Terra Incognita 34 Senegal, Lonely Planet Egypt and U.S immigration

Terra Incognita
Issue 34
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel

Website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com/

May 11th, 2008

1) Senegal's greatest leader: Abdoulaye Wade In May of 2008 the President of Senegal stood up to the U.N and threatened to sue its food program for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars. He has implicated the UN in the recent world food crises. A close examination shows the evils the UN has perpetrated in Africa are much deeper than Mr. Wade realized. It is, in fact, a neo-colonialist enterprise that is destroying Africa.

2) Book review: Lonely Planet's Conversion guide to Islam: Lonely Planet’s guide to Egypt is one cliché after another. Egypt’s Copts live in coexistence with its Muslims. Western women are encouraged to be modest so as to avoid being perceived as immoral and thus sexually harrased by Muslim men. But if it is the western women who are immoral than why do the ‘moral’ and ‘conservative’ Muslim men harass them? A conservative man does not harass women. In fact Islamic society is a liberal society. Islam doesn’t hate America because America is immoral. It is the opposite. Islam is immoral and it hates the world because the world has true conservatives who put the lie to the Islamic claim of being ‘moral’, ‘modest’ and ‘conservative’.

3) The Secret: Ode to the American immigrant: American immigrants are the heart and soul of America and they always have been. America acts as a force multiplier for them. Thus one Italian-American will produce in his lifetime ten times what he would have produced had he been born in Italy. America could have beaten Nazi Germany in World War Two simply by sending American Germans to fight their countrymen. 60 million Germans under Hitler would have been no match for the ingenuity, hybrid vigor, and potential of the millions of Germans and their ancestors resident in the U.S in 1941. Had Barack Obama stayed in Kenya he would today be hacking up neighboring villagers over an ethnic dispute. Mexicans who protest about a ‘day without a Mexican’ should also hold a ‘day without a Mexican remittance’ for Mexico. The Mexican economy would collapse without the industrial potential of America’s Mexicans. The world claims the U.S will collapse. But that day will only come when the world collapses, for America is made up of the world. And 300 million Americans are more industrious, creative, intelligent, interesting and honest than all their ancestors and kinsmen living abroad today. Sounds arrogant. The world needs to hear more of it after America has had to listen to the world’s peoples waving their fingers at the U.S for the last thirty years.





Senegal's greatest leader: Abdoulaye Wade
May 11th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman

Abdoulaye Wade, the current president of Senegal, was born in 1926 when the country was a French Colony. It gained independence in 1960 and for 40 years the Socialist party governed the country. During that time Wade earned two doctorates and became the country's main opposition figure, a rarity in Africa where opposition can usually result in imprisonment of death. In 1974 he founded an opposition political party and finally in 2000 he led a coalition of opposition parties to victory. A Muslim and pan-Africanist Mr. Wade has long taken an interest in Human Rights and in inter-faith dialogue. His wife, apparently, is a Catholic. Upon his victory he noted that " "This is a day of liberation; this is a day of liberation. It is the dawn of a new era, and that is the most important thing," Upon being sworn in he noted that " "The first great objective of my political life was to get rid of a system in Senegal. Midnight has struck, the system is dead,"

But Mr. Wade, a tall, skinny, lanky individual with a shaved head and what seem to be permanently disfigured chapped lips, never realized that his greatest challenge would not be ridding his country of the corruption of the Socialist party, or surviving in opposition. His greatest challenge would come in May of 2008 when he decided to liberate the world from an even greater scourge than socialism: the U.N. On May 8th Mr. Wade threatened to sue to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) if it did not return costs deducted from programs intended to help African nations cope with rising food prices. Wade appeared in a special broadcast on TV denouncing the UN and FAO as "bottomless pit of money largely spent on its own functioning with very little effective operations on the ground… I told them 'If you carry on I will take you to court. You must repay the 20 percent of the money collected in our names… They deduct 20 percent of the money collected in Africa's name to run the FAO. I told them those who created the FAO should fund its running costs."

If that had been it Mr. Wade might be seen as merely issuing an outburst. But he went further. He accused the FAO of being a 'waste of money' and said it was 'largely to blame' for the world food crises. He dared to say "the current situation is largely its (the FAO’s) failure and the cries of alarm will not help at all.” In response the UN brought out one of its Europeans, Nick Parsons, a son wealthy Europeans who, like most UN workers, has never worked in his life and whose job was reserved for him along with hundreds of thousands of other Europeans at birth so that he would never have to get a job. " As an organization we have no comment at all" Another UN worker, speaking anonymously said " At a time of troubles in several countries because of the food crisis, it is easy for governments to scapegoat the FAO.”The organization is “far from perfect, but as the report on governance said, it is indispensable, and if it didn’t exist it would have to be invented,” But the African nuisance Wade would not go away " “This time, I’m going further, we must scrap it,” The FAO has an annual budget of $433mn and employs more than 3,000 people, mostly Europeans.

In taking on the UN Mr. Wade is assaulting the very heart of neo-colonialism, the 'colonialism with a friendly face' whereby a bloated organization named the UN and its NGO allies tries to ruthlessly control and exploit the world. Senegal is only the second country in the world to stand up to the UN. In 2005 and 2006 Eritrea tried to rid itself of the UN. President Isaias Afewerki tried expelling European UN troops and then he tried stopping food shipments to them. But they would not go away. The flew in food for themselves from airports they controlled in Eritrea, violating not only international law but also the notion of sovereignty and thus showing the lie to the U.Ns pledge to respect national borders. In dealing with the U.N the small nation of Eritrea gave the U.N 10 days to leave its country. The colonialist secretary General of the U.N at the time, Kofi Annan said the decision was 'UNacceptable'. Eritrea responded that the UN was UNwanted.

Mr. Wade is a hero. A hero because he fought socialism. A hero for being an opposition leader. But he is a true hero because he fought the UN. It is the leaders of small nations that are increasingly realizing the threat the UN poses to national identity, sovereignty, human rights, food, and humanity. They are realizing not only that the UN is wasteful, but that the UN violates their airspace and borders, colonizes their country, sets up brothels for itself, has its own hotels and its own cantonments where only its members can go. African nations are not new to this treatment, given the long history of colonialism. But Africans are leading the struggle against the UN. In the Congo it has was revealed on April 28th, 2008 that UN 'peacekeepers' traded in gold, ivory and arms with rebel groups. The 'peacekeepers' in question were from Pakistan. It turns out the UN did not investigate the incidents, which took place over five years, because of fears of 'offending' Pakistan and other Muslim nations. Jean Marie-Guehenno, the head of UN peacekeeping in Congo noted that "We have shared the report with the concerned troop-contributing country and I am confident they will take the required action. And this issue is closed." Monuc (United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo), Alan Doss, dismissed their evidence as untrustworthy. "Militia leaders are militia leaders," he said. "They always have their interests, if you will. All I can say is this investigation didn’t confirm that."
Alan Doss's life story reads like most European born UN workers. Even the UN admits, "Alan Doss has spent his entire working life in the service of the United Nations." He is currently the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations in Liberia and head of the UN peace keeping mission (UNMIL) with the rank of Under Secretary General. Immediately prior to his assignment to Liberia, he was the Principal Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Côte d’Ivoire where he coordinated the work of the United Nations Peacekeeping Mission (ONUCI) in the areas of human rights, rule of law, civilian police and elections. His previous post was as Deputy Special Representative in the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) and concurrently United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative where he provided oversight for the reintegration of war affected populations. Until his appointment in Sierra Leone he held the position of Director of the United Nations Development Group (UNDG), which was set up by Secretary General Kofi Annan to strengthen coordination among the UN organisations dealing with development under the leadership of the Administrator of UNDP. He managed the design and implementation of reforms aimed to improve the performance of UN operational activities around the world. During that period he worked also on developing an integrated follow-up for the UN global conferences of the nineties, which led at the end of the decade to the Millennium Development Goals. Prior to his UNDG assignment, he was Director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) European Office in Geneva, Switzerland, where he was charged with strengthening UNDP’s outreach and fund raising work in Western Europe, focusing on UNDP’s advocacy for human development. He concurrently represented the UNDP at the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD in Paris where he was member of the group that drew up the DAC’s landmark study on conflict, peace and development cooperation in 1997. He had previously served as United Nations Resident Coordinator and Regional Representative of the UNDP in Bangkok, Thailand. At the same time, he was Director of the United Nations Border Relief Operation (UNBRO), in charge of United Nations assistance to 300,000 displaced Cambodian people on the Thai-Cambodia border. During this period he was also the UN representative to the inter-governmental Mekong River Committee and worked actively on its reconstitution as a Commission and the re-admission of Cambodia. Earlier appointments included posts as UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative in Benin and the Democratic Republic of Congo responsible for UN operational activities in those countries. In 1979, he had been appointed as Deputy Resident Representative of UNDP in China with the opening of the first international development cooperation programme and office in that country. In 1977 he had developed the first UNDP cooperation programme for Vietnam. Other country assignments included Niger and Kenya and at UNDP Headquarters in New York where he served in the Africa and Asia regional offices and in the Administrative Management Bureau. Alan Doss was born and brought up in Cardiff, Wales in the UK. He graduated from the London School of Economics.
This is the life of the new colonialist. This is the new imperialist. This humble, non-descript person is responsible, like Eichmann, for the murder of millions the world over, from Cambodia to Rwanda to the Congo. Some 5 million have died while the UN has occupied Eastern Congo.
Jean Marie-Guehenno, the UN's undersecretary for peacekeeping operations, is French. He has never worked in his life. He went to the Ecole nationale in Paris and then worked at the Ministry of Defense in France. He has worked for the UN since 1999. When told about the fact that UN workers traded guns for gold and helped Hutu genocidaires kill more Tutsis he said "this issue is closed." It is not closed for the hundreds of Tutsis who will be massacred tomorrow.
An investigation by The Times found that at least two UN officials had to leave the country after getting local women pregnant. Sixty-six peacekeepers were repatriated and six civilian staff suspended when charges of misconduct came to light. The latest allegations involve Pakistani peacekeepers in the eastern town of Mongbwalu, who are accused of receiving gold from the Front des Nationalistes et Intégrationnistes (FNI) militia in return for providing them with weapons to guard mines. Other soldiers around the town of Goma are also accused of direct dealings with Hutu militiamen responsible for the Rwandan genocide. They bought gold and drugs from the Forces Démocratiques de la Libération du Rwanda (FDLR) - made up of the remnants of the Interahamwe - and flew a helicopter into Virunga national park, where they swapped ammunition for ivory.
The UN has raped and murdered its way through Congo for 8 years. It has helped kill 5 million people. And Europeans leftists are at the center of this genocide. Renewed colonialism of the worst kind. One can watch and sit by. Or one can act. The UN is a threat to global civilization. It is a threat to everyone. It food programes are causing famine on a massive scale. It has, of late, attempted to destroy Burma through sanctions to the extent that the destruction caused by the recent cyclone should be put squarely on the shoulders of the UN. The UN to this day refuses to send food aid to Burma under the excuse that it is being confiscated. This is an odd tone for the UN to take. In the Congo they traded guns for gold. They set up refugee camps for the Hutu mass murderers. They trained the Hutus and provided them with guns. 5 million have died. Now they are angry that food is being confiscated?


Book review: Lonely Planet's Conversion guide to Islam
May 9th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman


Few people know that there is an Atlas of women. The atlas contains most of the things one would imagine: maps of literacy rates, marriage age and rights to abortion. The atlas also contains maps illustrating legal discrimination again women. Unsurprisingly Saudi Arabia, the beacon of Islam, the home of Mecca, does not rank well. It has the most discriminatory laws against women in the world. Women are married at a young age and they are behind the world in terms of literacy and education. So be it. Saudi is not far behind other Muslim countries and a few non-Muslim ones in Africa in this respect. Women simply don’t exist in that society. They are nameless, faceless beasts used by men so as to procreate and create more men. They have no role in society. Few work. They can’t travel without permission from male relatives. If they are raped four witnesses must attest to it or they are accused of adultery. This is Saudi. This is the country that no liberal will protest because liberals prefer easier, poorer targets such as Myanmar (Burma). Saudi. The country where there are special roads for Muslims leading to Mecca on which non-Muslims are barred. Saudi. The country that imports millions of foreign workers to pump its oil and do its construction. The country that beheads those foreign workers when they step out of line. The country that keeps those workers in concentration camps and of course denies them any rights whatsoever. Saudi. America’s closest ally. Europe’s best friend. But so be it. Saudi. The country where all 19 Sept. 11 hijackers came from. Recall what the liberals said after 9/11. It was America’s fault. America’s foreign policy caused it. And what did the liberals also say. They said ‘Muslims hate us because they view our society as opulent and immoral.’ Opulent and Immoral. Those were our sins.

The Women’s Atlas reveals something else interesting. It shows the path of sex-trafficking in women. It shows the countries from which the women are taken as slaves and their destinations, the black holes from which they never return. Where are the women from? The Philippines, Eastern Europe, Russia. Those are the main supplies, along with India, Nepal, Thailand and Cambodia. Where are the women sent as slaves? Among other places every arrow points to Saudi and the UAE. Saudi. Land of morality. Remember. The 19 hijackers hated America because it was Opulent and Immoral. But it is Saudi that is the destination of hundreds of thousands of sex slaves every year imported from around the world. It is the Saudi men who frequent brothels throughout the world and who sun tan on the French Riviera and own posh cars. Who is opulent? Who is immoral? A country that imports women as slavery to be sold as chattel for sex and then murdered. That is an immoral country. Europe is immoral. It also imports whores. To be sure. But Saudi and Europe have this in common. Each are festering cess-pools replete with dungeons underground for the female slaves that their societies need. Each is a black hole for women. America too is full of immorality. Fine. But this immorality unites us. Compared to Saudi, American ‘opulence’ is but a drop in the bucket. So let’s pause for a moment. What if they didn’t hate us because we were immoral? What might be another reason? Let’s think.

While we think, let’s examine another piece of evidence. The Lonely Planet Guide to Egypt. The authors are almost all women including Gadi Farfour, Siona Jenkins and Leanne Logan. Farfour has an East European mother and Egyptian father and, true to all the women who enter the Islamic black hole, she is a good Egyptian nationalist. Siona, a Canadian, came to Egypt to study Arabic and has lived in the country 10 years. Although a good liberal in Canada condemning conservatives and fighting for women’s rights and minority rights, in Egypt she covers her body from head to toe, is a good nationalist and a good conservative Muslim. Leanne is from Australia.

On page 93 regarding ‘Women Travelers’ the guide informs us that “Egyptians are conservative, especially about matters concerning sex and women…a large number of Egyptians see western women as sex-obsessed and immoral….premarital sex is taboo in Egypt…it is the exception rather than the rule-and that goes for men as well as women.” On page 94 under ‘safety tips for women’ the guide tells women to ‘wear a wedding band’ in order to avoid unwanted attention from Egyptian men and for women to ‘not respond to an obnoxious comment from a man-act as if you didn’t hear it.’ ‘be careful in crowds…it is not unusual for crude things to happen behind you.’ ‘On public transport sit next to a woman…in the countryside be conservative in what you wear…be very careful about behaving in a flirtatious manner…riding in front of a man on a camel is simply asking for trouble…Along the Mediterranean coast and in oases pools, you’ll have to swim in shorts and a T-shirt, at the very minimum, and even then you’ll attract a flock of male onlookers. Egyptian women rarely go swimming…when they do, they swim fully clothed, scarf and all…You may find it handy to learn the Arabic for ‘don’t touch me’…getting to know an Egyptian woman is easier said than done. You won’t find them in cafes or teahouses.”

Under the ‘what to wear’ section on page 95 we learn ‘wearing shorts and a tight T-shirt on the street is, in some people’s eyes, confirmation of the worst views of western women…if you’re alone or with other women, the amount of harassment you get will be directly related to how you dress: the more skin exposed, the more harassment…baggy T-shirts and loose cotton trousers or long skirts won’t make you sweat as much as you think and will protect you from unwanted comments.”
When discussing the town of Nuweiba in Sinai on page 499 the guide claims “topless sunbathing is gaining ground among visitors to Nuweiba, especially Israelis staying in Tarabin. You should think twice before taking part in what is little more than a strip show for the local men.” One might wonder why Israeli women don’t sunbathe topless in Israel but wait to get to a Muslim country in order to do so. But more importantly is the tone of the guide, the way in which the liberal suddenly describes topless sunbathing as a strip tease. But is it not the same thing in the West? When the first women began bathing topless was it not also just a strip tease for the men. In the West however the Liberal calls it ‘independence’ and ‘our bodies’. The guide does not recommend any of the beaches visited by the Israeli heathens but it does recommend the one European colonized beach in Sinai, the Basata camp, which it describes as “ecologically minded…Owner Sherif Ghamrawy is an environmentalist…produce is organically grown.” None of this is true, in fact the camp is a resort for Egyptian men and their mostly German wives and is notorious for being infested with German neo-nazis.

Recall that the guide told its readers that Egypt is a conservative country and that we should not reinforce Egyptian Muslim stereotypes of westerners being ‘sex obsessed’. But when one reads the rest one must question who is sex-obsessed. Who is doing the harassing. Who is it that flocks around women bathing and gropes them on buses and offers them camel rides to grope them. Who says the crude comments? Muslims. Muslims. That is who. A truly conservative society is not based on the ‘morality’ of keeping women locked up and hidden while men do as they please. How can one be ‘conservative’ if the men have no responsibility. Islam is not a conservative religion. It is a liberal religion. It is the highest form of liberalism because its hypocrisy creates a society of sheep like women who are all hidden from view and toe the nationalist religious line. The men do as they please. Recall the guide told us that sex before marriage is taboo. But it is not taboo for men. All these ideas of Islam being ‘conservative’ are a lie. The great irony is that leftist liberal western women hate conservatives in the U.S and love Islamic ‘conservatives’. But the deeper pat of this irony is that theirs is not so much a hypocrisy because Muslims are not conservative. Their religion is only binding on women. It is a religion that is directed solely at women and requests nothing of men, no responsibility, nothing. It is a religion of men, for men and by men. That is a liberal religion. It is the ‘me’ religion, where I, the human become the center. It is not so different than the Communist religion, the one that replaces god with the state, except in this case god is replaced with the man, the ‘me’ who does whatever he wants whenever he wants and enslaves the other half of humanity, ‘women’. This is Islam. Is there anything more liberal? The greatest liberalism in the west is the cesspool of sex slavery, prostitution, stripping and porn. It is the place where the ‘me’ is at its highest for it is the part of the west that revolves around pleasure and the male. It is a place where humanity is reduced to flesh, to beasts. This is no different than the gulag, for the reduction of humans to beasts takes place both in the liberal society and the Communist society. This is the farthest one can come from faith and conservatism because faith asks man to treat eachother equally before god, it does not allow for the reduction of humans to slaves, to animals, to meat. So we see in Islam that it is not the west that is sex-obsessed, but Islam. Just as Saudi, the most Muslim state, imports sex slaves, we see that in Egypt the idea of the conservative lies, the Islamist spends his time watching porn and assaulting western women. He hates the west, but it is the women of the west he desires. What would he do without them. He would have to live up to that false taboo and be a virgin at marriage. But no Egyptian man is a virgin at marriage. There are 40 million Egyptian men. With millions of western female tourists coming every year one cannot believe seriously that the men are virgins at marriage, not with such a supply of women.

But Lonely Planet is not through with its propaganda. Lonely planet also explains that “for many Egyptians, both men and women, the role of a woman is specifically defined: she is the mother and the matron of the household.” This is how liberalism now explains discrimination against women and how ‘housewife’ is described. But when liberals talk about traditional Mormon families suddenly they find suppressed women and a conservative society with negative connotations rather than ‘defined roles’ or ‘different roles’.

Lonely planet explains that “Generally speaking Christians and Muslims in Egypt enjoy a more or less easy coexistence. Though western newspapers from time to time run stories claiming that Copts are a persecuted minority, virtually all prominent Christians in Egypt insist they are neither persecuted not a minority. Intermarriage between Christians and Muslims is forbidden.” If there is such wonderful utopian liberalistic coexistence then why is intermarriage forbidden?

If one is not convinced yet that Islam is not a ‘moral’ religion and Muslims didn’t attack America because they view America as immoral, one must only need one more piece of evidence. An article in the Times of London explained ‘A hidden world in which Asian men “groom” young white girls for sex has been exposed with the jailing yesterday of two men for child-abuse offences. Zulfqar Hussain, 46, and Qaiser Naveed, 32, from east Lancashire, were each jailed for five years and eight months after exploiting two girls aged under 16 by plying them with alcohol and drugs before having sex with them.’ In this case ‘Asian’ should be read ‘Muslim’. In England ‘Asian’ refers to the Pakistani and Indian communities as well as people from East Asia. The article also noted that ‘Parents have complained that in parts of the country with large Asian communities white girls as young as 12 are being targeted for sex by older Asian men yet the authorities are unwilling to act because of fears of being labelled racist.’ A Labour MP names Ann Cryer said that young Asian men were caught between two cultures having been brought up in a Western society in families while retaining the cultural values of the Asian sub-continent.
She said: “The family and cultural norms of their community means they are expected to marry a first cousin or other relative back in a village in Mirapur or wherever the family comes from. Therefore, until that marriage is arranged they look out for sex.
“At the point in their lives when they are ready for this sort of activity, Asians cannot go to Asian girls because it would be a terrible breach of the honour of the community and their family to have sex with an Asian girl before marriage.” She said that the reason Asian men targeted very young white girls was because older white girls knew that a relationship with an Asian youth was unlikely to last as the community would seek an arranged marriage with someone from the Asian sub- continent.
The article noted that ‘campaigners claim that hundreds of young girls are already being passed around men within the Asian community’ Ms Cryer added: “I think there is a problem with the view Asian men generally have about white women. Their view about white women is generally fairly low. They do not seem to understand that there are white girls as moral and as good as Asian girls.”
Listen to the mantra again. The men come from a ‘conservative’ and ‘traditional’ background and are supposed to wait until marriage for sex. They can’t have sex with women in their own community so they ‘must’ have sex with non-Muslim women. They can’t ‘dishonour’ Muslim women. They view western women as ‘low’ and thus immoral. But who makes these western women immoral. When 46 year old Hussain, the conservative honourable Muslim, drugged a 16 year old girl and raped her and then passed her to his friend Naveed, another Muslim, who made this girl ‘low’ and ‘immoral’. Who was the dishonourable one?
Think hard about it. Was it the western woman? Or was it the Muslim male. Who is the ‘immoral’ one. But recall the Muslims view western women negatively, just as Egyptians do, and we are supposed to not live up to their stereotypes. But Muslims have created these stereotypes. It is Islam that imports sex slaves. It is Islam that had the harems. It is Islam that deported 6 million African black women from East Africa between the 8th and 19th centuries and used them for sex and then discarded them like trash. It is Islam that deported hundreds of thousands of sex slaves from India from the 12th to 19th centuries, a trade that only interdicted by the Sikhs in the 18th century when Sikh began to defend the honour of Hindu women from this slave trade. It is Islam and the Ottoman empire that levied a ‘daughte tax’ on Eastern Europe, taking young girls from Christian communities under imperial rule every year for the royal harem. It is Islamic slave raiders who took hundreds of thousands of slaves from the Ukraine and Georgia before the 20th century to sell them in the slave markets of Anatolia. It is Islam today that still imports sex slaves from disparate places such as South Sudan, India, Nepal, Phillipines, armenia and Eastern Europe.
So which is more moral, the country that imports the sex slaves or the countries that do not? Which religion is more more, the one that dominates in a country where women cannot go outside without being harrased by men or the one that dominates in a country where women can go outside without being crudely groped by men? Where is the morality in Islam? Where is this ‘conservative’ society. There is nothing conservative in Islam. This is why the Muslim men fit in to English society so well. Muslim men are liberal in their sexual behavious and so are English women. Of course Muslim women cannot go meet English men, the Muslim women must guard the ‘honour’ of her family lest she be murdered by her own male relatives for ‘dishonoring’ the family. But it should be the other way around, Everytime a Muslim man is not a virgin at marriage he should be murdered by his own family because he has not upheld the family ‘honour’. Every time he goes to a strip club or hits on a non-Muslim woman or goes to a prostitute, every time he talks about his ‘moral’ and ‘conservative culture’ and whines about his inability to find women among his community (the same women he himself locks at home).
Morality is something that is binded to everyone equally. A man upholds the family honor not by murdering his sister but instead by not groping women. A man upholds his own honour by not raping 16 year old girls when he is 46. A man upholds the family honour by not harrasing women. A woman is also bound by this honour. But liberalism would have us believe that oly women must adhere to this honour. Liberalism tells us Egypt is ‘romantic’ and ‘exotic’ and that Arabic is ‘beautiful’. Liberalism and feminism tells us that women should go about topless in their country and cover themselves head to toe in another country, that conservatives and nationalism are bad at home but they are positive abroad. The main message of liberalism is this hypocrisy. The main message of Islam is immorality and liberalism.
Conservativism only exists in non-Muslim societies. It exists in the west in the form of Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians. It exists among the Sikhs and Hindus. It exists among the Afrikaners and Serbs. It cannot exist among Muslims or liberals because those two religions believe that there is no personal responsibility. Responsibility is the bedrock of conservative behaviour. A Muslim cannot be conservative because the Muslim religion argues that a man may have four wives and that he may beat his wives (as only a coward does), and that he may rape his female slaves. Inequality is the mother of liberalism and Islam. Conservatives universally beleve only in euqality between people, not between peoples, not between religions, but between two people. Equality under the law. The law is conservative. The idea of law is conservative. Rape is not conservative. ‘Grooming’ 16 year old girls for sex is not conservative. Murdering one’s sister because she trangressed the family ‘honour’ is not conservative. Groping a woman is not conservative. TO be sure the western conservative cannot live up to his way of life all the time. But he does not expect more from others than from himself. If he goes to a strip club he must not say the strippers are ‘immoral’ for he has engaged their immorality and he has played a part in it. This is the central difference between Islam and conservatism. Islam gropes western women and harrases them and imports them as prostitutes. Then Islam views them as low and immoral, when it is Islam that contrbuted to their degredation. Islam sees itself as not being part of this because it has no responsibility. It simply does not have the concept. Neither does liberalism. Liberalism does not accept the notion of personal responsibility which is why, for instance, it champions murderers and gives them free legal counsel.
Responsibility. When something is Immoral it is immoral for all. There is no one sided morality where a ‘conservative’ Muslim in a ‘traditional’ community can have sex with a 16 year old girl and then condemn his daughter for being ‘immoral’ because she stayed out after he curfew.

The secret: Ode to the American immigrant
Seth J. Frantzman
May 11th, 2008

In the now famous booklet and TV special, The Secret, the authors argue that by willing something, by thinking good thoughts one can be more successful. In Bloody Foreigners Robert Winder argues that immigration has played a major part in English history and thus the recent anti-immigrant feelings of the English are both wrong-headed and not historically logical.
But lets face it, England is not really a nation of immigrants, unless one goes back to the 8th to 11th centuries at which time it becomes one (due to the invasions of Normans, Angles, Saxons and others). America is the nation of Immigrants and there is no more symbolic statement of that then the quote found on the Statue of Liberty:
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your
huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Emma Lazarus, 1883

The first people in America were immigrants, albeit between 11,000 and 40,000 years ago from what is now Siberia. Later, so it is surmised, a few Vikings found themselves dashed ashore in Labrador. It was not until the 16th and 17th centuries that the first European settlers wandered ashore to stay with the founding of St. Augustine (1565), Jamestown (1607), New Sweden (1638) and New Amsterdam (1624). In the exceedingly detailed and hard to read, but nevertheless brilliant, Albion’s Seed, David Hackett examines the first four waves of British immigrants. In 1620 the first Puritan settlers arrived in Massachusetts. Between 1629 and 1641 some 20,000 more would arrive. Their origins were in East Anglian parts of England (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, and East Sussex). From 1680 to 1725 the areas around Pennsylvania were settled by people from the Midlands in England, a number of whome were Quakers. The American South was settled by English gentry, black slaves and indentured white servants. The early ‘frontier’ in Appalachia was settled by Scots and other people from northern England and Ireland.

Once the large scale English immigration subsided the slave trade brought millions of Africans to America, almost entirely West Africans. These groups: Native-Americans, Africans, Southern whites, Scottish frontiersmen and Yankee Puritans would give America numerous cultural influences. They were the origin of WASP culture, the so-called ‘Anglo Saxon Protestant elites’ who came to dominate American business and government. These were the freemasons and tradesmen who made up early America’s bugeoning economy and whose economic interests and love of liberty led directly to the Boston Tea-Party and the revolution. Theirs was the lot of modesty, hard work, humility, penny-pnching industriousness. And religious freedom. Nothing is more enduring to American culture than African-Americans and their importance. A million Americans died in the Civil War that was primarily fought to set them free. They were at the heart of the cultural awakening, New Left and Freedom rides of the 1960s. Their music, riots and leaders from Malcolm X to Martin Luther King and the Black Panthers are indelibly etched on the soul of America. They have been considered America’s classic ‘minority’ for so long that the fear of their losing out to Hispanics as a minority group has led the U.S census to classify Hispanics as ‘white’. The Natives, who fought a losing battle for their lands from the 17th century to the late 19th left a great mark. Their heroism, love of the land and beauty are much a figure of America and its landscape. Their names are are ever present, from the Apache Helicopter to the Winnebego. Who can forget the input of the Southern gentry. Forgiving their slave owning and the KKK one must not forget that they gave America its ideas. They gave America both the Federalist Papers and anti-federalism. Who else would have defeated Hamilton’s vision of a Napoleonic America or Adams’ vision of an America forever stuck to the side of England. Their legacy lives on in the U.S military that is primarily dominated by Southern men who have made up the military elites of America from the time of George Washington and Harry Lee (ancestor of Robert E. Lee) to William Westmoreland. What other culture could have produced the Patton’s, one of which was a friend of John Singleton Mosby and another of which was the famous American General (the Patton’s were Scottish however). And what would America be without the Frontier created by those early Scottish settlers, many of whome intermarried with the local Native-Americans (to the extent that the Cherokee nation had huge numbers of Scottish-Indian children by the time it was expelled from Georgia and moved to Oklahoma).

Once we do away with the importance of the pre-revolutionary immigration waves we encounter the important immigration waves of the 19th century. Italians, who brought food and the mafia. Irish, who brought Catholicism, beer and a dedication to policing. Germans who brought such a dedication to farming that they form the largest ancestroy groups in 20 mid-west American states. The Chinese who built the railroads. The Japanese. The Jews. The Polish. The Russians. The Dutch and Scandanivians. The French, who today form the largest ancestry group in a dozen American counties, all bordering Canada. It was the immigrants who brought radical European ideas to America, such as Communism, Socialism and Anarchism.

Moving on to the 20th century we encounter large immigrations from Asia and India. But most importantly we encounter large scale Hispanic immigration which has resulted in Mexicans being the largest ancestry group in four Western states. Mexicans have brought a renewel of the American immigration culture to the U.S. In 2004 there were 34 million foreign born Americans of whome some 8 million are Mexican born.

American immigrants have rarely, if ever, been the cream of the crop of the country from which they have come. Emma Lazarus, an American-born Sephardie Jew understood this too well when she penned the words “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” She understood that the cream, which is already at the top, does not rise. It just sits there. Cream doesn’t rise to the top. Instead it turns out that the huddled masses are the ones rising to the top. But not the ‘masses’ in the Communist concept. Under Communism the masses are controlled by the state. The State decides what is best for them and enslaves them, removing their free will and expecting them to toil for the state. But Lazarus understood something else. She understood the ‘yearning’. Yearning and striving were what drove America’s success. It was an internal striving. Unlike Hamilton’s vision of a Napoleonic striving, Americans have primarily focused on striving for themselves within the confines of the U.S.

The Iraq war encapsulates Lazarus’s poem. Zalmay Khalilzad was U.S Ambassador to Iraq from 2005 to 2007. He was born in 1951 in Mazari Sharif, Afghanistan. His father was an advisor to the last Shah of Afghanistan. When he was in high school he emigrated to the U.S, not long before Afghanistan began to fell apart in the 1970s. Although a Muslim he named his children Maximillian and Alexander. John Negroponte was American Ambassador to Iraq in 2004. Negroponte was born in London to Greek parents Dimitri John and Catherine Coumantaros Negroponte. His father was a Greek shipping magnate. His children are named Marina, Alexandra, John, George and Sophia. Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez was Commander of coalition forces in Iraq from 2003 to 2004. He was born to a poor Mexican family in Rio Grande, Texas. The current American commander in Iraq, General David Patraeus is the son of an immigrant from Holland named Sixtus Patraeus. His children are named Anne and Stephen. Anthony Zinni, who served in the Middle East before the war, was born to Italian-American parents in Philidelphia. John Abizaid, who was in charge of Central Command after Tommy Franks had vanquished Iraq in 2003, is a Lebanese-American from California. General J.H Peay III of Virginia was the commander of the 101st Airborne division during the First Gulf War. He is the descendent of an old Southern Family from Virginia.

What can we learn from this? When people have immigrated to the U.S their potential increases exponentially from what it was in their home country. This story of Greeks, Afghans and Mexicans who have risen to the top of the U.S military is symbolic of America. It is not an irony that several of them have gone back to their former places of origin and shown their former nations how things should be done. When Khalilzad became U.S Ambassador to Afghanistan this ethnic-Pasthun showed the pathway of America.

One must look no further than Europe to see this. Europeans cannot achieve in Europe what their descendants in the U.S have achieved. For many Europeans the only employment life can offer is the U.N or some NGO that helps African children. While these may seem like worthy pursuits, in truth they are not. A continent of do gooders does not accomplish anything. But look at the difference between American immigrants and immigrants to Europe. Immigrants in Europe hate Europe. They are not assimilated into society, three or four generations after their immigration they pop up as murderers, fanatics and extremists. They don’t ‘yearn to breath free’ but rather to enslave and murder people. Freedom is not part of the vocabulary of the immigrants who have made many European cities wastelands.

America has dealt with pernicious immigrants too. Those who have challenged the authority of America have been crushed under the thumb of the arsenal of democracy. There were the Nazis who popped up in the 1930s. There were the Anarchists who America had to round up and deport in late 19th and early 20th centuries. There are the Islamists. But let us look to Mr. Khalilzad. Had he been born in Europe he would today be calling relatives at one of those shady small computer/call centers that dot European cities and are used by immigrants to phone home. He would have an arranged marriage with a 12 year old Pashtun girl. His children would be named Mohammed and Abdul. He would wear a hoody and have only scorn and hate on his lips. This would be his pathway.

There are 300 million Americans. America acts as a force multiplier. Whatever a person would have accomplished had they not immigrated or their family not immigrated is multiplied by ten times. That means 8 million foreign born Mexican-Americans actually equal the productive output of 80 million Mexicans in Mexico. The millions of descendants of Anglos who lives in America represent the entire productive capacity of England today. America’s Germans are better than Germany’s Germans. How do we know that. One name. Wernher Von Braun, the German born, Nazi engineer, who emigrated to the U.S in 1945. Along with seven other German scientists he came to the U.S after the war under contract with the U.S army to help build weapons. In the Soviet Union meanwhile their rocket program under Sergey Korolyov imported trainloads of German scientists and pressed them into work. The Soviet work paid off in 1957 when Sputnik was launched into orbit. When Lyndon Johnson questioned Von Braun about whether “and the German scientists they captured, was it their Germans who got them up there first?” Von Braun replied “no, senator, our Germans are better than their Germans.” Why were the American Germans better? They were better because they lived in America. Does that sound arrogant? It should sound arrogant. Von Braun only had seven colleagues. The Soviets had deported train loads. But the desire, the yearning, led to the success of the American space program. It has always been the same story. America has been the nation of refuge for men like Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller and Albert Einstein. This cannot be replicated elsewhere.

What of the hatred for America? The world hates America. But who are they hating? When the French hate America. When the Chinese hate America. When Arabs hate America. They are hating themselves. When people speak about how terrible Americans are they are merely admitting their jealousy, for they wish their parents had had the foresight, or perhaps been such huddled useless masses, that they had moved to America. Hitler thought he could beat America with 60 million Germans. But our American Germans were better. They were better than Hitler. America didn’t need to send a mixed multitude to fight the Nazis. America could have just recruited from Among her ample German population.

Is it a surprise that Italians have been more successful in the U.S than Italians are in Italy? Is it a surprise that Indian immigrants are more successful in America than they could have been in India. Is it a surprise that an African immigrant to America, or his son, could be more successful than he would ever be in Africa. If Barrack Obama had stayed in Kenya with the Black farther he is so proud of and stayed with the African heritage he wears on his sleeve, as well as on his face, he would have been hacking people to death in the recent tribal warfare that has split Kenya.

Those who hate immigrants in the U.S are hypocrites. No doubt they should be angry at the injustice committed by the tidal wave of illegals who receive free health care and have overrun several American states and are implicated in large numbers of crimes. But it is not because these people are immigrants that they are so terrible, it is that they are ‘illegal’. Even the worst, most useless illegal immigrant, is nothing compared to the drag on the system that he would have been in Mexico. Mexico likes to complain about American immigration policies. But were Mexico to open the border there would no more Mexicans in Mexico. American Mexicans account for Mexico’s economy and without their remittances Mexico would collapse. When the Mexicans decided to stage a ‘day without a Mexican’ in the U.S they should have also staged a ‘day without Mexican remittances’ for Mexico. One would have watched the Mexican economy shrink by 17%. So who misses the Mexicans more? But had they been left in Mexico they would have contributed nothing. Because their potential is unfulfilled in a corrupt country.

People hate America for gun ownership. But it is the guns that earned America her freedom from tyranny. They complain about crime in the U.S. But is it better to have crime than be defenseless against state-sponsored crimes? Perhaps the victims of oppression at the hands of most governments in the world would disagree. They might like a right to bear arms. In Lebanon the Christians and Sunnis might like that right so that they would not be at the mercy of Hizbullah. But a gun in the hand of an American is more effective than in the hands of a non-Americans. Witness the deadly success of school shootings in the U.S. Even here the force multiplier is in action.

People can predict the fall of America. But when America falls it will be the world that is falling. America is the world. When Italian and Chinese and Anglo and Indian Americans fail it is China and Italy and England and India that fail. When America is overrun by Islamism it will only be after the whole world has succumbed to that satanic ideology. In the Peloponnesian war when the Athenians sent an army to invade Syracuse in Sicily it is said the Spartans sent one man, a general named Gylippus. One man. He was the force multiplier. When America was set to invade Sicily in 1943 it sent one man: Lucky Luciano, the American mobster. One Italian. America is not the new Sparta. America is better than Sparta. Sparta was an exclusive oligarchy of elite warrior supermen. America is the least exclusive society that produces supermen from the detritus of others. And those others are forever angry that this seemingly useless material was ignored, stifled and cast aside. Garth Brooks’ most famous song is ‘friends in low places’. For good reason. No one needs the storied pomp when they have legions of people yearning to breath free.