Terra Incognia 58 genocide, women and terror

Terra Incognita
Issue 58
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel

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

October 28th, 2008

1) To genocide or not to genocide? Is it better for a country to commit genocide or not to commit genocide? On the fact of it a stupid question. But history has shown that those countries that commit genocide end up better off, financially and in the eyes of the international community, than those that do not. Just look at the fate of the Jews, the Serbs, the Armenians and the Tutsis. And compare their fate to those of the Germans and the Turks. Who is wealthier today, the son of a Holocaust survivor or the son of a member of the Vichy regime, the son of a Croatian Ustache or the son of a Serbian partisan?

2) How much freedom for a woman? A recent ruling by a feminist Tel Aviv judge regarding accused pimps was fascinating. She claimed the prostituted women, who had been locked indoors and forced to have sex with a dozen men a day, had ‘freedom of movement’ because the pimps took them to the gynecologist, the beach and the supermarket from time to time. Furthermore the judge claimed it was acceptable for the pimps to be angry when the slaves refused to work on their periods. Why does feminism produce such women that excuse slavery and the evils of human trafficking? Why does secular society degrade women so?

3) A poor old man dies so a wealthy man may live, or a tale of two Amoses: A 21 year old Palestinian recently fought the battle of a lifetime against an 86 year old Jewish oppressor. In his militant freedom struggle he overcame the spry man and stabbed him. Now the son of the old man, oddly named Amos Oz, must bury his dad. But there is another Amos Oz in Israel, a wealthy Amos Oz whose father did not die at the hand of a terrorist, yet he is an Oz who has, from time to time, supported the Palestinians and their ‘struggle’. So why does the wealthy one get to spend the last days with his elderly father, but the poor Amos must never gets to say goodbye? Why does a secular society reward one man and give so little to the other. The 86 year old man served the state his whole life and was relegated to a bare mention in the newspaper. But the wealthy Amos gets human rights awards. Why the injustice?





To genocide or not to genocide?
October 21st, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman

In the world there exist two types of countries: those that have committed genocides and the ethnic-cleansing of minorities in the last 100 years and those that have not. The question is whether or not it has been better from a historical and modern perspective, and even a moral perspective, to commit genocide or not. Judging by the way in which the former genocidaires have been treated by the international community, by leftist activists and by the academy one can only judge that it has been better to commit genocide and those countries that have not done so have lost out in a variety of ways. Those people who have been the victims of genocide have lost out the most for they have not only been victims but they have also then become, according to the modern western narrative, the ‘new Nazis’.

Let us consider just a few cases. The Jews suffered the Holocaust, but today’s Jewish state is considered a Nazi country by those progressive voices in the West. Europeans and westerners volunteer throughout the Palestinian territories. Yet their ancestors never volunteered to help Jews. Their moral judgement is clear: the Jews are the Nazis. The actual Nazi country, Germany, todays sends millions of Euros in donations to various ‘human rights’ organizations that condemn Israel as ‘fascist’ and ‘apartheid’ and compare its policies to those of Nazi Germany. Germans volunteer in organizations that help build homes for Palestinians. Yet Germans did not rebuild the homes of the Jews who were destroyed in Europe. Today’s Germany is a model European democracy, a wealthy country full of technology and industry. Yet its victims are today ‘Nazis’. Other countries in Europe are no different. The children of French members of the Vichy regime are today able to pose as progressive leftistis and journey to help Palestinians or burn the Israeli flag at their campuses in France.

But the irony of Israel protrayed as a ‘Nazi’ country by good western wealthy leftist intellectuals and Germany portrayed as a model country is not the only example of where those who commit the genocide have been rewarded while the victims have been termed the ‘new Nazis’. The Serbs were, after the Jews and Russians, the main victims of the Nazis. Ten percent of their people were murdered. And yet today Serbia is the pariah and Germany is at the heart of the EU. Serbia must beg to join even as Germans serve in Bosnia and Albania and help continue the ethnic-cleansing of Serbs that was begun by the German allied Ustace Croatian regime. Croatia, a Nazi ally who was the only country in Europe to run its own concentration camp and murder it own Jews without SS help, is a European tourist destination and a ‘good’ country. It is wealthy and clean and celebrated internationally. Yet the victims of its home grown Nazi Ustache regime, the Serbs, are not only considered ‘the new Nazis’, but it is Serbs who sit in the dock at the European run International Court of Justice. In the 1990s the Croats continued their cleansing and murder of Serbs throughout Croatia, reducing them to a mere 2% of the population from some 20%, while the West, including Germany and former collaborationist regimes, helped them. Thus the former Nazis helped continue their legacy of murder and all the while the press and academics and ‘good leftists’ termed the Serbs the ‘new Nazis’. Had Serbis chosen differently in 1941 and sided with the Nazis they would have been better off today.

But its not the only example. Turkey committed the Armenian Genocide. Today Armenia is a small poor landlocked country whose women are sold as sex slaves in Turkey and across the Middle East and Europe. Turkey, the genocidal regime, is a modern western state who may be granted entrance to the EU. It is in Nato. It is wealthy and considered a ‘good’ country. To even mention the Armenian genocide in Turkey is illegal, let alone to question the fate of the Ponitc Greeks or the other Greek minorities destroyed in 1922 when Turkey expelled them in the ‘population exchange’. Yet Turkey has not stopped there. After its invasion of Cyrpus in the 1970s it cleansed the Greek inhabitants of its part of that island and settled Turks in their place. And today the EU and leftist Cypriots back a plan to allow the Turks to return to Greek Cyprus but not trhe Greeks to return to their former homes. In Rhodes, Crete and other Greek islands the memory of the Turks is preserved in their minarets and mosques and small Muslim communities remain. Yet in places such as Smyrna (Izmir) the Greek churches are gone and their crosses destroyed. Yet in Rhodes a Swedish politician is present researching ‘human rights’ for the local Muslim community which has recently been allowed to raise a giant minaret above the old city’s skyline, a minaret that not coincidentally towers over the local Greek-Orthodox church (just as in Ottoman times when it was illegal for a Christian structure to be taller than a Muslim minaret). Leftist researchers such as Ruth Mandel have been convinced by the Turkish lobby in the U.S which supports pro-Turkish scholarship in the U.S to term the Greeks an ‘invented’ people whose identity only exists ‘against the Turkish Other.’ The genocidal regime becomes the positive ‘other’ and those that were colonized, the Greeks, are said to have no culture. So those who cleansed the Greeks are wealthy and clean and the Greeks must build mosques for them, while in Turkey there is no reciprocal action of preserving the Christian heritage of Anatolia.

Everywhere in the world it has been the same. The Cambodian genocidaires were never prosecuted and they were in fact supported by western leftists who claimed the gneocide had been inflated by ‘right wing anti-communists.’ In Rwanda during the 1994 genocide the French and the world press was tricked the world for months into beleiving that it was the French allied Hutus who were the victims rather than the perpetrators. Westerners, unable to distinguish one black tribe from another, despite their obvious differences, simply believed the reports. Only later when the UN troops under French guidance were actually encouraged to intervene to prevent a ‘Tutsi genocide of Hutus’ did they realize it was 800,000 Tutsis who had been murdered, rather than the other way around. The Hutu genocidaires escaped to the Congo where the UN settled them in refugee camps. They were allowed to rearm and subsequently started another mini-genocide against Tutsi tribesmen in the Congo. When those Tutsis subsequently formed their own army under General Nkunda the International Court of Justice in Europe and the UN accused him of ‘war crimes.’ The big Hutu leaders were allowed to settle in the West, in Europe and in the USA. Meanwhile in Rwanda the UN and France has attempted to accuse the Tutusi leadership and its president Paul Kagame of ‘war crimes’ during the genocide. Not one Hutu has ever been put on trial by the West.

During the Indian partition of 1948 the Pakistani Muslims cleansed all the Hindus and Sikhs from what is now Pakistan. Yet India allowed millions of Muslims to remain so that they now form 20% of India. Today all the human rights organizations and other NGOs such as Minority Rights International only care about the Muslims in India. They are said to be poor and discriminated against. In Pakistan there are no Hindus to discriminate against because they are all gone. In Singapore one must also read about discrimination against the Malay Muslim minority, yet in neighbouring Malaysia the Chinese minority suffers official discrimination under the country’s ‘Malays First’ law which gives the majority preference in jobs and education. No NGO or human rights organization has ever voiced any interest in this.

The world and its victims have learned the hard way, it is always better to genocide than to be genocided. It is better to cleanse than to be cleansed. The world community appears to voice its opposition to genocide and ethnic-cleansing and ‘war crimes’. But history shows us something different. Every country that has successfully done away with its minorities has suceeded in the end in becoming wealthy and accepted. Saudi Arabia and Iran, countries that suppress non-Muslims and in one case won’t even allow them to drive on certain roads or construct houses of worship, are darlings of the international community with sympathizers throughout the world, especially at the highest levels of western educational institutions. Their ideologies of Islamism are widely loved in the west with philosophers such as the late Michael Faucault embracing them and modern oped writers such as Bradley Burston declaring ‘this year, this Jew is supporting Jihad’. Of course this Jihad is positive, it is an ‘inner struggle’ and one that does not permit the “murder of women, children or the elderly.” Of course it does permit their enslavement and the murder of the men, but no matter. It is better to Jihad than not to Jihad. It is better to be Islamist Iran than those who oppose Islamist Iran. It is better to be Saudi than to be those who are the victims of Saudi. It is better to be Turkey than Armenia and Croatia than Serbia, at least if one measures ‘better’ by wealth, tourism and international acceptance and historical narrative. The European, whose ancestors collaborated, tells the Serbs to forget the 14th century and join the 21st. But can they join the 21st before they receive an apology for what was done to them in the 20th. No. The message is always: forget the past. Europeans want us to forget the past, because it is one filled with their misdeeds. They want a present where the Jews and Serbs are the ‘Nazis’ and a German or Frenchmen or Englishwoman can be a Protest Tourist in Hebron helping with the Palestinian olive harvest.

Every nation and people should learn from history. Genocide is preferable. Jihad is preferable. Minorities are the shackles around a nation’s neck. They are forever used to condemn the nation. Those countries that successfully did away with their minorities, as almost all Muslim countries have done, are more successful, wealthy, and loved in the international arena. For those that say ‘never again’ and ‘now we have learned from our past’ one must only look to Sudan for the evidence of this lie. Here is a nation where the genocide continues. And yet the world does nothing. Sudan is widely loved in its region. It is even invited to help with such conferences as the Durban conference against racism and invited to join the UN Human Rights Council. Is it better to be Sudan or Israel? Sudan receives the oil revenues and as the Economist informs us, the per capita income of Arab Khartoum is quite high. Europeans even go their to volunteer, not to help the black victims of the genocide, but to give the wealthy Arabs a free education. Has a European ever volunteered in Israel to help a victim of terror? Except for those few reviled European evangelicals, those ‘kooks’, No.

One can learn from this story that the pragmatic thing to do is to always be the first to genocide, the first to cleanse. One should have collaborated with the Nazis, those nations that did so are today ten times wealthier today than those that did not. Those that did are members of the EU, those that resisted are not. The western academy tells us today to join the Jihad. But morally we know that the blood of the Nazis and their European collaborators can never be removed. The blood of the Jihad never comes off. The soul of the nations that engage in such behavoir can never be cleansed: secularism soon follows and with it low birth rates and decline of civilization. The victory of Nazism is only temporary. It has resulted in the creation of ‘New Jews’ in Europe, the Muslim immigrants who raise minarets above European cities. The genocider wants us to forget history. Of course. Those descendants of SS officers would prefer we concentrate on destroyed Palestinian homes rather than the former Jewish homes that their families today reside in. Is it a coincidence that all the victims of Nazism have become the ‘new Nazis’. Surely not. What is more perverse than for the Nazi to transfer the guilt to his victims, turning them into the perpetrators? But the evidence that this model of liberalism and secularism, this model of genocide does not work, is the Muslim immigration to Europe. For in seeking to transform the victims into the Nazis and the Nazis into respectible members of modern society the Europeans have inadvertently made themselves wealthy and their victims poor, but now that promises to backfire as that wealth has attracted other genocidaires, the best experts at genocide: Islamism and Jihad. So the best thing for Armenia, Serbia and Israel and other victims, such as the Hindus, to do is to watch as the two genocidal peoples work things out among themselves. They say ‘forget the past’. But they are deep in the past and it is catching up day by day. Those Europeans who see the actual history and see the Jews, Serbs and Armenians as victims, are the same ones who see the threat of Islamism and are the same ones who see the evils of Nazism and collaboration. But those Europeans are few, just as it was only a few who saw that the Tutsis were the victims and the Hutus the murders. To remove the scourge of collaboration with genocide, the first thing is to remove the UN and the ICJ, two organizations who collaborated with genocide and were built on its gas chambers. Removing these shackles, placed around humanity, may not be possible, for it goes hand in hand with removing the dictatotrship of moral relativism and ‘human rights’ (which always seems to support the murder of people or nationalism and terrorism) activists and ‘anti-racism’ (which, in the case of the Durban conference, is usually racist) activists that plague society.


How much freedom for a woman?
October 22nd, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman

How much freedom does a woman deserve under the law? According to Dalia Ganot, a Tel Aviv District Court justice in Israel, a woman has freedom of movement if she is taken, from time to time by a man, to the gynecologist and the supermarket, as well as the beach. And Ms. Ganot is a feminist. So is her friend Shelly Timan, another retired judge who said that Ganot "showed courage" in defining a woman's right to freedom of movement this way. Ganot had been asked to rule on whether a series of suspected pimps and human traffickers had imprisoned women. Ganot went so far as to justify the beating of the prostitutes by the pimps, noting that "its only natural for a pimp to be angry when his prostitutes refuse to work during their period." This is feminism. It is the true face of a feminist society. It is the face of a western liberal leftist society. Only a leftist secular society could produce this. If we have been tricked into believing that it is only in Islamic society that judges justify the beating of women and women have few rights we are wrong. Our society, our cesspool that we dwell in day in and day out, is no different and it is substantially worse because it is built upon the lies and hypocrisy of liberalism.

Feminism is primarily responsible for having created a situation where women are chattel, objects, sexual objects to be bought and sold in the market place like meat. Feminism and liberal female academics have been the primary supporters of Islamism in Saudi Arabia and Iran and the primary defenders of Islam's treatment of women. From Ilya Greenberg to Karen Armstrong it is women who support Islamism and the imposition of Shariah law. In Islamic societies it is women who justify the worst treatments of women. Ayan Hirsi Ali's Infidel describes her upbringing at the hands of her religious mother, a black Somali woman who enjoyed being called 'slave' (abd) and 'nigger'(Kaffir) by the Saudis in whose country Hirsi Ali was raised, a woman who beat her daughter and was all the while inspired by Islam to do so. So Hisri's mother, an Islamist who enjoyed her status as a second class black woman in Saudi, also was a feminist. Her treatment of her daughter was no different than the treatment feminism has metted out to our daughters in the West, in terms of feminism’s Romanization of Islam and justification of prostitution. It is feminism that has told us strippers are 'independent women' and that porn is 'sex work.' It is not men who have done this. It is female judges who give out lax punishments to rapists, not male judges. It is female lawyers who usually represent rapists and human traffickers, disproportionately more than male lawyers.

Why does feminism lead to the imprisonment of women? We must only look to the Soviet system to see the underlying reasons. The Soviet Union was the most progressive state in terms of women's rights. Women were given abortion and rights to divorce in the USSR long before they were given these rights in the West. Women rose to positions of power in all ranks of the Soviet system. And yet when the Soviet system collapsed it took only a few months before the women of that former empire began to flood the world, like a tidal wave, as prostitutes. Soon they were being bought and sold at human auctions from the UAE to Japan and South Africa. Tens of millions of these women disappeared into the machine of sex slavery. Each one did so under the nose of feminism. Each woman that disappeared into the sex prisons of the UAE or Israel or Prague had an education. Each was independent. Each chose her fate. Perhaps she claimed after that she was duped by an add promising work as a 'nurse' or a 'model' or 'house cleaner'. But can an educated woman truly claim this after all of her female friends have also disappeared and never been heard from again. At what point on her route to slavery does she realize she has been duped. Is it when the first male trafficker takes her passport? Is it when she is first raped on board some unnamed ship? Is it when she is sold the first time to Bedouin traffickers? Is it when she is made to clean a toilet with her tongue by her first pimp? At what point does the former leftist socialist woman say to herself "oh, whoops, feminism didn't provide me with freedom?" Or is it when she is finally laid to rest in an unmarked grave in some foreign land, after being raped and whipped and beaten until her fragile body can take it no longer, when she has Aids and is 24 and thus ‘too old’? Is it when she appears before her first female liberal feminist judge, such as Ganot and is told that a trip to the gynecologist once a month for her abortion so that her pimp doesn't have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy (reproductive rights) is freedom of movement? When is it that liberalism and its offspring, our society of whores and pimps, first realizes the lie jammed down our throats?

Western society provides women with nothing. Oh, yes, some of them have jobs and an education. Some of them appear to rise high in society. But a society built on the graves of millions of prostituted enslaved women is not a society to be proud of. Any society built on the body of slaves is a society that deserves to be crushed under the weight of history. Do we seriously believe our society, our 'culture', is so different than that of the Old South? Their slave auctions were in the open for all to see. At least they were honest about their sin. Our society has its slaves and they are hidden from society and we kid ourselves that it is part of an 'underground' 'illegal' 'black market'. But it is not illegal. Pimps do not receive prison sentences. They receive bail by female feminist judges who have decided that a woman should be beaten when she does not want to have sex with 13 men a day when she is on her period. Our feminist judges tell us that a woman's worth, her freedom, amounts to a trip once a week from her dank prison cell to a beach, chaperoned by her pimp. A plague is on our house. It is a plague of liberalism that has crushed our souls and those souls of our women, enslaving them and turning them into beasts to be bought and sold. The fact that our society does not bring swift and painful justice to the pimps marks our society as unjust. The fact that women are kept enslaved in brothels, with no lives, no natural light, no freedom, nothing, should keep us up at night. No institution of slavery has ever been so disgusting and degrading to society, and never in human history has a liberal leftist society ignored such an evil to such a degree.

Remember always the name of Judge Dalia Ganot and her collaborator Shelly Timan. Remember her statement: "none of the complainants was forced to have sex either for free…and no evidence was brought from which one can infer the existence of supervision or control over the movements of the plaintiffs or the scope of their work…the two complainants seemed to have freedom of movement, one of the defendants took them to the gynecologist and the supermarket as well as the beach and superland." Remember the name always. Remember always what our society did to its women when we had the chance to have a just and equal society. Remember what liberalism wrought. When liberalism and secularism are dying and people are saying 'oh, women have less rights, oh we have less rights', remember that we stood always on top of the cesspool of prostitution and looked the other way and that we allowed laws to give the pimps their freedom and we told a woman it was enough freedom for her to have her trip to the abortion clinic once every few months, lest the clients be forced to use condoms, and to go to the supermarket. Damn our society. Damn it to hell. Those trafficked women live in hell. We deserve to be there to. And Dalia Ganot deserves it more than all of us. And the pimps deserve to burn for all eternity.


A poor old man dies so a wealthy man may live, or a tale of two Amoses
Seth J. Frantzman
October 24th, 2008

Today millions of wealthy leftists sleep soundly. They sleep soundly because they are not Avraham Ozeri. Dov Henin is not dead. Ran Cohen is not dead. Noam Chomsky is not dead. Bradley Burston is not dead. No. Wealthy people don’t die in terrorist attacks. They never do. They never die at the hands of those they support. A Norman Finkselstein has never died in a terror attack. Even during the times of Nazi Germany the wealthy people did not die in the death camps. They escaped to the west. The poor die in genocides and terror attacks, after the wealthy have helped fan the flames that create those genocides. So who fanned the flames of Mohammed Almadan? Was it Amos Oz? Ozeri’s son was, oddly enough, named Amos Oz. But he wasn’t the wealthy, internaltionally loved Amoz Oz, the candidate for the Nobel Prize. He was a poor Amos Oz. the kind of Amoz Oz who doesn’t matter. The kind of Amoz Oz who dies in the terror attack. Not the kind who gets wealthy writing about the tragic lives of the terror and the ‘other’. One Amos Oz has European friends who toast him at a nice wince leuncheon. Another loses his father to a terrorist. One Amos drives one of his numerous cars to the beach to enjoy the sunset. Another buries his father. One Amos lives in a wealthy gated community. Another Amos lives in a cramped apartment. One Amos travels the world, wining and dining with other wealthy members of his class, enjoying his accolades. The other Amos bring flowers to his dad’s grave.

Why does one Amos get so much and the other gets so little in life? Why does one Amos get to see their parents one last time before they die and the other does not. Why does one Amos weep at his father’s grave and the other enjoys wine and brie at the same time with men named Jack and Felix and Charles from England and Germany? Why does one Amos get a ‘human rights medal’ and the other Amos gets nothing? Why does society reward one Amos and the other Amos gets a dead relative in a simple wood box? Why does democracy give one Amos accolades and wealth and the other Amos gets nothing but tragedy? Why is there so little justice for one and so much wealth for the other? Why does our liberal leftist secular democracy celebrate one and ignore the other?

Ozeri did much for the state of Israel. He served in the pre-state underground. He fought in the war of independence. He worked as a customs official. He worked for the Jewish agency. He dedicated much to society. But he was given nothing in return. When a 21 year old wealthy Palestinian Muslim Arab decided to stab him the police did nothing to prevent it. They “called for backup” while an old man died. Ozeri died. But Amos Oz lives on, toasting himself and enjoying the high life. Ozeri was poor and forced to settle in a ‘border’ community abandoned by the state: “Meanwhile, these Arab kids come into the neighborhood all the time, in groups of two or three or four," Ozeri continued. "I don't believe that [the attacker] was alone. Just the other night a car full of them ran through two red lights in a row, and I was shocked to see how careless they were for our safety here. They're always coming into Gilo and causing problems.” So one man, who served his countyr got nothing in return. Another man, the wealthy intellectual, gets everything. Democracy. Secularism. Liberalism. Those are the things that caused the death of Ozeri. They are the things that caused the disparities between one Amos Oz and another. They are the things that reward one Amos Oz and not another. Why should one celebrate a society that rewards a wealthy man who does nothing, but who takes everything? Why should society reward the author Amos Oz and not the civilian Amos Oz? Because that is a western society. The west has not sympathy for the dead, dying and murdered. They are called “little Eichmans” by the college professors paid by the state in a western nation. But the college professor gets his gated community, his fancy cars, his wealthy life style, and he is celebrated. And the poor man dies. He serves his country for nothing. When will the poor wake up and realize serving the nation is useles. They get nothing but scorn. Call me a little Eichmann? Fine. Society does not deserve such ‘Eichmans.’ Society never deserved Ozeri. He deserved better than to die in such a cowardly manner. But today the politicians clamour and show fake anger. But Amos Oz, the wealthy one, will not be at his funeral. Oz will be enjoying his wine and brie, like every other wealthy person unaffected by terror. One can only hope that one day terror will affect every member of society, especially the leftist Europeans who so love and support the terror directed at the world’s nations by Islamism, an ism coddled and loved in Europe, its incubator. Everyday throughout the world the poor die so the wealthy may live, so the leftist wealthy may suck the blood of the nation and offer self hate against it. From India to Thailand and Israel. The world suffers under the burden of the internal and external enemy.