Terra Incognita 45 Obama, Service and stereotypes

Terra Incognita
Issue 45
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel

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

July 29th, 2008


1) Poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair: Obama's lie: Obama penned an editorial soon after Sept. 11 in which he claimed that it was caused by the “poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair” in Muslim countries and that America’s job was to raise the prospects of children around the world in order to cure this ‘helplessness’. Mr. Obama would have been better served had he first learned about the lives of the 9/11 terrorists, all of whome were born wealthy and had a life of luxury and opportunity. Obama’s empathy for the terrorists shows why he is such a dangerous person.

2) The Elites and the Nation: In the days of old the elites of the nation were expected to fight and die for their nation. While they may have enjoyed excess and great wealth they were also willing to sacrifice all of it. Today’s supremely wealthy, especially extreme-leftists, such as George Soros, have no loyalty to any nation. Their loyalty is only to themselves and they proclaim themselves ‘internationalists’. If they love the world so much they should indeed be citizens of it and countries should consider first requiring its elites to do some sort of service for the country before they are allowed to have citizenship in it. With the right to critique your country should first come the responsibility to serve it.

3) Stereotypes and the end of diversity: Those who hate stereotypes should consider the road they are traveling down. A world without stereotypes is a world without diversity, that other most cherished god of post-humanism. If each person is exactly equal and exactly the same and free from judgement then how can there be any diversity. The ability to judge is a pre-requisite for diversity.


Poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair: Obama's lie
Seth J. Frantzman
July 22nd, 2008

On September 19th, 2001 Barack Obama, who is may be the next American president, wrote an editorial in the Hyde Park Herald that claimed the September 11th, attacks stemmed from a lack of "empathy" on the part of the hijackers who suffered from "poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair." He claimed that "I must also hope that we, as a nation, draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy…we must…engage in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness…such a failure of empathy, such numbness…is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, it may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. More often, thought, it grows out of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair….we must be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe, not just in the Middle East but also in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe."

This is Barack Obama. It is his essence. For all of those that have believed that rumors and accusations against him have been spread by fear-mongers this lays it all to rest. His minister's decision to say 'God damn America'. His wife's decision to say 'this is the first time I've been proud of my country.' These were accusations of guilt by association. But this editorial was not written by a friend of Obama. It was written by the man himself, just 7 days after the deaths of 3,000 Americans. This editorial expresses the essence of the Obama view of America and the world.

For Obama the September 11th hijackers are the real victims. They are the ones who suffered first. They suffered poverty, ignorance, helplessness and despair. Lets just remind ourselves of who the hijackers actually were. Mohammed Atta was an engineering student who later studied at the American University in Cairo for a degree in architecture. In 1992 his father was met by two high school aid workers from Germany who offered to bring Atta to Germany. He moved to Hamburg where he stayed with these Germans, receiving free room and board. He studied urban planning in Hamburg. He received a free trip to Syria from his German professor in 1994 for an archeological dig and in 1995-1996 a German foreign exchange program, Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft, provided him with free trips to the Middle East and financial support. He arrived in the U.S in 2000 sponsored by Al Quaida. Saeed, Ahmed and Hamza al Ghamdi were all from the same place in Saudi Arabia and were all born middle class. Saeed and Ahmed both journeyed to Afghanistan in the 1990s to help the Chechans in their war against Russia (another 9/11 hijacker Mohammed al Shekri, also was there). Hani Hanjour was the son of a wealthy food supply businessman in Saudi Arabia. He was born in 1972 and came to the U.S in 1990 to Tucson Arizona where we was given a free apartment by his friend and able to enroll at the University of Arizona. In 1996 he came back to the U.S and enrolled at Holy Names College in Oakland California and stayed with a host family which provided him with free room and board.

When one reads the biographies of the 9/11 hijackers and the stories of their activities in the U.S and Europe they find that these men were all born into middle or upper class families. They all attended college numerous times. They all lived plush lifestyles, frequently living for free on the dole of others. Many of them took 'time off' to go to Russia and murder Russians as part of the Chechnya war. These were not people suffering from any 'helplesness' or 'poverty' or 'despair'. They had purpose in life. They had money. They lived well. In the U.S they visited and became regulars at strip clubs. They flew from place to place and rented numerous apartments and rental cars. They lived the high life in Vegas. These were all men who had many opportunities in life, more opportunities and free-rides than most Americans. They chose to devote themselves to murder. They did so in Chechnya first, in a conflict that was not theirs, and then they chose to murder Americans. Their hatred was not 'channeled'. They choose to hate. They were not manipulated. These were men in their mid to late twenties. They were educated.

Barack Obama finds only sympathy for the terrorists in his editorial. There is no sympathy for the poverty and helplessness of Americans. There is no sympathy for the helplessness of those trapped on the upper floors of the World Trade Center who had to jump to their deaths because of the heat from the flames. Barack Obama does not have empathy for them. He has only empathy and understanding for the murderers and their culture which he claims to understand. The way in which Barack Obama came to believe that the 'real' victims of 9/11 were Muslims and Arabs living in America and that 9/11 was caused by America's foreign policy and by the poverty of those in Middle East is typical of a deep hatred for the United States.

His view is predicated on two radical views. The first view is that it is acceptable for people to murder others so long as they are poor. Barack Obama ascribes to this view completely. He claims the hijackers were poor in order to excuse their actions. This is an extraordinary view of human affairs. It envisions a world in which people can be randomly murdered by those suffering from 'poverty' and the world should be sympathetic to the murderer rather than the murdered. What about the impoverished people who died on 9/11. Didn't they deserve to have a full life? Why did they deserve to die just because someone else suffered from poverty? The Nazis also used this poverty excuse before they launched their invasions of various European country. According to the Nazis the impoverishment of the treaty of Versailles forced them to become nationalistic and seek 'living space'. What would Barack Obama have said in 1939? Would he have excused the Nazi crimes as stemming from 'helplessness', 'despair' and 'poverty'?

The second view of Barak Obama is his belief that America is responsible for "raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe." This is an extraordinary burden that no country deserves. First Obama blames the U.S for 9/11, excusing the murder of Americans by claiming it stems from poverty and then he claims the U.S is responsible for raising the world out of poverty. This prescription views a world in which America is forever responsible for being attacked unless it can help everyone else in the world become wealthy. Once again we see the profound and extreme vision of Obama. For him the world is one in which a person deserves to be assaulted unless he can help others become wealthy. This is a world without any right and wrong, where the victim is always the murderer and the murdered person is always responsible for his own death because he has not helped the murderer.

We face a terrible fate in the U.S. People are enthralled by Obama. From the 'I've got a crush on Obama' videos on Youtube to the Obamamania in Europe, the world is obsessed with this person. Yet Mr. Obama is a demagogue. He and his wife and his circle of friends constitute a very real and terrifying threat to the lives of Americans. If Obama is sworn in as the next president of the United States we must prepared to live under an administration that believes that Americans deserve to die for things they have no control over. We will have a president that excuses our deaths and manufactures the truth so that our murderers are called 'impoverished and helpless' and we are told that we are guilty for not raising our murderers out of their poverty.

What more could America have done for the people of Saudi Arabia? What more could we have done before 9/11 to raise them up? Since the 1930s America has been Saudi's closest ally. We helped the Saudis during the Gulf Crises of the 1980s. We helped the Saudis in Afghanistan when they, like America, were fighting godless Communism. We helped them against Saddam Hussein. We pay huge amounts of money for oil so that most Saudis do not have to work. We have enriched the entire country so that Saudi's GDP per capita is $23,200 compared to the U.S which is $45,000. The UAE's GDP, where one of the hijackers came from, is $37,300. Out of 229 countries Saudi Arabia has the 54th highest GDP per capita. What are we supposed to do, Mr. Obama? Are we supposed to make them number 1? A gulf Arab state, Qatar, is already number one in the world with GDP per capita of $80,000. That’s right, Mr. Obama. An Arab Muslim country has the highest GDP in the world. Yet they suffer from 'helplessness'? What helplessness? Is it that they are helpless in finding enough ways to waste their oil billions? Are they helpless at finding enough prostitutes from enough ethnic groups to import to give them the sexual pleasure they so require? Is it the helplessness of not finding enough extremist causes to go fight in, such as Chechnya, where they can go murder civilians from other countries? Is it that they don't already receive enough welfare and compassion wherever they go in the form of people taking them, accepting them to Universities, giving them free apartments, providing them with homestays and being interested in their 'exotic' culture? What more do they need?

I am an American. I've seen poor people all my life in America. I've seen them living in the wretched circumstances. When they go to work one day and they are murdered by a Gulf Muslim Arab terrorist for no reason I am supposed to accept the fact that one of my presidential candidates will excuse their murder because America didn't do enough to make the Gulf Arab wealthier and the terrorist suffered from 'despair'? America's poor deserve better. Americans deserve better. Americans deserve a president who cares about them. Americans deserve a president who doesn't spit on them when they are dead. Never, in American history, has an American president excused the deaths of his fellow Americans. Even the worst and most mediocre American presidents, such as Milliard Fillmore, didn't excuse the murder of his own people.

No man deserves to die. No man deserves death at the hands of the cowardly Muslim terrorist. There is no excuse for the murder of a human being. It doesn't matter if he is wealthy or poor. It doesn't matter if the murderer is wealthy or poor. Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense and it said that 'without the pen of Paine, George Washington's sword would have been wielded in vain.' Obama has lost that American common sense. For whatever reason he has a profound contempt for Americans and their way of life. He has a deep seated hatred for the American people and a deep empathy for other people throughout the world. How else can one judge his excusal of the murder of Americans, his lies about the lives of the 9/11 hijackers and his prescription that America must raise the 'hope' of children throughout the world.



The Elites and the Nation
Seth J. Frantzman
July 24th, 2008

In his excellent study of command, control and communications in war, Command in War, Martin Van Creveld offers a number of vignettes of the role of officers in battle throughout the ages. In Greek times Creveld informs us that once the armies had met "there was nothing more a commander could do; so he picked up his own shield and joined in the fray." In Medieval times "the Black Prince, and after him Henry V at Agincourt in 1415, ended up by personally charging the French, as knights should." But Creveld tells us something else interesting. "As the knightly ethos declined, fewer commanders felt inclined to fight in person…when Ney at Waterloo fought with musket in hand this was a clear sign of mental derangement." Creveld offers readers a very clear understanding of the decline of effectiveness and instinct of leaders to find themselves at the point of greatest danger.
The distance of the leader of the army from the front is not all that has changed in the history of war. There has also been an ebbing and flowing of the percent of society that is trained and ready for war. In earliest times, the time of the nomadic tribe, one finds that every man was expected to be a fighter. This was true of the Native American tribes of the American West and it is one reason they were unable to comprehend and, in the end, were dismayed to realize, that when they fought the U.S cavalry they were only fighting the smallest toothpick of the 'white man' and any casualties they inflicted were meaningless. In contrast when Geronimo or Sitting Bull lost an engagement he was apt to lose so many able bodied warriors that the affects might well be catastrophic to his entire nation. When Custer blundered upon the Sioux at Little Big Horn in 1876 he ran into an encampment of 10,000 but while Custer was only commanding a small proportion of the American army the Sioux who rode out to meet him were leading their entire people to war. The rest of the world had already experienced a great diminishing in the number of men who were trained and expected to go to war. By 1870 in Europe only 1 in 74 Frenchmen were trained and available for war. In Germany it was one in thirty-four (owing to the fact that, at the time, the Germans were a warlike people). By 1914, only forty years later, the numbers were one in ten in France and one in thirteen in Germany (owing to the fact that the population of Germany grew greatly in the intervening years). Thus France could and would muster 3,200,000 men in 1914 to go fight in the Great War. In total France would lose 1.6 million killed and 4 million wounded by 1918. By 2008 the percentage of men in most countries, industrialized or not, that are expected to serve in the army is quite small. Less and less nations contain provisions for mandatory national service. This means that in a large country like the U.S the percentage of people asked to shoulder the burden in times of war is quite small.
The role of the upper classes and elites of society in defending their nations has also changed over time. Taking Europe as an example we see that there has been a decline in the participation by elites in war. In the Feudal period the very nature of the feudal system was based on the fact that each local nobleman was expected to do his duty in time of war. The knights of Europe, although they exploited the peasants and were part of what the Marxists called a 'parasitic class' were also the very same people who laid down their lives most frequently to defend their stations in life. At Agincourt in 1415 nobles from many of the houses of France were slaughtered on the field of battle. Literally thousands of them fell. In the Crusades the kings and nobility of Europe journeyed to a far off land and more likely than not laid down their lives, something most modern leftist historians who accuse the Crusaders of seeking wealth have ignored. They couldn't be wealthy for so few of them returned home. Richard I, who was born in 1157 and assumed the throne in 1189 spent more than half of his ten year reign on Crusade, dying in 1199. Far from being the lazy and overweight gentry that were lampooned in the 19th century the nobles of Europe were expected to, and often did, die for 'king and country'.
The First World War marks the end of a period in which the elites of European society were expected to serve their countries in exposed and dangerous situations during times of war. One reason for this were the catastrophic number of casualties that were suffered by front line units. On the first day of the Battle of the Somme 60,000 casualties (20,000 killed) were suffered by the British army. Losses of 90% were common for the first units sent 'over the top'. The destruction of the 1st Newfoundland regiment from Canada serves as an example. Of 801 men who left the trenches on July 1st only 69 men could be mustered for action the following day. Some have remarked that "nearly an entire generation of Newfoundland's future leaders were killed." The First World War witnessed, for the first time, the removal of much of the officer class to stations far behind the lines. Creveld notes that "with their units' orders going into such detail, there was no need for commanding officers from battalion (Lt. Colonel) upward to accompany their men…they were, accordingly, forbidden to go forward-a prohibition that, to their credit, many of them chose to ignore." Field Marshall Haig, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force on the Western Front in the First World War, was station forty-five miles behind the lines at Montreuil. His Generals were likewise five to fifteen miles behind the lines. But this did not prevent the destruction of so much of Europe's upper classes as to cause a continent wide state of emptiness, loss and depression. This period, the 'lost generation' became one of national morass, low morals and chaos, which was filled only by the rise of low-born dictators who were able to wield the power of the right wing working class (it is therefore no surprise that those who sought to kill Hitler in 1944 were almost entirely composed of German low nobility whose military families had hitherto been linked with the rise of Prussia and who now that their nation's destruction at hand.).
As a smaller percentage of the nation is required to serve in the military it should follow that a smaller percentage of the upper classes should serve in the military. This is not historically true, however. In the old feudal period the percentage of men who were knights was quite small. The small armies of Europe were nevertheless composed entirely of the nobility. The situation has reversed itself today. Today's small armies are composed primarily of the upper classes with sprinklings of the middle classes to serve as officers. The reason that the upper classes no longer serve in the army can be directly connected to that 'loss of self worth' found in the years between 1918 and 1939. One commentator describes the Lost Generation as "disillusioned by the large number of casualties of the First World War, cynical, disdainful of the notions of morality and propriety held by their elders, and ambivalent about 19th-Century gender ideals." These survivors of the slaughter of the Great War decided that they could remake the world they lived in. With so few intellectuals and men of susbtance around it was up to this small band to remake Western Civilization. Rather than working to pick up the pieces they sought to re-arrange them altogether. This was not neccesarily what the men who had returned from the Great War wanted, but being shell-shocked into silence these returnees were unable to have as much of a 'cultural' impact as those who had managed to sit out the war in French coffee houses sipping lattes.

These 'cultural critics' who had survived the war unscathed set about reconstructing a reality. Their reality would include two classes. There would be a class of cultural elites who would do no work and would be paid to think and critique, sort of a professional art critic class. Below that class would be a class of beasts, poor people who would be worshipped for their romanticism but would be kept dependent on the state, poor, wretch and savage, forced to live in a Hobbesian world of urban decay in which they would fester but never be allowed out. There would be no social mobility in this new society. There would be only the chosen 'right thinking' people and the beasts who would be expected to do most of the work. The old gods, such as money and religion, those 'opiums of the people' would be pushed aside to form a 'just' society where wealthy cultured people would all be 'equal'.

This new creation of a society based on inherited wealth, lack of work, lack of nation, lack of religion and lack of responsibility or morality, could only be created so long as class divisions could be exploited to play different races, religions, and classes off against eachother. This is exactly what happened. From 1914 to 2008 the world has been rocked by a series of wars based on race (The Second World War), economics (The Cold War) and Religion (The current war with Islamism). But all the while the elites of western society, who have benefited from the fact that the poor can be convinced to go die for their country, have created a lifestyle without borders where those who have benefited the most from capitalist society can go from country to country without loyalties. The likes of George Soros is but one example. Born to a Jewish family of Esperanto afficianados in Hungary he moved to England after the war. By 1956he was in New York working in the financial markets. He gained a reputation for financial piracy and brilliance, 'breaking' the Bank of England and preying on southeast Asian currencies, for which he was called an "economic war criminal." At some point he became involved in politics and 'political activism.' Soros then went on to tear down and insult the leaders of the country that had taken him in and allowed him to gain such wealth. His organization, Moveon.org, compared Bush to Hitler and accused the U.S General Patreaus in iraq of being 'General betrayus'. A victim of Nazi and Soviet oppression one might have thought he would be on the side of gunowners who wish tod efend themselves from an overeaching federal government, but Soros is an advocate of gun control. As a Jew one might think he would by sympathetic to victims of anti-semitism, but once again he blames his own country, claiming that "Bush" is responsible for anti-semitism. In the greatest hypocrisy of all he is a critic of "globalization", perhaps forgetting that it was the global linking of markets and currencies that helped make him billions of dollars. Today George Soros is one of the greatest haters of America, one of those who believes the "American empire" must fall. IN yet another irony, it is that 'empire' that helped him make his billions. Had he stayed in Hungary he would be a middle class marginal person.
George Soros is representative of the new class that emerged in the wake of the Great War. He represents the ideology of hating the hand that feeds you and of having no loyalty to anything. A person like George Soros would not have been able to fill even the lowliest shoes of the knights around Henry V. The ideology of a man such as this prevents him from ever putting himself in harms way or doing any sort of self sacrifice. His story is not unlike all the stories of wealthy Americans who, after 9/11, chose to leave America because they didn't like the 'patriotism' that was sweeping the country. Hollywood actresses and actors such as Susan Sarandon and Jane Fonda have been at the forefront of such extremism. Sarandon for one said people in America didn't want to "risk the lives of their sons for Iraq." This is a modern interpretation of war, since in the old days, as has been seen, it was actually people risking their own lives, not their children. Robert Redford believes that the real American patriotism lies in ending the reliance on fossil fuels. But Mr. Reford flies his own helicopter and has a private jet, both of which require those same fossil fuels.
One can see the same problem in Israel. In the three recent terrorist attacks in Jerusalem it has been armed civilians and off-duty soldiers who have shot the terrorists. They have also all been related to one another ideologically as part of what is called the 'national religious' movement in Israel. While even the leftist newspaper Haaretz has praised this movement in the wake of the last terrorist attack for inculcating 'self-sacrifice' in the minds of their youth it is clear that the thanks is only half hearted. These are, after all, the same people who the left would like to evict from their homes (which more often than not consist of trailers) in the territories since these are the 'settlers'. By removing these nationally inclined religious people the left hopes to preserve its own status as an elite. When one examines this elite, for instance the family of the current Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert, they find that they are entirely composed of 'internationalists' with loyalties to none but themselves. Olmert's children all live in the West where they receive money working for various kinds of NGOs, some of which are anti-Israel. In addition Olmert's wife received, for many years, money stolen from his own political party to fly back and forth to the U.S to sell her paintings. Such is the disdain of the modern elite for his state.
Some have said that the solution to the problem of having so many of the elites avoid military service and at the same time hate their own country and actively work against their country would be to reinstate national service in the U.S and Europe. This solution might work to force the elites to go to the military but it would also be massive drain on the economy since a country like the U.S would have nothing to do with millions of men between the ages of 18 and 23 under arms. A better solution would be to enact a twist on what the Romans did and give only those who have served in the armed forces the right to vote. This would be a small step towards disenfranchising those who are,in fact, parasites, feeding on nations throughout the world but who have loyalty to none. The Old aristocracy was not as parasitical because it expected to be called upon to fight and die to preserve its status. The 19th century and early 20th century proved a turning point for these old elites, when modernity provided them the creature comforts to relax and grow fat and the expansion of industry allowed for the creation of mass armies of citizens. The destruction of the last serving generation of aristocrats in the Great War led to a profound disillusionment. This led also the creation of a new class of elites dedicated only to themselves who did not see their nation's interests as dovetailing with their own. Their interests in the modern world were only selfish and they could find the same five star hotels and lattes in any country of the world.
Countries should not have to give rights to those that hate them. George Soros, like Emma Goldman, should be deported. There is no reason he should call himself an American. He is not an American. He is an 'internationalist' and he should therefore be a citizen of the world, if such a citizenship exists, but there is no reason he should be allowed to have an American Passport. Wealthy elites and 'cultural critics' should be deprived of their citizenship until they have done some service towards their country. We operate under the false impression that being born in a certain place gives someone the right to be a member of the country in which they were born. Citizenship should be earned, not given. It should come with certain responsibilities, much like the knights of old had responsibilities. The fact that people do not earn any of their rights makes them take them for granted and this causes the present obsession with being a 'citizen of the world' and a 'citizen of humanity'. One may well call themselves a citizen of the word, but then they should go live in that world and not plague their host country with their bile.




Stereotypes and the end of diversity
Seth J. Frantzman
July 22nd, 2008

One is forever asked to stop stereotyping people. I recall this trend beginning in my high school in the years 1994-1998. There was an ever-increasing obsession with the word 'stereotype' and the idea that any generalization against any group of people, especially those considered minorities, was unacceptable and racist. Since that period the idea that any generalization is unacceptable has grown to the most extreme proportions and penetrated the minds of people worldwide. At a recent gathering I was explaining to a person the way in which minorities tend to dominate certain niches in society. This is an observable fact. Minorities, due to discrimination, expertise, history or poverty, tend to gather in certain places and affix themselves to certain trades. I gave the example of the way in which the Irish found themselves in the police departments of many American cities. In the same period Italians found themselves at the heads of crime families, the mafia or cosanostra. The leftist objected to this characterization and said "you should be careful with your stereotypes." If we were living in a utopian leftist-Stalinist world in which thoughts and certain types of 'hate' speech were illegal than I would indeed have to be careful. The insinuation that one must be 'careful' and 'watch what they say' in terms of stereotyping is a threat. It is a threat predicated on the idea that one may be expressing 'racist' views and that one is thus outside the realms of acceptable society. What is most interesting is the fact that a society hung up on stereotypes must necessarily do away with that other liberal god, diversity.

Diversity and a lack of stereotyping are at odds with eachother. The theory that there can be no stereotypes and no generalizations sees a world in which everyone is exactly the same. In this world there is no difference between a man from Tamil Nadu and a man from the Chaco. This world is one of color-blindness. It is one in which people are no more or less likely to do, say or act a certain way based on where they come from or based on their race, ethnicity or culture. This world has no diversity. How can there be diversity if all people are exactly the same? If there is no difference between a Sikh and a Sinti then they are the same. It doesn't matter that one is a religious group with a diaspora that holds to certain values. It doesn't matter that the other is an ethnic group of former nomads from India who live in Europe.

The death of stereotypes leads necessarily to the death of diversity. Once diversity dies then man's ability to reason dies. Once man cannot reason he becomes worse than the dumbest of beasts for he cannot tell the difference between things. Think of a simple stereotype such as 'Dennys serves large breakfasts'. This expresses a very clear distinction between what Dennys offers and what other restaurants in a similar category, such as IHOP, offer. The preference for Dennys over IHOP represents a discriminating taste. If Dennys were Hispanics and IHOP was Japanese people we would call this racist because it means someone has expressed a value judgment against a certain group. But the truth is that Japanese people do not eat large breakfasts. To make a distinction based on a simple thing that does not rule out that one group can be perfectly decent and equal in other areas does not represent some terrible form of racism. It does, however, represent a stereotype. But stereotypes are how people live there lives.

The leftist often claims to abhor the stereotype. But his claim does not correspond to reality. If one sits and listens to leftists speak for more than a short period of time they will soon here the hatred come pouring out. They will hear things like "Republicans are liars" or "the Orthodox beat their children" and "Catholic priests are pedophiles." The leftist is full of anger and disdain for the other. What the leftist has constructed is a world in which worthwhile stereotypes must be pushed aside. Those stereotypes and inform of the very real and present differences between groups of people in society, the ones that make society so interesting, are the ones we are asked to do away with. We are supposed to replace our benign judgments with harsh and hateful accusations against certain groups, such as Catholics, Serbs or Republicans or whomever the current bogeyman is.

The stereotype is the most important characterization in society. It is everything that society is made up of. The diversity of the world and its people requires the stereotype. Without the lazy Mexicans, the Italian Mafia, the Muslim terrorist, the miserly Jew and the arrogant WASP we would be in a world full of dull android-like beasts, something akin to living in a society of water buffalo, sitting forever in a swamp waste-deep in our own filth, unable to see more than a few feet in front of out faces. Some people want such a world. They desire a world free from stereotypes, generalizations, racism and discrimination. But such a world would be dull, like all those futuristic worlds in which everyone lives in a bubble and wears the same clothing. Racism is a curse but its cure is not to white-wash the world and try to control our minds. The cure is to have healthy stereotypes and generalizations. All things in moderation leads to a decent world of interesting people.

Terra Incognita 41 Aipac, Samir Kuntar and Europe

Terra Incognita
Issue 44
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel

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

July 21st, 2008

‘The Israel Issue’ Celebrating 60 years since the establishment of the first falafel stand in Afula

1) Pandering nonsense: AIPAC, the political action committee in the U.S devoted to gaining support for Israel, has played a dangerous game by showing off its power so much in the wake of Mearsheimer and Walt’s book. The pandering of both presidential candidates to it is only part of the power it claims and appears to have. The irony is that other, more important, lobbies that wish to remain in the dark, such as the Gulf Arab oil lobby, are all too happy to watch Israel’s friends take the limelight and fall on their swords. All the while a more sinister lobby manipulates the U.S even more.

2) Liberalism and Islamism’s Hero: Samir Kuntar and No Sympathy: Two articles exploring the story of Samir Kuntar, his release by Israel and the media’s description of him. The first explores the story of New York Times reporter Craig Smith’s description of him. The second argues that the U.K’s description of him and other media deserves a very real re-thinking of how we should describe the world. Perhaps the KKK was just a militant organization? Who knows these days?

3) Convincing Who? Israel has succeeded in convincing much of the Arab world of its right to exist. But what many people forget is that during that same 60 year period Israel has not succeeded in convincing the Europeans of its right to exist. More properly stated: The Europeans are unable and unwilling to accept the existence of Israel. This is a much greater danger than any Arab ever was. It is also a much more disgusting and shameful turn of events.

Pandering nonsense
Seth J. Frantzman
July 15th, 2008

There exists in Jerusalem a little known Committee for the Introduction of Salsa to Israel (CISI), known among its members as 'sissy'. Barak Obama is scheduled to arrive soon in Israel for a visit to the West Bank to see its 'cultural capital', Ramallah. He will do the inevitable fist-bump with locals and meet the Pashas of Fatah. We will be forced to hear him mince words some more about Jerusalem, no doubt visiting Arafat's grave to promise a Palestinian capital for East Jerusalem, when just a week ago he was speaking of an 'undivided' Jerusalem for Israel. Sources do not say whether he will be attending a meeting of CISI, but given the importance Salsa has for the all-important voting block of Mexican-American Jews one can assume he will put in an appearance.

But Barack Obama is not to blame entirely. All the American presidential contenders this year have had to take out their pro-Israel jerseys from the closet and don them. They have all had to suck up to 'the Jews', which nowadays supposedly means supporting Israel (in the old days pandering to American Jews meant supporting Civil Rights, kissing African-American babies and being a socialist). Jewish columnists have had a field day, first challenging Obama on his view of Israel and now preaching to the African-American loving Jewish choir about how Obama is 'good for the Jews'. If it weren't all so disgusting and degrading one might have assumed that Israel was merely another state in the Union.

The tragedy of this year's pandering is that it comes on the heals of the book by 'scholars' Mearsheimer and Walt entitled The Israel Lobby. They have been responsible for extending the use of the words 'the lobby' outside the halls of conspiracy theorists and anti-Semitism to the mainstream public. Everyone now speaks of the 'the lobby'. Newspapers across the world review the book with wonderful images of the Star of David emblazoned on the American flag, not realizing the tragically anti-Semitic nature of the image. As if the candidates were out to prove Walt and Mersheimer correct in their thesis that a Jewish lobby subverts American foreign policy, both McCain and Obama have not only pandered to pro-Israel groups but Obama has actually changed his opinions to suit them. Obama has surrounded himself with pro-Israel democrats and operatives who have told him that supporting Israel will help him win the election. Thus the man who once called for talks with Hamas and was clearly anti-Israel has reintroduced himself.

As if AIPAC was out to prove Mearsheimer and Walt correct they too have donned the symbolism of the Star of David in the American flag on their latest video released after their June 2nd, 2008 AIPAC Policy conference. Yes, right on the cover, is a puzzle depicting the Star of David and the American flag all mixed up, as if they fit together if only they are re-arranged properly.

What is wrong with these people? Americans supported the creation of Israel before AIPAC. American Presidents were close to Israeli leaders before AIPAC. But in the good old days when American Presidents actually spent time campaigning about things that have something to do with America we were spared this obsession, bordering on dementia, fawning over Israel and pro-Israel groups in America. AIPAC has become a victim of its own arrogance. Rather than seeing 'the Israel Lobby' book and thesis as a shot across the bow, as a dangerous suggestion, they have rallied to its findings. It is like a high school quarterback in a small high school who allows himself to be convinced, because he is the star among his local audience, that he is a great football player. Except in this case it is even more strange because it takes the form of a racist insult being turned around by the victim and 'made his own'. This is akin to the way blacks call eachother 'nigger', to the extent that white people have now taken to saying 'what's up with my niggers' to eachother. Its akin to the way women, once considered stupider than men, now act stupid to get the attention of males. It is, basically, a bunch of people living up to the stereotypes of them. Someone told the Jews they control American foreign policy and now the Jews have decided that they actually do control American foreign policy. This must be the stupidest thing any minority group has ever done. The short term gain of AIPAC believing what they are accused of and even being able to convince the candidates that 'speaking at an AIPAC conference is essential to becoming president' will result in long term harm. As the candidates pander they also lie. When candidates lie the media accepts the lies. This is why Jews are now being told 'its ok to vote for Obama'. Wouldn't it be better if the candidates were honest?

The genius of AIPAC's belief in its own supremacy is that it allows the real lobbies in America to go unnoticed. The greatest of these is the Gulf Oil and Saudi lobby. This lobby directs billions in foreign direct investment (or what is known as sovereign wealth funds) towards America. Most recently Abu Dhabi purchased the Chrysler building. The way of the Saudi lobby is a soft sell approach. It is an approach the gets under the skin of the politician, slowly coaxing him to support the Saudi regime. The Saudis have been able to dissuade American newspapers from running negative stories about them to the extent that when one editorial ran in a tiny weekly paper in Tucson Arizona the Saudi Embassy felt it was important enough to respond with an official letter to the editor. Elsewhere in the world the Saudis rely on the lawsuit for defamation, libel and slander to keep criticism quiet. But can there be any greater knowledge than the fact that the 19 September 11th hijackers were Saudi citizens and Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi. If we call America's hatred was turned very quickly away from Saudi on 9/11 and towards Afghanistan. America was then encouraged to invade the one country that had challenged Saudi (and Iranian) dominance in the Gulf, Iraq. But the brilliance of the Saudi lobby is that it was able to use the soft sell to encourage Americans, through Mersheimer and Walt's book, that the Iraq war was actually part of the Zionist control of American foreign policy. When Mearsheimer and Walt visited the Middle East in June of 2008 (just after the AIPAC conference, which is not a coincidence) they spoke at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem where center-right Israel correspondent Gil Troy admonished people that "By hosting Mearsheimer and Walt, Hebrew University can showcase one of Israel's great assets - its robust democracy." (Israel is always said that its 'good side' is that it has people who hate it, as when Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times recently noted that the best people in Israel or 'Israel at its best' is the leftist Israelis who fight for Palestinian rights i.e. the only good Jew is the one who helps non-Jews). Uri Avnery, an extreme anti-Israel writer, celebrated their visit and noted how well received they would be in the West Bank and the Gulf Arab states by preaching to the converted that 'the Israel lobby dominates American foreign policy'. That is exactly what happened. After preaching to left-wing anti-Israel Jews in Jerusalem Mearsheimer and Walt continued on to Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Who paid for their hotel rooms while they were there and their first class air fare to those countries? It must have been nice for the wealthy Arabs in Dubai and Abu Dhabi who were, at that very moment, finalizing the purchase of the Chrysler building and sipping cafe without the threat of Saddam that these two American 'scholars' were sitting down with them and complaining that the Jews run American foreign policy.

Remember Saddam Hussein? He fired Scuds at Israel. He was a hater of Israel. But Saddam was something else as well. He hated the Iranian mullahs, his vitriol against the Islamist regime in Tehran was every bit as extreme as the current vitriol that pours out of Iran directed at Israel and the West. Saddam hated the 'mullahs' and they in turn called him 'satan'. He unleashed his army on Iran (which is more than Israel or the West is willing to do) and gassed them in the tens of thousands with his chemical weapons. Saddam also hated the Gulf Arabs. The royal Kuwaiti Army and the Kuwaiti king and his legion of servants and wives fled too fast in 1990 for us to know what Saddam would have done with them, but we know that Saddam was no lover of the opulence and greed of the Gulf Arabs. In fact Saddam considered them traitors in 1988 when Kuwait increased her oil production, thus making the Iraqis lose money. This was the catalyst for war. In fact George Bush Sr. posited that America was fighting a war for her national security to protect the oil fields of the gulf from falling into the hands of Saddam who was intending to lower output and use them as a weapon against the West. Perhaps 18 years later we have seen this come full circle. With Saddam removed and America doing the dirty work of wealthy Gulf Arabs the Arabs have not increased production and oil prices are skyrocketing. Except today, suddenly, the price of oil is not vital to national security. Thus while Americans pay $4.50 a gallon it is Israel that supposedly controls American foreign policy. Israel accomplishes this, not with oil or money, but because other lobbies allow Israel to be perceived as the puppet master so they can avoid attention and thus accomplish their jobs.

Its not the first time people had to fight and die so Gulf Arabs and Saudis could live the good life, running what amounts to a giant concentration camp in the desert where foreign workers and prostitutes are imported to do all the work. Saddam sent millions of Iraqi men to fight and die so the Saudis and Kuwaitis and Gulf Arabs could live well with their Pakistani maids. While Iraqis died fighting the Iranian Islamist menace the Saudis gave $26 billion to Saddam so that no Saudi would ever have to learn to use a rifle (except perhaps to shoot in the back of the head prostitutes who lived pass their 'prime' of 17 years of age). The Saudis feared the spread of the Iranian revolution in the 1980s to its Shia populated areas, where most of the Saudi oil is located. So other Arabs died and Saudis enjoyed their sex shows and the Riviera and their Johnny Walker. (In the new Television series 'Generation Kill' an American Marine quips that lack of 'good pussy' is what makes Arabs into Islamists. He perhaps was not aware that the 9/11 hijackers received all the 'pussy' they needed at the Olympic Garden strip club in Vegas, Pink Pony strip club in Daytona beach.)

Does anyone recall how much oil was in 1990? The 'oil crises' that was caused by Saddam's invasion forced the price of oil to rise to $50.50. That’s right, $100 less than it is today, 18 years after American servicemen died so that Arabs could live a wealthy lifestyle. 18 years after the First Gulf War the idea that Israel controls American foreign policy is firmly cemented in the mindset of Americans and people around the world. The Israel lobby believed this nonsense and uses the imagery of anti-Semitism on its conference videos. Leftist Jews and leftist Israelis also believe this and invite the 'scholars' to Israel to preach. Everyone agrees, even Obama.

Americans will keep dying for Saudi greed and liberalism will keep encouraging the myth of Jewish control and Saudi money derived from oil production will keep funding Islamic extremism around the world until someone says 'enough!' There was a chance to say 'enough' on September 12th, 2001. A true visionary president would have begun the bombing of Saudi Arabia immediately. Now we are faced with two presidential candidates entirely beholden to the Saudis who bend over backwards to make it look like Israel controls American foreign policy. Shame on AIPAC. Oh, shame on them for believing the lies about them. And, in the long run, Israel will still not be a Salsa eating country. Oh, the humanity.






Liberalism and Islamism’s Hero: Samir Kuntar
July 17th, 2004
Seth J. Frantzman

A great hero of Islam returned home on July 17th, 2004. He was, according to Islamic culture, a great warrior, a courageous and brave man. Samir Kuntar was born in 1962 to a Druze family in Lebanon. According to a biography of him in the New York Times by Craig Smith he went to Beirut to fight in the Lebanese Civil War when it broke out in 1975. He was 13 at the time. At the age of 16 he got involved with Marxist ‘revolutionaries’ in Beirut. These were the Western and Palestinian backed ‘progressives’ who were fighting against the Maronite Christian Lebanese in the Civil War. During the late 1970s and early 1980s leftists from the West became terrorism tourists in Lebanon, joining the ‘revolution’ in Beirut. Kuntar evidently became a devotee of Palestinian nationalism at this time and joined the Palestinian Liberation Front (even though, as a Druze, he had no connection to them). Like a long line of non-Palestinian born Palestinian nationalists (Fauzi Kaukji who fought for the Palestinians in the 1948 war was from Syria for instance), he became enthralled with the idea of being a “part of a military operation against Israel.” Craig Smith, as a good liberal-leftist acts as if this was a legitimate logical goal for a young Lebanese man in the years 1975-1978. For Smith and those like him in the West the idea of being a terrorism tourist is a logical move for any young youth who decides that his day for murdering civilians has come.

On April 22nd, 1979 his day finally came. Kunter, 17 at the time, led a group of “teenage commandos”, as Craig refers to them, on a rubber dinghy past the Israel-Lebanon border and landed on a beach near the Israeli town of Nahariya. Supposedly their goal, according to the Westerner Craig Smith, was to “take hostages to exchange for Palestinian prisoners.” They met a policeman soon after coming ashore and shot him. He was not ‘taken hostage’. According to the westerner and Times coorespondent, Mr. Craig Smith, what happened next is that the “raid went terribly wrong.” Although they only meant to “kidnap Israelis” they ended up slaughtering people. Kuntar and his “friends” took an Israeli man named Danny Haran “away.” Meanwhile Smadar Haran “accidently smothered her two-year old daughter as she tried to keep her quiet.” According to Craig Smith’s version of the story “Kuntar and another man were subsequently captured in a shootout that left two of his colleagues and another policeman dead. Danny Haran and his daughter also died. Israeli media soon carried graphic reports of Kuntar shooting Haran in front of his daughter and then brutally killing the child….Kuntar claimed at his trial in 1980 that Danny Haran had been killed by Israeli soldiers’ bullets…whatever the truth.”

Kuntar was sentenced to six life sentences. On July 16th he was freed along with other prisoners and exchanged for the dead bodies of two Israelis abducted by Hizbullah in 2006. On July 17th he was greeted by the Lebanese Prime Minister Faud Siniora and other Lebanese dignitaries as a ‘hero’. In an article that ran the same day as Mr. Smith’s piece the readers of the Times were given a slightly different account of what happened on April 22nd, 1979. According to Dina Kraft, also of the New York Times, “an Israeli court found that the four men broke into an apartment building and kidnapped a young father, Danny Haran, murdering him in front of his 4 year old daughter, Einat. Then, the court found, Kuntar turned to the child and crushed her skull against a rock with the butt of his rifle.”

There are two things that are taking place in the case of Mr. Kuntar. The most disgusting and awful is not what he did. It is not that Islam regards him as a hero. What is most degrading and disturbing is the way in which the West, as represented by one of its most noteworthy newspapers and two of its correspondents, Dina Kraft and Craig Smith, have turned this story into one in which there is some doubt as to what Kuntar did that day. Smith says “Danny Haran and his daughter also died.” Kraft prefixes everything that Kuntar did with “the court found” in order to cast doubt on the authenticity of the ‘Israeli narrative’. One wonders if Mr. Smith and Ms. Kraft were asked to write a story about the Oklahoma City bombing or the assassination of Martin Luther King if they would also mince their words. Would it be “150 people died” in the Oklahoma City Bombing and “the court found…”? Did “the court find” that Mr. King was assassinated and thus it cast doubt on how he ‘really’ died? What is most sad in this case is that these two western leftists have made this into a story where there is some discussion over whether Mr. Kuntar is a ‘hero’. Mr. Smith speaks of Kuntar being a ‘commando’ as if he was on a legitimate military operation. They speak of Kuntar having ‘colleagues’ and ‘friends’ as if they were just out for a stroll.

One must be very clear. Einat Haran had her head smashed in. She didn’t die in a shootout (as Mr. Kuntar claims Danny Haran did). Her brains were splattered on rocks. It must be said again. Her head was smashed in with the butt of a rifle. Again. A four year old girl’s head was smashed in with the head of a rifle wielded by an Arab. Again. A little girl was beaten to death by terrorists who murdered her in the most brutal manner. Again. Young men illegally crossed a border intent on murder, they shot a cop, and then they invaded a house where they abducted a little girl and when they were fleeing they murdered the little girl by cracking her head open. Again. Arab terrorists were responsible for murdering five people (Danny, Einat, two policeman and the two year old girl who suffocated while hiding).

It must always be said again and again. Liberalism, post-humanism and its allies seek to brainwash us and dumb us down through mincing words in carefully crafted articles that obscure the truth. Liberalism will tell us that a “court found” something when there is no doubt as to what happened (does one need a court to ‘find’ that a little girl’s head was smashed open?) Liberalism will tell us that people merely “died” rather than they were “murdered.”

There can be no quarter given to liberalism. How can one even think of forgiving a person like Mr. Craig Smith and Ms. Kraft for their crimes? Their crimes are worse than the terrorism because they excuse and obscure the terrorism. They excuse the murder of children. This must be repeated again and again. They excuse the murder of a four year old girl. Islam tells us that murdering a four year old girl is ‘heroic’. That is because Islam is a religion built on the murder of children, enslavement of women and genocide of minorities. This tells us all we need to know about Islam. If Islam were a religion of heroes and brave men then it would not send 17 year olds to murder women and children and civilians. It would send them to fight against soldiers. That is what a ‘commando’ does. Mr. Smith has evidently lived in the Middle East as the New York Times correspondent to long. He has come to believe that a ‘commando’ is someone who fights against civilians. A ‘hero’ is a man armed to the teeth who guns down defenseless children. Smith says the Lebanese believe Kuntar is a ‘courageous fighter who has sacrificed.’ A fighter? Who did he fight? Did he fight the four year old girl or the two year old one? Did he have to ‘fight’ to smash that girl’s head in? Was that part of his ‘courage’? Was his ‘sacrifice’ the fact that he had to murder children? Do Muslims mean he sacrificed his honour? No. Islamic ‘honour’ has everything to do with murdering one’s own sister or daughter because she has betrayed the ‘family honour’. It is not about ‘honour’ in the western sense. There is no honour in Islam. There is only an entire religion of cowards who believe that a hero is a ‘commando’ who beats a child to death. Islam deserves such heroes. This is why Muslims are terrorists. They can’t fight as real fighters so they blow up civilians. That is the Muslim way. But that is Islam’s problem.

Out problem is that we must live next door to people like Mr. Smith and Ms. Kraft. We must shop at the same supermarkets as them and go to the same theatres. That is our sacrifice. We must live in a world where the deaths of children are called ‘heroic’ and excused by our own educated intellectuals.

One can hate the West. It deserves to be hated for creating Craig Smith. It deserves to be hated because its leading newspapers have men who excuse the murder of children. Mr. Smith is not an opinion writer. He is a journalist. He was produced by our best Universities. He and Ms. Kraft are among the elites of our society. They are the ones who excuse the murder of a child.

We deserve more Mr. Kuntars. We deserve them to fall upon us in the West like rain. We deserve them for we have no conscience. We have no honour. We have no decency. We have no self respect, self-worth or responsibility. We are unable to tell the difference between good and evil. We are unable to write in our own press that Kunter murdered children and that he was a terrorist. Instead we mince words. Craig Smith deserves Mr. Kuntar. If only Mr. Craig had suffered the fate of Danny Haran, what a different world we could say we live in. But Mr. Craig did not. Mr. Craig jets from one Arab capital to another working as a high paid propagandist for Islamism, excusing its crimes and even spitting on the grave of a four year old girl. The ground cries out for justice for Einat Haran. It cries out not just for revenge upon Kuntar and his ‘friends’. It calls out for justice against Craig Smith. Will justice come? Will Craig Smith one day suffer the loss of a family member in a terror attack and will he no longer accept that the murder of his family members should be categorized in terms of ‘the court found’ and ‘they died’. We in the West would be so lucky to know that every one of our elites who excuses terrorism would become a victim of it sooner rather than later. But they will not. One could not wish that anyone would harm the family of Craig Smith. His daughter, if he has one, is innocent. It is he who is guilty. It is he who deserves justice. When a person excuses the murder of another, especially when they excuse the murder of a child it is as if they themselves murdered that child. There is no difference. There is no difference in terms of morality and responsibility. When one excuses the murder, especially the brutal senseless murder of a 4 year old girl they have lost all morality and they have championed the murder of that child. Pray that Craig Smith suffers for his crime.

Mr. Kuntar is free. It is Craig Smith who deserves to be serving six consecutive life terms for excusing the murder of a 4 year old girl. The blood is on your hands Craig. It will never come off and you will reap the thing you have sown. You have sown this thing, this despicable tasteless excusing, in the soul of the West and the West, if it wants to survive, must vomit forth this thing, it must excise this culture of excuses, it must do away, once and for all, with the elites who excuse the deaths of ordinary people. When the liberal elite can cast to their deaths the children of the honest ordinary civilians then it is the people who have a duty to rise up against those elites and cast them down in the very manner that they excused. If it is the bashing of the heads of children in with rifle butts than that is the manner that liberalism must die. That is what it must reap. Millions of Einat Harans have died and their deaths have been excused, time and again. From the excuses about Pol Pot’s genocide to the excuses about Stalin’s Communism. From the excuse for terrorism to the excuse about genocide in the Sudan. An entire world cries out, an entire world of dead, murdered innocents cries out for justice and the hand of justice points not only at the Communist and Islamist perpetrators. It also points to ourselves for we have not stood up against those in our own society who always excuse the murder of innocents. We fight a war on two fronts. We fight against the Craig Smith that lurks in our own society and we fight the Islamist. We fight these two Jihads at the same time. One is an inner struggle, the ‘greater Jihad’ against the Craig Smith and the other is the outer struggle against our enemies, the lesser Jihad, against Islamism. Either we win in this struggle or we perish. But we will not perish like Einat Haran. For Islam to defeat us and our way of life it will be forced to stop fighting our children, raping our women and murdering our elderly. No. Islam will be forced to learn what ‘fighting’ and ‘struggle’ really means. Only when Islam is bathing in its own blood, the way it has forced everyone else to bathe, can one perhaps begrudge the fact that somewhere among 1.3 billion Muslims there are a few genuinely courageous people. But there are no courageous Craig Smiths. There are only parasitical rats called Craig Smith who suck the blood of our murdered children.

No Sympathy
Seth J. Frantzman
July 17th, 2008

If it was a white supremacist or KKK member who had crossed into a county, shot a policeman, killed a father in the midst of a shootout and smashed a 4 year old African-American girl's head on a rock would he still be called a 'militant'? If, 27 years later, men crossed into the same county and kidnapped two policeman and then murdered them while holding them as hostages would their activity be called a 'raid'? Yet these are the words used by Reuters in their dispatch from Lebanon on July 17th, 20008 to describe the homecoming of Samir Kuntar (a Lebanese Druze who participated in murder of five Israelis in 1979, including a 4 year old girl). Would the media speak of a 'narrative' where 'one side calls him a hero and one calls him a murderer'. Come to think of it, we had a KKK member who blew up a black church in which a few girls burned to death. Reuters didn't pull any punches calling the people that did that 'terrorists'. In the UK Israeli army officers are not allowed into the country for risk of being prosecuted for 'war crimes' and Israel politicians such as Moshe Feiglin may not visit the UK because of their 'incitement' in Israel against Palestinians in Israel. Yet the UK would brand Mr. Kuntar a 'militant' and allow him to visit. Mr. Kuntar decided to come to Israel and murder civilians. His family and his community were never affected by Israel. His actions were as arbitrary and pre-meditated as any murderers. Later more Lebanese men, this time under the flag of Hizbullah, crossed into Israel to kill more soldiers. They not only 'raided' Israel but abducted and murdered to soldiers. Reuters and the Western Media tell us that they were just intending to capture the soldiers. But in the UK when a person murders POWs he is called a 'war criminal'. Yet Hizbullah leaders are welcome in Europe.

There is Mr. Kuntar on the front page of the New York Times in army fatigues giving a strait arm salute in Beirut. This is a militant? This man who chose to murder is a 'militant'? No. This is what Reuters calls a 'militant'. Reuters refuses to use the word 'terrorist' in its reporting and apparently also the world 'murderer'. This is the same Reuters that deliberately circulated forged photographs of Israeli bombing of Beirut in 2006 trying to show that the bombing was worse than it was. Reuters is a symbol of the West. Like the West there is nothing it deserves more than the terrorism it refuses to name.

The BBC does no better. For them 'Samir Qantar' merely "attacked" an apartment complex and "a policeman, another man and his four year old daughter were killed." The BBC described Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev as "Prisoners" in Lebanon, as if they were lawfully seized as prisoners of war. The BBC says they "were captured". As for Gilad Shalit, the BBC says he too was "seized in a raid" and was "the first Israeli soldier captured since 1994." Captured? How about abducted or kidnapped? If I went to England, the home of the BBC, and I snatched a UK soldier and transported him to Israel would the BBC describe my action as a 'raid' in which I took a 'prisoner'. One should test the BBC on this. In fact the BBC was tested when its reported Alan Johnston was kidnapped in 2007 by Hamas and held for 114 days. The BBC reported his being 'seized at gunpoint' and he said later in a report that he had been 'kidnapped'. So when the victim has a nice sounding British name and speaks the Queen's English he is 'kidnapped' but when the victim has a foreign name he becomes a 'prisoner'. Its strange to grow up admiring England and thinking well of a nation that fought the Nazis. But when realizes that the true England is nothing but a racist, disgusting hypocritical, lying society that excuses the murder of two Israeli soldiers at the hands of terrorists and at the same time would have charged those same Israelis with 'war-crimes' if they had visited England, one realizes there is no connection between the UK in 2008 and decency. England is dead. It is morally dead. When the government funded press uses one term for its own reporters when they are victims and another term when it is a foreign soldier who suffers a similar, but worse fate, there must be no sympathy for England.

But it gets worse. The BBC reports that Regev and Goldwasser "are believed to have died when they were ambushed in 2006." Oddly enough in another article on the same website the BBC claims " A senior Hezbollah official has now told the BBC that the soldiers were captured alive. The official claims that they were injured in the cross-border attack but that they subsequently died." In addition we learn that the imprisonment of Kuntar in Israel for the murder of four people in 1979 was "a catalyst for the 2006 war between Hizbullah and Israel." What does the BBC mean by this? This is brilliant logic. It requires the reader to believe that in 1979 a Lebanese Druze choose to infiltrate illegally into Israel and murder four people, including smashing a 4 year old girls head with the butt of his rifle. Next we are supposed to believe that this forced Hizbullah, a Shia movement, to illegally invade Israel in 2006 and murder two Israeli soldiers during or after an ambush. This is what a liberal truly thinks. A liberal believes that it is acceptable that a person should come to a country and murder people and that by daring to imprison him that country thus deserves to be attacked again and again.

The BBC describes Kuntar as one of "five detainees" in Israel. In the UK are murderers described as 'detainees'? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7509992.stm)
Later, in a separate article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7511001.stm) it describes them as "militants." I would suggest that all those imprisoned in the UK for murder should now be described as 'militants' and 'detainees'. All those imprisoned in England on charges of terrorism are, to my mind, now 'militants' and 'detainees'. That is right. There must be no sympathy for the UK. Did 52 people die in a militant attack in London on July 7th, 2005? Yes they did. Perhaps it was merely a raid intended to secure them as prisoners to swap for detainees currently held in prisons in England. There must be no sympathy for the UK. The UK has betrayed the world and it has betrayed innocent people who were brutally murdered by the terrorist Kuntar. The UK likes to talk about its boycotts. I for one will never visit the UK again in my life if I can help it. Never again. The British deserve exactly what they get. It is a wretched country with no soul and no respect for human life.

As for America and its liberals. From now on the KKK should be described as a 'militant' organization. From now on its lynchings should be described as 'raids' and those blacks it murdered should be described as 'prisoners' who 'died' in the process of being ambushed. From now on KKK members in prison should be described as 'detainees'. Yes. The West and its liberals want to mince words? They should choke on them. What will a white leftist liberal woman do when she hears that the death of an African-American in a lynching was a 'militant raid'? What will the liberal do when he learns that the death of Matthew Shepherd, the celebrated gay man who was murdered, was just a 'militant raid'. What will the liberal do when he finds out that the deaths of those three blacks who were chained and dragged behind a pickup in Texas died at the hands of 'militants' and that their killers are just 'detainees'? The liberal leftist wants to play propaganda for Islamism and legitimate murder and terrorism. Then the West must taste its own medicine. Timothy Mcveigh was a militant who raided the Oklahoma City Federal Building. He then became a detainee in an American prison. Any attacks on Americans designed to free him should be thus justified as attempts to free him. The Sept. 11 attacks were thus another raid by militants designed, perhaps, to free Mcveigh. The Western liberal must reap. It has sown. It has sown its hatred and its disgusting attempts at turn murderers into 'militants' and massacres into 'raids'. No sympathy for the West. The media's narration of the release of Kuntar must never be forgiven. It represents the complete decline of western civilization and the western ability to think and reason. The West is but a dumb beast who does no know up from down and black from white.

There can be no sympathy for the West in the wake of its reporting on the release of Kuntar. The West deserves everything it gets. I must never be forgiven for turning a murderer who smashes the head of a child into a 'militant' and turning war criminals who murder abducted soldiers into 'raiders'. The next time Reuters tells us to mourn one of its journalists who is killed in a foreign country we should celebrate. No sympathy for those who excuse terror, murder and war crimes. No sympathy for the West, its institutions or its media. No sympathy for a lying hypocritical West that would label the murderer of a black child in the American South a 'terrorist' but will label an the murderer of a Jewish child in Israel a 'militant raid'. No sympathy. No sympathy for a country that deems the kidnapping of its reporter unacceptable but views the kidnapping of people from other countries as 'raids'. No sympathy. How can there be when we see the double standard that is inherent in the reporting by the Westerner? Liberalism has conquered the mind of western man. Post-Humanism has succeeded in its ultimate goal, it has prevented us from thinking logically about things, it has changed the meaning of words and twisted facts around so no one knows what is truthful anymore. Post-humanism has distanced us from being human. It excuses the murder of a four year old in its attempt to remove any sense of humanity we might have. When we can be convinced that the death of a four year old girl is part of a 'militant raid' we are dead to the world. We no longer exist in society. One is not a member of a society or a civilization if he cannot judge morally the death of those around him, the deaths of the most tender and innocent members of his society. This is Post-Humanism and it has spread throughout the body politic. Only a complete deracination of that politic can save it. We are no longer Western. There is no West. We must satisfy ourselves by declaring that we are human. It is better to be human than it is to be western for the West is but a post-human shell of horrible excuses and terrible characterizations and 'narratives'. The world is divided. It is divided between those who are enlightened and realize their own humanity in the face of the horror they are forced to learn in school and from the media. Today the world is composed of small numbers of humans who at war with post-humans and their Islamist allies. One should be proud to place themselves on the side of the human. The human is the man with heritage and patriotism and decency, self-respect, honour and personal responsibility.






Convincing who?
Seth J. Frantzman
July 15th, 2008

There is a moniker that is often employed about the Israeli-Arab 'conflict'. It is always believed that Israel must force the Arab states to accept her existence. This is why 'right to exist' is such a mantra among those who support Israel and why at least one book has used these words in its title. Golda Meir once quipped that there will be peace when 'Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel.' The ideology of 'land for peace' is also part of this desire for recognition and acceptance in the region. Israel remains, quite simply, one of the few states whose neighbours do not recognize her. (she is not the only one: Puntland in Somalia has this problem, as does Kosovo and Taiwan among others. Israel is unique only in the sense that, until recently, her neighbours wanted to see all her residents, the Jews, removed, rather than simply disputing whether or not she is a country). However since the mid-1970s this has begun to change. More and more Arab and Muslim states do accept the existence of Israel, at least on paper. Today's greatest haters of Israel are not even Arab Muslim states but the petty leaders of other Muslim states such as Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia.
What Israelis and Israel advocates seem to have missed is the fact that they have largely convinced the Arab world that Israel does exist. What Israel has failed to do is to convince the European and other westerners that she has a right to exist. Thus the questioning of Israel's existence has moved from the local neighbourhood to the international level and on an international scale Israel has failed to convince the intellectuals and high brow pashas of the West. This is supremely interesting, for it is the West that is primarily responsible for the creation of Israel both because of the West's genocidal programs, the creation of the United Nations, the ideology of nationalism and socialism and the First World War. Although Jews shouldered the physical burden of building Israel is was the west that helped propel her to statehood. The First World War, colonialism and the legalism employed in the 'mandates' granted after the First World war helped create Israel in much the same way as Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia were created.
But while the West has not decided that the other states it served as a midwife for deserve to be dismantled, prominent westerners have decided that Israel is a 'mistake' that was 'conceived in sin'. Without going into the irony of how the West and Europeans, who are mostly secular and godless, like to use imagery such as 'conceived in sin', one must challenge the way Westerners have betrayed Israel and the degree to which the West must be brought to justice for this betrayel.
The West plays a double game with nationalism and 'anti-colonialism' and 'post-colonialism'. Tunisian and Algerian nationalism was seen by Albert Memmi and Franz Fanon as a wonderful development, a natural 'indigenous' reaction to French colonialism. Intellectuals in Europe celebrated all nationalism that took place in foreign countries outside of Europe so long as those nationalisms could be considered 'anti-colonial'. Thus the leftist intellectuals in Europe first exhibited their love for the other and this contradictory 'love it abroad, hate it at home' approach to the world: nationalism was good so long as it was being carried out by 'coloureds' and was taking place against 'the white man'. Other types of nationalism that manifested themselves over the years, for instance that of the Afrikaners, the Israelis, the Serbs and the Russians was considered 'chauvinistic'. But Hugu Chavez was not a chauvinist, even if he looks like an ape and beats his chest like one during long drawn out harangues on state controlled radio and television. Fidel Castro, although he was born into a wealthy family and although his 'comrade' Che was similarly wealthy and white were both considered anti-colonial romantics, mostly because of their beards, fatigues and interest in cigars. In fact the use of fatigues and uniforms, which were much hated and spat upon in 1960s Europe and America, were celebrated so long as they were worn by someone pretending to be 'anti-western', 'anti-capitalist' and 'anti-colonialist'. Thus while few could countenance Meir Kahane or Timothy Mcveigh and their respective JDL and militias, one could find love in Arafat and Pol Pot.
So the West gave birth to nationalism. The West exported it abroad by educating the natives in the West (this is an obvious fact as we can see that Gandhi, Kwame Nkrumah, Jomo Kenyatta, Idi Amin, Laurent Kabila, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh, to name a few, all learned their nationalism either in Europe or through Europeans). Then the West came to hate nationalism at home and love it abroad. But then there were the Jews. Jewish nationalism, once in vogue among westerners who admired Israeli's socialist kibbutzim, became tainted as Western intellectuals began to re-write their race playbooks so that the Jew became part of the 'white' world. Once Israel was redefined as 'white' and 'western' and 'European' it could be considered, like Afrikaner South Africa, an extension of Europe, an evil weed of the Old Europe, that had to be beaten back. Europeans saw themselves in the Jew and the Afrikaner and were profoundly shocked. So between 1968 and 2008 the European intellectuals began to believe that Israel did not have a right to exist. This was precisely the same period where the Arab was just catching up with Europe and accepting the existence of Israel.
Europeans are at the forefront of Israel hatred. Throughout Europe Jews cower in fear over the all-too often assaults on them by Muslims who Europeans have invited to settle in Europe as 'refugees', often in former Jewish parts of town. Europeans have convinced themselves that Israel is a 'nazi' state and that its crimes are 'like Apartheid' (In fact a recent visit by 'anti-Apartheid activists' from South Africa claimed Israel is worse than Apartheid because Israel 'wishes the Palestinians would disappear' whereas the Afrikaner at least met blacks in his day to day life).
The fact that Europeans sell technology to Iran, which threatens to destroy Israel, is merely one part of the European hatred of Israel and her attempt to destroy Israel. Europeans have a profound belief that they have a right to dismantle Israel since they believe, incorrectly, that they created Israel. Europeans have come to believe their own rhetoric, they believe Israel is a colonial extension of their continent and thus believe they can dismantle her the way they did the other colonies. The truth is that the Europeans will celebrate the destruction of Israel. But they will reap what they have sown. In the European war against Israel the European has employed the Muslim refugee, the ever tear filled eyes of the Arab women with her headscarf and her children, always parading as 'victims'. But now Europeans are stuck with fifty million of those Muslims they invited as 'victims' to settle in their midst. While Europeans pray everyday for the destruction of Israel they do not realize they have brought the destruction on themselves.

Terra Incognita 43 The Media, Occupations and Immigrant arrogance

Terra Incognita
Issue 43
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel

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

July 15th, 2008

1) The Most irresponsible people in the world: After the press published a forged Iranian photo that purported to show four missiles being fired into the air there was very little in the way of apology for helping to fool the public. The Press blamed the Iranians but refused to take responsibility for passing on the propaganda.

2) Where did all the jobs go? Two hundred years ago most people worked at occupation that required the use of hands. Today’s job market has replaced these employments with a variety of service type occupations. Not only are people alienated from work today but even the leading members of society are telling students that they shouldn’t get real jobs, they should instead be working as ‘community activists’ and in related noncupations.

3) Biting the Hand that feeds: the path of the immigrant and the terrorist: Home grown terrorism is produced because of an extreme sense of arrogance and entitlement on the part of some Muslim immigrants and their descendants. This arrogance must be met with brute strength. However history gives us a lesson of what appeasement encourages; the story of Emma Goldman’s experience in America between 1890 and 1919 should be a cautionary one.


The Most irresponsible people in the world
Seth J. Frantzman
July 11th, 2008

On July 9th, 2008 a photo made its way around the world. Agence France Presse, like other news organizations, had wanted ‘art’ to illustrate the Iranian army’s firing of a number of missiles. These were missile tests by Iran designed to show the world that should a war break out with the U.S or Israel that Iran’s missiles would threaten the entire region. Grainy video-stills of the missile test were originally all the media had to work with until a photo appeared on the website of the Sepah News, the media arm Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Without further ado Agence France Presse lifted the photo and distributed it around the world. It made the front pages of The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers as well as on BBC News, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, NYTimes.com.

The picture shows four missiles shooting upwards from the desert with smoke filling the desert landscape from their launches. Then on Thursday, June 10th, a new photo appeared from the Associated Press. It showed the exact same image, except there were three missiles being launched. Where a fourth missile had appeared in the first photo, the second photo contained a truck mounted with a missile. Upon closer examination y independent individual it became clear that the first photo had been clearly retouched and parts of two of the other missile launches cut and pasted to make it appear a fourth missile had launched. Defence analyst Mark Fitzpatrick of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies told AFP: "It very much does appear that Iran doctored the photo to cover up what apparently was a misfiring of one of the missiles.
"The whole purpose of this testing was to send a signal so Iran both exaggerated the capabilities of the missile in their prose and apparently doctored the photos as well." Most news organizations reported the faking of the image. The New York Times did the best job (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp) by showing the two images side by side with circles indicating which parts had been cut and pasted to create the fake image. Fox News put the image on its home page with a headline that “Photo of launched Iranian missile appears to have been faked.” The BBC reported the matter as if it was a point of discussion with the headline “Iran ‘faked missile test image’”. The BBC said Iran was ‘accused’ of faking the image but that Iran claimed it had test fired ‘nine missiles’. The BBC then reported that “The BBC News website's picture editor, Phil Coomes, said: ‘Having examined the photograph from AFP, it can be seen that parts have been edited, with smoke trails and parts of the foreground being cloned.’”

What is fascinating here is the degree to which the major news organizations were not only duped but upon being duped did not apologize for their irresponsibility but instead made it seem like this was a controversy. This is typical of the way the media operates in the modern world. Instead of getting a handle on the most mediocre of technologies, such as photoshop, and examining pictures before they are published, the media publishes image with reckless disregard and then complains that by some odd circumstance the image was faked without acknowledging the media’s own role in distributing the mockery. There is a famous saying that ‘extraordinary claims’ need ‘extraordinary evidence’. But the media version of this is that extraordinary claims just need a quote or a picture from someone else and they become ‘true’ enough to go on the front page. It is not the first time the media has been duped and played a role in its duping. The media does not simply report the news, it ‘manufactures’ the news in the Chomsky sense by creating stories and following stories that it deems important to the readers. Thus the media needs the most gruesome and interesting details for those stories. This was the case with Mohammed al-Dura, a Palestinian boy who apparently died of gunshot wounds on September 30th, 2000. Talal Abu Rahma, a Palestinian journalist, filmed 27 minutes of coverage of a gunbattle between Israelis and Palestinians on that day in Gaza. 59 second of his film was shown on television and it showed a father and his child in the midst of the gunfight, unable to escape. The Palestinian journalist claimed the Israelis shot the child. Charles Enderlin of France 2, the channel’s bureau chief provided a voice over for the video in which he claimed that the Palestinian boy had been the “target of fire coming from the Israeli position.” Enderlin had not been present at the gun battle. The father of the boy became a convincing victim, declaring to the media that the world should avenge his boy’s death by harming Israel and that his boy was a ‘martyr for Al-Aqsa’ The Muslim world printed postage stamps of the death of the boy and assaults on Jews in the western world followed. It subsequently turned out much of Enderlin’s story was caught up in lies. He lied when he said the boy’s death had been captured on camera but was too emotional to show on France 2. In actuality the boy’s death was not depicted. It turned out some of the footage showed other Palestinian boys playing dead for the camera. In the end the media had not only been duped by its Palestinian reporter and hs sympathies but had in fact created a nice propoganda film designed to sow hatred and anger. During the Second Lebanon War Adnan Hajj, a local Lebanese man with his sympathies for Hizbullah, took a photo of smoke billowing out of Beirut after an Israeli bombing raid. Hajj sold his photos to Reuters which released them to the world, which displayed them unquestionably. It turned out the photos were amateurish fakes in which one piece of smoke had been cut and pasted dozens of times to make the bombing appear worse than it was. Reuters appologized for the ‘inconvenience’.

In all these cases we see a reckless disregard for the truth and a lack of responsibility. The news organizations simply appear incapable of even examining the photos they use in the most marginal way. Their excuse will be that they are given hundreds of thousand sof photos and they receive them from trusted sources, such as Reuters and the AFP and therefore cannot be responsible for examining them all. Under their contract with Reuters they except that the due diligence has already been done. But when these mistakes happen again and again one would think that the media would employ someone to examine the photos for evidence of simple fakery (the images by Hajj and from Sepah could be created by anyone using the most simple devices in Microsoft’s Paint, they don’t even require the expertise of Photoshop and the deceoption is so easy to spot that average people have been the one’s blowing the wistles on the photos, not media watchdogs.) One would assume that the media might have at least a modicum of prudence when it comes to trusting images from ‘freelance’ Arab Muslim Shiite photographers in Lebanon during a war with Israel or from the website of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The media, in a clear mark of irresponsibility, does not bother to check the source. Yet the same media, and especially the BBC, always puts quotes around any stories that eminate from event he highest levels of government in England, Washington or Tel Aviv. Thus when the American government claims something it appears in quotes. Death tolls often appear in quotes. But an image does not appear in quotes, nor does its caption. There is the typical saying that a ‘picture is worth a thousand words’. Since the BBC puts so many of its words in quotes one would think that it would have the common decency to put images it displays in quotes or at least explain the source of the material. To b lindly pass off the propoganda of the Revolutionary Guards of Iran makes the BBC, in effect, a subsidiary of the Iranian regime. This is, in fact, what has taken place. The media is, for all intents and purposes, part of the propoganda efforts of various Middle Eastern potentates and terrorists. Its lack of responsibility means that it is used by terrorists to get their message out and inflate their claims and fake their ‘suffering’. The media always plays the victim in this, acting as it it was given fake material. But who is the victim? If a person buys rotten fruit that is obviously rotten is he truly being ‘tricked’. As a famous Muslim imam in Australia asked ‘if someone leaves meat outside and another person takes it, who is to blame, the person who left the meat out or the person who took it?’ It is unlawful and irresponsible for someone to manipulate images. But given the fact that so many images are maniupated the media should doubly examine any image coming from the Middle East, especially during a time of conflict, as to its authenticity. If one buys rotten produce again and again from the same market at some point they themselves are at fault. If they buy the rotten produce and then give it away to others, as the AFP and Reuters do with these forged and altered images, then they are passing on the rotten fruit and they are at fault for not inspecting it. This is the situation we are dealing with. It is a situation of the utmost in irresponsible behaviour and it means that when dealing with the Middle East and reporting on Muslim countries ones should not only stop trusting the stories eminating from the media but should also no longer trust any of the images. The pictures are no longer worth a thousand words. They are worth nothing.




Where did all the jobs go?
July 8th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman

In 1714 the following jobs were the occupations of the residents of Bradford, England. Three percent were owners of land. 14 percent were 'landless labour'. Three percent were involved in coal mining. 23 percent were involved in textiles. 19 percent made their daily bread in 'clothing and footwear'. Five percent worked in 'food and drink'. 9 percent were employed in building. 12 percent worked in 'minor trades and industries'. Seven percent worked in 'services'. Three percent were in the professions. 1 percent were 'gentry' and 1 percent were in the militia. In nearby villages the main occupations were coalmining, landless labour and work in the textile industry. In nearby Scotland a list of 'old occupations' contains many interesting, and forgotten, jobs. There was the 'beadman' (Bedeswoman and Beildsman as well) or licensed beggars. There was the 'Alewife' or woman who ran a pub. There were 'Berlin Blackers' who applied black varnish to iron tools. There was the Chapman who dealt goods from his donkey cart by traveling from village to village. There were Byremen who looked after cows. There were Cork Cutters who cut cork imported from Portugal. There was the Cowan (and Dyker) who built dry stone walls. There was a Fethelar or town fiddler. There was the Ghillie or 'highland guard of wild game'. There was a Moneyer, the man who made coins. There was the Rope spinner or maker of rope and the Rove Carrier who moved fibres and flax before spinning. There was the Sprigger who made fine linen. There was the Thong Maker who made leather whips and other leather goods. There was a Walkser whose job was to wet cloth and step on it in order to thicken and clean it. There was also the Wadsetter or holder of a mortgage.

Today's human looks with disdain on these jobs and celebrates the fact that either they no longer exist, machines do them or 'other people' do them. In the Western countries and other wealthy states these jobs have been exported overseas or they have been usurped by machines. Such were the results of industrialization, globalization and the increasing abilities of assembly line robots to do intricate work.

There was a time when most people did labour with their hands. But there have been at least two generations, if not three or four, that have separated us from our forbears. Such mundane textile jobs and farm labour is something so remote that most could not imagine it. But society increases daily with more and more people as populations grow (except in Europe). So as these 'old' occupations have disappeared new occupations have had to replace them. Most people, even in this technologically advanced society, must work in order to survive. But given the flaccid nature of people and the fact that so few of them are capable of doing work with their hands any longer society has had to increase the number of jobs that do not require much work. In order to do this we have created a generation of people employed in what was then called 'services'.

One example of these new kind of jobs that have come to replace the 'Walkser' and the 'Dyker' are jobs described as "Community and External Affairs and Business diversity." This was the description of Michelle Obama's job at a hospital for which she was paid $275,000 a year. Michelle Obama might be the posterchild of a generation for whome work is an abstract theoretical concept. Michelle may have grown up in a modest home but she aspired to higher things. She got into Princeton and spent her time there complaining about how racist it was (although the fact that she was allowed to go there seems to belie this claim). She became wealthy through working a variety of non-jobs, non-occupations, for which no work was required and no results could be provided. After all, how does someone measure 'community outreach' for a hospital? People are dying everyday, they must go to the hospital. Does one need to outreach to them?

In the end Michelle became a bandleader of the movement against occupation. She has publicly stated to college students that they should not "go into corporate America." Yet at the same time she claims that "Barack Obama will require you to work." But what will this 'work' look like? This work is entirely predicated on the idea that things that are not real occupations can be subsumed under the idea of what 'work' is and then meaningless labels can be dished out to this years college students so that they will all work as 'grant writers' or 'community representatives' or 'organizers' or some other noncupation. In fact that is what these jobs are, they are the opposite of an occupation, they are noncupations.

It was inevitable that technology would produce this. Movies about the future made between the 1950s and the present have always shown a future where no one works. People are always portrayed walking around in similar track suits but they never seem to have jobs. If they have occupations it is as some sort of officer or deckhand on a star cruiser. In Aliens the movie the directors created a universe that involved futuristic soldiers, but no one had an occupation outside of the military. What jobs were there in Star Wars. There were all the imperial soldiers of Darth Vader and the people who drove his star ships around. Luke Skywalker's uncle was a farmer. But those were basically the only occupations shown in the film. People can't imagine occupations in the future because we have witnessed to many honest occupations fall by the wayside. We imagine a future in which no one works.

The present state of society, in which people hold jobs that are not real occupations and in which few if any people use their hands during work (except to type), has created all the need for 'meaning' in life. People even volunteer to do old occupations so as to find themselves. They believe that through a few weeks of 'work' they will suddenly have an awakening. The need for all this meaning in life may stem from a lack of actual skills in life but the remedy, psychologists, psychiatrists and 'meditation' does not seem to bring people any closer to knowing what work once was. People in movies speak of owning farms and living off the land but most are ill-equipped to do so. The stories of people like Chris Mcandlis in Into the Wild appeal to people because they wish they too could abandon all to live in a pre-modern state of being.

The romanticism of the late 19th and early 20th century, both among the Communists and Fascists, saw nations of people working together to build themselves up. These mass ideologies or 'Sacred Causes' tried to re-envision a nation of romantic workers and peasants, all happily working as cogs in the machine. Both the Germans and the Soviets romanticized the countryside and each had their ideologies of 'returning to the soil'. In Russia it was the peasant commune and in Germany it was 'blood and soil'. Either way it was a reaction to modernity which saw ever more people crammed into cities and the land turning fallow as the agricultural people left it to find work in factories. This was a harbinger of doom for folk tradition. But the solution found in Nazism and Communism was mass industrialization. There was to be no true return to the land. Attempts were made to colonize vast swaths of hitherto useless land as shown in David Blackbourn's excellent study Conquest of Nature. In essence, however, this was the irony of these mass movements based on a romantic notion of nature: there was no return, merely a conquest of nature and a slow destruction of it.

In the Democratic west the conquest of nature proceeded apace with a conquest of the soul that was the result of a lack of occupations being open to the youth. There simply are no more jobs. They have all disappeared. The fact that the best and brightest in the West abhor the 'corporation' and blame all of societies ills on it merely shows the degree to which the wool has been pulled over our eyes. Corporate life holds some of the last actual occupations that are left over from the ancient world. It still has some attachment to the idea of work as a way of life and as an ethos. While small businesses are rightly celebrated as a wonderful part of society few people aspire to work in small businesses. People aspire to the nameless occupations where the real money is. Since people can pull down huge salaries such as $275,000 a year for working as a 'community relations consultant' there is no reason to aspire to having a real occupation.

Everyday there are fewer and fewer occupations. There are fewer and fewer skills. Everyday people become more and more separated from any sense of their surrounding environment. Karl Marx spoke of factory workers being alienated from their labour but today’s people are alienated from humanity. They are alienated from the environment. They are alienated from nature. They are mindless automatons who have no real skills and cannot even explain what it is they actually do for a 'living'.

Biting the Hand that feeds: the path of the immigrant and the terrorist
July 2nd, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman

There was, we are told, a time when the immigrant arrived and paid homage to his new land. He was proud of his new nation. His new country offered him the freedoms and opportunity so sorely lacking in his home country. In some periods the immigrant has lived up this image. In some periods he has become patriotic and he has assimilated and he has even become part of the mainstream culture of his new country. After a few generations his descendants even forget their foreign roots, such has been their assimilation. Sometimes he has preserved his culture and made it part of the culture of his adopted country.

But there is another type of immigrant. There is another type of person out there. This person, who is present in ever greater numbers in society, has disdain for his new country. (his disdain however is matched by the disdain which citizens today hold for their own countries as well) He has a deep hatred and contempt for it. The more he becomes familiar with it the more he is exposed to the new culture the more he hates it. As states are ever more giving to immigrants, granting them ever more freedoms, they become ever more immodest in their treatment of their adopted countries. As society comes to appreciate diversity, multiculturalism and tolerance more and more there is an ever greater attempt to worship the culture of the immigrant, the ‘other’, and to encourage him to maintain his values. This, in itself, is not a terrible thing except for the fact that increasingly cultures of intolerance are encouraged and multi-culturalism is used as an excuse for supporting hatred. There is an ever greater attempt, on the part of the immigrant and the mutli-culturalists, to isolate the immigrant in a certain place next to his kin. Then the immigrant, angry at what he now considers his low station in life, explodes with rage over some perceived offense.

Take two cases in Europe as examples. In Scotland in June of 2008 the police department distributed fliers advertising a non-emergency number on them. To draw attention to the cards that were mailed to residents and given to shopkeepers to display a small 6 month old puppy named ‘Rebel’ was pictured on the cover next to a policeman’s cap. Soon newspaper articles were appearing saying that the cards were offensive. Pray tell who was offended? It turns out Muslims find dogs offensive because they are unclean. Of course, the postcards were not actual dogs, just pictures of them. Muslims don’t like dogs, perhaps the way normal people don’t like pictures of shit (one should note here that in the Koran dogs are compared to Jews and pigs, so one might assume that a picture of a Jew on a postcard would have been equally offensive. But there are few Jews in the Scottish police force whose faces merit being put on postcards.) When one puts themselves in the Muslim’s position, as we are all apt to do in our modern leftist multi-cultural society, we think of ourselves living as immigrants in some place like Taiwan and receiving a postcard with a picture of a pile of shit on it and being ‘offended’. But would we react with rage and anger and demand, as the Muslim councilor of Dundee(Scotland), Mohammed Asif did, that the dog cards be withdrawn and apologies issued? No. As good tolerant multi-cultural people we would accept that this is the Taiwanese culture (it is not, by the way). If we were more intelligent and honorable we might realize that as immigrants we should respect the culture of the people whose country we had immigrated to. But the response of the Scottish police department was to note that they had not intended to cause offense. Rather than asking why people, immigrants in fact, dared to be offended the police made the ridiculous choice to claim they didn’t mean to cause offense.

In Italy the rural village schools have had crosses in them since people can remember. When a Muslim moved to one such community and found out about the crosses he immediately demanded that they be removed because his children should not have to go to school and see them. They were ‘offensive’. Such was this Muslim’s arrogance and inhospitable way of living with his adopted country that he sued Italy over the crosses. The court, in its rare display of intelligence and strength, noted that the Christian religion was an integral part of Italian culture and that there was no compelling reason to remove the cross.

Here are two cases of the way of the immigrant. In ever increasing numbers the modern Muslim immigrant does not move to a country and respect its values and culture. Muslims always claim that indeed they merely want to be left alone to their own traditions and that they respect the traditions of others. But the truth is far from this. Muslim immigrants do not respect the local cultures they find themselves in. A Muslim will move from his country, where the Koran is displayed in every school, to a small town in Europe and complain that a cross is displayed in the local school. He will never learn anything about the culture of his new country and will demand that wherever he goes that the people adapt to him. In the U.K for instance one school forced all the pupils to pray to Allah and the girls to cover their hair so as to ‘learn about Islam’ and in another school the Holocaust was stricken from the curriculum because Muslims would be ‘offended’ by learning about Jewish suffering. One should not have to have immigrants that act in this manner. One should certainly not have to apologize to them because they are offended by something that the local people have always been doing or are offended by something that local people like. Yet everywhere today people are adjusting to immigrants rather than demanding that immigrants adjust. There is a short answer that every immigrant and his descendants need to learn. ‘If you don’t like it go back to your country.’ This is the only answer that any local police department or school anywhere should ever give to a Muslim who complains. Is there pork on the menu at the local schools? If the Muslims don’t like it they have a school to go to: in Saudi Arabia or any other of the 40 Muslim countries in the world where Islam is the official religion. (in contrast to Islam, Jews have long adjusted to the pork consuming habits of locals in places like the American South). Muslim don’t like dogs. Then they should not move to countries where the people like dogs. Yet the liberal is of the opinion that should a Muslim appear in an apartment building than people should suddenly be careful about letting their dogs out, lest the dog cause offence. In Minnesota the local taxi companies no longer allow dogs in the taxis because the Muslim drivers took offense to them. In Singapore the same response was given to Muslims. It is a worldwide phenomenon. Wherever Muslims are a minority they get what they want. Wherever they are a majority they get what they want. When police use dogs against criminals we now hear that the dogs might offend the criminal Muslims. There is one response: if you don’t like dogs, if you find them unclean, then don’t be a criminal and don’t attract the attention of the police. The Palestinians who complain about the Israeli use of dogs can learn from this: stop throwing rocks at the police and the dogs will stop being used. If the Muslim criminals suddenly decide that being put in a prison is ‘offensive’ and ‘against the Koran’ will the state suddenly decide to have special places for Muslim criminals?

The path of the arrogant immigrant and the terrorist are implacably linked. Not all immigrants are terrorists. But an ever increasing number of Muslim immigrants are terrorists. The reason they become terrorists is because of their notion that society should always change to suit them. The two recent terror attacks carried out in Jerusalem were carried out by Arab workers hired by Israelis. The hiring of the Arabs caused them to become terrorists. This may seem like a strange logic. How can hiring someone cause them to become a terrorist? Aren’t we all told that terror is the result of poverty and unemployed ‘angry’ youth, thus hiring them would cause them to be thankful? The terrorists didn’t become terrorists because they lost their jobs either. This is not a matter of people ‘going postal’ and gunning down their co-workers and bosses. The reason hiring people can turn them into terrorists is because it makes them familiar. Their familiarity breeds their contempt and soon one finds that their anger and ‘rage’ boils over and because they are now working in an environment around the ‘other’ they not have the possibility to challenge that ‘rage’ and ‘resentment’ into an act of murder. Were they merely peasants working in their own society their rage and anger would lie undirected. But the Arabs hired in East Jerusalem who come to work in West Jerusalem become terrorists more and more. They are all ticking bombs. Jews say “we hire them because they are cheap labor.” But is it worth an extra few dollars saved a day when compared with the people murdered by the, for all intents and purposes, immigrant workers? No human is worth a small amount of cost savings. The Israeli employers are never targeted (as mentioned before, the terrorist is not ‘going postal’ but directing his anger against the ‘other’ around him, rather than against his employer and fellow employees). Instead the result of hiring East Jerusalem Arabs is the deaths of innocent bystanders, murdered because someone decided to save some money. In the case of the Merkaz Ha Rav Yeshiva shooting the terrorist had been a driver for the Yeshiva. For years he earned a living from Jews. Then one day he killed them. The July 2nd, 2008 attack was carried out by a gainfully employed bulldozer driver. The Arab man was entrusted with great responsibility to drive a bulldozer and he made a living doing it. Then he murdered people.

Dealing with terrorism that comes from Muslim immigrants is a process of waiting. It is a process of waiting for the ‘next one’ to have his ‘rage’. It is always being at the mercy of people. One has to be nice to them every day, never knowing when ‘today might be the day’ that they decide to transform from a worker to a terrorist. The media and the police paint a picture where there is ‘nothing that can be done’. One is always supposed to wait for the next one. Imagine such a society. A society waiting to die. In Europe it is always a matter of waiting until the Muslim immigrants (or his descendants) feel that ‘today is the day to be offended and have a riot’. The solution, so we are told, is to be one step ahead of them. Dealing with immigrant rage is a process of making sure beforehand not to offend the special people who take offense. Dealing with terrorism from ‘within’ is a matter of having actionable intelligence and arresting the terrorist just before he has his ‘special day’.

There are two stories worth relating that bear on this subject. In December of 1919 Emma Goldman and 200 other foreign born extremists were rousted from their beds on Ellis island and put aboard a ship. Goldman stood defiant, saying she was ‘proud of the honor of being deported from the United States.’ She had been born in Kovno in 1869 in Lithuania to an Orthodox Jewish family. They moved from there to Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad) and to St. Petersburg. Fleeing Anti-semitism the family booked ship for the United States, where they arrived in 1885. It did not take long before the teenage immigrant became involved in radical politics. During the Homestead strike she and Alexander Berkman (a wealthy Russian born Jew who immigrated to the U.S at the age of 17 in 1887) resolved to murder the owner of a steel plant named Henry Frick. Berkman, the immigrant, first tried to build a small bomb and then bought a gun which he used to shoot Frick three time. He was beaten unconscious by the very workers he was trying to ‘liberate’. Imagine the arrogance here: a country gives these people a new lease on life, free from the anti-semitism of the Old Country, and they decide to murder people in their new country. Goldman became more extreme, ordering her followers in 1893 to “take everything by force…demonstrate before the palaces of the rich…demand work.” She was arrested for inciting a riot and then threw a glass of water at the judge, such was her respect for the institutions of her new land. When a son of Polish immigrants and an Anarchist named Leon Czolgosz murdered President Mckinley the U.S finally began to understand the danger and arrogance of foreign extremists. But America was a patient nation and it did not deport Emma or her colleagues. Instead they had the freedom to found their ‘Free Speech League’ to support the entry of more anarchists into the country and their newspaper ‘Mother Earth’ which showed anti-American drawings on its cover, one of which depicted a man jabbing the American flag down another mans throat entitled ‘Patriotism in Action’. In 1917 when America joined the Great War and when average Americans went to serve their country the immigrant Goldman helped form a No Conscription League that was composed of ‘internationalists’ who refused to fight the ‘capitalists war’. It may have been no surprise the immigrants didn’t want to fight the war, after all, it was not their country. Had they been back home in their homelands they would, of course, had no choice. Emma had great arrogance in her fight against entry into the First World War she declared America “must first make democracy safe in America. How else is the world to take America seriously, when democracy at home is daily being outraged, free speech suppressed, peaceable assemblies broken up by overbearing and brutal gangsters in uniform.” Oddly Ms. Goldman did not recall that since 1890 she had engaged in the most radical forms of free speech and yet been allowed to remain in her new nation. But she, of course, had no appreciation for America for having allowed her to immigrate. Instead she bit the hand that fed her. When Communism triumphed in Russia after the Revolution she declared that it offered “the most fundamental, far-reaching and all-embracing principles of human freedom and of economic well-being.” But Emma, who hated America so much, did not return home to her mother country. It was America that finally returned her home. It put her and many of her fellow haters who hated their new country, on a boat and shipped them back. But Communism didn’t turn out to be the utopia she thought it would. The Communists viewed freedom of speech as a ‘bourquiese supersition’. Other countrites took her in: Lativa, England and Canada. When she was finally allowed to return to the U.S in 1934, albeit only to lecture on drama and her autobiography, she was, ironically, critisized in the Communist press. During the Spanish Civil War she was a supporter of the Anarchists that fought on the side of the ‘Republic’ (the wonderful anarchists did great open minded things in Barcelona, such as destroying Gaudi’s sketches for the completion of the Sagrada Familia). In 1939, on the eve of the Second World War, she was residing in England and could not help but to, once again, insult her host country, calling it “more fascist than the fascists.” In yet another irony for the immigrant Goldman it would be hundreds of thousands of those ‘fascist’ Englishmen who would die opposing Hitler whose Nazis would completely exterminate the Jews of Kovno, her birthplace. Goldman opposed any fight against Nazism, noting that “I would not support a war against them [Germany and Italy] and for the democracies which, in the last analysis, are only Fascist in disguise.” The Democracies had taken in this immigrant again and again and again and never received one word of priase. Emma died in 1940. She probably deserved to have been killed earlier in her beloved Communist Soviet Union. She probably deserved to die by the hands of her beloved Nazis who she would not have fought. But Communism and Nazism eluded her. She lived at the dole and favor of the capitalist democracies she hated so much, going from one to another to spit on them.

Emma and her immigrant friends were very much like the Muslim immigrants of today. Everyone who opposes Islamism should realize this is not the first time the West has had to encounter immigrant terrorists who used the West’s good graces and tolerance against it. Emma’s life is the model for the Muslim terrorist. Her arrogance and her hatred of the very countries that took her in are no different than that of the modern terrorist. The West did not defeat the Emma Goldmans. The West was weak and flacid in the face of them as well. The decision to finally deport her in 1919 should have been made in 1890. She should have deported after the first negative, hateful, extremist word she uttered. Immigrants need to learn a lesson. Free speech does not apply to them. The freedoms that westerners have do not apply to foreigners. Free speech must be earned and appreciated. Westerners have died in numerous wars for their freedoms. Usually they have fought those wars against the very nations from which the immigrants come.

I recall a very personal story that is representative of the attitude of the hateful immigrant and the terrorist. I was the president of a small home owners association (HOA) for a development community in Arizona. We had 200 similar looking houses and very harsh codes of conduct for the residents. The properties had to be kept clean and tidy. Trash bins had to be removed from the street after collection. There were two residents of the community, a husband and wife, who ceaselessly complained against their neighbours. They complained over the most miniscule things, such as a neighbour having a light in the backyard that was ‘too bright’. According to these complainers the role of the HOA should be to force ‘compliance’ upon these other residents. But the infractions were mostly in the heads of the complainers, there was no reason to enforce outlandish complaints. In the end I had to confront these people and I demanded of them “if you hate having neighbours so much why did you move into such a close knit community” (in truth I gave them a greater tungue lashing). These people had no answer except to threaten to sue the HOA for not enforcing the ‘rules’. These complainers were like the immigrant-terrorist. They had moved into a community that had an established way of life. It was their choice to move to this new community. Soon after arriving, rather than assimilating and learning about the values of the community, they took it upon themselves to try to force the entire community to bend to their minority viewpoint. Others might have met this complaining with action and apologies and forced innocent people to change their lives so as not to offend the new arrivals. But the proper response, the one I gave, was to fight this complaining with fire. Complaining must be smashed before it grows. People that complain must be taught a lesson. They must be opposed at every crossroads. There must be no appeasing or bending to their will. People who take offense must be opposed through the use of greater offense. Otherwise such things get out of control. Then, all of a sudden, the complainer has his ‘rage’ and ‘anger’ and ‘resentment’. Unless the rules are laid down immediately and with extreme strength then they will always be broken. Had Emma Goldman been deported in 1890 she would have been taught a lesson. She would have lived out her life in Luthuania and died at the hands of Stalin or Hitler. That would have been her path and a path well deserved given the amount of hatred that dwelled within her. By the same token Muslim immigrants who do not appreciate the hospitality of Europe should be sent home. Europeans are always worried that Muslims might be ‘tortured’ if deported. But if a few were deported and subsequently tortured and flayed alive perhaps the rest would stop complaining about a puppy on a postcard or a small cross in a school and realize that such things were trivial compared with the treatment metted out to them in their home country. Should they prefer the home country, they should be welcome to it and they should deported, immediately. Tolerance is a goal. A society should be tolerant. But it should not have to be tolerant of intolerance. It should not have to be tolerant of the rights of immigrants. Immigrants have no rights. Their rights are in their home country. They should fulfill their responsibility as immigrants first and then, and only then, obtain the rights of their new country. They should have to prove themselves. There should be zero tolerance for their hatred, their endless complaining and their ‘taking offense’. Terrorism is the result of a weak policy. It is the result of allowing Muslim Arabs or Emma Goldmans, to come to a country, enjoy its fruits and then spit on it. Hatred eminating from the mouth must be met with the fist. People want to call a country ‘fascist’ then they should learn what fascism is. Emma Goldman deserved fascism. She deserved it so much and yet she never received it. Her whole life she spit on the soil of others by insulting them. She called everyone ‘fascist’ and yet she never received fascism. She deserved it. Today’s terrorists-in-waiting deserve it. They deserve the very thing they think they are receiving. If they find the puppy offensive they deserve to be truly offended, perhaps through an annual ‘running of the pigs’ through their communities. Then, suddenly, the puppy postcard might seem like a welcome reprive. Strength against immigration. Strength in the face of arrogance. Strength in the face of complaints. Strength in the face of terror. Only when a society learns to project strength against the most minor things will it use it against the larger things. Otherwise it is just limping along claiming that ‘one day we will respond.’