: The terrorist who killed 8 people in Jerusalem this wee came from a middle class family. He received his welfare and his jobs, just as his family did, from Jewish Israelis. So what ‘caused’ him to become a terrorist? He had no checkpoints to go through. What does his life say about the media, Islam and Arab society and the way they fan the flames of terror?
2) The path of the white woman: becoming the other: Two recent memoirs by western women have turned out to be frauds. One pretended she was a Jewish Holocaust survivor and the other pretended she was half Native American and the member of a gang. What does this say about the yearning of western women to become the other?
3) The NGO civilization: Further developing the theme of the New International Class we must examine one of the main cultic centers of our civilization: the NGO. A thousand years from now when Archeologists and Anthropologists learn about us the will learn that our civilization was the NGO civilization and that the idea of the NGO so consumed us that it eventually strangled us to death and we produced nothing but more and more charitable organizations.
The real life of a terrorist
Seth J. Frantzman
March 9th, 2008
After the Jerusalem terror attack of March 6th we are once again given an insight into the life of the terrorist. He was not a Palestinian refugee and nor did he come from a refugee camp. He came from a large home in Jebel Mukabar, an Arab suburb of Jerusalem that sits near the U.N headquarters. After the 1967 war when East Jerusalem was annexed to Israel the residents of this neighborhood received Israeli I.D and were thus granted the rights of Israelis. They took the rights but did not take the responsibilities. They obviously never served in the Israeli army, didn't pay taxes or ever identify with their new country.
Ala Abu Dhaim's family was middle class. His father, Hisham, worked as an engineer for the Jerusalem Municipality. He worked with Jews at the municipality and received a large paycheck from Israel every month. Abu Dhaim was 25. He may have attended coexistence programs like Seeds of Peace as a teenager. He certainly received U.N aid and his schooling and his religious studies were all paid for by western charities. When he wanted to learn the history of the Palestinian people he merely had to open his school textbooks which were paid for by western aid. When he wanted to attend a philharmonic or listen to chamber music the American consulate in Jerusalem was there, hosting free events for Arabs. Abu Dhaim took a job driving for a well known Jerusalem Yeshiva named Merkaz ha Rav. He received his paycheck every month from this Jewish religious institution. Everyday no doubt he coexisted with the Jews that he worked for. As he went home on an Israeli bus he performed the time honored tradition of all Arabs who ride buses in Jerusalem: he listened to his Arab music from a cell phone without ear phones, making sure that everyone else on the bus had to listen to it. This was his way of asserting himself. If he had to work for the Jews all day then they would have to listen to his music on their ride home.
He arranged to be married to a girl much younger than him ho was a virgin. Abu Dhaim was not a virgin. He had been with a number of foreign western women, the kind who think Arabs are 'romantic'. Not long before his wedding he was watching TV. He could have been watching Al-Jazeera or the BBC. Both of them would have showed him the same images from the week of March 1st. They would have talked about the 'war crimes' in the Gaza strip. They would have shown the ubiquitous crying Arab children and women. They would have shown the mourners. They would have conveyed the same message: Israel has killed 120 people, most of whome are children, in the Gaza strip. He would have taken in the images. He would have gone to a protest rally by Damascus gate. Here he would have listened to hate speeches given by Arab leaders from Israel and the Palestinian territories. He would have made arrangements to get a rifle. At 3pm he would have made his way to West Jerusalem where the Jews live. His Israeli I.D card made his travel easier. He would have returned to the Yeshiva where he had worked. He knew there was no security guard. He would have pulled the rifle from the bag in which he had concealed it and he would have started shooting. In his mind he was getting revenge. He was also becoming a martyr by defending the Palestinian Muslim people. Hamas and Islamic Jihad, his favored terror groups, would have provided him with some of his ideology. However primarily his ideology was formed by watching the BBC and CNN and Al-Jazeera. They had informed him about the 'numerous child deaths' in Gaza. He would have heard how the U.N the day before had claimed "Gaza's situation is the worst since 1967 with 80% of the people living below the poverty line and similar percentages unemployed…" He would have felt no compassion as he shot down the Jews. He was using collective punishment against them. The Jews he was shooting were 15 and 16 year olds mostly. But Abu Dhaim knew he didn't stand a chance against the Israeli army. He had to kill civilians because they were an easy target that does not fight back. In his mind all Jews deserved punishment for what had been done in Gaza. If he had been watching Israeli TV the day before he could have caught a glimpse of a protest rally in the Israeli-Arab town of Umm Al Fahm in which Israeli-Arab members of parliament from all the Arab political parties in Israel condemned Israel and called her actions those of a Zionazi. He surely would have read Al-Quds daily and learned how Mahmud Abbas had accused Israel of engaging in "the real Holocaust" in Gaza.
After Abu Dhaim had killed 8 students the BBC would describe his act as an 'infiltration' and an 'attack on the spiritual center of Zionism'. The press learned quickly that Merkaz Ha Rav Yeshiva was a religious-nationalist Yeshiva at which the sons of settlers learned Torah. The press would indicate that the settlers who attended Merkaz Ha Rav deserved what they got in some ways. The BBC would claim that many of those who studied at Merkaz Ha Rav 'seminary' were soldiers or were destined to serve as soldiers. Thus killing them was not terrorism or a war crime or collective punishment, it was merely self-defense and the action of a 'militant insurgent'.
Soon after Abu Dhaim's family heard of his death they declared him a 'martyr' and erected a mourning tent. Arabs from all over Jerusalem came to pay their respects. All the Palestinian terror groups praised his actions. In Gaza the people celebrated and Hamas distributed candy to the children to mark the successful 'revenge' attack (We are always reminded b the media and leftists that Hamas is the legitimate elected government and that it is ‘hypocrisy’ to boycott the Palestinian Hamas leadership. But just because people are elected doesn’t mean the should be respected and talked to. Europeans boycotted Jorg Haider’s Austrian government because it was seen as racist. No one condemned that). Immediately the press made sure to emphasize that the 'real' victims of Abu Dhaim's attack were the Arabs. One article declared "Jerusalem Arabs fear Israeli retaliation." The BBC carried a headline entitled "Ripple Effect: Fallout from Jerusalem Seminary Attack." In another article a picture of a smiling Ala Abu Dhaim accompanied an article that described the Yeshiva as a "settler stronghold…The BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen says that the school was no ordinary seminary. It was the ideological cradle of the settler movement in the West Bank, which could be the reason it was targeted. Many of its students are on special courses that combine religious study with service in combat units in the Israeli army. " The BBC made sure to downplay the attack, noting that "Assuming that the attacker was not just an enraged individual…The attack on the Yeshiva is a grim development in the litany of violence. " The BBC's main concern was that "Anyone counting on progress on the peace front this year looks to be betting against the prevailing trend. " In an article by Jonathan Marcus the BBC made sure to once again remind readers that the victims deserved what they got: "The Merkaz Herav Yeshiva - a Jewish religious seminary - is the place from where the religious-inspired Jewish settlement movement in the West Bank sprang." No where did the BBC mention that the victims were mostly teenagers, which are referred to as 'children' by the BBC when they Palestinians who die at the hands of Israelis. But there was no BBC headline reading "8 children die in Palestinian attack on Jewish seminary". Jews are never 'children'.
Hamas made sure to praise the attack: ""This is a normal response to all the Israel occupation, commission and aggression, and they [have] committed massacres inside the Gaza and West Bank - about 128 [people were] killed, 30 of them children and infants."
In East Jerusalem the Arabs were once again victims. Hisham Shkirat of Jebel Mukaber, after joining the Abu Dhaim family in mourning, noted that "this attack has caused hue damage to the Arabs in Jerusalem." Majdi Shweiki, an Arab teacher from Silwan, noted that "I hope Israel does not resort to collective punishment following this attack." The Mukhtar, or village elder, of Jebel Mukaber noted that ” Most of the young men here work in Israel…Some of them have already been told not to return to work and this is very worrying. We hope that Israelis will refrain from collective punishment." Shweiki excused the attack by noting that "Abdu Dhaim was affected by the things he watched on TV." An Arab Lawyer from Beit Hanina noted that Israel might revoke the IDs of Arabs in East Jerusalem and that this would have "serious repercussions" and that those Arabs who might then lose their 'right' Israeli national insurance, free health care and education would become radicalized. "when you deny people their rights, they will resort to violence."
In Jebel Mukaber people remembered Ala as a private quiet person. He was "very religious". Abu Dhaim's family congratulated their dead relative saying "We have nothing to apologize for…Ala did what he did because of the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. This was a heroic operation that was carried out against radical Jews, some of them members of the Israeli security forces."
There is much to learn from the story of Ala Abu Dhaim. What is most fascinating is to see that all of the common conceptions about terror are completely wrong. Dhaim was not a victim. He was not a refugee. He was not impoverished or out of work. He was not caught up in the 'cycle' of violence in the sense that none of his family members had died at the hands of Israel. This was a man who benefited from Israel. He received his free education and his welfare from Israel. He received his job from Jews. So did his father.
The cause of Abu Dhaim's hatred and his acts was not just his religion. The spark that set him off was the media. It was the BBC. It was also the U.N and its report about Gaza. It was the Jewish human rights organization B'Tselem that had announced that half the casualties in Gaza were 'children' (without any proof B'Tselem made this declaration two days before Abu Dhaim's massacre. A full list of the dead Arabs in Gaza has never been released, just as a list of the '1,000' Lebanese killed in the second Lebanon war was never made public). The west had a role in Abu Dhaim's decision. So did the Arab Members of Knesset in Israel who had accused Israel of 'acts of genocide' in Gaza. Mahmud Abbas and Al Quds daily had a role to play. So did Al-Jazeera.
Noam Chomsky speaks about how the media 'manufactures consent'. In the case of Abu Dhaim the media, particularly the BBC, manufactured a terrorist. The media always claims that terrorists 'use' the media in order to draw attention to their cause. But in fact it is the media that creates terrorism by drawing too much attention to certain causes.
The story of Abu Dhaim not only sheds light on the manufacturing of terrorism by the media and the anti-democratic incitement of Arab politicians, it also shows the way in which terrorism 'works'. The main 'victims' of Abu Dhaim's attack, according to the media, were not the 8 people he killed, but rather the 220,000 Arabs of East Jerusalem who now may suffer 'collective punishment.' One must note that the media never used the word 'collective punishment' in reference to the acts of the 'insurgent' and 'infiltrator' Abu Dhaim. In fact the media implicitly accepted Abu Dhaim's terrorist act as legitimate by connecting the students at Merkaz ha Rav with the settler movement. The media excused the collective punishment of them.
Furthermore what is interesting is to see how this story sheds light on how Arabs and Muslims think. An Arab and a Muslim never has sympathy for the victims of a terrorist attack. In fact when a Muslim Arab terrorist kills people it is the Arab Muslim who then becomes the 'real' victim. This was the case after 9/11. In Tucson Arizona at the University of Arizona the president of the University, Peter Likins, didn't mourn for the 3,000 Americans, he spent Sept. 12th begging the Arab students not to be afraid and begging them not to return to their home countries. He wrote an editorial in the Daily Wildcat, the campus newspaper, on Sept. 13th in which he praised all the Arab Muslim students as 'jewels' of the campus and he joined anti-racism rallies by the Muslim Students association and spoke at the Pakistani students association. Thus the 'real' victims of 9/11 were Muslims, not Americans, because after 9/11 everyone was afraid that Islam would be 'misinterpreted' or that Muslims would face discrimination and 'racism'. This is why Islamophobia is the new cause celebre among leftists. Muslims have replaced Blacks, gays and Mexicans as the new victim.
After Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma Federal Building people were not worried that backwoods right wing white militia types would be discriminated again. No one claimed that the Michigan Militia was the 'real' victim of the Oklahoma bombing. But when it comes to Arabs the world is always upside down. Thus the village elders of Jebel Mukaber were not concerned that 8 Jews were dead but rather that their village would suffer. Yet they didn't ask the family of Abu Dhaim to remove the mourning tent to the 'martyr (Shahid)' from their house. Even the Jordanian government had good enough sense to do that. Jordan ordered the destruction of any tents set up for mourning Abu Dhaim in Jordan. It turns out Dhaim had some relatives there and they wanted to mourn and fly Hamas flags. Jordan put a stop to that. In Israel the security minister Avi Dichter noted that it would be improper for Israel to make the mourning and celebrations illegal, because Israel had not made it illegal for Jews to mourn Baruch Goldstein, the Jew who killed 29 Arabs in a mosque in Hebron in the 1990s. But perhaps the actions of Baruch Goldstein shed light on this. After his act almost all Jews felt sorry for the Arab victims. Jews didn't claim that the 'real' victims were Jews because now Jews might suffer 'collective punishment' for the acts of Goldstein.
The most interesting reaction to the crime of Abu Dhaim was the East Jerusalem Arabs who immediately forecasted the idea that Israel would revoke their citizenship. They immediately made veiled threats, claiming that their would be 'repercussions'. They sounded the horn of John Dugard when they noted the depriving them of their 'right' to an Israeli I.D would force them to become terrorists. There is one problem with their argument. Abu Dhaim was deprived of nothing. He was a terrorist. Revoking I.Ds and putting people under siege doesn't make them terrorists. They are already terrorists. Revoking their I.Ds and putting them under siege may make them angry and frustrated terrorists, but it doesn't make them terrorists. Democracy, jobs, welfare and the media may make people terrorists.
The path of the white woman: becoming the other
Seth J. Frantzman
March 6th, 2008
In the past two weeks two well known books that were poised to be best sellers have been yanked from the shelves and exposed as frauds. The first was by Misha Defonseca and was titled Misha: Memoir of the Holocaust Years. It turns out her real name was Monique De Wael and that her parents had indeed been killed by the Nazis, but that she was not Jewish nor had she lived with wolves, been in the Warsaw Ghetto or killed a Nazi. Upon coming forward she claimed that she "always felt Jewish" and that she wanted to tell the stories of what Jews had faced in the Holocaust.
But then a week later in March of 2008 Margaret B. Jones admitted that her memoir, Love and Consequences about growing up with gangs in South-central L.A was a fraud. It turns out her real name was Margaret Seltzer of Sherman Oaks and that rather than being 'half white, half native-American' she was all white and she had attended an elite prep school rather than living on the street s at 13 and being given her first gun at 14 and running with the Bloods gang. When Seltzer admitted her tale was false she claimed that she was only writing the book as an 'activist' and that since she had worked as a social worker with urban blacks she feel their stories needed to be told and that she was the vehicle to tell them. She claimed 'I just felt there was good I could do and that there was no other way that someone would listen to it."
Although these two women appear to share little in common; they are of different generations, the fact is that they represent a very real trend among western whites and their stories are symbolic of the cultural oblivion that whites in the west find themselves.
It is common for white women, and to a lesser extent men, to feel a yearning void in themselves and to fill it through the mock adoption of the other. Whether it is wearing a headscarf in Morocco or hanging a photo of Malcolm X on the wall the path and response is the same.
Adopting the culture of the other is not unique to the last fifty years. Sir Richard Burton donned Muslim dress and visited Mecca. Lawrence of Arabia and John Bagot Glubb both were enamored with the Arabs and their culture. Many of the American 'mountain men' went native in the American west and many of them intermarried with native-Americans. But the modern phenomenon is different. The logic behind these women's decision was not adventure and glory as it was with Lawrence or Burton and neither is it out of necessity as it was with the mountain men.
Fraud is not unique to the last twenty years either. For as long as there has been writing there have been tales of people pretending to be others. Assuming the personalities, habits, cultures, families and histories of other people is not unique. But in most cases those committing this fraud, even if their conversion was sincere, did so out of necessity or out of greed and the desire for advancement. Thus the three 'false Dmitriys' who appeared in Russia in the first years of the seventeenth century, one of which actually became Tsar for a year, all were impersonating the son of Ivan the terrible who had disappeared in 1591. They did so not in order to become the other or because they were necessarily self-loathing towards their own culture, but rather because they wished to assume power and the impersonation gave them a path. Tales such as the Prince and the Pauper and Trading Places have hallmarks of this in them, even if the roles are reversed.
After the revolutions of the 1960s the white people of the west became enamored with the poor. This process began in the late 19th century with the first communistic and socialist clubs where western intellectuals sat around and glamorized the 'workers'. All the talk of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was carried on by people who were decidedly bourgeoisie in their background. From Lenin to Castro they were all sons of school teachers, lawyers or other members of the middling and upper classes. Some were even nobility. The romance of the working man and his building muscles can be found even in the writings of the right, such as Ayn Rand's portrayal of Howard Roark, the patrician architect who takes up working with his hands and smashing stones when his ideals are not met. In Atlas Shrugged she expands the motif to include an entire village of former tycoons who are now all happily involved in their genuine capitalist pursuits, even if that means they must each work the land and sell things for a pittance, just so long as there is no governmental intervention. The Nazistic motif of the 'authentic' man who is in touch with his blood and soil is a further digressment of this theme.
But as the western world became enamored with the 'simple downtrodden wretched' person it began to lose touch with its own soul and heritage. In a quest for 'genuine' and 'authentic' experiences' the westerner came to believe, in the 1970s, that those experiences could only be found among the other. Thus the white woman abhors 'poor white trash' but romanticizes the blacks and Mexicans of the 'ghetto'. The legions of words employed to denigrate poor whites is quite astounding: hicks, red-necks, hay-seeds, white trash, hillbilly, bumpkin, yokel, boor and corn-fed to name a few. Thus the genuine nature of all the poor lost its romance in the 1970s and was replaced by a more specific romance that focused on certain groups of poverty stricken 'authentic' people who became known as 'the other'.
But what encourages people to actually become the other? What encourages someone to work for three years on a memoir that tells the story of a different life than their own. What encourages someone who has an obvious writing ability to create a fictionalized memoir when they could have created a non-fiction biography of a real person. The two themes of these white women were that they both wanted to expose the suffering of the other group and that they felt they had identified with this group to the extent that only they could communicate it through an extensive lie.
The phenomenon is fascinating.
The NGO civilization
Seth J. Frantzman
March 5th, 2008
“I trusted white men.” This was the statement made by an orphan who had been at an orphanage in Jari in northeastern Ethiopia run by the a Swiss NGO Terre Des Hommes. But Terre Des Hommes provided more than just care for the orphans. It also provided sexual abuse. David Christie, a well paid SUV driving white man from Europe, raped and abused the children. The NGO covered up the abuse. When Jill and Gary Campbell, two British teachers at the orphanage, dared to complain the media they were sued by the NGO and now face a six month prison sentence for defamation. According to another wealthy white man employed by the NGO named Colin Tucker, “we asked them to stop defaming us and they said no. Then the court asked them to stop defaming us and they said no again.” Christie changed his name to David Allen and went to work for another NGO named Acbar in Pakistan and then showed up in Zambia with more European NGO money to open another school for children so he could rape them. The British courts refused to prosecute him, claiming his crimes had taken place too long ago in 1997. The Ethiopian government dared to confront the NGO and put Mr. Christie on trial and sentenced him to nine years hard labour. Meanwhile the Swiss NGO’s Mr. Tucker noted that the “foundations” primary goal was the “rehabilitation of the children” and was asking for money from donors to help the NGO care for the victims of Mr. Christie.
We have come to think of the existence of NGOs as simply part of our world but in fact they are indicative of our civilization. People like Mr. Tucker are the essence of our modern ‘progressive’ way of life. They are born into wealthy European families. They drive SUVs or BMWs. They live their entire life without every using their hands to do work. They live off either government money or the money of donors. They sue and have put in prison anyone who tries to expose their crimes. They employ criminals, kidnap children and then raise money to help the victims of their own crimes.
Every NGO is involved in these types of activities. The French organization known as Zoe’s Ark kidnapped ‘orphans’ in order to send them to Europe. But when the native country tries to bring the white employees of these NGOs to justice they are suddenly pressured by the European governments, usually former colonial, powers to release the NGO workers.
This is the hallmark of our civilization. It is the relic that will be left behind. When archeologists examine what was unique about our civilization they will remark about the existence of the NGO culture. They will note its origins in old charitable societies of the 19th century. They will note how those organizations, like the Red Cross, expanded beyond their mandates to become virtual governments. They will learn about how there came a point in European history where every white person was employed by an NGO and every white person considered it their duty to ‘save’ Africa, so long as they got a large salary and an SUV.
Our culture’s primary interest is charity. Our entire life is made up of donors and charities and philanthropy and NGOs. In Europe it is all that exists. There are an army of millions of Europeans roaming the globe who work for these NGOs. They fill up all the five star hotels in Africa. They all profess themselves experts on this such as irrigation and farming, having never set foot in a field, having never dug a well or hoed a field.
The latest fad of the NGO civilization is forcing Africans to farm using ‘organic methods’. Robert Paarlberg, author of Starved for Science: How Biotechnology is being kept out of Africa, and a professor at Wellesley college notes that his students are involved with NGOs whose sole goal is to make it so African foodstuffs cannot be exported to Europe and America unless the Africans use organically certified methods. In order for them to be ‘certified’ a white man must go and check up on them. He notes that Europeans didn’t pull themselves out of poverty through the type of farming now being forced upon Africa by the BMW driving environmentalists of the West. He also notes that the simple African farmer in the bush is living an purely organic life, one that no westerner would ever stoop to and one that doesn’t need certification.
Gregg Mills, a Johannesburg based writer, has noted in his November 2nd, 2007 essay ‘The new imperialists’ how NGO workers in Kigali in Rwanda bet on “which NGO landcruiser will be the next to pull into the parking lot.” Graham Hancock in Lords of Poverty: the Power, prestige and corruption of International Aid goes one further in his condemnation of the evils of the NGOs in Africa.
A recent letter to the editor in the Herald Tribune by Kathleen Cravero, the assistant secretary general of UNDP, noted that Security Council resolution 1325 had condemned rape. She claimed that “the UN system in the Congo and East Timor has made progress against all odds.” It is interesting that those same UN workers in the Congo are the ones who have been charged numerous times with raping women and trading food aid for sexual favors. When the Congo dared to try and put the UN workers on trial the UN transferred them out of the country and under UN law all UN workers must be prosecuted for their crimes in their home countries. Needless to say, the UN workers were never put on trial, just as Mr. Christie was not brought to justice in England. In Kosovo the KFOR troops, EU workers, Nato personnel and UN workers transformed the nearby towns in Macedonia into the sexual slavery capital of Europe and Kosovo became the trafficking in women capital of Europe. Undercover documentaries of sex slavery in Macedonia showed that almost all the women, who were mostly teenage Moldovans and Ukrainians, had been forcibly raped by international aid workers who frequented the brothels. As part of their ‘seasoning’ the girls were sold at open slave auctions and forced to link toilets clean. All of it courtesy of funding by the UN and various NGOs. None of the NGO workers, all wealthy Europeans, were ever put on trial. The UN’s security council resolution against rape should have simply condemned the UN for its role in mass rape in the world which seems to follow every place the UN has a presence.
The NGO civilization is a passing phenomenon. How long can a culture survive in which its primary interest is the misery of others and sucking the blood, in the form of money, from the wealthiest members of its own society. How long can a society survive when few if any of its sons and daughters want to grow up and work in industry or agriculture, but instead want to drive SUVs in Africa and hope for the chance to go on a sex tour of Djibuti? We already see the result. Europeans are now paying to have surrogate Indian women conceive their children. The potential mother is chosen online and the order form is processed for as much as $25,000 and the a baby is delivered to the European 9 months later. A photo of the Indian mother shows them, their eyes downcast, with surgical masks over their faces. They look semi-Islamic, all covered up in the hospital garb. The look in their eyes can only remind the viewer of the downcast eyes of Muslim women in their veils or of Moldovan prostitutes in Kosovo. And what is the difference. It is all part of the European worldview: the Muslim woman, the prostitute in the window in Amsterdam and the Indian woman giving birth to baby-to-order.
The NGO civilization will die. It will die out soon. The ‘progress’ that Europe touts itself as having, its clean air and organic food, the bullying nature of the EU which has destroyed local traditions and crushed local foods, such as those special cheeses that are aged in the ground in Italy, or the Rumanian custom of slaughtering pigs on the holidays. He only thing the world can do to save itself from the menacing shackles of the NGO is to make it illegal for Europeans to travel to their countries. If Africa was off limits to Europeans the SUVs and the arrogant English ‘volunteers’ like David Christie would disappear. Rape and child molestation might not disappear. But the existence of the European and his NGO, his ridiculous lifestyle of living off the blood of others and feasting of the misery of others, would dry up. The only way to save Europe from itself is to ban the travel of Europeans in the world. Tourism, the most western of inventions, should also be banned, lest it entice people to think they need to ‘save’ the poor children they come across. Their should be a hiatus on the legality of travel for Europeans. They should be forced to remain in Europe. Their is plenty to tour there. The immigration of people from Africa and elsewhere to Europe can also be curtailed. It will be a good trade-off. No more poor wretched welfare loving immigrants for Europe and no more misery loving Europeans for Africa. What a trade. Let the wretched stay in Africa and let the wretched lovers stay in Europe. Let the Africans eat their organic food that they have grown naturally for thousands of years without certification and let the Europeans eat their fake organic food that is certified but that comes from factory farms.