Monday, February 9, 2009

Terra Incognita
Issue 70
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel


January 27th, 2009

1) The Divorce from Europe: The central lesson that European and liberal history has learned from the Holocaust is that the correct response to Nazism is to become an 'anti-Nazi'. But this is a flawed response. The opposite of evil is not 'anti-evil', but rather good. The leftist dialectic of modern European thought is decidedly backward looking and it is why it is slowly being consumed by a very forward looking group of people; Muslims.

2) The next generation of colonialists: Duke University's 'Engage' program invites young students to 'change the world' through working at NGOs throughout the world as part of their student exchange program. It gives 18-22 year old students the chance to 'intervene directly' in places, helping to make local NGOs more efficient and 'train locals'. This arrogance, that we should 'change the world' is inculcated at a young age. But this NGO-poverty-tourism is a decidedly racist worldview.

The Divorce from Europe
Seth J. Frantzman
January 25th, 2009

There was a time in history when Europe became a sort of hell. This was between 1939 and 1945. After the war was over people convinced themselves that this Europe, the dark and evil Europe where technology and modernity had allowed man to indulge in his most terrible ideas, was merely what happens when the 'right wing' of politics it allowed to take charge. For the next sixty years the world was led to believe that so long as man could be secular and leftist, then his 'good' side would be allowed to thrive. Man's relationship with European civilization became confusing. On the one hand old Europe was disdained, its class distinctions, its colonialism, its Christianity were pushed into the dust bin of history. New Europe, the Europe of secularism, self-hate and 'human rights' and 'progressive' politics was celebrated.

But the darkness is returning. New Europe, through its flaccid politics of flexibility has dug itself into the same trap that the liberal laiisez faire regimes of the 1920s dug themselves into. Europe once again finds itself in the death throes of Weimer republic style extremism, with weak out of touch governments and cesspools brooding up from below.

We see most clearly the problem of Europe when we examine its extreme hatred of Israel. It is here that the real Europe, the Europe of the extreme, of the hate, of the evil, emerges. Whether it is a European priest in New Zealand smearing his own blood on a Yitzhak Rabin memorial or Holocaust memorial day in Scotland becoming 'Palestinian holocaust' memorial day we see the extremism of 'progressive' Europe. The love for terrorism is part and parcel of the European mindset, the 'human rights' mindset. How else can one explain that European courts issue arrest warrants for Israeli soldiers that Europeans accuse of 'war crimes' but Muslim leaders of Hamas are welcome in Europe.

The truth about Europe is clear. Sixty years of secularism, and 'human rights' and drawing the wrong conclusions about the Second World War have led to a break between European civilization and civilization itself. European civilization initially diverged from that of humanity during the Holocaust. But Europeans drew a false lesson from the Holocaust. They believed it to be a product of the 'right' rather than a product of modernity. The Holocaust was a very European event, fueled by an obsession with all things modern, the belief that man can be subordinated to machines. It is no coincidence that the first anti-smoking campaigns were developed by the Nazis. There is nothing more extreme than the strange and alarmist lies put out by anti-smoking advocates. Smoking may be a slightly vile and inconvenient habit for many, but that extremism associated with anti-smoking literature, that ridiculous exaggerations and the attempt to 'cleanse' society of the smoker, to the extent in several films such as Waterworld where the 'bad guys' have been called simply 'smokers', is part and parcel of the demonization of the 'alien' element in European society, the Jew.

When we move forward to modern times we see that Europe has not replaced its extremism. By simply ascribing Nazism to a right wing deviation Europeans misunderstood the lessons of the Holocaust. By embracing left wing and secular fanaticism Europeans merely replaced one Nazism with another. That is why it is so easy for modern 'human rights activist' Europeans to find themselves in the arms of Islamism. It is why European women, schooled in the secular ethos of 'love the other' can so easily go from engaging in the 'exotic independent' job of 'sex work' to putting on a Burka and reading the Koran daily. Belly Dancing and marching in lock step to Nazi marches is not so different. Each represents the destruction of independence of people.

To defeat Europeanism one must divorce themselves from the concept of Europe and the concept that Europe provides answers for anything. European courts, European UN workers, European NGOs, European human rights, all these notions are a mistake. EU monitors, wherever they may be found, are suspect. The very notion that this Europe can provide answers to anything is mistaken.

The lessons of the Holocaust understood by the Western mind is that the opposite, and thus correct response, to Nazism is anti-Nazism. But this is a mistake. Anti-Nazism is not the opposite of Nazism just as the opposite of evil is not anti-evil. The opposite of evil is good. To live one's life in opposition to evil is to place evil in the place of God for evil dominates one's life. Europeans and their causes, the idea of the 'cause' and the idea of 'social justice' all these ideas are directed against something, usually some perceived as 'injustice' or 'racism' or 'genocide' or 'ethnic-cleansing'. Whatever lie is placed in the place of evil it speaks of a civilization that is essentially raising up evil to the place of god rather than striving for something positive. Europe does not move forward and it is why it is slowly being consumed by people who do think in a forward manner; Muslims. For Islam is, with all its flaws, hypocrisy, slavery, rape and servitude, a religion that primarily looks forward to a day when it will conquer the world. Islam's forward thinking can be seen in its high birth rates, in its desire for its men to marry non-Muslim women and its forbidding of its women to mingle with non-Muslim men. Suicide bombing, when coupled with high birth rates, is a perfect policy for victory over others, for while one man can blow up many, he has made sure already to reproduce himself through women. The western mindset of avoiding civilian casualties, the opposite of the Muslim way of waging war that targets only civilians, is decidedly defeatist. Civilians are the reservoir from whence soldiers come and Islam's savage but brilliant understanding that killing civilians means there will be less soldiers in the future is brutally logical. The Mumbai attackers who killed more than 200 civilians contacted their handlers to ask about killing women and children and they were told 'kill them'. A society without women and children does not produce men who can serve in the armed forces. So while the West targets only soldiers, thus leaving the civilians to procreate, Islam targets the soft underbelly, leaving only graying old soldiers with nothing to go to home to.

Divorcing ourselves from a European 'human rights' and 'social justice' mindset is the only way we can free ourselves from the position that society finds itself in. We must be free to think of new ways to move forward with society, rather than being trapped in an essentially reactionary 'anti-nazi' post-Holocaust world.

The next generation of colonialists
Seth J. Frantzman
January 25th, 2009

Duke University has many study abroad programs. Incorporated into most of them is the chance to spend extra time participating in the 'Duke Engage' program. Its motto is 'challenge yourself: change the world.' It is a good case study in the way in which western students increasingly believe it is their duty to 'change' the entire world, an arrogant concept that smacks of racism, colonialism and the idiocy of 'the white man's burden.'

To understand the idiocy it is worthwhile examining what Duke Engage students are engaged in. In Egypt's Cairo they are part of St. Andrews Refugee ministry, a "localized western model NGO." Participants "develop programs for making local NGOs more efficient….exciting opportunities to be in charge of a new program." Students in the program will, however, have to learn some Arabic to work with the locals. In Kenya " Students in the FSD program in Kenya will be individually placed with a partner organization in one of seven development subject areas, including microfinance/microenterprise, women’s empowerment, environment, health, human rights, education and youth development, or community development. " In South Africa " Students will spend six weeks in Cape Town, working with social agencies that are seeking to improve life in townships, document the history of District Six (a neighborhood bulldozed by the apartheid regime because it was a model of multi-racial democracy), and promote health and economic reform in the nation." In Northern Tanzania " Students will learn about healthcare technology shortcomings in the developing world and spend time directly intervening to address these challenges. "

In Uganda " DukeEngage students will primarily provide training on, education, and dissemination of vital medical services. " In China the students will undermine the government by dealing with migrants to cities who "often underpaid, with no health or employment benefits, and subjected to a range of discriminatory practices… Interfacing with JP Morgan’s Corporate Social Responsibility office in Beijing, Duke Engage Beijing students will work at one of the most successful of these places [for migrant worker children], the Dandelion Middle School (Pugongying Zhongxue). Our students will engage in a wide range of tasks, from teaching English and other subjects, to working with school staff in health, nutrition, life skills, counseling and study-to-work programs." In Vietnam however the students will be involved in some nationalism through going to "Ben Tre Province to participate in the Vietnamese Youth League’s Green Summer Campaign."

In Ireland "students will spend two months in Dublin working with communities of refugees and migrants. DukeEngage students will be placed with one of five different NGOs serving the migrant and refugee community [or] Duke students will work with five Belfast-based NGOs that focus on human rights." In Haiti they will be "documenting the needs and strengths of community partners in Haiti and developing cross-disciplinary partnerships, from environmental health, engineering design, and health management to clinical care; and 3. determining priorities community members, leaders and health professionals have related to the planned construction of a health and research center." In Israel "students who participate in the follow-up DukeEngage portion of the program will work in one of several organizations that promote social justice in disadvantaged communities. The organizations, which are all based in Jerusalem, focus on providing social assistance to new Ethiopian immigrants, community education, creating local leadership for social change, women’s rights, and environmental justice."

It all sounds well and good. But let us consider the mentality behind it. First among the mentality is the belief that "we can do it better than them." The programs don't send college students abroad to learn from locals. It doesn't say the students will observe and first learn about what the local people are doing. Instead the mentality is that a bunch of college students from the west, ages 18-22, are perfectly capable, even if their majors are in things not related to the programs, to show up and immediately begin telling the locals what to do. Is there anything more arrogant than thinking that simply by the virtue of these students being from Duke that they can suddenly take charge of a health care clinic in Haiti or perhaps running a food co-op NGO in Kenya? The insinuation is that the natives are just there to be told what to do. Isn't that, in truth, what this program is saying: "dear Westerner, come and run your own plantation with natives ready to work for you, eager to learn from you and take direction…be your own boss of some hundred savage people and whip them into shape so that they can be more efficient because you, by virtue of coming from the West, surely know more than all these savages."

What does it mean to 'change the world'? It means the world needs you and only you, the westerner, can change it. It means the world needs changing and isn't good enough, isn't up to 'our standards'. It means that we must change it, not that it could, god forbid, change us. It means that we have a 'duty' to change it. This is an arrogant idea, the idea that it needs changing. But what if it is doing ok by itself. Haiti appears to need changing until one recalls just exactly who it was that has been running it for the last hundred years. Recall that Haiti was the second country in the Western Hemisphere to gain independence (after the U.S) in 1802 and recall that it did just fine in the 19th century until people began colonizing it again. Recall that since 1992 it has been run by NGOs and the U.N. So when we say we must 'change' it, we should be changing our own policy towards it. We should have long ago left it to its own ends. Poor and savage it may be, but our 'change' doesn't appear to be helping. Haitians are poorer today per capita than they were in 1802. So how is the 'change' helping?

Why aren’t the arrogant colonists-in-the-making sent to their own countries or places where they speak the local language at least to affect some change? Why aren’t we dispatching them to the inner cities to lord it over some of our own people? Why don't we dispatch them to St. Joseph's hospital in Tucson to run the hospital for a few days? If we believe any Duke student is capable of running, without training, some clinic in Africa why not let them run a clinic, with no training, in Harlem? I mean, by Duke's logic, those people in Harlem must be equally savage as the one's in Kenya so why not let our best and brightest 18-22 year olds experiment on our own black poor people? We don't need to send them all the way to Africa, we have plenty of African immigrants here in the U.S for rich folk to experiment on with leftist notions of 'I must change them and only I can do it because they are to stupid'. But we wouldn't send some inexperienced, wet behind the ears, student go run a hospital in Harlem or Tucson, so why would we send them to Africa to do it? Do the Africans deserve so little, are they are so useless that we truly believe some 20 year old is capable of telling them what do to by virtue simply of the fact that they live in a poor African country? What do these students really know about making local NGOs "more efficient." The insinuation is that the native people running the NGOs locally are obviously corrupt and inefficient and only by bringing them the natural efficiency that any 18 year old American social science student innately has can they improve.

There is another side to the Duke Engage program, that while less arrogant, is equally obnoxious. This is the belief that it is the duty of Duke to work to subvert various governments throughout the world by sending study abroad students into the country to create unrest among minorities and encourage militant activism among groups that Duke has identified as 'disadvantaged.' On the surface it seems natural for American students to want to help minorities in Ireland, China or Israel. But lets imagine a situation where some idealistic Americans show up and encourage local Chinese labourers to assert their 'rights' more and this leads to riots and then bloodshed. Imagine the situation in Israel where the Americans show up to work among the local Ethiopians and because Americans imagine that every black person everywhere must suffer terrible discrimination, they fill the Ethiopians' heads with images of the Old South, and soon these poor Ethiopians are imagining all sorts of racism where none previously existed. It is not far fetched. Westerners have a strange habit of always being more nationalistic and extreme than locals. I have witnessed western white women encouraging Arabs to be more nationalistic, telling them about their 'true claim to the temple mount', regaling Muslims with stories about Mohammed that even the Muslims didn't know and inquiring of Arab women 'why do you speak Hebrew, the language of your enemy?' I've seen white women from the west asking "where is the racism, those Ethiopians, they are the blacks here so they must be discriminated against, I am sure there is more racism than we see on the surface." Westerners need to find racism in other countries because the idea of racism as a natural part of society is ingrained in the West and the idea that "racism is everywhere" is typical of an American liberal education. Thus in India white westerners typically ask "aren’t the white Indians racist against the black ones." Indians might inquire "what blacks and whites?" But westerners refuse to think that the notion of race is not easily accepted elsewhere. So westerners will mistake the Indian Hindu notion of caste for race and class, because race and class are easily understood in the West. It might surprise them to learn that caste in India transcends both dark and lighter skinned Hindus and poorer and richer ones.

We cannot imagine Chinese students flooding America on foreign exchange visas and being put in charge of our rural health care centers or going among Mexican immigrants and encouraging them to fight for 'social justice'. We can't imagine African students arriving in the U.S to campaign for environmental justice. We can't imagine Russian students meeting with poor whites in the south and educating them about their 'disadvantaged position.' We can't imagine it because it would seem odd to have foreigners running around our country telling our people how to live, whipping them into a frenzy about justice, telling them how to run a health clinic and then leaving after their six weeks of poverty and social activist tourism was at an end, returning to Africa or China or Russia to talk about how they 'changed the world' and leaving a big mess behind them.

The arrogance of social-justice-tourism and the evils of NGOs and those who think they have a right to run them is never ending. The Duke case is just the tip of the iceberg of a persistent liberal racism against the world, a leftist-human-rights racism that permeates our culture and makes us believe that we must 'change the world', not by first changing ourselves, but by undermining foreign governments, and imposing ourselves upon others and lording it over others. Anyone that believes that some 20 year old college student with no background and no experience who has never worked a day in his life can show up in Kenya and be placed in charge of 40 year old Africans is as bent morally as those people in the Old South who owned slaves.

No comments: