Saturday, April 5, 2008

Terra Incognita 29 Haiti, Fitna and Liberal love for Industry

Terra Incognita
Issue 29
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel


April 5th, 2008

1) Oh the Misery: the UN, Natural Rights and the world: On March 4th a UN soldier shot a Haitian man in the head. It is not the first Haitian the UN mission MINUSTAH has murdered. The man’s crime? Protesting bread prices. The Haitian people are being denied their natural rights. They freed themselves from colonialism in 1804, being only the second nation in the world to do so. Yet in 2004 colonialism returned with a vengeance with a UN occupation. Today’s Haitians, like the Serbs, Eritreans, Israelis and East Timorese have a right to live without the UN colonialism. They have a natural right to their own government, their own courts and to assemble and protest.

2) Things Fall Apart and Unbelievable: Two reactions to the way in which the movie Fitna was condemned by the entire world. A fifteen minute film by an obscure Dutch politician caused the UN, the EU and countless other nations to condemn it. What could be so threatening? Images of Islamic terrorism shown next to quotes from the Koran that support the murder of non-Muslims. The first article explores the way in which Muslims condemned this film the way Islam has worked for years to change the history of itself and to whitewash the crimes committed in the name of Islam and by Muslim empires. The second article questions why so much of the world was convinced to cry out against this film by providing the film, scene by scene, to the reader so that one may judge for themselves. The final analysis must be that this is a monumental act of censorship.

4) Affinity for industry, aristocracy and hate; the liberal embrace of Communism, the Palestinians and Islamism: What went wrong with the left that it embraces religion so long as that religion is called Islam? To understand this contradiction one must only journey back to the annals of leftist thought in the West to discover that most of what the left has complained about at home it has embraced abroad. At home it speaks of ‘manufactured consent’ in the media but abroad it read Pravda. At home it loved the environment but abroad it worshipped Soviet industry. At home it castigated the wealthy but abroad it had a love affair with elites.

Oh the misery: Natural Rights, the U.N and the world
Seth J. Frantzman
April 5th, 2008

When Serb protestors invaded a U.N court in Kosovo the Nato commander Xavier de Marnhac threatened that the Serbian people in Mitrovica on March 18th, 2008 had “crossed a red line.” What was that ‘red line’? Is it the line beyond which the international community is allowed to come to your country and kill you? When did the people of the world surrender their rights? When did they give up their rights to due process and freedom of assembly and all those things that Americans hold so dear? Somehow between 1945 and 2008 the people of the world have been deceived into giving up their rights and their governments have even handed themselves over to a ruthless usurper. The evidence of this is clear. In Nepal in late March 2008 angry Tibetan protestors marched on the UN building in Katmando only to be beaten bloody by thuggish riot police. All at the behest of the U.N. In Haiti people angry about the steep rise in bread prices protested outside the U.N compound in Les Cayes in April of 2008. For their offense of protesting, the U.N troops opened fire and shot them down. In East Timor when rioters ran amok the U.N and Australian troops stationed their felt it was their duty to put down the ‘uprising’ and immediately began shooting people on the street and putting a curfew in place. From Serbia to Nepal to Haiti to East Timor the small peoples of the world are waging a tragic and cruel fight against a ruthless machine, a machine known as the international community.

The machine of internationalism, once it gets its fangs into a country never leaves. Whether it is in Cambodia or Haiti the international community, once it invites itself to colonize a country, can never be forced to leave. It has several methods of insuring it stays. It first encourages other nations of the world to create a new acronym that will give it a mandate to stay. Take this document from July 15th, 2004 relating to the U.N colonization of Haiti. “Activation of UNJLC was requested 29 June 2004, by the UNCT Haiti, in order to facilitate inter-agency logistics coordination. More specifically, UNJLC will report to the Humanitarian Coordinator and work closely with UNDP disaster management team and the UN OCHA in order to plan and facilitate UN response to potential natural disasters.” This is the machine. Layer and layers of bureaucracy whose sole purpose is to provide jobs for the wealthy people of Europe so that Europeans will never have to work in real occupations. Haiti, the second nation to gain independence in the western hemisphere, a nation whose proud black leaders, former slaves all, fought to remove the Europeans from their country in 1804, are now enslaved once again. Pictures from Haiti show the truth of the situation. Legions of blacks standing around while a white man drives his UN SUV through their midst. When the blacks got out of line on April 4th, 2008 and dared to riot the UN soldiers shot them down. Who can the blacks complain to about this colonization and this murderous treatment? Well they can only complain to the U.N or a number of other associated NGOs such as the Red Cross or Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International. But Amnesty and HRW does not take complains against the U.N. When a U.N soldier shoots and murders a civilians, or when French U.N workers in the Congo traded food for sex with underage Congolese girls there is no court to put them on trial. They are free from trial for their human rights abuses. There is no ‘international criminal court’ for them. There is an international Criminal Court for the natives. For General Nkunda of the Congo, a minority Tutsi sent by Rwanda to defend his people from extermination at the hand of U.N supported Hutu refugee gangs, then you can be ‘brought to justice’ by the international criminal court. General Nkundas crime? He opposed the U.N colonization of the Eastern Congo and he opposed the U.N created refugee camps that were protecting Hutu Genocidaires who had planned the Rwandan genocide.

But once the U.N is in it is impossible to get it out. Take UNTSO in Jerusalem. This organization was created in 1948 in order to supervise the treaty between Jordan and Israel in Jerusalem. After 1967 that border ceased to exist. But the UN organization still exists. In fact UNTSO was able to lay its hands on the British Mandate’s High Commissioner’s residence on Government Hill south of the Old City of Jerusalem. Conveniently that resident and its dozen acres of property was a ‘no-mans’ land between Jordan and Israel. After 1967 it became U.N property, sort of a U.N Vatican in Jerusalem. Thus the UN presence and the presence of UNTSO is a holdover from the British mandate, a direct colonial descendant of the old days. It will never go away because it is self regulating and self renewing. Every year the UN renews itself, it renews all its mandates. Since country’s that are affected by the colonization are a minority and since poor countries make up the countries that are colonized they cannot gain enough votes in the General Assembly or Security Council to end the mandates that have colonized them. The mandate’s such as UNTSO serve as a dumping ground for Europe’s spoiled children and the children of the elites in South America, Africa and the Muslim world.

The albatross that sits across the world, this beast, must be removed. It contains all the elements of a government and an empire. It has a radio station. ( It has an army that rapes and murders at will. It has colonized a dozen states and refuses to leave them. Country’s that have tried to remove the UN have found it impossible. Eritrea requested the UN to leave its soil and stop monitoring its border with Ethiopia. The UN refused. Eritrea cut of all logistical support for the UN mission and still the UN would not leave.

What does one call it when foreigners come to your country with weapons and refuse to leave? What does one call it when a foreigner may come and murder you and rape you and there is no court that can put him on trial (by contrast when American servicemen in Iraq who have committed abuses they have been put on trial in some instances)? What does one call it when the people do not have free will, when they cannot vote and do not have courts appointed by their government that can try those people who are within their territory? It is called colonialism. It is called imperialism. There is no other word for what is going on in Haiti and East Timor and Kosovo and Israel and the Congo. There is no other appropriate word. Is it bad enough that the UN workers have their own compounds, their own hotels, their own bars, their own radio station, their own newspaper, their own SUVs and their own guns, tank and planes? Look at these dirt poor countries like Haiti and you will see it. The country is 99% Black. Yet the U.N has thousands of white soldiers and workers there. The UN’s UNJLC that has colonized Haiti had the following people listed as ‘points of contact’ from various organization stationed there in 2004: Adama Guindo, Michel Matera, John Bevan, Fernando Arroyo, Eric Mouillefarine, Francois Desruisseaux, Antonio Gomez, Brady Kershaw, Sandro Calavalle, Hiran Ferrera, Roberto Briend, James Boynton, Dr. Aboubacrinne Maiga, Paula Frankema, Bienvenu Boko, Gricha Lapointe, Paulo Sassarao, Elisa Benoit, Beikacem Machane. These colonizers were employed by organizations such as the WFP, UNICEF, WHO, MINUSTAH (Mission des Nations Unies pour la stabilisation en Haïti) and OCHA. This is the new face of the colonizer. What is the face of the colonized? The Serbs of Mitrovica, the impoverished black of Haiti. The people of Eritrea. The people of East Timor. All of them are crying out for liberation.

Patrick Henry, the American patriot, said ‘give me liberty of give me death’. This ideal is still enshrined as the motto of New Hampshire. The Jewish fighter Joseph Trumpeldor noted as he lay dying in the Galilee in 1920, “It is good to die for one’s country.” Nathan Hale, another early American revolutionary remarked, before he was shot by the British, that “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” Haiti was freed from the evils of colonialism in 1804. It was free from this evil for almost 200 years. Then colonialism, in the new name of the United Nations and the WHO and WFP and numerous other acronyms, returned with a vengeance. It brought its SUVs and its compounds to Haiti. It established special bars for its personnel and special hotels. If you go to Haiti today one will find precisely the same distinctions between the colonizer and the colonized that existed in 1800. They will find the wealthy foreigner sipping their teas while the locals starve and die. They will find that the foreigners who possess the weapons have wealthy estates and live in cordoned off places where the locals may not go. They will find Elise and Paula and Brady and James and Francois and Eric sitting together with their feet up reading the paper and enjoying themselves. They will watch as their soldiers gun down more helpless Haitians whose only desire is to have a cheap piece of bread. While Elise sips from her Martini she smiles. Paula makes a comment about a nice ‘get away’ on the French Riviera. Eric says ‘UNDP can fly you there with one of our planes.’ This is the beast that must be washed away. One hopes that the Haitians and the Serbs and the East Timorese and all the people who are being silently enslaved by this animal called the UN will rise up against it and throw off its shackles. It is an illegal occupation force.

No people in the world can ever surrender their rights. Their right to be governed by themselves. Their right to be government by people that speak their language and were born in their country. The people of Haiti have a right not to be government by Paula and Eric. They have a right to be governed by their own people. When a foreign soldier comes and guns them down for protesting they have a right to seek redress in the court of their own country and put that man on trial. Even the British colonizers were more just: the British soldiers who shot the Americans at the Boston massacre were put on trial.

On March 4th one man was shot in the head by U.N peacekeepers (note the word play here, ‘peacekeepers’ shoot people) and died. The U.N “it was investigating the death.” On July 6th,2005 UN troops assaulted Cite Soliel in Haiti, gunning down supporters of Jean Bitrad-Aristide (who was himself installed by the U.S in the 1990 before fleeing the country in 2004, when the U.N invaded the country). Casualties from the UN raid were as high as 80 and the U.N claimed it had targeted a ‘gangster’ in the raid. In 2004 during the initial U.N invasion and occupation many civilians were killed by U.N troops. “The UN, after repeatedly denying having taken the lives of any civilians, later admitted that civilians may have been killed, but argued that this was not intentional, and that it occurred as a by-product of their crackdown on what they call ‘gangs’.” According to UN security resolution 1542 “the situation in Haiti is a threat to international peace and security in the region.” Haiti, the poorest country in the western hemisphere, is a threat to the world and the region? In Port au-Prince the UN maintains checkpoints and places barbed wire across streets. Just before Christmass in 2006 the U.N shot and killed four people in the capital city. There are 9,000 MINUSTAH troops in the country. President René Préval, who was installed by the UN after 2006 ‘elections’ has expressed ambivalent feelings about the UN security presence, stating “if the Haitian people were asked if they wanted the UN forces to leave they would say yes.” But the Haitian people have no vote, no say. There are no courts for them to seek redress in for the hundreds of civilians murdered by the UN. There is not even a free press. Today a man from Tunisia named Hedi Annabi runs the U.N mission. A Muslim has been brought in to lead the colonization of a country that is entirely Christian. Brazil runs the military mission in the country. Countries noted for their stability and human rights records contribute personell to the UN force including Argentina, Burkina Faso, Chad, China, DR Congo (which is itself occupied by the UN), Egypt, Jordan, Madagascar, Mali, Nepal (which is occupied by the UN), Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Togo and Turkey. The second country to gain independence in the Western Hemisphere is today being colonized not merely by Old Europe but also with collaboration with such thuggish countries as Egypt, China and Pakistan. The people of Haiti must be learning democracy from the personell from Jordan, Togo and Sri Lanka. The new colonialism is run by spoiled Europeans but its blunt intrument is the thuggish troops and police forces of many of the most despotic countries in the world. Muslim countries, unsurprisingly, contribute greatly to UN peacekeeping forces.(which helps spread the word of Islam, such is the way the Korean Muslim community was born, after Muslim UN troops spent half their time prosletizing). Oh the misery. The poor people of Haiti, no one could have wished a worse fate on them than to have to bow down to the world’s thuggish and their European handlers. Can one blame the Haitians for forming gangs and hiding out in the slums the UN fears to enter?

Today’s UN empire is vast. It includes nine countries in Africa (Ethiopia-UNMEE, Eritrea-UNMEE, Sudan-UNMIS/UNAMID, Central African Republic-MINURCAT, Cote D’Ivoire-UNOCI, Liberia-UNMIL, the DR Congo-MONUC, Chad-MINURCAT and the Western Sahara-MINURSO). One in the Americas (Haiti-MINUSTAH). Three in Asia (India, Pakistan and East Timor). Three in Europe (Cyprus-UNFICYP, Kosovo/Serbia-UNMIK and Georgia-UNMIG. The EU/Nato colonization of Bosnia is separate). Three in the Middle East (Lebanon-UNFIL, Israel-UNTSO and Syria-UNDOF). A map of the colonies can be found here (

When man finds that a soldier from a foreign land can come to his country and rape his women and shoot him and there is no redress. When he finds that there is no accountability. When he finds he has no vote and no representatives and that foreigners who do not speak his language are living in special compounds while his family starves, that man has a right, a right to wage a war against those people who have come. He has a right, and it is his most dear right, to shoot those foreigners and kill them and massacre them until they leave.

When the UN was created the people who created it, mostly Americans such as Dean Acheson (author of Present at the Creation), did not envision what they were creating. They did not intend to create a new empire. They did not intend to create an organization that was free from responsibility whose soldiers and personnel could do as they please and who would go around the world bringing colonialism back. Those Americans believed so dearly in the values set forth in the declaration of independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed (July 4t, 1776).’

The Haitian people have these rights. They never signed them away. These rights are inalieble. They are natural. It is a natural right that Haitians may assemble and protest. It is a natural right that Serbs may desire self determination in Kosovo. It is a natural right that Eritreans request that foreigners leave their soil. There is no nagation of these rights. Lieut. General Xavier de Marnhac of the French army who serves as commander of NATO’s KFOR in Kosovo should understand that. He should understand there is no ‘red line’ a people can cross in demanding rights for themselves. It is he who has crossed the red line. It is NATO and the UN who has crossed this line. NATO, another American organization, set up with the rights of mankind in mind, is being used as a blunt tool of colonialism. For fifty years it fought to save the world from the enslavement of Communism and it never had to fire one bullet in order to do so, such was its power of pursuasion. Since 1990 it has bombed and used bullets, its powers of pursuasion no longer exist, and it is now used as a puppet by Croatian genocidaires, Bosnian Islamists and Kosovar terrorists. Mr. Marnhac is at the forefront of that. He thinks his soldiers can beat and shoot protestors at will. Perhaps he forgets that his ancestors, the French colonialists in Haiti in 1804 thought the same thing. Haitians under the command of the Toussaint Louverture and Jean Jacques Dessalines, one a freed slave the other born in Africa before being enslaved, threw out the French. It is no surprise that the early American Republic was one of the first to recognize Haiti and give it support. Perhaps America has forgotten its traditional role as defender of people against the evils of colonialism. Perhaps it has forgotten that Woodrow Wilson only brought America into WWI as a ‘nuetral’ because of his fear that he was allying with colonial powers such as England rather than fighting for democracy as he intended. Perhaps people forget that FDR brought America into war in Europe only to defeat Nazism and not to help France restore her empire. Many nascent nations in Africa and South America and elsewhere modelled their declarations of indpendence on the U.S. Today’s nations once again cry out for such a guideing light from the U.S. They are pleading that someone will save them from the imperialistic United Nations which is controlled by Europeans and the Muslim states and which has enslaved so many countries, laid waste to others and allowed genocide to take place. Only America can help a country like Haiti. Only America can supply its people with weapons and the know-how so that they may free themselves of the shackles put in place by Eric and Paula and Elise and the other colonizers. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty will not report on the violations in Haiti because both are funded by Europeans and the U.N. The U.N ‘Human Rights Council’ will not report on the human rights violations of the U.N. The era of the NGO has proved to be an era of renewed colonialism and the suppression of the rights of man. The era of internationalism has been a dagger in the back of freedom and individual rights. The Internationalists have swallowed up nations and swallowed up the freedoms people were promised and the freedoms that are inalieble. Only a concerted effort by people can throw off these chains. The people are cowed in the face of the U.N SUV and its white driver. They don’t realize that the U.N has no right to their soil. The U.N has no right to be in Haiti. The people of Haiti are afraid of the U.N shooting them or putting them in prison. But the U.N has no right to shoot people or established prisons and courts. It is the Haitian people who have a right to shoot the U.N workers. It is the Haitian people who have the right to establish courts and put the U.N on trial. Have the Haitians forgotten that they struggled once before against the occupier? Have they forgotten that a person named Paula has no right to run their country? A person named Paula or James has a right only to their own country in Europe. The Haitians have been cowed into obedience by this beast. This animal called the UN drives around in a haughty and arrogant manner. It must be stopped. It must be removed. The people of Haiti did not vote to allow it to come to their island. No one has ever voted to allow their country to be colonized by the U.N. But it grows everyday and murders people everyday and enslaves new nations everyday and illegally abducts people from their countries and puts them on trial everyday. Only a world struggle for liberation can end the role of the U.N. The American libertarians and right wingers and conservatives were correct years ago when they saw in the U.N a ‘one world government’. They were right not in the substance of what they predicted but right in being suspicious of an organization that is not accountable to people. The time has come, as the American revolutionaries understood so well, to severe the bonds of the people from the United Nations and begin to remove it from the places it has infected.

Things fall apart
Seth J. Frantzman
April 3rd, 2008

The UN opposes it. The EU condemns it. Presidents and politicians from Holland to Indonesia fear it and call for it to be silenced. Jewish organizations have come out against it. Boycotts are threatened. Trade unions and leftsts are protesting. What could possible unite so many people in a common cause. Is it the struggle against Nazism? Is it Holocaust denial? Is it genocide? No. No. No. It is a fifteen minute movie.

Does the movie show scenes of the Bible next to scenes of KKK atrocities. No. Does the movie show words from Mien Kampf next to the crimes of the Neo-Nazis. Does the movie show words from the Communist Manifesto next to the crimes of Communism? No. No. The movie shows words from the Koran next to crimes and terrorism and atrocities committed by Muslims. Not just ordinary crimes. Big murderous attacks such as 9/11, the Madrid Bombings and the London bombings.

What exactly is the world up in arms about? Theatres would not show the film. Internet sites would not host it. Now even Youtube is considering pulling it off its site, despite 1 million views, because Indonesia has threatened to boycott

The process by which the Geert Wilders film which dares to critique Islamist terror by showing us its brutality close up and ask whether the Koran is the inspiration for terrorism is the process by which Islam wins. Islam is a perfectly adapted public relations machine. It has been for years. The way in which Islam has been able to colonize a third of the known world through war, enslave more than 11 million black Africans, commit genocide against numerous minorities such as the Armenians, cause the near disappearance of countless others such as the Zaroastrians and Mandeans, and colonize places from Spain to Eastern Europe to India and still be called a 'religion of peace' and a culture of 'tolerance' shows the degree to which Islam functions perfectly as a propaganda tool. The fact that this film, Fitna, has been suppressed so well and a well orchestrated campaign launched to censor it shows the way Islam works. Muslims commit terrible atrocities such as 9/11. Then Muslims make it illegal to mention these atrocities, sort of like how in Turkey mentioning the Armenian genocide is considered 'insulting Turkishness'. Then history is re-written. Soon the Muslim genocides committed against other cease to exist. The monuments and history of the others simply disappear, as was done when the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan. Who recalls today that not so long ago Afghanistan and Pakistan were the home of Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus. Who recalls that it is those religions that are actually indigenous to those places which are today so connected with Islam. Who recalls today that the Zaroastrians are indigenous to Iran, not the Mullahs and the Shiites. Who recalls today that Jews were once indigenous to Saudi Arabia, and that there existence in the place predated Islam. Who recalls that the cradle of Christianity used to be in Iraq, Damascus, Turkey, Jerusalem and North Africa. Who recalls that St. Augustine, the famous Christian writer was born in North Africa, not in Europe. Islam and the Arabs are not indigenous to anything and yet today's history of India Morocco or Iran speaks of a history that almost begins with Islam, as if it was there at the beginning.

Islam's involvement in the African slave trade has been expunged from the memories of Africans. Muslim Arabs once colonized much of East Africa. They attempted to exterminate the people of Ethiopia and the Sudan in the 8th century and their attempts have not ceased to this day. When Sudan proved too much to swallow the Arab Muslims hit on an ingenious system to prevent the Africans from growing to populous and to feed the need of Islam for labour and women: the African tribes of Darfur had to provide tens of thousands of slaves every year, primarily young female slaves. Thus the population of Africans stayed the same year after year as there were few women and the population of the Arab elites in Khartoum grew year after year on the backs of African labour. The same was done in Central Asia. When Islam conquered today’s Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan it ensured the end of the native people by putting a human tax on them: they could remain so long as 50% of their people, the youngest boys and women in their teens, were handed over as slaves. The boys would form the backbone of the Muslim army and the women be used to produce more Muslim children. The same was the case during the Muslim conquest of Turkey and Eastern Europe. The Ottomans leveled a child and women tax on Christian towns, which gave the Ottomans young boys to train as warrior for the Ottoman army and girls to serve in the Harem. The treatment of Hindus in India was the same, the same that is until the rise of Sikhism when native Indians began to put a stop the endless shipment of Hindu slaves through the Punjab on their way to the black hole of Islam.

The story of the Jizya tax is another manifestation of the way Islam works so affectively. From India to the Levant to Kosovo the Muslim rulers collected a special head tax from each non-Muslim (it is called a head tax because if the person did not pay his head could be cut off). The taxes went to the Muslim Wakf or religious endowment and was used to build more mosques and Muslim institutions. Thus the non-Muslims were paying, year after year, to make their own country that had been colonized by Islam, more and more Muslim. Year after year the Christians in a place like Kosovo paid the Ottoman Muslim authorities to build larger minarets and establish better houses for the Imams. This is a brilliant method. Use a special tax on the local indigenous people to pay for your colonization of them.

The entire history of Islam is one entire fabrication, especially as it is retold in the west. The Wilders film has been called 'counter-productive' by the Jewish leadership of Holland. It is only counterproductive in the sense that it makes it harder for Islam to convince westerners that the main message of Islam is tolerance. It is only counter-productive because it might mean that people see what Islam produces, just a small snippet of what Islam has accomplished in the last ten years. It is 'counter-productive' in terms of coexistence and peace, because it makes the Islamic brainwashing of Europeans slightly harder. But Islam has already won in Europe. It is not merely the demographics. It is the fact that Islam has won where it counts. It has both the Jewish community and the leftists on its side. The Jewish community of Holland which suffers 80% of its hate crimes at the hands of Muslims protests a film that shows the anti-Semitism inherent in Islam. Is there any greater evidence that Islam has already won? It has convinced Africans that it was force for good in Africa. It has convinced Indian Hindus that it was a force opposing British colonialism and thus a force for Indian 'independence'(an irony to say that one colonialist, Islam, is better than a different one, The British empire. It would be like the British saying they were helping Indian independence by keeping the French colonialists out of India in the 18th century). In China Muslims are the only group allowed to have more than one child. In Malaysia 'affirmative action' means special rights for the majority Muslim Malays. Islam has won. It has won because it is able, throughout the world, to get those it murders, kills and genocides to love it. In Egypt the greatest nationalists are the Copts, the very people who have been suppressed, slaughtered, enslaved and genocided by Islam and yet it is they who support the very government that discriminates against them. In Israel the greatest fan of the Islamist movement Hizbullah was a Christian Arab member of Parliament, Azmi Bishara. Who else would be the greatest supporter of Islamism but a Christian Arab politician in a Jewish country?

One can see that Islam has won by the fact that the same people who claim that the movie misrepresents Islam by saying Islam is violent are the same people that say 'we fear violence will break out and that this film will cause terror'. If Islam was so peaceful why must the director of the film have bodyguards? If it was so peaceful why is it that everytime someone calls Islam violent non-Muslims are murdered? That is the genius of Islam. Islam has convinced the world that merely showing pictures of Muslim terrorism is anti-Islamic. This would be tantamount to saying that merely showing photos of the Holocaust is anti-German. It is tantamount to saying that showing pictures of a KKK lynching is anti-white. But it works. The government of Holland is worried the images will 'sow discord'. The implication is that the sheep like residents of Holland will see what Islam actually does and then they might wonder about their friendly neighborhood butcher named Ahmed.

Islam is a perfect public relations firm because it makes sure that the double standard always applies. Al-Jazeera never ceases to show Muslims pictures of wounded Arab children and Muslim victims. It never ceases to have its camera in the morgue portraying every Palestinian as a 'victim' of Israel. It never ceases to incite through these images. Those images play 24 hours a day. The Arab media shows the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on TV in Damascus and Cairo and sells Mien Kampf on the street and in Iran they host special Holocaust denial conferences. So while the Muslims see the most extreme images the west is supposed to see only wholesome Images of Islam. This is part of the ploy. Muslims learn to hate from an early age. Non-Muslims are taught that Muslims are peaceful. Every Muslim terrorist attack is the work of a 'small minority' and even when statistics show, for instance, that 85% of Palestinians support terrorism the west is still told it is a 'small minority'. In truth it is a small minority of Muslims that are peaceful in any given year. Wherever Islam exists next to non-Muslims there is violence and when two sects of Islam must live together there is violence between the two. Whether it is Nigeria or southern Thailand or Kashmir, the West Bank, Sudan or the Philippines, Kosovo and Chechnya, wherever there are Muslims there is violence. It is what Samuel Huntington called 'Islam's bloody borders'. There is no place in the entire world where Muslims make up a large percentage of the population of a country and there is not violence between them and non-Muslims. And yet in each country, from India to Thailand it is never 'Islam' that is to blame.

Momar Khadafi felt it justified to inaugurate a new mosque in Uganda by claiming that the Christina Bible was a forgery. Mahathir Mohammed of Malaysia devoted his speech to the Muslim Conference on Jewish control of the world. In Iran there was the Holocaust cartoon contest to see which cartoonist could make fun of the Holocaust the most. In each case there was no EU or UN condemnation. There was no boycott. Iranian embassies didn't heighten security. Islam spreads only hate. It has no other message. When westerners try to show that hate for what it is, not by claiming Islam is hateful, but merely by showing the images of Muslim atrocities committed by religious Muslims, the west is accused of being anti-Muslim, counter productive and sowing discord. But perhaps it is good to be counter-productive when the production is the Islamification of the whole world. Perhaps it is good to sow discord when one is fighting a hateful ideology. Surely Hitler was also angry at those pesky voices such as Churchill's, which warned of the Nazi menace. People also protested Churchill and called him a 'war-monger' and accused him of exaggerating. They too called Hitler 'peaceful' and claimed it was only a 'minority' in Germany that were extremist. Churchill too spoke out showing evidence of what the Nazis had done and noted the writings of Hitler. And he was laughed at. Churchill sowed discord and was 'counterproductive' in the sense that he made the Nazi conquest of Europe harder. There were lots of counterproductive people in Europe who dared to confront Nazism. There was Eisenhower and Patton. Very counter-productive.

One must always be counter-productive in the face of brainwashing and attempts at genocide and world domination. One must always stand as the stumbling block before hate and extremism. If the entire world is blind, from the UN to the EU, it is a person's duty to stand up. Dan Rather described the newsmen’s job as 'speaking truth to power'. Here is power. The power of the UN, the EU, Malaysia, Indonesia and countless other governments. Here is one man, a Dutch politician and a fifteen minute movie. Who is powerful? Here are the leftists, the Islamists, the Muslims, the establishment Jewish groups, all fighting against something. When the leftist lies down with the Muslim it is like the wolf lying down with lamb. The Prophet Isaiah also speaks of a time when people shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. By contrast today is not such a day. Today is a day when people should be beating their plowshares into swords and their pruning hooks into spears. Anytime one sees the leftist protesting beside the Muslim and the leftist holds a banner that says "Wilders I not our Holland" and the Muslim holds a banner that says "God Bless Hitler-we shall show you the real Holocaust" one knows that the time is truly one of terrible terrible danger. It is not the first time that extreme left and extreme right have come together. It happened in 1939 with the Molotiv-Ribbbentrop pact. It was a prelude to an all consuming war. Such things, such strange alignments, are happening today. The anti-racists who founded the Durban conference on racism preach racism. Those who preach peace are the ones who call for war. Those who preach tolerance are the ones that call for violence. Those countries where there are no minorities accuse other countries of treating their minorities badly. Christians support Hizbullah and Jews support the censoring of images of 9/11. Ward Churchill who calls the American treatment of the Indians a 'Holocaust' has said that Hitler's main goal was not the extermination of the Jews at Israel Apartheid week in Canada. Ahmadinjed denies the Holocaust, receives applause from leftist students at Columbia and calls Israel a 'Nazi' state. John Kerry, former candidate for President of the U.S enjoys a few laughs with the former Iranian dictator while he says the U.S is a 'pariah'. Such an upside world cannot exist forever. Something must give. The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed .

Unbelievable: the world reaction to Wilder’s film Fitna
Seth J. Frantzman
March 29th, 2008
In the good old days we used to define hate speech and hate as being words which were hateful. Nowadays we define it as anyone who speaks out against hate. That seems to be the message of the UN, the EU, leftists, liberals hippies, women’s rights activists, gay activists, socialists and Muslim countries in their condemnation of Geert Wilder’s ten minute film entitled ‘Fitna’. Although banned across the EU and not allowed to be shown on TV. Condemned by Ban Ki Moon when he said "there is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here." "It is not Islam that should be stopped, it is fear-mongers like Geert Wilders who should be stopped from spreading their hatred," said Zakaria al-Sheik of the Rassoul Allah Yajmana, a Jordanian group formed to protect the image of Islam. The Council of Europe said the film was a "distasteful manipulation" that exploits fear. The World Council of Churches said "Extremism is a problem for most religions and needs to be countered through inter-religious dialogue," said Rev. Dr. Shanta Premawardhana. Kurt Westergaard, the artist behind a cartoon used in the film, who now lives under police protection, lest he be killed by an adherent of the religion of peace condemned the film saying “I won't accept my cartoon being taken out of its original context and used in a completely different one." Apparently the only people not offended by the film were Dutch Muslims. "I wasn't personally offended," said Imad el Ouarti, a worshipper at El Umma mosque in Amsterdam. But like every good Muslim he must let loose an insult “It's just tasteless and non-creative, as if a child had pasted it together."
Let us review what the film actually says:
“Warning: this film contains disturbing material.” It begins with the cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb for a turban and then quotes Surah 8:60 of the Quran. “ prepare to destroy them with all force. Terrorize Allah’s enemy and your enemy.” There are scenes from 9/11 and a conversation between a woman trapped on the 90th floor and a dispatcher. Then there are scenes from the Madrid bombing. Footage of a man saying “what will make allah happy. Allah is happy when non-Muslims are killed. [another man says ]Destroy all non-believers…don’ leave one to live.” Further footage from Madrid. Quran Sura 4:56 “those who are disbelievers will be burned in fire and when there skin is crispy like a Turkey’s we will replace it with another skin so that they will know their punishment. Allah is great and wise.” A man giving a sermon saying that the rock will cry out and say “A Jew is hiding behind my head come and cut his throat. We will cut his throat…Allah is great. Jihad.” Then there is footage of a three year old girl on TV whose name is Bamallah who says the “Jews are monkeys and says it in the quran.” Then there is footage of the London bombings. Footage of a preacher saying “the Jews are Jews, they are the ones who need to be butchered.” Footage of muslims marching and a woman in a full veil with a sign in English that says “be prepared for the real Holocaust.” Women with signs saying ‘god bless Hitler’ and Muslims saluting in the Hitlerite manner. Then Quran Sura 47:4 “when you have an encounter with a disbeliever cut their throats with a sword and spill their blood.” Then there is footage of Theo Van Gogh and his dead body. Then transcripts from Mohammed B, the killer of Van Gogh, “I would do it again if I had the opportunity, allah.” Footage of Muslims protesting in Holland with signs that say “learn from the examples you see because you will pay with your own blood” and “Jihad against Christian crusaders”. Footage of Muslims with knives and an article showing Ayan Hirsi Ali (who fled Holland because of threats) and Van Gogh and Wilders. An Imam shouting “throats are there to be cut. This is the road to victory.” Footage of an American contractor in Iraq behind beheaded. Sura 4:89 “they would like to see you become disbelievers. Don’t trust these people as long as they don’t follow allah. When they escape, kill them wherever you find them. Don’t’ trust them, it will be your grave.” Interview with a man on the street “The Islam is a holy faith, the best there is. When a believer becomes a Christian, he must be killed as punishment.” And an Imam shouting “The Islam is superior to the Jews and the Christians and the Buddhists and the Hindus.” Then a black convert to Islam in England shouting “the only faith allah has set is the Islam.” News articles of former Muslims being threatened or killed. An article proclaiming ‘Jihad against Wilders’. Footage of the Quran and a black screen with ‘the sound you heard was a book…it is up to Muslims to cut the hate sowing parts out of the Quran…Stop the Islamisizing…defend our freedom.” Then it shows the cartoon again and shows that the fuse on the bomb has almost burned all the way. Thunder and the word ‘Fitna’ appear and the cover of the Quran. Then the word ‘End/Fin’.
Fitna part two shows scenes of Imams saying “we will rule the world” and posters to the same affect. ‘freedom go to hell’ and ‘Islam will dominate the world’. ‘The Netherlands under the spell of Islam.’ Footage of mosques. ‘the mosque will be part of the system of government’ and women in burkas. Number of Muslims in the Netherlands: 1909: 54, 1960: 1,399, 199: 458,000, 2004: 944,000. Number of Muslims in Europe, 2007: 54 million. A man says “If my mother or my sister have sex with someone else then I will kill them too.” “ in the Netherlands one is allowed to be gay or commit adultery. I am not a party to that because of…if a woman commits adultery she will be stoned.” Footage of gays being hung in Muslim countries. Children holding swords. Women being murdered. A woman being hung. A woman being shot in Afghanistan. ‘School closes on Muslim holidays…free trip to Mecca…van Gogh murdered…Moroccans throw gay in water…” The film ends with a book and then a black screen with the words: ‘The sound you heard was a page being removed from the book. For it is not up to me but to Muslims themselves to tear out the hateful verses from the Quran..muslims want to make way for Islam but Islam does not make way for you… the government insists that you respect Islam, but Islam has no respect for you..Islam seeks to rule, submit and seeks to destroy western civilization. In 1945 Nazism was defeated in Europe. In 1989 Communism was defeated in Europe. Now the Islamic ideology has to be defeated..stop Islamization…defend our freedom.”
The irony of all of it is the very people who the movie appeals to: Jews, gays and women, are the ones who support Islam the most in the Netherlands. The mayor of Amsterdam as Jewish and compared the treatment of Muslims in Holland to the treatment of Jews in the Holocaust and called for greater tolerance and claimed Muslims were a welcome minority and that they were the new Jews of Europe. Gays and most leftists are the biggest condemners of Wilder’s film and women happily convert to Islam in the Netherlands and don the burka.
In Stalin’s Russia after the Second World War there were ongoing rebellions in the caucuses and Ukraine that lasted until at least 1950. Nothing was printed of them and we know little about them because no one reported them. Islam would like us to live in a world where Islamic terrorism is not reported. Already we see that in Israel when a Muslim man rapes a non-Muslim woman there names are not printed in the press. This is a common practice now in India and Australia.
If Islam is so peaceful why must all these people live under security protection and why are death threats used as an excuse to remove the film? If Islam was so peaceful then why is there so much footage of the death it has caused?
Former Senegalese president Abdou Diouf, who heads the 68-nation International Organization of Francophone Countries, condemned the film and said he was "absolutely horrified by such suggestions because first of all Islam is not fundamentalism." "I'm a practicing Muslim and I'm actually married to a practicing Catholic ... and I have a Jewish and a Catholic daughter-in-law, and I don't have any problem with that," (one should note here that he doesn’t have any problem with his wife and daughter in laws being non-Muslims because it means all the sons are Muslims. Thus his son with his non-Muslim wife is a Muslim and two of them married non-Muslims. Thus he is at the forefront of spreading Islam by marrying non-Muslim women and producing more Muslim children through the use of those women. Mr. Diouf would never let his daughter marry a non-Muslim).
Ban Ki Moon said that there were “extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict.” Oddly enough the film only showed the hate speech of Muslims directed against others. Apparently by showing what people preach one is ‘stirring hostility’. One can suppose that had Hitler’s broadcasts been translated into English and broadcast in the west before 1939 the broadcaster would have been charged with disseminating hate speech, not because he was broadcasting Hitler’s hate, but because he was revealing what Hitler actually said and thus perhaps making people oppose Nazism, which certainly could have led to war before 1939.

How can a movie be hateful for showing images of terrorism? How can it be hateful for showing hate?

The appalling opposition to Wilder’s benign film shows the way in which Islam has already won. The alliance of leftists, socialists, unionists, the EU, the UN and Muslim countries, as well as the World Council of Churches against the film shows the degree to which Islam has already won. The fact that Islam can claim to be a ‘religion of peace’ and at the same time cause internet sites to take down the film through death threats shows that it has already won. The irony is always the same. Whenever someone calls Islam violent, such as the Pope or Theo Van Gogh or Ayan Hirsi Ali or Pim Fortuyn or Geert Wilders and suddenly they are faced with death threats or killed or Muslims kill foreigners in other countries in ‘response’ it should show the lie that this merely ‘offends’ Muslims. People speak of ‘Muslim sensibilities’. When Momar Khadaffi was recently in Uganda and opening a new mosque and called Christianity a ‘hoax’ no Muslims were killed in response. Which religion is more peaceful? We see that today violence can be used to silence and that on the side of violence is also the UN and liberalism and the leftists and Islamism and Muslim countries. Today’s allies of Nazism are the left and the UN and Islam. Those who dare to condemn the Quran for its many instances of hate are silenced by the most diabolical alliance. A Muslim protestor in England said it best when he marched with a sign that said “death to those who call Islam violent.”

Affinity for industry, aristocracy and hate; the liberal embrace of Communism, the Palestinians and Islamism
February 26th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman

Has it ever seemed strange that leftist-liberals rail against 'corporate America' while they themselves embraced the mass industrialization and rape of the land caused by Communism and its five year plans? Jared Diamond in his book Collapse complains about strip-mining near his Montana summer home. It is the premise of his book. How was it that the left, so environmentally conscious, was able to embrace the industrialization policies of Communist countries, policies that destroyed the land, tore down forests, made barren once pristine areas and completely ignored the environment?

The only thing that has saved Russia and China's environment is the fact that the countries are so large that it would be hard to destroy every living thing. But Communism tried its best. Communism, like Futurism, worshipped industry. It saw industrial labour as the answer to all the world's ills and forced people to worship technology and machines. All the patriotic Soviet movies of the 1930s celebrated the machine. Whether it was giant projects such as the White Sea Canal or gigantic mines or massive tractors, the entire romance of the Soviet system was tied up with machinery and industrialization. Western liberals like George Bernard Shaw, who abhorred the conditions of workers in his own country, were all to happy to bow down and worship the Soviet system. They toured the factories and were shown smiling workers and they fell in love with the machine. The Soviet system, like post-modernism, demanded that history be crushed beneath the boot of industry. Churches and Synagogues were torn down to make way for gigantic buildings. All was subservient to the needs of industry.

China was no different. Where once there had been quaint villages or peaceful towns there arose gigantic monstrous factories and buildings. Temples were crushed and traditional ways of life were smashed for industrialization. Mao's Great Leap Forward not only costs the lives of hundreds of thousands of humans, it also destroyed the country and made nature a slave to machines.

The same leftists who protests the destruction of the rain forest in the 1970s and 1980s and created Earth Day were the same ones that romanticized Soviet and Chinese industry. It was all romantic so long as the label was 'communist'. If the workers were slaves and if the mountains were carved away and the trees stripped from them and if oil spills laid waste Siberia it was no matter. The same leftists who complained about oil spills and DDT found that they loved it when the Communists obliterated species and plants and contaminated their skies and lakes.

But if it weren't enough that leftism betrayed the environment of the world one must investigate it other strange hypocrisies. The history of Cuba since 1960 has shown the world the scam of Communism. Communism promised a dictatorship of the Proletariat and yet all it really created was a dictatorship. But leftists have always romanticized Castro. Why? Why is there such romance for a dictator? Why is there such romance for a dynasty. Why does the left love it so? IS there a secret love among the left for the dynasty and the dictator? The Cuban dictatorship is so wretched and arrogant. Castro complained that he had to work "so hard to pick a successor". So hard? Was it so hard for him to pick his own brother! Yet the eulogies for Castro are never ending. The leftist Bill Marr eulogized him on his Real Time show. Marr complained that evil America had dared to boycott Castro and his leftist commentators on the show complained that evil America would not speak to Castro. Why must people speak to this demagogue called Castro, this son of a rich Spaniard who ran Cuba for fifty years. Why should we speak to such a person? A person who imprisoned those who disagreed with him. This person who appointed his own brother to rule the country? This person gave his country nothing. The left brags about the health care system and the 'democracy' of Cuba. But it would be interesting to once see Cuba have a real election. The true test of the lie of Communism is the election. If the Castros were so popular then they would give themselves over to election.

If destruction of the environment and machinery, and dynasties are not the only things that the left worships then what else is there? Take the Palestinians. Who are the Palestinians? Judging from the most celebrated Palestinian writers in the west one can see that the Palestinian romance focuses mostly on aristocracy. It is the richest families of the Palestinians that the left loves so dearly. It is the Huseinis, the Khalidis, the Nuseibas, Saids and Shehedahs. This is the romance. The love for the Palestinians is mostly a romance of wealth and aristocracy. Why does the left love aristocracy so much?

But if the left loves the machine, the dynasty and the aristocracy what else does it love? It loves religion, as long as that religion is called Islam. Islamism is the new leftist religion. So these are the pillars of the left in the west: the machine that destroys nature and heritage, the dynasty that runs a country as its personal fief, the aristocracy and religious fanaticism. What does this remind one of? It reminds one of 16t century Europe. It reminds one of Phillip II of Spain. So how is it that the most 'progressive' ideology which calls itself 'post-modern' is in fact pre-modern? Phillip II submitted everything to his religious fanaticism, his hatred of Protestant England. He too worshipped technology. He cut down the forests of Spain to build his Armada. He was part of a dynasty. He loved the aristocracy. What is more leftists than Philip II. We think that we have come so far. We think we are so enlightened. But the war today between the forces of the left and the forces of the right are primarily those fought out in 1588. The left is primarily a masculine faith. How is that possible? The leftist heroes are all males. Whether it is Malcolm X or Lenin or Castro or Edward Said the left worships the male. The leftist romance for Soviet industry was an embrace of the male. This is why the most leftist societies, the Soviet Union and Amsterdam produced worlds of prostitution where men, lacking responsibility, spent their time cavorting and raping while the women were turned into animals, slaves and objects. What else is Amsterdam but a place where "women of all the races of the world" are on display for purchase. That is a leftist world. It is a world without heritage, dominated by machines in which a dynasty rules and the aristocracy writes the history.

The conservatives love of nature and his interest in heritage reflects and interest in both the male and female aspects of life. Nature and the land is inherently female. Is it a coincidence that the land is known as 'mother nature' or that one speaks of the 'motherland' or that in Hebrew the word for country is female. The fact that industry rapes the land shows the degree to which rape is a central theme in leftist thought. It is the left that argues that rapists are 'mentally disabled' and argues against harsh sentences for them. It is the left that argues that it is a violation of 'civil rights' to track sex offenders. It is the left that argues that armies that rape are inherently less racist than those who don't. The ideology of the left is primarily the submission of women. Whether it is romanticizing prostitution and 'sex-workers' or romanticizing polygamy, Mohammed and Arab women, the left is primarily at the forefront of the hatred of women. Leftist societies such as Amsterdam or Tehran are ones in which women are discarded like trash, where women are something one uses and then throws away because in both Tehran and Amsterdam one may do as they please with women and men are never punished for their crimes. Is it a surprise that leftist politicians in the U.S host parties at the Playboy mansion? The Playboy mansion represents a perfect leftist utopia where women are but beasts and playthings for the men. Cuba is no different. The Sex tourism of Europeans is primarily a pursuit of the left, not the right.

Conservatives should be proud to do the opposite of whatever fad the left is involved in. Industry should be opposed, not because it is the province of corporations, but because it represents the worship of man over nature. Nature should be honored and conserved. Dictatorship, dynasties and religious fanatism should be opposed. The right is right in this respect. It is correct. It represents the correct model of civilization, one in which extremism is kept in check because of the natural conservative tendency of right wing people. They call the right 'fundamentalist' but it is only fundamentalist in that it believes in keeping the fundamentals of life sacred and out of the hands of those who would abuse them and destroy them with extremist ideology.