Monday, February 9, 2009

Terra Incognita 72 Hmong,messiahism in U.S, Congo, Holocaust Day

Terra Incognita
Issue 72
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel


February 9th, 2009

1) He armed the Hmong but he couldn’t save them from liberalism: They moved like the wind through the jungle. They hated the Communists. They were natural marksmen. And all they wanted was one thing: guns. That was the message CIA agent Bill Lair received from the Hmong, a traditional people living in the hills of Laos who wanted support in their fight against the suppression they saw was coming from a Communist regime, repression experienced by their indigenous brothers in Vietnam. Bill Lair gave them guns. But no amount of sharpshooting could save them from history. They were crushed under the boot of the Reds and became refugees. Now history blames Lair for their ‘fate’. But no one deserves the fate that befell them.

2) Wither Jesus? Where are the Obama miracles? If passing a bloated un-stimulating stimulus bill through Congress was the bar for performing a miracle then we might be able to feel the hope. But if it is not then we must wake up to realization that the great ‘change’ we were supposed to experience has no happened. Where are the Obama miracles. It seems like business as usual at foggy bottom. We will have to explain to future generations the orgasmic idiocy, the banality of our politics and small countries that were deforested to make the dozens of books on Obama. The only thing historic about the 2008 election was the illusions of the people, particularly the white ones who believed they were undoing the wrongs of the past and the black ones who believed that the future would be brighter by simply casting a vote.

3) Tragedy twice over: How liberalism and the French betrayed Africa and dominate the history of their betrayal. It should have been a good year for Africa. Two books were published on the great war that has consumed the Congo for the last decade and a half. Yet both books have been used to twist the history of the Rwandan genocide and turn the victims into the perpetrators. This is typical of the re-writing of history where the victim of a genocide are said to have ‘no excuse to go on and commit human rights violations’ and they are always held, like the Jews, Armenians, Serbs and Tutsis have been, to a higher standard. The murder of the history of the Tutsis is worse than the actual genocide of them because the post-humanist sitting in his cushy office in Europe has no excuse to murder the history of the murdered. Such intellectual terrorism is typical of modernity and it is all to tragic to see the very real history of Africa perverted to allow the French to get away with having armed the Hutu genocidaires in Africa in 1994.

4) Give up on the Holocaust, give up on Europe: There are two things one can count on every year; Christmas will be used by leftists to remind us of the ‘Palestinian Jesus’ and Bethlehem ‘swaddled’ in barbed wire by the Jews and that Holocaust Memorial day will be debased and abused and first compared to the ‘situation in Palestine’ and then made to include other ‘genocides’ such as those of the Mbghtudas in Jackmanistan. People should give up on the Holocaust. It is so misused and abused that the word holocaust has become almost meaningless. Whether it is some Norwegian politician in Saudi Arabia wearing her Burka by day and blogging about the comparison of the Warsaw Ghetto to Gaza by night or Robert Fisks discussion of ‘the first holocaust, the Armenian holocaust’ it is neverending. Abolish the day, it was only created by Europeans a few years ago, we have had enough of it. As for the Jews, they should use the word ‘Shoah’ because it will take another decade for that word to be debased.

He armed the Hmong but he couldn’t save them from liberalism
February 5th, 2009
Seth J. Frantzman

They were expert marksmen almost instinctually it seemed. They could “walk through the mountains like the wind.” And they hated Communism. As tribal indigenous people, simple peasants living in the hill country of Laos the Hmong understand the threats that Communism posed to their natural lifestyle. They understood that despite talk about ‘land’ for peasants, Communism represented the evils of modernity and the city and that it would should remove them. Communism in all its forms has presented native and diverse people with the destructive power of the state in its worst form, harnessing technology and liberalism together to bring extremism to rural areas, crushing any forms of individual freedom before it. The Hmong were but one of many small peoples whose were destroyed by Communism. The Baltic states, Crimean Jews, Tartars, Cossacks, Ethiopian Jewry, Tibetans, all the decent people of the world that once lived decent individual lives in their own manner were crushed under the boot of liberalizing utopian New York Times appeasing Communism. Washed away in the 20th century, most of these people are no longer with us. The ones that survived were brutally removed, crushed, beaten, raped, put on trains, sent to distant environments unlike their original ones, re-educated, murdered, slaughter, massacred, genocided, and then left to rot in cities, mixed in with other victims of evil and left to die.

When Bill Lair first met the Hmong they told him all they needed was guns and they would fight the scourge of Communism in southeast Asia. For them Communism was not the liberation movement fighting the French and then the Americans in Vietnam, for them it was a new colonialism, one that seeked to Vietnamize their lives, deport and murder them. Their indigenous cousins in Vietnam, the Mountagnards, had already seen hundreds of their villages slaughtered by the Vietnamese communists and their leftist western Jane Fonda collaborators. They knew that in Cambodia the genocide was coming with the rise of Khmer Rouge and extremism. They alone understood that they would have to fight. Like the Apache who were confronted by the encroachment of modernity in the 19th century the Hmong understood that they would have to use their natural skills to their advantage. Like the Mujahaden in Afghanistan who only desired guns to fight, the Hmong seemed like a Godsend to he spooks of the CIA and other Americans lurking in Southeast Asia charged with recruiting locals to fight the Communists.

Earlier experts at counterinsurgency in Malaysia and Phillipines had defeated rural Communists insurgencies during the Malay emergency (See Col. John Nagl’s Learning to eat Soup with a Knife) and the Hukbalahap rebellion (1946-54, see Stanley Karnow’s In our Image: America’s Empire in the Phillipines). The Americans and French seemingly forgot those lessons in Vietnam. Bill Lair decided to expand upon them in Laos. In 1961 he met with Vang Pao, a general in the Laotian army. Pao agreed to help recruit the Hmong. Pao, born in 1931, had been a farmer until he joined the nascent resistance against the Japanese occupation of French Indochina. Because he was not a French European, and thus not a natural appeaser and collaborator with fascism, he and other Hmong joined the Meo Maquis, an Hmong resistance unit. After the war he stayed on in the French army fighting the Viet Minh in Vietnam, rising through the ranks to become a general in the free Royal Laotian Army. When Lair asked him to help recruit the Hmong to fight the Communists, known as Pathet Lao, he was excited about the idea. However by 1968, with the ‘secret war’ gone public Lair realized his time as a CIA operator in Loas was at an end. He disagreed with overt U.S policy to fight in Laos, preferring to simply arm locals to do defend themselves. By 1975 the U.S war in Laos had gone wrong, as Lair thought it might, and the country was overrun by Communists, who overthrew the local monarchy.

Hundreds of thousands of Hmong were forced to flee the country as the Communist regime targeted their villagers for destruction. The international Community, ever on the side of decency, ‘helped’ them by ordering them to return and trying to repatriate them. Many died. The United States, feeling a responsibility for the refugees much as she did for the people fleeing Castro, and much as Israel has felt for Bedouins in Gaza or veterans of the Southern Lebanese Army who helped her, opened he doors to the Hmong. Hundreds of thousands were resettled in the U.S.

But their tragedy did not end their. After they had been brutalized, beaten and smashed under the boot of Communism their history had to be twisted by intellectuals so that they could be destroyed once again. According to a New York Times article by Seth Mydans, published on February 3rd, 2009 and entitled ‘Ex CIA spy defiant on Hmong fates in Laos’, “his mission nearly destroyed a culture and a way of life…[Lair] who recruited primitive hill tribesman to fight a proxy war…when the war was lost and the Americans withdrew in 1975, the Hmong tribesmen he had recruited were left behind to face retribution from the Communist victors and a near collapse of their tribal way of life….the last of the Americans withdrew, leaving most of their allies to their fates.” The article implies that when people resist Communism, or other tings, they ‘deserve’ their ‘fate’. This is part of the new leftist intellectual dialectic of ‘retributive genocide’ where some genocides are positive because people ‘deserve’ to be destroyed for daring to resist.
Its interesting that this leftist Orwellian babble doesn’t apply everywhere. The existence of Muslim terrorists in Spain, India, Israel, Bosnia, Chechnya or the U.S hasn’t made the New York Times decide that the entire Muslim community in those places deserves retribution and its ‘fate’. When Iran sponsors Hizbullah in a proxy war against Israel the leftist intellectual doesn’t excuse Israel’s war against them by saying Hizbullah receives its ‘fate’. On the contrary liberalism informs us that we should never blame all Muslims for the acts of the few who “don’t represent Islam, a religion of peace and tolerance.” So why the two stories. When Communists recruit people no one says that all the people deserve to be slaughtered. After all no one excused the ‘death squads’ in Guatemala for killing people and no one said those Indians there deserved their ‘fate’ because some of them opposed the government.

Men like Bill Lair never understood that the fight for the Hmong was more than a fight against Communism. It was also a fight against the greater forces of intellectualism and the post-humanistic intellectual’s excusing of genocide and mass slaughter. The Hmong might have been natural fighters who ‘moved like the wind’, but no amount of marksmenship and fighting could ever have defeated their real enemies. They could have killed all the Communists to no end. They deserved their ‘fate’, so we are told. The question is, when will other people one day deserve their ‘fate’. When will the Mydans of the world and those wealthy people in the West who stock the ivory tower with their terrorism of the mind, their hate based on language and twisting history receive their ‘fate’. When they have supported the wrong regime there has been no retribution. This is what the Hmong can never understand: why were they murdered twice, first by brutal Communism and then by the West who excuses their murder?

We see it again and again. Whether it is the excuse for the destruction of the Serbs of Krajina in Croatia, in which 200,000 Serbs were forced from their homes by Nato, EU and UN supported Croatian Operation Storm (an operation, by the way, that used disproportionate force but which no Europeans with their expensive glasses and scarves protested against), or whether it is the deportation of the Jews of Arab countries (some 800,000 between 1948 and 1967), or the expulsion of the Germans of Poland (1949) or the destruction of the Assyrians and Pontic Greeks (1915-1921) in Turkey and Iraq or the Rwandan genocide, one can see that intellectuals and academics have provided us always with an excuse about why these people ‘deserved’ to be destroyed. “Retributive Genocide” is the essence of the liberal post-human destruction of history. Liberalism defines it as a genocide “undertaken to eliminate a real or potential threat. It is most likely to occur when one group dominates another group and fears its rebellion or when the other group actually rebels.” But the liberalization or Orwellization of this word and discussions about it by ‘scholars’ have presented it as an excuse where there is a need to ‘retribution’. But we must never forget that no people deserve genocide. No people deserve such things. The Hmong didn’t deserve it. Perhaps their terrible hardships are part of history, one of those things that happens. But there is no excuse to present what happened to them as ‘their fate’, as if they legitimately faced retribution. And if liberalism believes the Hmong had it coming to them for daring to rebel then it would be nice for liberalism to explain why the Palestinian Hamas in Gaza or other Islamic terrorists don’t ‘deserve’ what happens to them.

Wither Jesus? Where are the Obama miracles?
Seth J. Frantzman
February 3rd, 2009

Everything was supposed to change. We had a black man in the White House. Everything was supposed to be different. Government was supposed to change. The miracle of the ‘historic inauguration’ was supposed to pave the road to a Golden Age of perfection and tolerance. That is what the media told us. The media told us about his ‘sculpted pectorals’ that ‘gleam with sweat’ when he plays basketball. The told us about his ‘perfect’ first family. They told us about how he channeled FDR and Lincoln and JFK all in one. They told us about his wife’s clothing and where she bought it and about what his children ate at school. They shared us the feelings of the Americans on the Mall who cried and wept and threw themselves on the floor and convulsed and spoke in tongues and screamed and writhed in orgasmic displays of hope. “We have an African American in the white house, all our dreams of come true…” But then the media woke up. The dream, the long drunkenness seemed to fade. And now we are experiencing, not exactly a hangover, but perhaps the realization of the evil and sickening idiocy, the corrupting fallacy of the liberal-leftist belief that man must be judged by race and that by voting for the color of a man’s skin we can ‘change’ things. The great lie, the greatest lie that the 20th century and modernity ever told, that race is a factor in human endeavor seems to be have been proven wrong by the fact that it is business as usual at foggy bottom. But there is no self-critique on behalf of the media. There is no soul searching for all the lies we had to weather about ‘historic’ elections. There is no self-examination.

There is just ignorance and the return to the dullness, the banality of politics. No one is angry. No one cares anymore. The Obama thongs, the Obama mania, the ‘I have a crush on Obama’ Youtube girl. They are all gone. The Obama covers of every magazine. They are gone. The ‘change we can believe in’? It is gone. The American demagoguery of the Obamamania that the media whipped up, akin to the idiocy of the media supporting so many demagouges in the past, the love and obsession, the cult of personality, it is all gone. And yet if we were born today, say born again with the Obama administration, we would never have known it existed. A child born on the day Obama was sworn in will be told about how ‘historic’ and ‘important’ that day was but the child, when exploring the public record, will not be able to figure out why. The child will realize that it is skin color that makes it historic and the child may wonder “Daddy, is it true you used to vote for people and judge them based on their skin color? Is it true you felt that a man’s skin color could solve your problems? Is that really how people thought in 2009? Is it true that you couldn’t judge people back then based on the content of their character and that you were blinded by something so simple?” But mommy will explain that “we had to shatter the barrier of our racist past and make up for it. You will never understand how it made us feel to finally have an African-American in the White House. We brought change through our votes.” But the child may wonder “but there was no change. Nothing changed. All those problems from 2008, they were still there in 2009.”

Our future generations have been spared the plague of having to read about another ‘first’ for African Americans in the realm of politics. They can be spared it so that the next time a person runs for president who, by the accident of his birth has off-white skin tones (as one journalist described Obama “a mixed race, multi-cultural African-American”), they can judge him based on the content of their character. But not to worry. There are dragons to be slain yet. Women presidents must come next. Then gay presidents. Then Asians. Then Mexicans. Then Mormons. Then Jews. Then Muslims. We must spend a lot of time breaking glass ceilings in order to make sure that in every election until the year 2100 will be decided on race or religion or sex or sexual orientation. The evils of the 20th century and its racist killings and race laws and discrimination must be visited on the 21st century in the form of the opposite, the adoration for all things that are viewed as being ‘firsts’. Such is the banality of politics. They can all be compared to Lincoln and FDR and JFK. But Lincoln, FDR and JFK fought succession, Nazism and Communism. Our current problem is that we are only fighting our need to feel good, our inner demons, our petty racism and our history.

Or perhaps Obama just needs more time to perform his miracles.

Tragedy twice over: How liberalism and the French betrayed Africa and dominate the history of their betrayal
February 2nd, 2009
Seth J. Frantzman

Westerners care little about writing about Africa outside of writing advertisements to feed its supposed starving millions. Africa is a seemingly Hobbesian world of savagery and darkness. Nothing is more dark, foreboding and chaotic than the Congo, the massive country that dominates central Africa. Between 1993 and 2009 millions of people have died in the Congo in an ongoing war that has been termed Africa’s ‘First World War.’ The conflict however remains obscured from view by the fact that the media does not care, the battles and parties to the conflict are not clearly delineated and the fighters usually only speak French and their own tribal languages.

The Congolese war finds its way into our living rooms only when its stories are simple and cut and dry. Thus the Rwandan genocide, the toppling of Mubuto Sese Seko and the arrest of General Nkunda are some of the few stories to have escaped the Congo. Like a heart of darkness that sucks in all around it, the Congo conflict acts a black hole for the news media and information.

All the darkness seemed to be coming to an end when the Economist reviewed two new books on the Congolese war; Rene LeMarchand’s The Dynamics of Violence in Central Africa and Gerard Prunier’s Africa’s World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide and the making of a continental Catastrophe. These aren’t the only books on the war, there is an edited volume by John Clark entitled The African Stakes of the Congo War published in 2004. Unfortunately Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja’s The Congo: From Leopold to Kabila published in 2002 is almost useless in describing events after 1997, when Laurent Kabila came to power.

So we are left with the former two books, both by French speakers describing a country that is the heart of the Francophone Africa. The Economist review points out that both books were “written to disprove fashionable hypotheses about the war and its causes.” What fashionable hypothesis is not clear since few people are even familiar with the war in the Congo, let alone its causes. But apparently what the review refers to is the causes that have been dreamed up by French speakers. In this the authors are supposedly breaking down well healed myths by challenging the French belief that the war is a ‘conspiracy’ by English speaking Africans and the English speaking world, led by the U.S and the U.K to pry the Congo away from France. But this ‘fashionable’ explanation was never known in the English speaking world so disproving it doesn’t really help those who were never aware of it in the first place. It’s like ‘disproving’ that Asians are dumb and lazy when most in the West are under the impression that Asians are usually smart and hard working.

So although the authors may be fighting a straw man in their ‘original’ thesis, a typical way in which intellectuals and academics try to make their work seem important, the authors don’t deviate from the general French line of reasoning about the Rwandan genocide. The Economist explains that “Neither author believes that Rwanda’s interventions in eastern Congo can be justified in terms of preventing genocide, particularly since the war there has killed nearly five times the number who were murdered in Rwanda in 1994.” A review on is more clear; “The author carefully untangles these complexities while offering unsparing assessments of the participants, including a vigorous indictment of Rwanda's Tutsi leaders for using the 1994 genocide as an excuse for their own atrocities. Lucid, meticulously researched and incisive, Prunier's will likely become the standard account of this under-reported tragedy.”
Among other things the authors also swallow, hook-line-and-sinker, the idea that the cause is that “throughout this region the basis of the exclusion is the division between Hutu and Tutsi. Technically the same people—they speak the same language and belong to the same culture—their differences, occupational and physical, were deepened and manipulated by the German and Belgian colonists. After independence, governments in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, backed by Europe and America, rewrote the histories of these divisions and cynically used them to stay in power.”
This is typical of the western-anthropological model for examining what happens in other places. The way it works is simple. There is some savage conflict. The opponents happily declare to all that will listen that they hate their enemies based on race, ethnicity and religion. Westerners object to this ‘cynical’ explanation and want to find a ‘deeper’ cause. Then westerners take the people involved in the conflict and label them with new labels. Tribes become ‘kin groups’. Ethnicities become ‘races’. Whatever. Then the ‘truth’ is presented where some conflict is not ‘really’ about ethnicity but ‘actually’ about resources or global warming or some other obscure ‘competition’ that is either economic or is based on some ‘cynical’ manipulation by the former colonial power. Thus the genocide in Sudan isn’t about race because, as the anthropologist tells us “Arab and African are misleading labels”, it’s really about resource competition between herders and agriculturalists. Oddly all the ‘herders’ are tribes, or kin groups, that trace their history to Arabia and the ‘agriculturalists’ are people who trace their origins, to well, Sudan. Same in Rwanda. According to the myth of liberalism it was the white man who ‘created’ the Hutu and Tutsi. But the white man did as much to create them as he did to invent the Apache and the Navajo. After all the lies about the Hutu and the Tutsi that are passed around in the West would seem all the more ridiculous if applies to the Mohicans and the Cree “technically the same people—they speak the same language and belong to the same culture—their differences, occupational and physical, were deepened and manipulated by the.” But they aren’t the same people, neither in the Americas, no in Africa. Despite the fact that academics and intellectuals can’t find tribes among the millions of diverse people in Africa, and despite the common mentality among intellectuals that “well they are all black to me, I can’t tell them apart”, doesn’t mean it’s true. What is true is that the stereotypes offered by the Hutus and Tutsis of each other may not always be accurate, just as those offered of Jews by Europeans in the 1930s were not accurate. But just because the Nazi depiction of the ‘hunchbacked eastern Jew’ were incorrect it doesn’t mean the Jew and the German are identical. Thus the Belgian ‘manipulation’ of the Hutu and Tutsi didn’t create them, it just didn’t help a situation that was already divisive. The degree to which this ‘caused’ the Rwandan genocide isn’t clear, and we can’t really know that without the Belgian colonial identity card system that there would have been no genocide. What we do know is that the ethnic manipulation that did take place in Rwanda and Burundi was not the norm in the Congo, where the Hutu and Tutsi are tiny minorities who mattered little before the 1990s.
What did happen in Africa is that the French did arm the Hutus before the genocide in Rwanda. The U.S and others did back or at least ignore the excesses of Mobuto Sese Seko, the dictator of the Congo from the 1960s to 1997. What did happen is that there was a genocide in Rwanda which was ignored until the bodies clogged lake Victoria and then the U.S secretary of State, Madeline ‘intervention’ Albright spoke of ‘acts of genocide’ but refused to call it a genocide. What did happen is that the UN intervened at the last moment, when the Tutsi victims of the genocide had miraculously been able, through their rebel movement the Rwandan Patriotic Front, to take over half the country as the blood soaked, machete wielding, genociadaires fled towards the Congolese border. What did happen is that the French UN troops intervened on behalf of the Hutu genocidaires and the UN built camps for the former murderers in the Congo. The UN then helped create safe havens for the killers and allowed them to walk around armed and use the camps to raise a new generation of Hutu extremists. The UN apparently learned this method of refugee camp-cum-extremist training camp from what they had done among the Palestinians for sixty years.
The initial Rwandan incursion into the Congo was in support of Laurent Kabila, a French educated former communist who had known Che Guevara, turned businessman who was leading a rebel movement in eastern Congo. Rwanda hoped Kabila might help them destroy the Hutu camp infrastructure that threatened continued ethnic war and genocide and which was now sending cadres rampaging throughout eastern Congo hunting down the Tutsi tribesmen who lived there. Uganda joined Rwanda to help Kabila overthrow Mobutu. Then six other African countries joined in opposing the proxy war. Peace seemed to come in 1997 but a variety of new rounds of fighting took place. The Eastern Congo became a wasteland. The UN send tens of thousands of troops to the area, many of whome, mostly Muslim UN troops from Pakistan, were subsequently accused of trading guns for sex and raping young girls, something the native Africans responded to by turning on the UN. Western leftists and child rapists also arrived, including at least one American embassy employee who made porn videos of himself having sex with 13 year old African girls. The Congo was the world’s playground for evil.
Meanwhile the war in the eastern Congo got worse and a middle aged tall lanky man name General Nkunda became the new ‘bad person’ according to the UN who, alone among all the people in eastern Congo, was a ‘warlord’ wreaking havoc. Nkunda’s crime was that he opposed the UN’s refugee camp and the UN supported genocide of his Tutsi tribesman. Nkunda was eventually arrested by his Rwandan supporters in January of 2009, apparently realizing that Nkunda might have become more trouble than he was worth.
The Europeans want Nkunda to be put on trial at their ‘International’ Criminal Court. He will join other Africans dragged off by Europeans to be put on trial by European courts, like Charles Taylor and Rose Kabuye, incidentally another Tutsi black African now being put on trial in France. Oddly Europeans have never put on trial one of the Hutu genocidaires that the French armed and supported.
The French speakers who have written books on the Congo crises have used the old European view of conflict that ‘those who suffer genocide have no excuse to cause others to suffer.’ This is a common argument used by Europeans to condemn Serbia and Israel, as well as Rwanda. Europeans have a common view that those who suffer genocide are thus ‘naturally’ inclined to commit hardships against others and the European corollary is that ‘genocide is no excuse’ to be angry. This is part of the liberal worldview where no one is allowed to ‘judge’ or get revenge. It is an interesting problem that unfairly burdens the victims of genocide. If Israel just occupied the Palestinians, the way Turkey does Cyprus or Morocco does Western Sahara, without the Jews having suffered the Holocaust, then no one would say “the Jews cynically use their victimization in the Holocaust to justify their treatment of the Palestinians.” In fact no one would care. Had the Tutsis not suffered the genocide and simply invaded the Congo the way Uganda did then no one would say that “their genocide does not justify their invasion of the Congo.” Had the Serbs not been slaughtered by the Nazis and the Bosnians and Croats or colonized by the Ottomans, then no one would say “the Serbs play their victim card to justify their assaults on the Bosnians”, instead the Serbs would have been loved by the west along with the former Nazi Croats.
Liberalism and Europeanism have a way of polluting the mind and killing the soul, leaving the human incapable of judgment. All we have to do is let the writer speak for himself. Lemarchand spends no time discussing the actual genocide in Rwanda but instead spends his time trying to explain why the victims are really the aggressors and while not all the perpetrators are bad. Let liberalism and post-humanism speak for itself: “the absence of attention to the history and politics of the country creates a portrait of genocide that is insensitive to the complexity of its circumstances…reduces the butchery to a tale of bad guys and good guys, innocent victims and avatars of hate. The frame of reference is the Holocaust…the other side of the genocidal coin-the human rights abuses, killings and other abuses committed by the Tutsis during and after the genocide…there is a temptation in writing about genocide to tell a story of good and evil….but there is more to the story than Hutu guilt and Tutsi victimhood…if it’s true that 10 percent of the Hutu population participated in the killings…that leaves 90 percent of the population who did not…whose hands are clean…in Rwanda today, guilt and innocence are increasingly becoming ethnisized; because the Tutsi were so thoroughly victimized, they are now beyond reproach…genocide exonerates its victim of all subsequent sins. This is true not only in Rwanda but in Yugoslavia…the tendancy of Bosnian Serbs to invoke earlier ‘genocides’ they suffered as a pretext for retaliating…’genocide’ is no longer a horror but a form of immunity…Rwanda is not Germany…the Rwandan genocide can best be described as retributive…in Rwanda the Tutsi dominated RPF initiated a civil war four years before the genocide…the Rwandan genocide is better seen as the by product of the mortal threats posed to the revolutionary Hutu dominated state.” It should all be read again in order to be understood. Think of the implications should the Lemarchand theory be applied to the Holocaust. Most Germans didn’t engage in the Holocaust thus making them innocent. There is a temptation to describe one side as good and evil but we should try to understand that the Jews might have been perceived as posing a mortal threat to the Nazis. So perhaps the Holocaust was a ‘retributive’ genocide. After all, didn’t the Jews boycott Nazi Germany and wasn’t Bolshevism partly a Jewish conspiracy against the German nation? Only liberalism, only Europeans could twist around a genocide, in which 800,000 Tutsis were butchered with machetes, so that the killers become the victims and the victims become the aggressors who deserved to die. It is quite brilliant the way modernity turns the victim into the aggressor and those who commit genocide always become the victims. In the name of not wanting ‘label’ anything as ‘good an evil’, the evil must always be excused. This is how liberal post-humanism operates. It claims that people label something ‘good and evil’ so that it can play ‘devil’s advocate’ and ‘show’ that the evil is not all evil. But why doesn’t this consistently apply? Let the post-human tell us more “nor is this meant to ignore the anxieties inspired by Nazi allegations of a Judeo-Bolshevik plot…Jews did not invade Germany…nor did they once rule Germany as the political instrument of an absolute monarchy; nor were they identified with a ruling ethnocracy; nor did Jewish elements commit a partial genocide of non-Jews in a neighbouring state 22 years before the Holocaust…Jews did not stand accused of murdering the head of state.” The insinuation is clear: had the Jews done some of these things then the Holocaust would have been understandable. This is what liberalism says about the Rwandan genocide, that it is ‘retributive’ which is to say ‘explainable’ and acceptable and even good. But those Germans did have ‘anxiety’ about the Jews. So maybe the Holocaust is understandable. Whats more, the Jews are no clean victims because there is no good and evil, and 99% of all Germans didn’t actually run the camps, so we can say that in fact the Germans didn’t commit a genocide. If the Jews had been part of or could be “identified with a ruling ethnocracy” perhaps they would have deserved genocide? This is what a liberal says about the Rwandan genocide. Let another post-human, Bill Berkeley, try to make more excuses for why the Rwandan genocide was explainable; “the Tutsi’s experience of genocide [is different from the Jews because] the Jews of Europe were never armed. There was no Jewish conspiracy to dominate Europe. There had been no Jewish tyranny in Germany, as there were Tutsi tyranny’s in Rwanda.” So if there had been a Jewish, or perceived Jewish tyranny then the Holocaust would be acceptable? And where is the evidence for the Tutsi ‘conspiracy’ to dominate Africa? What is the white European leftist genocide denier and excuser talking about? Its truly amazing how intellectualism works, how ‘progressive modernity’ and the academy produce the intellectual who excuses the genocide and explains it. What is amazing is that the same rules that the intellectual creates in order to excuse the genocide don’t even apply to everyone equally. Whereas we are told 90% of the Hutus are innocent and the word genocide is placed in quotation marks sometimes when it happens to some people, there is no discussion of what percentage of the Tutsis were armed or joined the RPF or were part of this supposed ‘ethnocracy’. So we see how it works. When Tutsis do something they all do it and thus are all guilty. But when Hutus do it then the leftist intellectual must do whatever it takes to excuse it. Why? Why can’t genocide just be genocide. Why can’t it just be condemned. Why must the victim always be labeled the aggressor and the genocide become ‘retributive’. What is a retributive genocide anyway? When Tutsi Rwanda invaded the Congo to flush out the Hutu murderers the liberals didn’t call that ‘retributive’ and there was no excuse for it. Why? Why is there always an excuse for one side and not the other. There is an excuse for Palestinian hate and terror, or for Kosovo Albanian massacres, or Hutu ‘retribution’, but when it’s the Jews, the Serbs and the Tutsis, they are all guilty, they are guilty twice, first they must die by genocide and then they must be said to be ‘far from innocent’ and then their genocide becomes a ‘genocide’ and then they are said to ‘cynically manipulate’ it and then people say “‘genocide’ is no excuse.”
Prunier and Lemarchand’s books merely prove once again why it is always better to genocide than be genocided. Thus the Armenians who killed Turks as part of the Armenian Secret Army in the 1970s were also condemned as “the Armenian genocide cannot be used as an excuse for terror.” Right. The only excuse for terror is simply to be a Muslim extremist or Communist ‘freedom fighter’. The tragedy of the Congolese war is that it was first ignored and then the tragedy was compounded by the fact that those who write on it turn the victims into the aggressors and misinterpret it for an English speaking audience.

Give up on the Holocaust, give up on Europe
Seth J. Frantzman
January 27th, 2009

The European hatred and American Jewish degradation of the Holocaust and attempts to compare all things to the Holocaust never ends. Whether it is a Norwegian diplomat in Saudi Arabia emailing pictures of dead Jews from the Holocaust juxtaposed with pictures of dead Gazans or Jewish Prof. Richard Falk of the UN comparing Gaza to the Warsaw ghetto, or Rosanne Bar, who is Jewish, comparing the Israeli operation in Gaza to the Holocaust the need for leftist American Jews and white Europeans to mention the Holocaust in comparison to every event, especially those in Israel, is clear. They are not alone of course, Chavez of Venezuela and Ahmadinjed of Iran have also claimed Israel is a ‘Nazi’ state, at the same time that both have denied the Holocaust.

What is also clear is the degree to which Holocaust memorial day has become a joke. In Berlin the Council of Jews boycotts the day because they did not receive proper treatment and respect in the past. At the UN the General Secretary Ban Ki Moon and Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, president of the General assembly, did not come to the UN ceremony commemorating the Holocaust. American Jewish organizations had threatened to walk out because Brockmann has often accused Israel of being an ‘Apartheid’ state or comparing it to Nazism. In the Netherlands Moroccan organizations agreed to attend a memorial to the Holocaust and Dutch Integration Minister noted that “Muslims should understand that what al-Nakba is for Muslims, the Shoah is to Jews and vice-versa.” So the Dutch have equated the creation of 700,000 Palestinian refugees with the death of 6 million Jews and the creation of a few million Jewish refugees. England is not much better. In England the Muslim Council of Britian has boycotted the day since its creation in 2001. This year the Muslims will come but partly because Karen Pollack, the director of the memorial, has assured them that the memorial is for “all genocides”, including that of the Bosnian Muslims. Perhaps the Palestinians will be on the list next year. Its Holocaust memorial day so long as the Holocaust isn’t mentioned.

Rather than wasting time, every year boycotting events where anti-semites are invited to host Holocaust memorial day or where anti-racism conferences are racist, or where Holocaust memorial day is used not to commemorate the Holocaust but to compare it to everything else, especially the Palestinians.

It would be better if the Holocaust had never happened or could have been forgotten soon after it happened instead of being abused so often. This seems like an extraordinary statement, but it is tragically true. Europeans are incapable of memorializing the Holocaust in a decent and respectful way. During the Holocaust those European and international organizations such as the International Criminal Court, the Red Cross, the UN, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch either didn’t exist or didn’t care about the actual Holocaust. Yet since the Holocaust Europeans have been only able to compare everything that happens to it and accuse Jews of being Nazis. Europeans need, instead of recognizing their criminal history and involvement, to turn the Holocaust into a universal phenomenon so that the Jews sooner or later become the ‘real Nazis’ and the Palestinians become the ‘Jews’ and every people in the world are said to be ‘committing a Holocaust’. Without the memory of the Holocaust what would the Europeans compare Palestinian suffering to? Without the memory of Nazism what would Europeans accuse Israel of being. How would intellectual artists and academics in Europe, especially the Jewish ones, become ‘controversial’ if they could’nt speak of “parrellels between Israel and the Nazi regime, Gaza and a giant concentration camp, the siege of Beirut and the Warsaw ghetto. Without the Holocaust what would ‘the brilliant and controverisal’ Portuguese writer Jose Saramago, who compared the situation in the territories to the extermination camps in Nazi Germany.

There was always something silly about watching Europeans, the very people who caused the Holocaust, crying crocodile tears over it in memorials. There was always something strange about watching Europeans bumble about trying to build memorials to an event they themselves did. There was always something funny about watching how collaborationist governments in Europe, whether Austria, Croatia or France were able to re-write history in order to become ‘victims’ of Nazism, when in fact they were some of the leading elements in the Nazi evil.

So now the Europeans want to prosecute Israelis for ‘war crimes’ using an ‘international tribunal’. They haven’t charged Bin Laden with war crimes, and they seem only capable of arresting black Africans for ‘war crimes’, such as Nkunda or Charles Taylor, but Europeans proved inept at prosecuting their own war criminals, not only Nazis who were mostly released due to ‘old age’, but also their own commanders who prosecuted brutal colonial wars and occupations in places such as Algeria and Northern Ireland. But while people with names such as Charles or Pierre don’t get placed on trial, and neither do Mohammed or Ahmed, the Europeans seem quite good at getting arrest warrants for men named Shlomo or Amos.

Throughout Europe and other places in the world Synagouges and Jewish schools were attacked recently by leftist white people carrying placards declaring ‘stop the Holocaust in Gaza.’ Muslims were provided with similar signs by leftist organizations who have helped Muslims learn that equating Israel’s actions with Nazism is the best tool to make white Europeans understand the Muslim Palestinian cause.

It’s a waste of time to commemorate the Holocaust. Europeans created the Holocaust, they indulged in it, they loved doing it. They let the Genocidaires run free after the Holocaust, had it not been for the U.S run court at Nuremburg and the Russian firing squads, all of the Nazis would have been released. Even after the Holocaust when the British army liberated the camps in Germany they placed the German and Italian Jews back in prison camps as ‘enemy non-combatants.’ European countries refused to take responsibility for the Holocaust, playing victim instead. In some cases Europeans joined terrorist groups such as the Red Army Faction and after hijacking an Air France flight they spoke in German and separated the Jewish passengers from the non-Jews, much as their parents’ generation had done during the 1940s. Of course these Europeans in the 1970s did so under the auspices of ‘justice’ and ‘peace activism’ and ‘human rights’. When the Europeans were done experimenting in hijacking planes they then decided in the 1990s and after 2000 that they could assuage their guilt over the Holocaust by simply declaring that every even today is a ‘Holocaust’ and the ‘real Nazis today’ are the Jews in Israel.

While white Europeans did not protest the Mumbai terror attacks or refer to its perpetrators as war criminals, they began protesting the Gaza operation on its first day, already calling it a ‘holocaust’. They threw rocks and spray painted Jewish places. In New Zealand a Christian priest spilled ‘blood’ on a memorial to Yitzhak Rabin. In other places the European joined his Muslim friends in chanting “Hamas, Hamas, send the Jews to the Gas.’

The European and his Muslim collaborator and the Venezuelan dictator need the Holocaust in order to demonize Israel. In Venezuela Palestinian supporters spray painted swastikas on synagogues even while Chavez called the Gaza operation a ‘Holocaust’. In other places spray paint noted “Jew dogs” and “stop Gaza Holocaust.” Jews must forget about the Holocaust. It is a word that has no meaning. Neither does Nazi. There is nothing to memorialize. The Holocaust doesn’t mean six million dead Jews, it means 1,300 dead Palestinians. That is fine. Jews should commemorate the Hebrew word for the Holocaust, Shoah and they should stop expecting outsiders to commemorate the Shoah.

On Tuesday, January 27th Ahmadinjed declared at Tehran University that the Holocaust is “the West’s sacred lie.” He want on to claim that Israel was committing a ‘genocide’ in Gaza and that the Holocaust was used as an excuse to get money for Jews and to take Palestinian land and that the “lock on the Holocaust box must be broken.” Ahmadinjed is correct in a way. The Holocaust isn’t part of a western lie used to create Israel, rather the Holocaust is central to the West’s worldview, primarily in the context of labeling Jews as the ‘real Nazis’ and comparing the Holocaust to everything in order to make it seem less unique. The Holocaust is a sacred lie in the sense that Europeans lie about the Holocaust in comparing it to other things. Breaking the Holocaust box however is impossible. Europe needs the Holocaust in order to excuse its own creation of the Holocaust by comparing everything to it. Without the Holocaust and the Nazis what would the Europeans and their Muslim friends accuse Israel of? Without the Holocaust and the Nazis the Palestinians cannot be Jews and the Israelis cannot be Nazis and liberals will be deprived of their need to always claim that Gaza or Beirut or Jenin is ‘the Warsaw Ghetto.’ There was no Warsaw ghetto. There was no Holocaust. There were no Nazis. If the result of the Ghetto and the Holocaust and the Nazis is only to give Europeans tools to hate Israel and Jews today and give Europeans a way to support terror against the living Jews, the few who got away from the clutches of the European in the 1940s and survived, then we should forget the Holocaust. Do away with the fake memorials in Europe to the Jews who once lived there. Bulldoze the ugly memorial in Germany, after all the Germans have a Holocaust memorial day where Jews don’t even feel welcome. Give up on these memorials so we don’t have to listen to Dutch ministers claim that the Holocaust is the same as al-Nakhba. By stripping the European of his crocodile tears shed at Holocaust memorials we can finally see the European for what he is. He speaks the Holocaust only in the context of condemning Israel. He never calls his own state a ‘nazi’ state. He never uses the word for other things. He reserves it for Israel. He doesn’t speak of the Chinese ‘Holocaust’ of Tibet or the Tamil ‘Holocaust’. The Jews must take other words for their great tragedy that they suffered at the hands of the European. The European court today, through funding of ‘human rights’ NGOs by countries like Norway, brings war crimes charges against Jewish Israelis. It never brought war crimes charges against its own, for their numerous crimes whether during colonialism or in Northern Ireland or during the Shoah. Call the tragedy of the European Jews the Nakhba. Take the Palestinian world. Who cares.

The Europeans murdered six million. That is all that is worth remembering. The Europeans. The French. The Croats. The Germans. The Austrians. There is not a piece of land in those countries that is not soaked with the blood of the Jews and today it is the offices of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and the ICC that grow over that land.

No comments: