“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”
A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
October 6th, 2008
1) The Other invisible hand: As the financial crises grows in the U.S world leaders and public figures have condemned the ‘fat cats’ on ‘wall street’ and the ‘speculators’ who have supposedly caused the crises. This need to have a scapegoat, an ‘invisible’ hand of, of some hook-nosed speculator operating behind the scenes is typical. But it is also incorrect.
2) A terror excuser gets some terror: In a recent attack in Israel a pipe bomb was placed outside the home of a well known professor named Zeev Sternhell. On the face of it this attack against an expert on fascism and a holocaust survivor is disturbing. However when one considers the fact that this same professor justified the murder of Jewish ‘settlers’ beyond the Green Line and also encouraged Palestinian terrorists in choosing their targets one must see the irony that an expert on fascism was himself a fascist and that a supporter of terror received some terror. Far from being a ‘threat to democracy’ as the press has labeled the attack on Sternhell, one should instead see his irresponsible statements as an intellectual threat to democracy. No intellectual, whose salary is paid by the government, should justify the murder of civilians.
3) Live and pray with your own people? You deserve racism: In a recent discussion about attacks on Jews in France a leader of the group, SOS-Racisme, claimed that the Jews “live only with your own kind, you build yourself in opposition to the territory next door, in opposition to those who do not have the same origin.” So it turns out the Jews deserve to be assaulted. Is it an irony that a group that opposes racism also excuses racism and is itself racist. No. This is a central theme of the modern leftist-intellectual world. The Jews live and pray together today as they did in 1939. Perhaps they deserved the Holocaust? Such is the leftist European perverted view of the world.
The Other invisible hand
Seth J. Frantzman
September 25th, 2008
Adam Smith spoke of the invisible hand which guides the markets. This shows itself in economics and capitalism. It also shows itself in the idea of market efficiency. The hidden hand is the opposite of the government hand, it is supposed to make markets work better without the need for socialism and nationalization. But now, with the U.S economy in crises, the government has been on a binge of regulatory and governmental fixes. First there was the government intervention to help the sale of Bear Stearns to JP Morgan. Then there was the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were Government Sponsored Entities in the first place. But the decision by the federal government to intervene in the collapse of AIG was truly 'un-American' in the words of Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky. The government has also stepped up other unorthodox strategies, including forbidding short selling of some financial securities and also considering regulating the pay executives receive, if those executives intend for their companies to take part in the bailout. As it stands today, September 25th, the Treasury Secretary, in collaboration with the chairman of the Federal Reserve, is seeking some $700 billion to save the U.S economy from disaster. Bush reiterated this when he said "our entire economy is in danger." Specialists claim it is the worst disaster since the great crash of 1929 or the crises of 1907. Of course, we won't know until its over.
On September 24th, 2008 world leaders addressed the United Nations general assembly in new York. Several of hem blamed 'speculators' for the financial mess. President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal noted that "we are once again the victims of speculation. This speculation puts the developed world in danger." President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of brazil claimed that speculators were causing the "anguish of entire peoples." Evo Morales of Peru went further and claimed that the "capitalist system is the worst enemy of humanity." It is interesting, and predictable, how soon after a financial crises develops that the hidden hand of the 'speculator' will be blamed. The speculator, the dark hook-nosed, secretive, greedy, hunch-backed, thing that lurks around Wall Street and ruins financial markets. It goes by other names as well. Sometimes it is the 'fat cats' that are to blame. What is surprising is the degree to which intelligent humans, those who are responsible for running whole countries and thus, in theory should understand financial and economic systems, are so easily convinced to blame some secretive cabal of 'speculators' for a massive crises. It points to the human need, in democracy and dictatorship, to blame something for the problems, because people have a hard time ascribing blame to themselves or to things that actually deserve to be blamed.
It would be too hard for a world leader to see that the housing crises has been a slippery slope that began with some predatory mortgages and housing price shortfalls, resulting in the non-payment of mortgages, which resulted in the collapse or near collapse of sub-prime mortgage lenders in the U.S and U.K and that this led to further harm coming to regular mortgages, many of which were held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This led to the loss of money by investment banks such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers who had bet the wrong way on numerous financial instruments. At the same time a crises in the credit markets, rising inflation, the extreme rise in oil prices (from $30 to $150 over a year period) led to the seizing up of the credit markets and meant that there was less money for firms such as Bear and Lehman went they went back to the trough to re-capitalize themselves. Their declining stock prices made them seem unstable and they were sold or collapsed. Meanwhile AIG, which had held huge positions in Credit Default Swaps and other financial insurance securities that had never been completely tested in a crises found itself on the wrong end of insuring the wrong thing. But AIG was 'to big to fail' since its failure would spread to other things, so the government stepped in to prevent its collapse and now the government demands to be given the right to inject a massive amount of capital into the market to shore up the bad mortgages, helping to free up credit and insure that these 'toxic' assets held by so many firms will be backed by the power of the U.S treasury, allowing banks to go back to business as usual.
This complicated explanation couldn't be true. We must use Occams razor and see that the simplest explanation is the best. It is the speculator that is to blame. This shadowy figure is the one that drives the stock prices down and he collaborates with the 'short seller' who makes money as the stock collapses and together they suck the blood of the American tax payer. Yes. This is obvious. It’s the corporate fat cat and his huge salary that is to blame. But Humans and world leaders need some\thing simple to blame. Because of this they need the scapegoat, the other 'invisible hand' that is behind their economic problems. The Soviets blamed the 'wreckers' and 'parasites' who 'did no work'. Hitler had the Jews. Everyone needs someone. Or maybe its some other amorphous thing that’s to blame, such as 'globalization' and the WTO and the 'World Bank.' It must be.
It couldn't be John Mitchel and Ann Sawyer and their sub-prime mortgage in Mesa Arizona and their non-payment of that mortgage that has steamrolled, along with a million other people behind on their payments to cause this hiccup in the financial markets. It couldn't be complicated and misunderstood things such as Credit Default Swaps (CDS) which Warren Buffet described as hazardous because: "unless derivatives contracts are collateralized or guaranteed, their ultimate value also depends on the creditworthiness of the counterparties to them. In the meantime, though, before a contract is settled, the counterparties record profits and losses -often huge in amount- in their current earnings statements without so much as a penny changing hands. The range of derivatives contracts is limited only by the imagination of man (or sometimes, so it seems, madmen)." Simply put, CDS can amplify risks in the end, even though they seem to have insured against defaults. Too complicated. Its easier to blame the 'speculator'.
A terror excuser gets some terror
September 27th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman
The wounding of Prof. Sternhell in a pipe bomb attack and the hyper-reaction of the media and politicians in Israel reminds us of a number of myths associated with terrorism, the right wing and fascism. It reminds us that the life, or in this case the leg, of one leftist professor is more important than hundreds or thousands of the lives of other civilians murdered in terror attacks, not to mention the tens of thousands wounded in them. It reminds us of the typical misuse of the word ‘fascism’ now being applied to ‘Jewish fascism’ (In Paxton’s Fascism he too describes Jewish ‘fascism’ and in Short’s Pol Pot he also mentions Jewish fascism) and, of course, not to Palestinian fascism. It reminds us of the odd association that eftists ascribe to the connections between ‘the right’ and ‘violence’, when in fact history has shown that political violence is no more a province of the right than the left and is probably more associated with the left. It reminds us of the apoplectic warnings, so typical of percocious Israel, about the ‘danger to democracy’, something that ignores the historica destruction of other democracies and seems to ignore the fact that many more people have already died from terror in Israel without there being a ‘danger to democracy’ (the assumption also is that the right poses a ‘danger to democracy’ whereas the left does not, something that is aso not historicaly accurate). Finally this story reminds us of the fact that professors who preach in support of terror and excuse it and justify it and even, in Sternhell’s case, tell the terrorists who to concentrate their murder on, sometimes, in a great twist of irony, pay for their words by learning about the very terrorism they supported.
On September 25th, 2008 there appeared in Haaretz, the leading intelectual newspaper in Israel an oped by the veteran extreme-leftist Gideon Levy entitled ‘culture criminals.’ In this article he bemoaned, correctly, the vulgarization of television shows in Israel. But he juxtaposed the modern programming with his vision of what television should consist of. It should be ‘challenging’ and ‘subversive’. In addition he describes the Jews in Israel as containing a ‘minority, with economic and other means.’ This minority the “good, rather average Israeli, who watched ‘Waltz with Bashir’ and ‘The Band’s Visit’, who goes to the theater and museums.” Levy was describing a wealthy bourgouise leftist whose idea of an ‘Israeli movie’ is only one that is about Arabs (Waltz with Bashir is about Lebanon and Bands Visit is about Egyptians, in both the Israeli is merely the foil). The ‘good Israel’ is the wealthy one. He described what this column has described before, the two societies, one consisting of the ‘good wealthy leftist’ who cares only for the other and the other society which consists of the poor savage intolerant majority which deserves to die in terror attacks.
Prof. Zeev Sternhell was one of the ‘good’ Israelis. He was born to an affluent family in Poland in 1935. His father died of natural causes but his mother and sister were murdered by the Nazis in 1942. Sternhell survived through the help of a Polish officer and assuming the name Zbignew Oroloski and being baptized as a Catholic. He found his way to France after the war and in 1951 came to Israel, serving as a commander in the nascent Golani brigade. He studied history and political sceince at the Hebrew University, eventually obtaining a PhD in the 1970s. His research subject was the French extreme leftist turned fascist anti-semite, Maurice Barres. Sternhell has excelled over the years in taking his knowedge of the historica roots of Fascism and expanding them to include numerous other movements and ideologies in the past as well as brining them up to the present so that all sorts of people and movements in the modern era are termed by him to be ‘fascist’. Thus spiritualism became ‘fascist’ and so did the French philosopher Betrand de Jouvenal, who actually ended up suing Sternhell for defamation and winning in 1983 after Sternhell had accused him of having ‘fascist tendancies.’ This ‘creeping’ fascism is quite a common phenomenon among leftists who want to find fascists under every bedspread of mankind because ‘fascism’ like ‘racism’ is the ultimate slander of the late 20th and 21st centuries. Like many leftists he is oddly obsessed with the issue of ‘morality’, akin to Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars, in which morality, not usually an important value of the left, suddenly assumes astronomical importance. Towards this end Sternhell has ‘defined’ the history of Israel so that it has a ‘moral’ period that lasts up until 1948 and then an ‘immoral’ period after 1967 when, the Jewish people’s survival no longer at stake, the Jews had no right to fight a war which resulted in conquest. (Oddly enough the existence of other nations in the world is not predicated on the idea that just because they are not threatened with extinction they have no ‘moral right’ to exist. There are a billion Chinese people, but we do not say their country is ipso facto immoral simply because there are so many). Sternhell described 1967 as “the attempt to retain the conquests of 1967 had a strong flavor of imperial expansion.”
Over the years, apparently influenced by his interest in the roots of fascism, Sternhell became increasingly leftist. He voiced the unoriginal idea that the ‘occupation’ “Israel's ability to develop as a free and open society.” He was an enthusiastic supporter of the Oslo Accords, calling them a ‘true revolution’ but warning that “The only uncertain factor today is the moral and political price Israeli society will have to pay to overcome the resistance that the hard core of the settlers is bound to show to any just and reasonable solution.”
But then something else happaned. Sternhell, apparently because of the Second Intifada, became an excuser of terrorism. He spoke of the “legitimacy of armed resistance" by Palestinans.” He went further, on March 11th, 2001, and described how that resistance should be conducted; “the Palestinians would be wise to concentrate their struggle against the settlements, avoid harming women and children and strictly refrain from firing on Gilo, Naha Oz or Sderot; it would aso be smart to stop planting bombs to the west of the Green Line.” Thus the professor who researched fascism and accused others of being fascist and believed that Israel’s conquest was ‘immoral’ came to support and even give directions for the proper methods of a terror campaign. Eventually that terror campaign would cause the deaths of 800 Israelis and the woundings of thousands more. Is there anything more fascist than encouraging terrorism, even if one only encourages it against a certain segment of society, in this case the male ‘settlers’? But Israel rewarded the professor by giving him the Israe Prize, Israel’s most prestigious award, in February of 2008.
So on September 25th Prof. Sternhell was the victim of a pipe bomb attack at his Jerusalem home. He was sightly wounded, being released from hospital on two days later. But it did not stop the beginning of a great apoplexy . From his hospital bed he declared that “the very occurrence of the incident goes to illustrate the fragility of Israeli democracy, and the urgent need to defend it with determination and resolve.” Oddly enough, during the four years of the Second Intifada when 800 Israelis had died he had not mentioned this ‘determination and resolve’ with which the nation must be defended. Instead he had given instructions to the terrorists on the proper methods to carry out their campaign.
Sternhell has been a writer at Haaretz, so it was perhaps no surprise that their editorial line would rush to defend him. But the shear weight of the extremism found in Haaretz on September 26th, 2008 speaks volumes. The main editorial, of the newspaper itself, claimed that the there was no doubt as to the identity of the attackers and that Sternhell “was not another victim of some ‘wild weed’, but of Jewish fascism itself which continues to extend its roots.” It went on to ca for a “firm policy against extremist right-wing hooligans” and for the security “forces to treat Jewish terrorism as harshly as they treat Palestinian terrorism…today they [the Jewish fascists] are murdering members of the Israeli intelligentsia. Leniency toward violence is tantamount to cooperation with the terrorists.” Oddly enough the exact same editorial line just three days before in the wake of a Palestinian terror attack in which 19 Israeli soldiers were wounded, most worse than Sternhell, had excused the Palestinian terror and claimed it was due to the ‘occupation’, even though the terrorist was from Jerusalem, not the territories. Oddly enough Haaretz has never called for a firm policy against Arab terrorists, even though they have murdered thousands. It is interesting that it speaks of ‘leniency towards vioence’ because ‘tantamount to cooperation with terrorists.’ It is Prof. Sternhell who had a great deal of leniency towards Palestinian terrorism and spoke of its legitimacy. Why is one man’s terrorism so legitimate and another mans so wrong? Perhaps the settler ‘militant’ merely feels ‘occupied’ by wealthy professors such as Sternhell? Oddly enough a newspaper so quick to call Jews ‘fascist’ does not describe the Palestinian terrorists, of whatever pursuasian, ‘fascist’.
An editorial by Ari Shavit went further. He described Sternhell as “Israeliness at its finest” and accused the “evil hand” from the “sewers of darkness”, the “New Sicarii, the Jewish extremists of the Second Temple” raising their hand against Sternhell. Shavit used the word “it” to describe the Jewish terrorists. “Twenty five years after it threw a hand grenadte at Emil Grunzweig…the lunatic right has returned…thirteen years after it fired bullets into the back of Yitzhak Rabin…the lunatics…the zealots…Israeli fascism…a dark force of modern chauvinism…genuine traitors…the illigitimate stream on the right…the government has an obligation to act immediately and resolutely in order to dry up the swamps in which Jewish terror breeds.” Here we see the shrill left in its purest form, apparently frightened by an attack that strikes at ‘its’ core to the extent that it has transformed the right into a vicious beast. It is good to see it in writing, what every leftists truly thinks of those he hates, because the left speaks so often about ‘the other’, but it speaks from a deep knowledge of the other for it is the left whose hatred is a truly deep swamp, a real sewer. Once again we see the call for the government to eneact some ‘fascist’ policy no doubt, to ‘dry up the swamp’ of the right. It is odd that such language has never been used by the left to encourage the government of Israel to dry up the swamp of Palestinian terrorism.
Avner de Shalit’s editoral was more nuanced. He is the head of the Department of Political Science at Hebrew University. He spoke of a “society that on the one hand is frieghteningly violent” and of a right that is “directed against the ideological other.” He mentioned that the right turns those who oppose their Zionism into the opposite of the “good Jew.” He noted that “if it really was done by people from the right, as seems to be the case at the moment, it proves the extent to which the concepts Zionism and patriotism have become empty of content.” Oddly enough when one Muslim murders dozens of non-Muslims because of his own distorted Islamist religious beleifs the left does not extend his act to mean that Islam is “empty of content.”
But what is most interesting about Shalit’s column is his reference to the “good Jew.” This is the same terminology used by Gideon Levy, and yet in his sense he described the only good Jew as being a man such as Sternhell, a cultured wealthy intellectual. It is odd that the very same columns that discuss the evils of the right and its supposed hatred of the ‘other’ are the same ones that so quicky mutate their own language into a visceral hatred of the ‘other’, in this case the right. The right is a swamp that must be dried up, a root system that must be deracinated. It is the ‘it’, the beast from the darkness.
The extremism and speech about the ‘threat to democracy’ that eminated from the pipe bomb that harmed Prof. Sternhell is mostly due to the percousness of Israel and the fact that every tiny act becomes a ‘pogrom’ (the assault by Yitzhar residents on some Arabs or the supposed invasion of the monastery of St. John’s in the Desert come to mind), or ‘fascism’ or ‘apartheid’ or a ‘concentration camp.’ The imagery of Israel is always the Holocaust because, oddly enough, Jews seem incapable of distinugishing the difference between the deaths of 6 million and the wounding of one man.
But this idea of the ‘threat to democracy’ is far fetched. The real threat to democracy is not a lone pipe bombing. The real threat is what happaned before the fall of the Weimer Republic or the Spanish Republic. In Spain the armed gangs of different parties fought in the street. In Spain men of different political pursuasions were kidnapped and murdered. Assasinations occurred daily. In Spain the members of the parliament came to work armed. It is not so different elsewhere. In many democracies political violence is quite extreme. In the Phillipines and Kenya this is the case. In fact it is primarily only in Europe where it is less the case, and that is only recently. But political assasinations happen. Terrorism can destroy democracy, but only when it is on a large scale, as was the case with the Tupamarus in Uruguay in the 1970s. The threat to democracy emerges when the army is politisized, as happaned in Spain. It emerges when the rival political camps arm themselves. Israel is often beset with apocalyptic notions of a Civil War between right and left or between the government and the right or between a government coup of the right against the forces of democracy. But Israel is far from this at the present. Israelis speak of ‘violence’ in society and a ‘brutal’ society but it is primarily from ignorance that they speak. Really violence societies such as South Africa, Brazil or Mexico, or even the U.S, could teach them something.
Another great myth that has emerged after the assault on Prof. Sternhell is the claim that violence is somehow typical of the right and that ‘fascism’ is the only anti-democratic force in society. History tells a different story. Fascism emerged at a time of radical social movements, including anarchism and communism. All of the foes of fascism were anti-democratic. Those who pretend that fascism in Spain, Italy or Germany was what led to dictatorship have misread history. Fascism triumphed in these places only against rival forces that had no love for democracy. The alternative to Franco was not American democracy, it was a Stalinist government. In the end the death toll from fascism was comparitvely light compared to the overall death toll of that great leftist movement, Communism. It is true that Fascism was a part of Nazism and that Nazism resulted in the deaths of 6-7 million Jews and some 20 million other civilians. But even when this is added to the death tolls of Mussolini’s fascism, which numbered in a several hundred, and Franco, which numbered in the several thousands, the overall amount is smaller than what Communism wrought. Stalin alone killed twenty million, committing genocide aganst numerous peoples from the Ukainians to the Volga Germans. Mao killed tens of millions more in China. Pol Pot killed 1.7 million. Mugabe killed 20,000 Ndebele in the genocide known as ‘Gukurahindi.’ Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia killed hundreds of thousands. Castro killed thousands. There is simply no distinction between the crimes of Fascism and Nazism when they are compared to their cousins Socialism and Communism. These radical movements of modernity are bestial in their results. To claim that the right has a monopoly on political violence is tragicaly mistaken.
Prof. Sternhel crossed a line when he advocated for the murder of settlers by the fascist Palestinian terror groups. In fact he, a researcher of terrorism, became a sort of fascist when he did so. He convinced himself that those male Jews living beyond the green line were not people because they were ‘settlers’ and just as in every case where the ‘other’ is dehumanized with certain words, he himself dehumanized the settlers to the point where he could justify their murder. This was the height of irresponsibility. How can a professor whose salary is paid b the government advocate for the murder of other citizens? There are all shades of people who reside across the green line. Some may well be the religious extremists who Sternhell disagreed with and some ma have used violence of a type Sternhell would describe as fascist. But there are also those who moved because of economic reasons, some whose life stories, for instance immigrating from Ethiopia, are as deep and moving as Sternhell’s. And yet Sternhell would have them be gunned down or blown up simply because he can describe them as ‘fascist’ and ‘settler’ and thus unworthy of life. Is there anything more fascist than to advocate and excuse the murder of one’s fellow man. And that is what each an every settler is in the end: a human being. And Prof. Sternhell excused their murder. He should be ashamed.
I am of the right and I will always stand with it because I cannot stand with the left. I cannot stand with an ideology that is so hypocritical. I cannot stand with an ideology that is so full of hypochondriacts. I cannot stand next to those who will deracinate me or dry me up because someone else supposedly from my own political pursuasian has done something. I cannot ever stand on the left because the left is so extremist and hateful and intolerant.
I am of the right and I will always stand with it because I cannot stand with the left. I cannot stand with an ideology that is so hypocritical. I cannot stand with an ideology that is so full of hypochondriacts. I cannot stand next to those who will deracinate me or dry me up because someone else supposedly from my own political pursuasian has done something. I cannot ever stand on the left because the left is so extremist and hateful and intolerant. The left invented the theory of the other and yet it is so quick to find its own ‘other’ in those it hates on the right. Its other becomes the ‘fascist’ and the ‘racist’. And how often have I had to suffer these terms, to the degree that I have to come to the conclusion that it is better to be a fascist and a racist because such words have no meaning and are so often applied to those that are so decent. How often has the left turned everyone it disagrees with into a ‘racist’, for no reason, only to smear the person and harm them. John McCain has already become ‘hitler’ in the eyes of the left, just as all his predeccesors were ‘hitler’. But if they were all hitler than who was this ‘hitler’? We are all involved in pogroms and apartheid and crusading and imperialism and fascism and nazism and racism and ethnocentrism and ethnocracy to the degree that it is all one terrible web of epitaphs, constantly thrown by those who claim so often that one must not ‘judge the other’.
Live and pray with your own people? You deserve racism
Seth J. Frantzman
September 25th, 2008
Everyday the leftist-secular European divides himself from the rest of humanity more and more. The latest was a statement by Dominique Sopo, president of the group SOS-Racisme, which "works against discrimination." When asked about why there is violence and hatred between groups in the 19th Arrondissement of Paris, and why Jews in particular are targeted by anti-Semitic statements and violence he noted that Jews were leaving the public schools; "when you live only with your own kind, you build yourself in opposition to the territory next door, in opposition to those who do not have the same origin." So the new logic of those who oppose racism is quite simple: if you happen to live mostly next to people who are like you than you deserve racism. If you live in a multi-cultural area and your child suffers violence and discrimination at school and you therefore remove them from that school than you are "building yourself in opposition" to everyone else and you deserve racism. This is an interesting view of the reason for racism. It lays the onus for racism not on those who are racist and hateful but on the victims because the victim is to blame for "building himself in opposition." Its odd how this same logic, of those who deserve racism, only seems to apply selectively. In the U.S where there are African-American Student Centers and Hispanic Student Centers no one claims that by "building themselves in opposition" these groups deserve to be hated. If Muslims go to their Halal butcher and live in their own areas and build a giant mosque no one says they deserve to hated merely for living next to one another. But when it’s the Jews it's different. It's always different when it’s the Jews and Europeans. It's always different when it's people with names like Dominique and it's dealing with the Jews. That is the message Europe always gives us. There is 'racism' and then there is racism. When the victim is blamed for the racism against him because he has dared to try to protect his own children and he has dared to eat and drink and be merry with those who come from a similar background, when he is blamed for merely living next to those he knows or for loving his own family, when he is blamed for these things than he must struggle against those who would excuse his murder. He must struggle not only against those who hate him for his race and his religion but he must also raise a hand against those who call themselves anti-racists, against those from SOS-Racisme, and he must fight them to. When the anti-racist joins the racist to murder the minority, the minority must fight equally against both oppressors and in this world the anti-racist has proved himself, time and again, to be in league with the racist just as the secular-leftist is in league with the Islamist. There is not a day that goes by that one cannot say of Europe: it gets what it deserves. Dominique Sopo no doubt lives in a community with his own leftist bourgeoisie friends. He lives only with his own kind. We have a right to hate him and his kind. And we should allow that hate to strike him down when he enters our community, when he comes to tell us about 'racism' for it is he who has fanned the flames of the racism and excused it, just as bourgeoisie leftists always excuse the murder of innocent people. It will not always be this way. The BBC and SOS-Racisme and all these groups and those who are employed by them will pay for their support of terrorism and racism. One can feed a crocodile with the hopes that it will eat you last only for so long. Eventually it will eat you when you have run out of food to feed it. The leftist European thought he could feed the Jews, Serbs and other decent people of the world to the crocodile, but it is the European who will be eaten.