Terra Incognita 52 The need for racism, critique and Jewish self hate

Terra Incognita
Issue 52
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel

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

September 15th, 2008

1) The need for racism: The idea of racism is so integral to America that one cannot live without it. Even as actual racism declines we find that discussing racism in society grows. Now America is being asked if it is ready to make up for the ‘original sin’ of slavery and finally elect a ‘black man’ president. America isn’t ready to elect a black man because Obama is not black and because electing him has nothing to do with erasing the sin of slavery, his ancestors are from Kenya, not Ghana. Anyone who confuses a West African state with one in East Africa and votes for Obama out of a desire to ‘erase the sin of slavery’ is as much a racist as those who will vote against Mr. Obama because he is ‘black’ and both do a great disservice to the black nation in America. Moreover the need for racism perpetuates not only the existence of organizations that ‘fight racism’ but also perpetuates the myth that any black person who succeeds in a marginal way can rest on his or her laurels of ‘overcoming great racist obstacles.’

2) The Culture of Critique: a Critique of Critique: When did the notion that ‘critique’ is an essential element of society come into vogue? Why is it considered such an integral part of society? We must dare to imagine a society where its greatest ‘intellectuals’ are not those who hate the very society that gives them the right to hate it. We must imagine a society whose ‘foundation’ not self hatred.

3) The Two Societies: John Edwards spoke of two societies, one of the wealthy and the other of the poor. But he missed the real two societies; the one who hates itself and gets wealthy off of critiquing itself and the other that must work to defend society and serve it and be responsible to it. This is no more clear than in the hatred that some academics have for the military and ‘militarization’. Whose sword do they think is responsible for their academic freedom? How many academics, after all, have ever given up their lives for that academic freedom that they use to bash the very society that grants it to them.

4) Pretentious and self important: In a recent article Lily Galilee claimed that Israel had created a ‘third front’ in the Russia-Georgia conflict. Roger Cohen demanded in a recent editorial in the New York Times that Jews stop ‘scaremongering’ about Barak Obama. Why is it those who hate Israel and the Jews also ascribe tremendous power to them. Moreover why is it Jews do this so often? Greeks who hate being Greek and hate Greece don’t ascribe tremendous power to a Greek lobby. Self-hating Germans don’t accuse Germany of creating a ‘third front’ in the war between Georgia and Russia. It is primarily a Jewish phenomenon whereby self-hating Jews believe Jews are all powerful. Is their manipulation merely part of their charade to get themselves noticed as “I am a Jew who critiques Jews” or is it part of a wider phenomenon?




The need for Racism
Seth J. Frantzman
August 27th, 2008

Roger Cohen's latest piece in the New York Times is entitled 'Out of Africa' and begins with his journey to Elmina in Ghana to see a former headquarters of the slave trade in West Africa. Cohen tells the readers that more American kids "should be wrested from their computer screens" to see this other side of American history. Then, Cohen tells us, they might ask about this election year "is America really ready to elect a black man?" This, Cohen tells us, is the 'historic' nature of the Obama candidacy. Cohen reminds us that Obama's 'color' "remains problematic" for "blue collar America." Cohen answers his own question at the end of his editorial. America is ready to elect a black man. Is Cohen kidding himself? He has indulged in the usual decision to play the race scientist with Mr. Obama. Ghana may very well have some meaning for many blacks in the U.S, those descendants of slaves. But Obama isn't one of these blacks. Obama is a descendant of a very free African Kenyan man who very freely met and produced off-spring with a very free American woman. Obama's black ancestors never even came to America. The only ancestors Obama has in the United States are whites. Is America ready to elect a black man? Cohen thinks that he is asking this about Obama. Cohen even thinks he can trick us into believing that Obama's 'color' is too much for middle America and thus any failure of Obama at the polls represents America's racism and the inability of America to 'elect a black man.' Its part of the classic charade that the Obama candidacy is built on. This charade is primarily one created by blacks and leftists. Leftist whites like Mr. Cohen feel good about themselves for supporting Obama. They claim they are 'breaking the glass ceiling' and that they are 'ready to elect a black man' as if this is some sort of badge of honour. But they have deluded themselves, to the extent that they are going to Ghana to see the slave pens and telling themselves that they are finally doing justice to those slaves by voting for Obama. Obama has no connection to slavery. Voting for him isn't redeeming America from her 'original sin' as Cohen terms it. The ridiculous assertion that Obama is black is one of the greatest charades ever foisted upon America. It is based on the false racism of liberalism that claims even the most minute amount of 'African-American ancestry' makes a person black. This racial science is not so far removed from the old racism of the 'three-fifths compromise' where three-fifths of the blacks of the South were counted as being full humans for the purposes of the U.S census. This old idea that the race of someone is determined based partly on skin color and partly on the fact that if a person has some percentage of non-white ancestry that they are immediately categorized as being 'non-white' is based on racial pseudo-science, only slightly removed from the 'Grandfather Laws' of Nazism. It is people like Mr. Cohen who may be ready to 'elect a black man' but can't seem to see past race to elect anyone, which in itself is as much a sin than not voting for someone based on their skin color. Some of the Native tribes have decided to do the opposite of the liberal. They have classified as Native-American only those who are one quarter or one half or more Native. Thus their racial logic is that some miniscule amount of Navajo or Apache blood isn't enough for tribal membership.

But the real question that should be posed to those like Mr. Cohen is: "If Obama were running for the presidency of Botswana would you ask 'is Botswana ready to elect a white man?" After all, when the situation is reversed, is Mr. Obama considered a white man in his home nation of Kenya? Its an interesting question. The current leader of Barbados, a bonifide populist and man of the people from the Barbados Democratic Party, is about as white as one can get and yet he has condemned his much darker skinned opponent of being a member of the 'party of the white man', the Barbados Labour Party. Maybe they've figured it out in Barbados. Its not the color of your skin, brother, it’s the content of your character.

But in general the problem is that Americans need racism. They need it because without it they cannot survive. The media and intellectuals need it. The poor need it. Blacks need it for without it they cannot make excuses about themselves and the 'obstacles' they supposedly are always 'overcoming'. Godfrey Mwakikagile of the NAACP is an expert on this need for racism. He cites the fact that "According to the National Opinion Research Center, a majority of white Americans still believe that blacks and Hispanics are less intelligent." (Asians think that white people are stupid, but for some reason that isn't keeping the white man down, or is it? Europeans think overweight white American tourists are dumb but I doubt anyone would describe this as a form of 'racism'). Mwakikagile claims "Although racism still is a serious problem in the United States today, it is not an insurmountable obstacle in all cases." This implies that generally speaking it is an 'insurmountable' obstacle. Roger Wilkins of the NAACP notes that "This is a racist society, and it will be for a long time to come." According to the United Church of Christ: "Racism permeates most of our institutions....(I don't suppose they meant this to imply that their church's institutions are racist, but rather that most institutions are racist)" According to renowned sociologist Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, "the United States will never rid itself of racism." Professor Harold Cruse, of the University of Michigan, shares the same view: "The United States cannot and never will solve the race problem unless Americans change the economic, political, cultural, and administrative social organization of this country in various sectors...." The United States seems to have achieved exactly what the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders "ominously
warned about following the sixties' riots: Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, and one white - separate and unequal....Race prejudice has shaped our history." In addition Mwakikagile notes "This relationship has been profoundly affected by what many blacks consider to be indifference towards their plight and wellbeing
in a white-dominated society which still remains racist; and sometimes outright hostility towards them by a [Republican] party that is seen as a bastion of white supremacy." In addition he asks " Is racism no longer a serious problem in the American society? Are race relations really that good, so good that racism no longer plays a major role in the lives of black people as many black conservatives contend?" This litany of claims describing the unending racism and insurmountable odds facing Blacks in America might make one wonder 'why do they stay in American when they could just go somewhere else where this obstacle would disappear?' But the truth is that Blacks have never wanted to leave America, especially the practitioners of the NAACP 'racism is everywhere' bogeyman because if leftist liberal blacks who thrive on racism left to a place like Africa they would no longer have the excuse of racism to describe the failures in their community and the support from whites like Mr. Cohen to indulge their fantasies of 'overcoming obstacles.'

The narrative that blacks and leftist liberal whites have created of a society where everything is racist and the black cannot ever escape his skin color is one that sets up most blacks to fail and sets up a small minority to make modest achievements and then claim they have 'succeeded' because they have 'overcome racism'. Without this ever- present racism the accomplishments of most blacks would pall in comparison to their percentage in society. But the 'society is racist' narrative allows for modest successes to be seen as 'great' achievements. The success of one black at some profession where blacks traditionally do not succeed, such as landing on the moon or becoming a college professor or a famous lawyer, is seen as some great achievement. Think of the success of Tiger Woods, Colon Powell or Barak Obama and consider the disproportionate cheering one hears about how they 'broke the glass ceiling'. Not that they have not achieved, they have, but the belief that they 'overcame great odds' to get there makes their success all the more profound. If we were to recall that all of them did not have the traditional 'African-American' upbringing and that all of them are children of mixed race ancestry we might pause and wonder 'is someone using half black people's achievements to tarnish an entire race?' Actually if we were to survey their achievements we would find that these were not the blacks who sat up late at night listening to the 'you can't get ahead' mantras of the NAACP. Their mixed upbringing certainly helped free them from the ghetto of 'America is a racist society with insurmountable obstacles.'

But there is something else to consider here. If people were to find that America was not racist then suddenly we wouldn't need organizations like the NAACP. Just as 'peace' organizations frequently support violence and hatred because they need it to create violence so as to justify their existence the race-complainers need racism in order to survive. Take away 'racism' and the wind comes out of their sails. There is no greater beneficiary of the 'America is a racist society and always will be' thesis than the NAACP and those that make a living describing how racist everything is. Mr. Mwakikagile would have a hard time of it in Africa because he wouldn't have anything to write about. Of course we know what he would write. He would claim that African countries can't succeed because of the evils of a 'racist' world and the 'legacy of colonialism'.

We need racism. It is the thing that keeps our society together. Without racism we wouldn't have all the clichés. We wouldn't have much to talk about in the media. We wouldn't have Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. How could we survive without the Rainbow Coalition? How could we survive without the census having to revise its definition to turn Hispanics into 'Black Hispanics' and 'White Hispanics' in order to preserve the old racial order of 'white' and 'black' so that a state like Arizona could still be comfortably white, rather than Hispanic. Thus we wouldn't be able to keep repeating the myth to ourselves that 'minorities can't get ahead, just look at the blacks'. Because if we admitted that Hispanics are a separate group than we might have to admit that they succeed at a faster rate than blacks (in all fields from college graduation to teen pregnancy rates to small business ownership) and we would have to conclude either that black failure is due to a culture of failure or that Hispanics have conspired with whites to keep blacks down (not a completely far fetched idea since most Hispanics are more racist than whites and Hispanics don't have 'white guilt', yet). Without racism we couldn't blame the complete breakdown in society and civilization that took place in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina on 'racism', we might have to face the fact that it had more to do with the drunken Cajun swamp culture than it did with a racist hurricane. Society needs racism and it needs blacks. It needs blacks to such an extent that it creates black 'African-Americans' where they don't exist. Thus Barak Obama's story gets traced back to Ghana's slave coast, even though he's from Kenya. Obama's half white mocha skin becomes 'colorful' and we are asked if we are 'ready to elect a black man'. We aren’t ready to elect a black man because Obama isn't black. We aren’t ready to elect a black man because America is a deeply racist country where no black person can succeed and America will always be a racist country, after all, without racism who would we blame for all our problems? Who would want to believe that blacks are incarcerated at a massively high rate because they are disproportionately criminals due to living in cities (by contrast southern rural blacks are not incarcerated to such an extent) and that welfare has destroyed the black nation so that it lives off handouts, and that 70% of black children are born out of wedlock for reasons that have nothing to do with slavery. We need that racism. It is like a drug. Its an addiction. We need it because we couldn't live without it. Its not the actual racism we need. No one needs lynchings and hate crimes. It’s the idea of racism we need. We need the idea. We need it lurking behind every door and every corner. We need it seeping through the walls of every institution and every business. We can't live without it.



The Culture of Critique: a Critique of Critique
Seth J. Frantzman
September 5th, 2008

We have come to regard it as integral to our society and our culture. We have come to regard the existence of a class (nee caste) of professional critiquers as an essential and important part of our present democracy. Yet this was not always the way. People have led themselves to believe it was. People have come to view criticism as part of the democratic ethos but they have confused the criticism that takes place between different political parties and the free speech that ensures people may speak their minds, with the rise of a culture of critique, an institution of critique. This is not so different than what happened in Mexico with the rise of the PRI (Partido Revolutionary Institutional-Institutional Revolutional Party). The PRI was the party that arose after the Mexican revolution and Civil war in the first quarter of the 20th century. But once arisen it became the dominant political ethos, an institution of revolution. But there can be no institution of revolution. Revolution is not something that continues forever. Mao in China also tried to institute a continuing revolution and this led to the chaos of the Cultural Revolution and the destruction, through a loss of education, of an entire generation of Chinese. But where Mao actually attempted to create a second revolution and failed, the PRI became redundant and died the death it deserved at the hands of Vicente Fox, the first none PRI candidate to win the presidency of Mexico since the revolution.

We have come, in the democracy, to accept the idea that we must defend people’s right to critique. The state has come to believe that it must even pay, through the public university system, for people to hate the very thing that they live under the protection of. Thus in departments of sociology throughout the U.S and elsewhere the academic who lives off the largesse trains generation after generation of students to walk in lockstep at the opportunity to critique their state. It is their ‘obligation’. As the sociologist says “social science without the state is useless, the state without social science is ruthless.” The implication is that the two things need eachother and cannot exist without eachother. In the animal world this is called a ‘symbiotic relationship’. Some examples of these relationships include oxpeckers and rhinoceroses and sharks and remora fish. But not all symbiotic relationships are beneficial to both parties. In the case of the remora fish they use the shark for transportation and protection and feed off food dropped by the shark. But the shark doesn’t gain anything in return. This type of relationship is called commensialism. The host gains nothing but is not hurt by the relationship. But there is another type of symbiotic relationship that is more pernicious. This is called parasitism. In this type of relationship one member is harmed while the other gains. However if the host were to die the parasite may also die so it is not necessarily in the parasites interest to kill the host, although sometimes this may be the result of a long term relationship. Sometimes parasitism can seem harmless. The cuckoo bird, for instance, deposits its eggs in the nests of other birds and uses them to raise the eggs. Flees are a form of parasite as is the cuscuta plant which lives on trees and benefits from them, slowly killing them. Accordingly “by debilitating the host plant, dodder (cuscuta) decreases the ability of plants to resist virus diseases, and dodder can also spread plant diseases from one host to another if it is attached to more than one plant.”
During the late 19th and into the 20th century there was a fad of applying biological terms to human behavior. The concept of the ‘symbiotic relationship’ was first used in 1879 by the German myscologist, Heinrich Anton de Bary. The word ‘antisemitism’ may have been used as early as 1860 but is generally dated from an 1873 use by Wilhelm Marr. It was not long before antisemites began to see Jews as ‘parasites’ living off the European ‘host’. During the first fifty years of the Soviet Union ‘Parasitism’ became a criminal offense. Those who ‘did not work’ were accused of being parasites. Usually this was applied to intellectuals who fell out of favor. The accusation that they ‘did no work’ was only partially true, given the fact that other Soviet intellectuals were applauded for doing correct work. Joseph Brodsky, a Soviet poet, was one of those sentenced as for being a ‘parasite’. But the term has also been applied by some economists, such as Milton Friedman, to classes of people that live off society through welfare, those ‘freeloaders’ who do not work and yet receive money from the state.

Those who love critique except the fact that they are in a symbiotic relationship with the state. But let us reconsider for a second the role of the critiquer in society. Let us step outside our preconceived view that ‘we need them’ and examine exactl what they are. We are often told that as a democratic society if we change too much to fight our enemies that we will ‘become like them’ and then we will have lost the war anyway. This is part of the ‘we must not change our way of life because if we do they have won’ mentality. Such was the mentality in Rome when the legions, primarily recruited from semi-barbarian tribes and working as mercenaries, were sent to the front so that the citizens could imbibe their spirits in peace. So we must examine the life of the critiquer and his role and ponder for a second the degree to which our society deserves to be preserved.

Shai Kremer is a Israeli-American. In 2006 he got an urgent call from Kathy Ryan, photo editor of The New York Times Magainze. He was in France, relaxing. She called him and asked if he would photograph the Lebanon war. He purchased a flak jacket, received $10,000 for a few weeks work (“the pay was double because after all I was sent on a mission to a high risk country”) and went to Israel. He was chosen for the job because he was a landscape photographer who had ‘worked’ for seven years photographing the Israel Defense Forces and its affect on the landscape. He had photographed such original scenes as footprints in the sand or a pretty landscape photographed from inside an ‘abandoned Syrian building’. The choice to send Kremer was predicated on the idea that “before the war 90 percent of the [Israeli] people were in favor of it [the war]. This is something psychotic. This is a society whose language is violence.” The final article was written by another Jew named Benranrd Henri-Levy entited ‘my views of Israel’ and a photo book was compiled entitled ‘Infected Landscape.’ Original photos were included such as a ‘flock of white birds’ which for Kremer “symbolize the Israelis flocking towards militarism and power.” Kremer believed “beauty is a critical tool…terror and beauty are, in fact, the same thing.” Kremer’s biography was one of one success after another, from the Camera Obscura school in Tel Aviv to the School of Visual Arts in New York and then it was on to exhibitions at the Art+Commerce agency and connections with prominent New York galleries such as those owned by Julie Saul and Robert Koch. He “earns his living from his creative work.” He sells his photos for $7,000 to $14,000. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has purchased one of his prints. Kremer’s works which present Israel as a Nazi-militaristic society have been purchased by, who would have guessed, the Israel Museum and Tel Aviv Museum because Jews have an insatiable apetite for art the portrays them as Nazis. He is the first Israeli to have the Metropolitan purchase one os his photos. Of course, he doesn’t like Israel and has earned his money and reputation through hating it and painting it as a Nazi society, but no matter, after all Einstein’s fame as a physicist surely reflects well on Germany despite the fact that he left it and gave up his citizenship. But Kremer is not finished yet. He notes that he enjos the “genre of photographing landscapes as a reflection of the bullying character of society.” But while Kremer finds that those in the country he hates, Israel, enjoy paying him $7,000 for a mundane photo that the U.S museums “have not been doing their job propertly in recent years” because there is “actually no demand for political works.” When Kremer began a project entitled “Arhcitecture of Fear” by taking photos of security arrangements in New York after 9/11, including newly erected concrete barriers, he found that the police asked him what he was doing so often that he gave up on the project. All he wanted to do was show how concrete barricades developed to prevnet car bombers having easy access to masses of people constituted an ‘architecture of fear.’ Kremer no longer believes in a “system that uses force as a method.” In Israel he sneaks into military bases, such as the Tze’elim base in the Negev, on the Sabbath when there is no training for create photographs that will show Israel at its worst. When he is stopped by the police he contrives a story about being in the IDF and how he was wounded and he had come as a photographer to ‘heal the wounds.’ Like every good Jew in Israel he has come to the ‘shocking’ conclusion that a village he visited in the Golan “artificial village that was built on an abandoned Arab village. It was already a rotten landscape and it makes me crazy I didn’t realize that [when I first visited it].” [Note: in point of fact the village he mentions was not an ‘abandoned Arab village’ despite the romantic connotations this narrative carries with it, but was a Syrian military base that was used by Israel as a training facility after its conquest in 1967. Its more romantic to imagine that it was ‘really’ an Arab village beforehand and that its refugees sit ‘just across the border’, seeing their former homes. Furthermore if Israel wanted to build an Arab village for training why would it build it on top of an existing abandoned Arab village? Would’nt it just use the former village?] Kremer is also interested in launching a new project to “photograph remains of past empires that once ruled Palestine…I want to show that violence does not work…people call me a Palestinian-that is part of the price I pay. [as opposed to the price others pay for his dull photos?]” Although Kremer lives off the photos he takes in Israel he notes that “you can’t make a living here from photography [although he seems to make quite a good living by selling pictures that tarnish Israel to wealthy Americans so they can discuss ‘violence and the landscape’]. Also my partner would not be prepared to raise a child in Israel-its too dangerous.”

Let us think about the journey of the Kremer and his caste. Born in one country. Leaves that country. Gets wealthy taking photos to show how evil his former country is. Lives in New York and whines about abandoned Arab villages in Israel, not noticing that New York was built on the land of the Deleware Indians who had some 80 settlement sites beneath what is now New York. But sometimes the wealth one gains from selling photos to make people hate one country can obscure the fact that the indignation one has at one place could also be true elsewhere. But its like the militarism of Israel. There are no photographers making a living by photographing ‘violence and the landscape’ in Egypt or Lebanon. That is because Arab Muslims don’t visit photo galleries and wax poetic about ‘art’ and ‘violence and the landscape’ and obscure notions such as flock of bird representing ‘people flocking towards power’. Or perhaps it is because Arab Muslims don’t see anything shameful about the military and power and they don’t therefore want to purchase photos that insult their military.

The life story of the professional critiquer can be seen through the story of Kremer. It is a story of wealth and privildge, of doing what one wants when they want and of having others listen to them and say ‘how profound.’ It is a story of hatred, for the whole basis of his work was his hiring by another professional critiquer for an assignment to show how ‘psychotic’ another society is. The life of the Kremer is about notions such as ‘violence is not the way’ and ‘power is not the way’. It is a vision of peace. It is a story about wanting to photograph and make fun of the affect of terror. Thus a concrete barrier intended to stop car bombs becomes a representative of ‘fear’ and Kremer wears a flak jacket at all times in a country he was born and grew up in, while the normal citizenry go around without such protection, and he, of course, could not raise children in a country he was born in because it is ‘too dangerous’. Too dangerous? Is that not a statement of ‘fear’. Perhaps it should be photographed. Of course Kremer doesn’t need a concrete barrier to protect him or security at his bus stop. He doesn’t ride buses. But he does wear his little flak jacket.

Every bit of the Kremer story drips with the culture of critique. The culture that laughs at those killed by terrorists and those who die in war. One of Kremer ‘original’ photos shows an Israel tank next to a cemetary. We understand the ‘deep’ symbolism that ‘operates on many levels’. A photo of a pile of dung next to a rifle might also convey a similar ‘deep message’. Photographs are only as ‘deep’ and ‘profound’ as bourgouise people find them. The culture of critique always speaks about ‘peace’ and ‘militarism’. It always lives off society, becomes wealthy from the very thing it hates. It is odd that the very nation that Mr. Kremer thinks is ‘flocking’ towards militarism has such time to purchase his photos and place them in museums. With all the militarism and the ‘culture of fear’ where is the time for visiting the museum and paying $7,000 for a picture. Did the Spartans have museums? Of course that is part of the charade of calling a culture ‘militaristic’. The very fact that the Kremer exists and that he wanders around a country taking pictures that he will later sell back to it in order to convey how evil it is shows that his very premise is wrong. But no matter. Part of the culture of critique has nothing to do with reality. It has everything to do with critique and making outlandish grandiose ‘profound’ statements and having others ponder them.

Can one step outside our culture and wonder why we have to have the critique. Why does society have to have the critique? We claim that it is integral to our society. But is it? Is it really integral that in the U.S and Israel the lower classes are expected to shoulder the burden of fighting so that wealthy bourgouise people who do not work can sit around at art galleries and declare how their society is ‘militaristic’ and has an ‘archicture of fear’. The very same bourgouise who make sure their communities are gated and guarded and the same ones who go shopping at stores with security and keep their substantial financial resources in banks with security are, of course, the ones who condemn the ‘architecture of fear’. The very people who complain about a ‘psychotic culture of militarism’ are the very same ones who need the military to protect their wealthy way of life, their life of critique. Take the example of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, perched overlooking the Old City of Jerusalem in the midst of Arab East Jerusalem. For years the hallowed halls of the University complained about the ‘Nazi like’ nature of the state that paid for its to exist. When, in 1948, Arabs murdered dozens of employees of the nearby Hadassah hospital who was it that died defending them? It was, of course, the very military that the professors condemn. And as the soldiers lay dying the professors, safe behind the military’s barbed wire and sandbags, went on with its vitriolic hatred of the sate. In July of 2002 a terrorist blew up a bomb at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, killing nine students. Of course the very professors, such as Baruch Kimmerling, who accused Israel of genocide [in his terms, ‘Politicide’] against the Palestinians, was unscathed by the attack, enjoying the salary given him by the very ‘nazi’ government he hated. In order to ensure the continued safety of the students and the faculty the University set up an elaborate network of security check to prevent another attack. And what was the reaction of the academics. Dr. Guy Steclov complained that the local Arabs from a nearby village could no longer access the banks at the university. Others claimed the university was being ‘militarized’.

Why does society have to have the caste of critiquers? Why does it need them? They have become institutional and we can’t imagine living without them. But we could live without them. We don’t have to have museums and universities. We don’t have to have art galleries. We don’t need coffee houses. We don’t need any of the things that the culture of critique uses in order to cast aspersions on society. What does the culture of critique do after it has so critiqued society that the society wilts and dies? After the culture of critique was done eating away at the Weimer Republic from the inside, condemning it for everything, and the rise of Nazism resulted, where did the wealthy critiquers go. They fled. They waited and let other young men go and die from foreign countries, go and fight the Nazi menace, and then when it was over they went back to Germany or they remained abroad. The critiquers and all the others went on with their lives. They had helped bring about the destruction of Wiemer through their endless complaining about it and when it died they did not reap what they had sown, they used their ample resources to flee.

Will their come a time when they can no longer flee? Will there come a time when the Kremers of the world can no longer flee from their birth country to another country once they are finished scurging their own country? One of the added benefits of the victory of Islam in the world will be the end of the notion that society needs critique. While there are many terrible things that will result from the victory of Islam, it is clear that one of its benefits will be that there will no longer exist a society where one half of the society must go and fight and die and work to secure and make safe the other half of society. Roger Cohen writes in his September 3rd column for the New York Times ‘How Home became a Homeland.’ He notes, “but, its good to be home even if it’s a ‘homeland’ now.” Those like Mr. Cohen, another member of the caste of Critique, object to the term homeland because as a wealthy bourgouise urban dweller they can’t imagine what a homeland would be because they don’t have one. For them there is no home worth defending, no small stretch of grass, no small hilloc, no tree, worth fighting for. There are always other houses and other grassy patches and trees. One need not be attached to one. When danger arrives one simply moves on and critiques those who stayed and claims they are ‘militaristic’ and ‘living in an architecture of fear’. Others die so that the Caste of Critique can have its freedom and it is this caste that drills into our head the notion that they are an integral part of society and they train us in our universities to believe that critque is an essential part of culture, because they need us to buy into their culture of critique, both with our wallets so they can become wealthy, and also with our tolerance of their hatred. But what if we woke up one day and refused to defend them. What if we woke up and said. No. You will fly at your own airports without the benefit of airport security. You will send your children to a school without any sort of security. The police will not answer the calls to your home or your gated community. Israel can do the same thing. It can stop wasting money and resources to protect the neighbourhoods, the wealthy ones, where those who critique congregate. Security should be reserved for those who want it and for those who sacrifice for it. A parasite tells the host that the host needs it. But very few symbiotic relationships are actually symbiotic, they don’t provide both lifeforms with life. One receives the benefit and the other does not. In our society the critiquers receive the benefit. The host does not. The host is full up with the poor and wretched who labour everyday at their security jobs and receive nothing but grief in return. So lay down your guns. Lay down your security wands. Walk away! The proffesors at the University think that the security is part of a culture of fear and that it might even be ‘racist’. So walk away. They don’t need the security. Mr. Roger Cohen doesn’t like his homeland. Then he doesn’t deserve it.

I am rather fond of my land, even if it something I have only fleetingly posessed in my life. Our modern culture has been infected with the notion that integral to our democracy is the need to have those within its umbrella that hate and deride it and scoff at those who protect it. Never in history have so many people lived in a society, enjoyed its benefits and at the same time hated those people called upon to defend that society. The same people who complain about security after 9/11 are the same ones who complain that the government should have prevented 9/11. Why? Why should the government have prevented it. Would’nt that be a rush to militarism? Would that constitute a culture of ‘fear’.

We must be willing to imagine a society that does not require, as part of its central ethos, the need to hate the very society that allows you to hate it. We need to imagine a society where the poorest members of society are not expected to go and die so that the wealthiest members of society may enjoy the privildge to hate that society and scoff at those ‘militaristic’ people called on to defend it. John Edwards spoke of two Americas. He was right. There is an America made up of those who serve it and are responsible towards it. There is another America made up of those who hate it and use the security given them by the first ones to hate it. In the old days the wealthy bourgouise elites believed they literally grew out of the land. The nobles of England were England. There was no difference between State, land and man (nee nation). But todays elite is rootless. It has no attachment to state and land. It has an attachment only to critique. We live in a complete reverse of the previosu society. Today’s society expects the poor ‘salt of the earth’ to go and die for a cocuntry that they can berely appreciate, that gives them so little and of which they see so little, so that another caste can enjoy the entire country and enjoy all it has to offer and live off it, suck its blood, until there is no more and move on. A parasite is a small thing, such as a mite or a misquito. Man does not always squash it because man knows it will not kill him. But a million mosquito bites can kill him. The lumbering giant cannot reverse itself easily. But it can choose to do away with the parasite and smash it so that it never gets up. It is a choice our nations deserve to consider. We can live in a different world. We do not have to have an entire caste, a whole way of life, living in our midst, living off our society and yet condemning that society as evil. Every western democratic nation and those that aspire to be loved by the West suffer in this way. From Russia to Serbia to India and Europe, everywhere people want to be more western they equate it with having more hatred and critique for society. When the Arab Christians of British Mandatory Palestine decided that being more western was a goal the first thing they did was stop going to church and become Communists. There are no more Arab Christians now. Critique, self-hate and championing the cause of Islam and ‘socialism’ killed them, along with the low birthrates they also embraced. Who in India hates the existence of India the most? Not the Muslims but the wealthy Hindu intellectuals. Every single one condemns Hindu India and blames it for the terrorism that daily kills the poor of India. Safe in their houses in the wealthiest district it is Hindu intellectuals who champion the cause of Islamic terrorism and who spit on the graves of poor Hindus. Who can stand up to such a society? Who can stand up when the elite in society live of the society and help to murder the very society they live of? When man lives on his knees and his lord helps those who desire to violate him and murder him who does the peasant go to for protection? When his own lord deserts him and champions the cause of the bandits where does the peasant turn? He is expected to lay down and die so that his Lord can make profound statement about how “poverty creates terrorism.”


The Two Societies: the university and the security services
Seth J. Frantzman
September 8th, 2008

During the U.S Civil War 620,000 men were killed over a five year period. It was one of the most momentous struggles in American history. Many are familiar with the fact that during the Civil War the draft was instituted and that in the northern states it was possible for men of means to buy their way out of serving in the Federal army. In contrast in the American South the wealthy men of substance volunteered to fight and die. Many of us are familiar with the fact that wealthy men were able to avoid fighting and dying in the Civil War in this manner. We accept or we condemn this fact. But few of us are under the impression that these people who avoided service, and thus avoided risking their lives, are equal to those who served. In the aftermath of the war society rightly granted certain dispensations to those who had served and revered them as the heroes of their time.

Many are familiar with the 'greatest generation' that fought in the Second World War. This generation of Americans, like that of 1860, went to fight in a cause that was greater than themselves. Many did not return and even more that did return came home wounded. After the war the G.I. Bill provided these men with the ability to go to college. Thus society showed its thanks. Few people are under the impression that those that went to defeat Nazism and the Japanese Empire are equal to those who remained behind. Most concede, by calling it the 'greatest generation' that those who went were more important than those remained. Even General Marshal understood this when he desired to lead the Normandy invasion himself, acknowledging that his role at home, as the highest ranking military man next to FDR, was less than the actual commander leading, what Eisenhower termed, the 'Crusade in Europe.'

Today however our democratic societies have come to look on those in the military with contempt, hatred and disdain. Whether it is towns trying to forbid the military from recruiting or colleges doing the same or people spitting on soldiers, we have developed, since the 1960s, into a society that is suspicious and hateful towards the military. At home that contempt for those who bear arms is also directed at other pieces of authority, such as the police.

In other democracies the trend is similar. Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz on September 8th, 2008 in 'The Shin Bet's academic freedom' condemns the fact that Israeli universities provide degrees to soldiers in uniform. He claims that the Hebrew University is ranked in the top 100 universities in the world precisely because its rector, Haim Rabinowitz, has recently cancelled a program that provides degrees to Shin bet (secret service) agents through a special study program. For Levy this means that soldiers are therefore subject to the "same laws as any other student." He condemns the "twisted thought process" that claims members of the security forces deserve "the right to special academic conditions." He points out the programs he condemns, such as a course at Haifa University that gives pilots a B.A after just a year of study. He compares these pilots to "cleansing staff who sweep out the lecture halls" and notes that they do not receive "special academic conditions." Levy calls it a 'curse' that soldiers have received these special rights. He says "the idea that members of the security forces are entitled to more-not just exaggerated and scandalous pay, discounts for those in uniform at steak houses, but also at the ivory towers. They don't deserve special treatment." He scoffs at the idea of soldiers at the university rubbing "shoulders with an environment that is generally very foreign to them: the intellectual milieu…they will read and write and-who knows-maybe they will also think and ask questions. The experience will surely broaden their horizons, which sometimes resemble the narrow barracks in which they serve." Levy calls for "no separate groups with special conditions and most of all no shortened programs…the universities must not allow themselves to be conscripted into safe guarding Israel's security…it contradicts their academic and intellectual existence…a civil society striving for economic and intellectual growth must be weaned from its worship of those in uniform…[to the military:] your contribution is no more important than that of other members of the population."

When Levy compares the men in uniform to the cleaning staff and notes that the university should not be 'conscripted' into providing any special programs for the military and its veterans he seems to forget two essential things. The cleaning staff do not risk their lives everyday when they come to work. It reminds me of the scene in The Right Stuff when the wife of a test pilot talks about her girlfriends whose husband's work on wallstreet, "how they would've felt if every time their husband went in to make a deal, there was a one in four chance he wouldn't come out of that meeting." Mr. Levy also misses a second point: who does he think defends the ivory tower and his own right to write what he pleases? When people speak of the idea that the military contradicts "academic and intellectual existence" they seem to forget that in all cases in the world it has been force of arms that have allowed for this academic and intellectual existence. When people speak of a "civil society [that] must be weaned from its worship of the uniform" they forget that it is the uniformed men and women who stand at the frontiers guaranteeing that civil society. When the frontiers collapse, as they did in the Roman Empire or in ancient Greece and the military units evaporate, who guarantees the security of the ivory tower? The ivory tower is not merely a metaphor for the university. It is also the very idea of the gilded halls where the men in ancient times met to discuss philosophy and science. But when there were no more men left to defend those institutions these philosophers were swept away as well and all that was left was the ruins, the columns and marble arches, with no civil society and no learned men and women.

A society that hates the men under arms and makes sport of them and jeers at them as if they are foolish thugs, and refuses to give them any benefits for risking their lives will one day find that those men and women in the armed services no longer want to serve. If the men had returned from the Second World War to a society that had contempt for them and spat on them and refused to give them the G.I Bill so that they could receive a top level education after having fought for their country, would they have been productive members of society? What kind of America would it have been if the 9 million men who returned from the war had been cast aside like a dustbin, left uneducated and told that they might have a job sweeping the streets. Would that 'greatest generation' that had liberated the people of Europe taken kindly to an intellectual society that despised them so?

John Edwards spoke of 'two Americas' during his campaign for the U.S presidency, the wealthy one and the poor one. But he missed something. In Israel there is a similar matter of 'two Israels'. There is the Israel that does its duty and receives little pay for years of national service and expects that at some point it will receive the meekest of rewards. There is also the Israel that condemns and hates the other Israel, the Israel that scoffs at them, calls them narrow minded and declares that all in society should be equal. But equality under the law is different from equality before the state's institutions. When the state calls upon its men and women to serve, and if needs be die, those called upon deserve recompense from the state. If that comes in the form of discounts and decent pay and a good education at a top ranked university that is only fair. To claim that the university owes them nothing, to claim that the ivory tower exists in a vacuum may sound nice today, but one day that vacuum may be rudely punctured, as it was by the July 2002 terrorist attack at Hebrew university. Then suddenly the civil society begs for protection. Perhaps one day it will find that the 'other Israel' it has so often critiqued and cast into the dustbin will no longer provide that protection. Then perhaps the university will no longer be 'conscripted' to the uniform and will be fully weaned from the security services. But like a baby weaned and left without the protection of the mother and the father, where will the child seek protection in a brutish world? Who will it conscript to defend itself? Will Gideon Levy man the security check at the entrance to Hebrew University? Will the Arab students at Hebrew University who glory in their right to wear a khaffiya to class, and pray in a special area and pass out anti-Israel fliers from a booth defend the university? Who will strap on the shield and risk his life? We are not all equal members of society and we do not all obey the same laws. Some are called upon to risk all by the state and others are not. To pretend that the two are the same is to do the greatest injustice to those who paid the ultimate price and never even had the chance at a university education, let alone one that allowed them to protect, serve and be educated at the same time.


Pretentious and self important
Seth J. Frantzman
September 4th, 2008

In an article published in late August 2008, Lily Galilee, the self appointed writer on Russian affairs in Israel, wrote in 'Clumsiness in the Caucuses' in Haaretz that Israel had needlessly inserted herself into the Russian-Georgian war and she asked "the question is, why does Israel have to turn itself into a third side [in the conflict]?" As evidence that Israel created a 'third side' to the conflict Ms. Galilee describes attempts by the Kadima political party to strike up a relationship with Putin's political party. Galilee writes that "this was only a specific case of clumsy Israeli machinations in a complex geopolitical situation." She discusses how Israel helped trained the Georgian army and how Israel was using a "double standard, one completely different than that used in judging America" in regards to Russia, although she can't seem to explain to the readers what the 'double standard' is. Next she claims that because a few Russian speaking members of the Israeli Knesset also belong to the World Congress of Russian Jewry (WCRJ) and that when that Congress issued a statement condemning Georgia's 'genocide' that therefore the Russian speaking Israeli Knesset members were caught in a 'conflict of interest'. Galilee asks "does the Knesset really believe the Georgians committed genocide?" Galilee concludes by noting "there is a bit of confusion here, which results from both loftiness and clumsiness."

This article serves as a reminder of the way in which the actions of a few Jews often are interpreted as being part of the actions of the entire Jewish community. But while many would say such connections often involve 'anti-Semitism' the actual fact of the matter is that more often than not it is actually Jews who make outlandish connections between a few of their brethren and the actions of the whole nation. Lily Galilee is a Jew and an intellectual Jew at that. She claims to understand Russian Jewry and its diaspora in Israel. She writes on it weekly so she must have some idea what she is talking about. Yet let us return to the article. Israelis did help train some units of the Georgian army. These were private Israeli contractors who were hired by Georgia, and the IDF approved them going to Georgia. But this is not exactly the same as saying Israel dispatched a military mission to Georgia and trained its entire army, unit by unit. Next we hear that Israel is meddling in Russia because one Israeli political party, Kadima, reached out to Putin's party in an attempt to win over Russian Jewish voters in Israel. This hardly constitutes Israeli policy. Then Galilee describes how the WCRJ made a statement supporting Russia and she then condemns the Russian speaking members of the Israeli Knesset for belonging to this organization and then makes the connection that therefore the entire Knesset must have supported the state of the WCRJ. She thus takes the statement of one prominent Russian Jew and then connecting him to a few Jews in Israel claims the entire Knesset supports that statement. That’s three degrees of separation all rolled into one.

But Galilee's attempt to claim that Israel created a 'third side' in the conflict between Russia and Georgia says everything about the odd Jewish trait of creating the most outlandish assertions about the importance of Jews and Jewish actions from the most simple, and often unrelated, events. Could it happen anywhere else? Would a leftist journalist in Greece or Pakistan have created some giant complicated, ill-formed, idea that their countries represented a 'third side' in the war between Russia and Georgia and then claim that their country and its people were wrong for doing so? Leftist anti-Israeli Jews such as Lily Galilee need to create these complicated conspiratorial views in order to condemn their own people, the Jews, in a similar manner as anti-semites do, ascribing all sort of power to a small group of individuals. But what is most astonishing is the degree to which this kind of high rhetoric claiming that 'the Jews' have all sorts of importance is found so often among Jews and especially among those Jews who want to critique their own people. Nothing would make leftist anti-Israel Jews more happy than to come up with some conflated worldview that claims the Russia-Georgia war was somehow started by Israel and that perhaps the American neo-cons, who everyone knows are Jewish, were involved as well and perhaps AIPAC was too. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion might have been a Tsarist forgery but if they had to be re-written today there is no doubt who would write them, a Jew.

Why does it happen? Why do those who are Jewish by ancestry, but not by belief or attachment, create strange hyperbolic views of their own people, ascribing all sorts of power to them so long as that power is nefarious. Do Greeks who hate being Greek create worldviews that have a 'Greek Lobby' controlling governments throughout the world?

In a February 11th, 2008 article in the New York Times entitled 'No Manchurian Candidate', Roger Cohen, a Jew, wrote that "Jews should get over the scaremongering: Obama is no Manchurian. Nor is he blind to
the fact that backing Israel is not enough if such U.S. backing provides carte blanche for the subjugation of another people." In his article he writes that the Jews, and particularly pro-Israel Jews, are wrong to question Obama's support of Israel. The Jews are "scaremongering" and the Jews are wrong to do so. One could understand if this were printed in the Phoenix Jewish News or some other marginal local Jewish paper or perhaps published in some local synagogues broadsheet. But why was this in the New York Times? Is it because the old anti-semitic adage is true, that it is the 'Jew York Times'? No. Its not because the Times is read by Jews or that it is run by Jews. It is because Roger Cohen, who evidently is not a great fan of his people or of Israel, thinks the Jews are extremely important and that if the Jews desert Obama than Obama will surely fail. After all, how can Obama become president if Jews, who make up only slightly more than 1% of the American population, don't vote for him? In fact what Cohen is asking, after admitting that "American Jews, particularly younger ones, are gravitating to Obama", is that right wing Jews stop "intimidating" Obama. Could anyone believe this narrative if it involved anyone else? If someone named Kazanzakis accused right wing Greeks of intimidating and scaremongering the Obama campaign would anyone really believe it and would it warrant being put in America's leading newspaper? The truth is that Mr. Cohen needs for his people, those he dislikes, to be of such great importance that they can be blamed for being involved in some nefarious machinations, much as they were in Georgia. That way the Jews are very important, in a bad way.

Why do they do it? Why do people like Lily Galilee and Roger Cohen, who have very little love for their own people, ascribe those people with all sorts of power? Why do they need there to be Jewish power in order for them to have something to complain about? Does it boil down to the fact that as Jews they know that they are perfectly placed to be paid by the media to critique Jews, and as Jews they can't be accused of anti-semitism, so they have found this niche in society and that by inflating the importance of Jews they therefore carve out a place for themselves in the intellectual world, as 'the Jew' who complains about Jews? This is usually how it begins. Whether it is Tony Judt or Noam Chomsky their essays on how evil Jews are is always prefaced by the notation that "As a Jew I feel it is my duty to confront my own people…"

Let them speak for themselves. Jacqueline Rose speaks to the Guardian about her new book, The Question of Zion and notes that it "draws tentative analogies between Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews" And why does Ms. Rose think that Israel is so important and that it is akin to Nazism in its threat to others? "I am Jewish and Israel/Palestine was part of my identity, growing up as the daughter of second-generation Holocaust survivors." As a Jew, Ms. Rose thinks that the Jews are incredibly important and they are therefore as important as one of the most important, at least in a negative way, movements of the 20th century, Nazism. So the Jews are the Nazis. Who else would be the Nazis? It couldn't be the Germans, since the Germans are no where near as important as the Jews. After all Germans make up the ancestry of some 30% or more of Americans and yet they don't seem to get editorials about their influence on his campaign in the New York Times or the role of Germany and its 80 million people in the Russia-Georgia war.

Jonathan Cook, who is not a Jew, has claimed on September 23rd, 2006 that "from the 'new anti-semitism' to nuclear Holocaust Israel is engineering the 'clash of civilizations'" He writes in the article that "The trajectory of a long-running campaign that gave birth this month to the preposterous all-party British parliamentary report into anti-Semitism in the UK can be traced back to intensive lobbying by the Israeli government that began more than four years ago, in early 2002." Where does this article appear? In the 'Radical press', a left wing organization, and at 'Counterpunch.org' home of the writers Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, both practitioners of 'it is my duty as a Jew.' But who else is a friend of Mr. Cook? None other than Jeff Halper, an American-born Israeli professor who wrote in the August 5th, 2008 edition of Counterpunch an article entitled "An Israeli Jew in Gaza." And why does Mr. Halper believe Jews are responsible for the 'Clash of civilizations' and 'the new anti-semitism'? Because "I, an Israeli Jew, felt compelled to join this voyage [to Gaza] to break the siege." See, Mr. Halper is a Jew.

Who else ascribes great powers to the Jews? There is Alan Hart, author of a biography of Arafat in 1984 entitled Terrorist or Peacemaker where he prefices the book with the statement calling on "the Jews" to give peace a chance. He speaks of the possibility of a "another great turning against the Jews." He claims, of course, like every good British leftist, to be against this. But on April 16th, 2007 he claimed in an article entitled 'If Alan Johnston [a BBC reporter kidnapped in Gaza by Palestinians and subsequently released after Hart wrote this] is dead, who, really, is responsible?' that "there is a case for saying that the party with the most to gain from Alan Johnston's disappearance was Israel. It would not be the first time that Israeli agents dressed up like Arabs to make a hit." But his most recent book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, a book for peace, describes how the rise in anti-semitism is, of course, the fault of, who else, the Jews.

So when there was a conference entitled 'Against Zionism: Jewish Perspectives" Alan Hart was invited by his friends and the BBC to cover it. Prominent Jews were there to condemn the role of Israel in the world, including Israeli academic Uri Davis, Yacov Rabkin, Jeffrey Blankfort, Rabbi Ahron, Stanley Cohen, Les Levidow, John Rose, Roland Rance, Michael Warschawski and Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, all Jews. Afterword BBC coorespondent Alan Hart hosted the panel "Zionism; the Cancer at the heart of international affairs." The Socialist Worker was there to cover the proceedings, because there is nothing more socialist than calling something a 'cancer'. And who paid for the conference of Jews to condemn Zionism? The conference was supported by a number of organizations, including: Crescent International, Friends of al-Aqsa, Innovative Minds, Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, Islam Channel, Justice for Palestine Committee, Muslim Association of Britain, Muslim Directory, Muslim Weekly, Neturei Karta, Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign and The 1990 Trust.

There is nothing more popular for socialists and Islamists than to find Jews who will create some complicated all encompassing worldview where Jews play a central 'cancerous' role in international affairs. And there is not a short list of Jews happy to oblige the Muslims, the leftists and the Alan Harts. And each Jew begins his speech about the 'cancer' of Zionism which is at the 'center' of international affairs, with the proviso that "as a Jew."

Why do they do it? Why do Jews who hate themselves believe that the very thing they hate is so important, that it is of all encompassing importance, at one point running the world through a neo-con conspiracy, at the same time creating anti-semitism through its treatment of others, and also that it is, of course, similar in form to Nazism, Apartheid, the Crusades, the Inquisition, genocide, fascism and ethnic-cleansing.

This article would not be true to form if it were to claim that it is Jews who are primarily responsible for creating the hatred of Jews. They are not. Jews are best used as tools, as rhetorical devices, whether as themselves or by others, in order to fulfill the prophecy of others. Since non-Jews need there to be some sort of over-arching explanation for world events, because humans are naturally superstitious, the Jew plays that role. Some Jews are happy to play that role because they not only get wealthy playing it but they get to exaggerate not only their own importance but the importance of their people, the thing that they seem to hate and love at the same time.

]People speak of a coming Chinese Age when the world will be dominated by Asians. One can only hope that they will not be influenced by the same dementia that Islam and the West are and not have an inflated sense of Jewish importance in world affairs. What will all the Tony Judt's and Jeff Halpers do when no one cares that they are Jews anymore and no one needs them to come along as 'the Jew' in order to cloak the anti-semitism? What will the Lily Galilees and Roger Cohens do when there are no longer newspapers that want to print stories about a tiny insignificant people and people scoff at their notions that 'the Jews' are able to influence American elections and wars in Caucuses. The pretention to greatness. the obsession that Jews have with themselves and the need among those who hate Jews, but who nevertheless are Jewish, to constantly open every line at a cocktail party with 'as a Jew' will vanish. What will they do when the Chinaman says "what is a Jew?" That is, truly, the best retort to all this business of 'as a Jew'. "What is a Jew?" Can Roger Cohen and Lily Galilee tell us. Can Jonathan Cook and Alan Hart tell us. Can the Socialist Worker and the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought tell us. Can Tony Judt, Norman Finkjelstein and Noam Chomsky tell us. What is a Jew?

A Jew is an extremely important thing that is a cancer at the heart of world affairs, a Nazi, the creator of Aparthied, the instigator of the clash of civilization, the thing behind anti-semitism, the killer of Alan Johnston, and the controller of American foreign policy.

But what is anti-semitism and Nazism?

Anti-semitism is the hatred of the Jews and Nazism is the worst ideology in the world.

Why is Nazism the worst ideology in the world.

Because of the Holocaust.

What is the Holocaust?

It was the killing of 6 million Jews, which the Jews have tried, successfully, to dominate the narrative of and make into a specifically Jewish event and use as an excuse for a country

So the Jew is the Nazi and the creator of anti-semitism?

Yes.

So the Jew killed himself in the Holocaust using the very ideology that he himself created?

What, no, no, you've got it all wrong, the Jew kills the Palestinians like the Nazis did to the Jews because the Jew as a victim became the perpetrator, this is the great irony.

So if Nazism's greatest crime was to commit the Holocaust and the narrative of the Holocaust was subsequently taken over by the Jews and turned into a false Jewish narrative and then the Jews themselves became the Nazis and they create the anti-semitism, don't you see that the Jews are not really very important since they themselves have created this thing you condemn with such hyperbole? If they didn't really die in the Holocaust and it was subsequently hijacked by them then why do you, with the full knowledge of this Jewish conspiracy to use the Holocaust to gain sympathy, condemn the Jews as Nazis, since the only reason the Nazis are so nefarious is because of the false narrative of their Jew killing. And by claiming that you are a Jew and at the same time claiming that the main evil of the Holocaust was not the killing of the Jews, but the Jews themselves faked their own importance, then why should I care that you are a Jew.

But I'm a Jew and as a Jew I feel I must oppose the Jews.

But who cares about the Jews?

If only there were such a world where the leftist secular Jewish claim to fame was not 'as a Jew'.

Terra Incognita 51 'The Women's Issue'

Terra Incognita
Issue 51
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel

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

September 7th, 2008

1) Unbelievable: The media and Sarah Palin: The reaction to John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate has been unbelievable. Maureen Dowd and Larry Derfner have been noting that she was not properly vetted and that women should give up their jobs to raise their children. Bill Maher has called her a ‘stewardess.’ It is as if the selection of a conservative woman to run for vice-president is so shocking that it turns leftists into conservatives, only conservative in the sense that they now think she should be at home with her children and that her ‘unwed teenage pregnant daughter’ is a great blot on American morals.

2) Of Sunglasses and Veils: Muslim woman, in their most extreme form, only show their eyes through a small slit in their veil. Western woman, in their most extreme form, frequently show most of their bodies except for their eyes, which they obscure with sunglasses. What comparison can be drawn from this? What does this say about the role of women in the West and women in Islamic societies and their perception of themselves and the way others perceive them?

3) Thoughts on the war on Islam: Two short paragraphs asking important questions about the struggle between the secular democracies and Islamism.

4) A woman in Gaza: Lauren Booth: Tony Blair’s sister-in-law is ‘stranded’ in the Gaza strip. She has been on all the international media complaining that her human rights are being violated. She demands that Israel, a country she hates, allow her transit through. Israel should demand that if it has to take in Lauren Booth, which it does not want, then Europe should take in all those boat loads of Africans who daily try to make it to Europe and end up ‘stranded’. A thousand of those Africans must surely be worth one Lauren Booth.








Unbelievable: The media and Sarah Palin
Seth J. Frantzman
September 3rd, 2008

The front page article of the New York Times for September 3rd read 'Palin revives battle over working mothers: with five children, can she do the job?' This insulting headline crowned a week of intense media scrutiny of John McCain's pick for his vice-presidential running mate. The coverage began with claims that she was inexperienced and therefore would de-fang the McCain claim that Barack was inexperienced. Then came the 'breaking news' that Palin's 17 year-old daughter was pregnant. This story received three of the 'top ten must read stories' at CNN.com on September 1st. CNN and the Times both asked if the McCain campaign had 'vetted' Mrs. Palin enough. Then came the 'news' that the Palin campaign had supposedly 'come forward' with the information about her daughter in order to stymie rumors that her recently born down-syndrome child was actually the child of her 17-year old daughter. Then there was Barack Obama's odd decision to claim that by managing his own campaign staff of over a thousand people he was actually more experienced than Mrs. Palin who, before she became governor of Alaska, had run a small town. Now we are hearing about how 'working moms' and 'soccer moms' and 'single mothers' are all being asked if Palin is up for the job, given the hard job of raising her five children. As the New York Times put it, "Hillary Rodham Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro ran for president and vice-president when their children were grown." The media has tried to portray its intense coverage of Palin's daughter's pregnancy by claiming that both Palin and McCain have fought against federal funding for teen pregnancy education and have favored abstinence education in schools, programs that supposedly have been shown to have no affect on rates of teen pregnancy. The insinuation seems to be that had McCain only supported some more federal largesse for 'teen pregnancy education' then Bristol Palin, the daughter of Sarah, might have used condoms when she had sex. Of course the media has also pointed out that since Sarah Palin is against abortion and is a conservative that Bristol will indeed need to have the child and get married, lest her mother be labeled a hypocrite. If Bristol were the daughter of, say John Edwards, then she could have aborted that fetus long ago and we would never have heard about it. So Bristol will pay for the Pro-life 'sins' of the mother.

But through all this no one has seemed to question why the 'news' about McCain's VP's daughter's pregnancy is newsworthy. Furthermore no one seems to have noticed a whole slew of other contradictions in the coverage. First of all there is the problem of the media blaming the supposed sins of the daughter on the mother. Since, in normal circumstances, it isn't news worthy that a 17 year old girl gets pregnant it must be news worthy because her mother is running for vice-president. But is the pregnancy of the daughter of a vice-presidential candidate really news? Not unless the implication is that somehow the mother is at fault or that somehow the pregnancy is 'immoral' because the girl in question is unmarried. In fact this is precisely how the 'progressive' media has portrayed the situation. From the Times to CNN we have heard that the girl in question is 'unmarried'. So this is the real sin. She's not a Muslim and she wasn't sold into married at 6 years old. If she were a Muslim, like Obama's ancestors, then we wouldn't be so concerned because she would only by following tradition? In the old days of American politics, in the 1950s and early 1960s, a number of male vice-presidential candidates were disqualified because they had been divorced. But when Edward Kennedy ran for the democratic nomination in 1980 the fact that he had been involved in the killing of a woman in 1969 didn't seem to be so problematic and when he spoke at the 2008 democratic convention this fact seemed to have disappeared completely.

What is most fascinating about the obsession with Mrs. Palin's daughter is the similar lack of interest in the family of Joe Biden (or John McCain for that matter). In truth the media's treatment of Biden's family has been more logical. Who cares about the family of the president? It was not so long ago in American politics that there used to be a truism: "There were two friends. One joined the navy and went to sea, the other became vice-president, neither were ever heard from again." Who recalls the vice-presidential candidate of Michael Dukakis or Bob Dole. Who was Jimmy Carter's vice-president? Who was Richard Nixon's first VP? When Barry Goldwater went down to defeat in 1964 who was the VP he had selected and who was LBJ's VP the same year? Not clear. Not clear because no one ever heard of them again. Today's vice-presidents have perhaps been more famous and notorious, whether it is Al Gore's globetrotting or Dick Cheney's antics, they don't seem to fade away. But the media seems to be alleging that Mrs. Palin needs to be ready to fill the presidential shoes at any moment, the way Dan Quayle and Geraldine Ferraro evidently were. Thus Mrs. Palin's experience has been held up against Barack Obama's as if she is, in fact, the nominee. Thus Obama wasted a speech claiming he had more experience than her and the governor of Hawaii claimed that Palin had more experience than Obama. But doesn't this say worse things about Obama than Palin? It seems to me that we are measuring the democratic presidential nominee against the Republican vice-presidential nominee. Why? If the idea is to average the ages of Biden and Obama and the experience of both of them and compare this to the averages of McCain and Palin than the media seems to be telling us that they are all equals. Obama is weak where Biden is strong and McCain is strong where Palin is weak. So if our presidency in the U.S worked the way the Roman army used to function, with two commander in chiefs who would switch command every other day, than this would be quite logical. Except that’s not how it works.

The vice-president is a marginal un-important character, usually a vote-getter from a single state who is added to the ticket to balance the nominee. In rare instances they get to fill the big man's shoes and from Milliard Filmore to Harry Truman, LBJ and Gerald Ford they have done a pretty good job. Although Ford replaced Nixon's original vice-president, Spiro Agnew, a former Baltimore mayor, who resigned his office in 1973 on charges of tax evasion and money laundering, having become the first Greek-American to rise that high in American politics only to prove why Americans have so often not elected Greeks to high level office.

What is the greatest mystery about the assault on Palin is the way in which traditionally heroically leftist things have now become the very things leftist harp on. Thus the whole mythology about the 'single working unwed working soccer mom', who was such a staple of leftist hysterics, the very model of the hard strong American woman, is now suddenly no longer so romantic, when it’s a conservative Republican anti-abortion gun owner who seems to embody these traits (except she's not single or unwed). So why does the New York Times ask us if she can 'do the job'? What job? The 'job' of vice-president. Being vice-president entails what exactly? The 'job' that is insinuated is evidently being president. But does the Times forget that Palin is not alone in this endeavor. Palin has a husband, does she not? But she is portrayed as if she were a single mother juggling five three year old children and a job. In fact the job she is interviewing for, vice-president, seems to be quite a break from being governor, a job she has handled pretty well with five children and having been pregnant. Its odd. The left is quite happy to celebrate 'working mothers' and 'stay at home dads', so long as they fit into some sort of Dickensian John Edwards 'other world' where they are poor and wretched. There seems to be an added insinuation with Palin that her down syndrome child will take too much time away from her duties. John Roberts of CNN noted that "The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?" This is an interesting twist on the usual heroics we hear about families raising disabled children. Usually these families are painted as the paragons of greatness for taking on the hardships associated with mentally handicapped children. Now we hear from various sources that the down syndrome child is a real noose around the neck for Palin. Susan Reimer of the Baltimore Sun wrote on September 1st, 2008 that she was being "pandered to…you want to look good to evangelicals? Choose a running mate with a Down Syndrome child." Others have noted that in nine out of ten cases Down Syndrome children are simply aborted when the prospective mothers find out. Our society doesn't want those types of children, sort of like how people used to put inter-racial kids, like Mr. Obama, up for adoption.

So there we have it. Palin is an immoral mother because her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. She is pandering to religious people by having Down Syndrome children. She can't possibly be vice-president because she has too many children and it would be best if she would stay at home with them. We have truly become an Islamic society, or at least our leftist-progressive side has. How exactly the rightist conservative elements in our society have ended up on the side of a female vice-president and her pregnant teenage daughter speaks volumes about the great changes that have taken place in the culture of American politics and will continue to take place as liberalism continues down its road to Islamification.

Then there has been the recent article by Larry Derfner in the Jerusalem Post in September 3rd, 2008 entitled ‘Rattling the Cage: Go Home Mrs. Palin’. Derfner is the Post’s token leftist whose articles generally support the Palestinians. But in this article he tells us all that Mrs. Palin is a lesson in the ‘equality of women’. He says it is not ‘the issue’ whether or not a woman can be as good a president as a man (recall, once again that Mrs. Palin was actually chosen for VP, not President) but that ‘child-rearing’ is the issue. He notes that ‘biology, evolution, pregnancy and childbirth just naturally make motherhood a bigger deal than fatherhood.’ So Mr. Derfner, the leftist, is out to give us a lesson in reproduction. Its odd that when the same Mr. Derfner writes about the lot of Haredi (religious) Jewish women that he is none too kind to their lifestyle where child-rearing and motherhood certainly go hand in hand. Derfner concludes by asking “And while she's doing [the job of Vice-president], who the hell is supposed to play mother to those two extraordinarily needy kids? Mr. Palin? Even if he were the best father in the world, he'd be completely out of his depth. Even if he were married to a woman who didn't work and could be with the kids full-time, he would still, by rights, be thinking about whether he could take time off his job to be at home with the family more. But I wouldn't expect him to quit his job when he's got a wife who can quit hers, as huge and important a job as hers may be.” This must be read again. It must be read again and again with the full knowledge of the narrative from whence this writer comes. He is from the ‘women’s equality’, ‘gay rights’, liberal narrative of society. And yet, on the issue of Mrs. Palin, he has become a chauvinist conservative, a real man ‘from the 1950s.’ What is one to make of it. Is the Republican choice of a woman so disturbing that it turns liberals into conservatives? Who would have guessed.
But Mr. Derfner is not the only one. In two columns Maureen Dowd, a consummate feminist and extreme-leftist writing for the New York Times also took up a similar tune. She describes the Palin family as a ‘soap opera’ (one created, by the way, by those who continue to care so much about something so un-important), and describes Mrs. Palin as ‘Trophy Vice’ and accuses her of being involved in a scandal called ‘Brocken-watergate’. She describes ‘titillating details’ spilling out of the Palins. And she wonders “how she [Palin] will juggle it all.” But Mrs. Dowd’s oddest insinuation is that McCain had sent the “vetters to Alaska afterward.” She notes later that “when you make a gimmicky pick of an unknown without proper vetting” you are bound to have to hold a press conference explaining the scandals. Dowd then protects herself from criticism by noting that “when you use sexism as an across-the-board shield for any legitimate question, you only hurt women.” But this writer isn’t whining sexism. This writer is simply wondering how Mrs. Dowd and all the other leftist-feminists suddenly came to talk about how women can’t ‘juggle it all’ and suddenly note that motherhood is more important than fatherhood and note that teen pregnancy and unwed mothers are somehow immoral. Afterall by claiming that McCain didn’t do ‘proper’ vetting Ms. Dowd is insinuating that having a teenage daughter who is pregnant should disqualify someone for the post of vice-president. Perhaps in the 1950s, or 1850s, but one wouldn’t expect that to be the case today. Would they? God forbid if Mrs. Palin had been divorced or if her own son was a ‘bastard’ child. Mrs. Dowd claims that these are ‘legitimate’ questions. But when did it become legitimate to assault someone and call them into judgment based on the actions of their children? And she’s only running for vice-president, unless everyone seems to have forgotten, a post normally wrapped in mystery and obscurity and which is rarely needed. And was Palin an ‘unknown’? She was well known in her own state, surely more well known than numerous other vice-presidential nominees. And if anyone had bothered to do some digging they would have realized that six months ago there was an attempt by ‘draft Sarah Palin’ supporters to get John McCain to notice her. The videos can still be seen on youtube.com.

If the Palins had truly wanted to preserve themselves from this nonsense they would have done what the Clinton's rightly did, tell the media that if they messed with their children that they would never have an interview again and that the media was out of place for daring to ask questions about the private lives of children. The Clintons despite all their transgressions and sleaze, did that one honorable thing. They made it very clear that while their personal lives might be torn apart and examined that the life of their daughter was not to be made light of. The media respected Chelsea's privacy. Why the media can't do the same for others is not clear.

In September of 2008, responding to the choice of Sarah Palin, Bill Maher, a TV show host did an impersonation; "I, John McCain, am the only one standing between the blood thirsty Al Qaidas and you, but if I die this stewardess [Mrs. Palin] can handle it." I've met John McCain and Mr. Maher is no John McCain.



Of Sunglasses and Veils
Seth J. Frantzman
September 1st, 2008

Why is it that western women cover their eyes through large black sunglasses but show off the rest of their bodies through low cut shirts and g-strings and yet the Muslim woman covers her entire body but only shows here eyes? Is it because our culture in the West considers the eyes immodest while Islam views the entire female body as immodest? No. The reason that western women cover their eyes with large sun-glasses, even when it is not sunny out, is because the eyes represent a glance at the soul and at thought. To look into someone’s eyes is to see what they are thinking and see their humanity. Secularism produces, in its most extreme form, inhumanity. This is why strippers, prostitutes and porn stars will all take off all their clothes but never look someone in the eye. The Western woman is primarily an object. All the talk of feminism about the ‘objectification’ of women is primarily a scam because since the rise of feminism one finds that every single magazine and television show directed at women is primarily directed at helping them become ‘better in bed’ and ‘how to please your man’ and ‘want to become America’s next top model’. Secular-feminism primarily creates a class of women who only care about how they look. The development of ‘eating disorders’ is directly linked to the liberation of women in the West and the rise of feminism. There were no ‘eating disorders’ in 1850. Women ate what they wanted and didn’t spend every meal pining over getting fat and staring at themselves in the mirror and complaining incessantly that ‘I am too fat’. Yet in the post-feminist secular world of the West every women, except for a very few, spend most of their time worrying about what clothes to wear and whether or not they are ‘too fat’. So while the women worships her body and judges her worth based on her appearance the only thing she dares cover up is her eyes, since it is the only thing left to cover up once her breasts and buttocks and belly and arms and legs are exposed for all to see. She covers up this last thing, the eyes, knowing that no male in society could possibly care what she thinks. It is why women, in conversation with men, typically try to make themselves seem stupid and flirtatious, because they know that in our modern society no man would ever want an educated woman.
But the Muslim woman, oddly enough, does the opposite, by default. Since her culture hates women and treats them like beasts of burden and turns them into large walking tents, the only thing that is left is a small slit for her eyes, although in some Muslim cultures even that must be obscured from view by a screen or mesh. The Muslim woman lives in a society where the men force her to wear an all black cloth covering her and that shows none of her shape, and the men then call her a ‘black moving object’ and owing to the fact that she is imprisoned either in the home or in her ‘black moving object’ the men in her society, the very ones that put her in this thing, then go about with foreign women, because the Islamic society encourages men to do and dress as they please while all obligations of morality are on the woman. Thus the women goes about as a large sack, in the hot of summer wearing layers upon heavy layers of clothing. In the Islamic society a women is a beast of burden, expected to carry around the children and the food and do the household chores and in the poorer countries, to do much of the manual labour, especially in the fields. The life of her male counterpart is primarily made up of sitting in coffeeshops and doing nothing, sort of like European male culture. But the Muslim woman needs her eyes to see, lest she stumble and fall down and roll down a hill, so she has a small slit for them, the only part of her humanity that is left, the only thing that allows one to know that beneath all that black linen there is a female human lurking, fifty percent of society. When one looks into the eyes of the Muslim women they get back the same blank stare that one gets from the sunglasses of the western woman. Thus the sunglasses may obscure that one piece of the western woman one may not see but in the same manner the Muslim woman who is permitted this tiny transgression of showing her eyes and eye-lashes, shows her bit of humanity, and yet in both cases there is very little humanity.
The Muslim woman, in her most extreme form, has a lot in life not so different than that of the Western woman. Both live in a man-centered world. The Muslim world is the slave of the male. Everything she does in life is for the man. She wakes before he does to make his food and she has his children and never speaks to other men for him and when he wants a nice young wife she is cast away and she accepts it. She raises his children and then she departs the world. The Greek men said of women “One lays with them only two times in life, when they lay them on the bed during the wedding night and when they lay them in their grave.” As in Egypt they say of the woman “she leaves the house only three times in life, to wed her husband, to see the funeral of her father and when she goes to the grave.’ Such the lot of the most extreme form of secularism, the Greek Athenian civilization and the most extreme form of religion, relegates the woman to a subsidiary, beast-like, role that gives her no interest in the world. The Greek males so hated and disdained the woman that they never spent time with them or saw them as human. The Muslim so despises the woman that he clothes her all black and then teases her for being a ‘black moving object’. Such is the Muslim way. Such is the Western way. The Western woman prunes and tears at her skin and all day worries about what men think of her, all day on display for the male, much as she wishes she could be as ‘America’s next top model’. For the highest career path in the western woman’s life is to be a model. What is a model? It is a walking clothes hanger, a thing that does not speak or think, but just goes back and forth so that others may examine it. The highest career path, and it is a career path that increasingly most western woman would put above all the others, is to be a beast, a thing, an object that moves. What does this remind us of? An object that moves is a western woman, a model. A black moving object is a Muslim woman. There is simply no substantial difference. Photographers think they are being original in places when they can capture the ‘contrast’ between the Muslim woman and the Western woman. They photograph some woman in Istanbul, all covered in black, next to a shop selling thongs on white mannequins and people look and they say ‘how original’. Intellectuals say ‘what a difference in cultures’. But there is no difference. Just because one moving object wears a black cloak and the other wears a black thong, just because one shows its eyes and the other obscures them, does not make them different. Each is a slave. Each is a slave to men and to an ideology, a culture that looks down upon the existence of half of humanity. Should one lay down his life for ‘America’s next top model’? Should one care to defend a culture that has rotted to such an extent that it has educated an entire generation of women to want to be moving objects, beasts that wear clothes so that men will find them appealing? No. Such a culture is not worth defending. It is such a culture that deserve only its own demise for it is such a traitor to its own stupid protestations and infantile claims about itself that it cannot be judged to deserve to exist. One cannot say that there is absolutely any reason to fight for the ‘freedom’ of western women. They are not free. They are docile, submissive creatures that no longer think and no longer value thought as a process integral to their lives. When Islamism takes over Europe one won’t see a substantial change in the European western woman. What difference does it make if Heidi Klum is wearing a black thong and going around topless or if she is wearing a burka. She is the same vacuous un-thinking person whose entire life is crafted to make men enjoy what they are seeing. Who cares if men in the world desire to see nude women on the streets or desire to see them all covered up and only nude in the bedroom. The desire of the male is primarily the same in each culture. The irresponsible culture of the Muslim male, who wears shorts and enjoys his lie and travels and goes to night clubs is not substantially different than the life of the western male who travels and enjoys night clubs. Who cares what role women play in each society, for in each society they do what the men would have them do. In one they cover themselves up, less they ‘dishonour’ the man and in the other they show everything off so that the man can enjoy them, the way he enjoys a large hamburger or a beer. Men in one culture choose their wife as one chooses a meal at a fast food restaurant where they can order up to four meals at a time and when they are done with them they cast them aside for a younger fresher one. Of course their wives must be virgins. They, of course, don’t need to be. Men in the other culture order prostitutes to their rooms, marry women and discard them, ‘trading up’ for younger ones whenever things suit them. Oh, but in one culture the women don’t have children and have abortions and in another the women have nine children. What is the essential difference? In one culture the woman has abortions so that the man does not have to be responsible for children, and how many western men are responsible for children, while in the Muslim culture the woman has her children so as to perpetuate the male line.

One should condemn the West to the childless, model-loving, sex slave trade death that it deserves. If one wants to see the future of western civilization they have only to go to a country like the Ukraine. Here feminism and secularism reigned supreme. But where are the fruits of it today? There are no women in the Ukraine between the ages of 13 and 27, they are all working as models in Milan or locked in brothels from the UAE to Japan, servicing a dozen men a day so that other men can get wealthy off their work. Marx spoke of an ‘alienation’ of labour and loe and behold Communism created the ultimate alienation, a woman’s body bought and sold at market so that another man may profit off her and discard her, as one does trash. What of the men in Ukraine? Hard working, responsible and honourable are they? No. They sell their women into slavery and are mostly alcoholics. Such is the result of a few generations of secular extremism. When a society no longer has women one cannot say that it should be defended because it cannot even reproduce.




Thoughts on the war on Islam
Seth J. Frantzman
September 3rd, 2008

If the U.S had fought the Nazis under the same circumstances that it fights Islam would it have won? If the highest intellectuals in the West had claimed that the rise of Nazism was ‘blowback’ and our Universities had forced our students to learn about Nazism and its ‘culture’ and ‘traditions’ and our students had been taught German and made to memorize ‘sieg heil’ the way our students learn Arabic and are taught the Fatiha or conversion statement in Islam as a prerequisite would we have triumphed? Would we have triumphed if we had not dared that the war against Germany was a war against Nazism and instead declared simply that ‘Hitler gives Nazism a bad name’ and ‘the terrorist is not representative of Nazism’ and ‘Nazism is a religion of peace’. Would we have won the war on Germany if we had not bombed them during Christmas for fear of ‘offending’ them the way we don’t bomb Muslims on Ramadan, lest they be offended, while they themselves step up their attacks during Ramadan? Would we have won if our women had been enamored of Nazism and believed it a romantic-exotic other? Would we have won the war on Nazism if we had complied with the wishes of Nazis living in our own countries and made sure that our food products, our laws and our schools all didn’t ‘offend’ them. Would we have won the war on Nazism if our religious leaders had said that ‘Nazi law (i.e. the Nuremburg Laws)’ should be enacted in our own society to regulate the civil family law of Germans, the way the Archbishop of Canterbury expects that Shariah law should be erected in our own society? There is no doubt we would not have won. People claim that technology can win the war and mass production of weapons and a large army on terror the way it triumphed against Nazism but they neglect to realize that during the war on Nazism the public at home and the intellectuals supported the war. Today’s wealthy intellectuals and academics in our own society do not support our country, neither does our media.

When you see a scantily dressed Russian or Pilipino woman dating a Muslim Arab it makes one wonder why it is that in our own secular society the women who are the most ‘open minded’ always choose the most conservative men in the society of the other. Why is it that the secular western woman will never object to dating the man in the society of the ‘other’ whose sister is not allowed out of the house after 6pm and whose expects women in his own society to cover their hair lest they be described as ‘immoral’? It points to the true fate of secularism. Secularism provides women with freedom, especially sexual freedom. Those women who are the most sexually ‘free’ are the ones who always choose to date men outside their western-secular society and they usually choose men from conservative societies. Thus the freedom of the west inevitably leads to the absorption of western women into other societies. Thus the western woman who has an abortion and works at a strip club and wears a thong at the beach and doesn’t want children is the same women who puts on the headscarf and the veil for her Muslim boyfriend and then has eight children. The same women in the West who refuses to cook or clean the house or do any of those ‘traditional’ female chores is the same women that happily does them in the name of the culture of the ‘other’. This is why secularism is doomed to failure. It is a religion that encourages people to hate themselves, encourages women, especially, to hate their own society and encourages people to enslave themselves to the culture of the ‘other’.



A woman in Gaza: Lauren Booth
Seth J. Frantzman
September 4th, 2008

In the 19th century when a British citizen got in trouble in a foreign land Lord Palmerston would send the Royal Navy, and maybe he was right to do so. These were British citizens, sometimes acting in a private capacity or in a government role or as missionaries who were came under assault from time to time. When private organizations such as the Palestine Exploration Fund came were assaulted there was an understanding that the might of the British empire supported them. But generally these British citizens acted responsibly. They obeyed local laws and tried, in general, to respect local customs, to the point that they perhaps adopted those customs too much with character such as T.E Lawrence and Sir Richard Burton virtually becoming natives to the extent that their compatriots no longer recognized them.

Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of former Prime Minister, is a British citizen. But she isn’t cut from the 19th century mold. She is a wealthy British woman who does not have an occupation. She is a full time ‘activist’. As a wealthy European she believed that the law does not apply to her, or rather that she doesn’t have to obey the laws of the countries she goes to. She is part of a rash of Europeans who have gotten themselves in trouble recently for going to countries and needlessly flouting local laws. One is reminded of the two British citizens facing six years in prison for having sex on a beach in the United Arab Emirates or the European who was briefly jailed in Thailand for insulting the king or the numerous Europeans on trial in Vietnam and elsewhere for having sex with children. Europeans seem to have a sense that while they love and adore ‘multi-culturalism’ at home that when they abroad they can go to any country and live as they do in Europe. Rather than refusing to go to countries that do not have laws that they respect, and thereby denying backward nations such as Dubai their tourist dollars, they choose to romanticize those countries until suddenly they find themselves in prison. Then it is all about ‘international law’ and ‘human rights’.

Lauren Booth is an activist and a former contestant on the aptly named ITV reality show ‘I’m a Celebrity, Get me Out of here!’ She was born in 1967 and has ‘worked’ part time as a celebrity commentator and ‘journalist’. On August 23rd, 2008 she broke international law and sailed illegally to the Gaza strip with 46 mostly European ‘Free Gaza’ activists. She wanted to raise awareness about the ‘plight’ of the Gazan people. When the rest of her wealthy activist friends departed and left the Gaza strip on August 28th she and ten others choose to stay in Gaza and live with the ‘people’ and fight for their ‘rights’. But after a few days the heat became to much. The lack of alcoholic beverages, night clubs and other accoutrements of modernity, such as air conditioning, caused her to decide to leave. In fact the rest of her activist friends who had remained had already begun to flee the Strip like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Jeff Halper, the Israeli professor who had accompanied the protest boat entered Israel and was arrested by Israeli authorities. But when Ms. Booth, who hates Israel, tried to enter Israel she was denied entry. When she tried to enter Egypt it turned out the Egyptians didn’t want her either. She got out her satellite phone and began calling the international media claiming her ‘human rights’ were being violated under ‘international law’. The Manchester Guardian has tried to dramatize her story by showing her on the beach in Gaza ‘making contact with the outside world’. Its as if she is in space and her ‘transmissions’ are of the utmost importance.

The truth of the matter is she is a spoiled European who chose to break the law and is suffering for it. Israel warned the protestors that it was illegal for them to enter Gaza. They went anyway and Israel was nice enough to let them leave. She chose not to leave the way she had come and instead to take advantage of Israel. But why should Israel be forced to take in a wealthy European woman and her satellite phone just because she found living in Gaza not as interesting as she previously thought. She was all tough talk when she chose to stay behind, speaking of working ‘human rights’. But three days was too much. The truth is there is nothing to feel sorry for when a wealthy European becomes ‘stranded’ in a place they chose to go to illegally. It is interesting that the world media, including the New York Times has given this coverage. She was interviewed on NPR. The same media doesn’t seem to give the same coverage to each and every African immigrant who becomes ‘stranded’ when they try to illegally enter Europe and end up in a camp for illegal immigrants. It seems that when it comes to boat loads of black wretched Africans coming to Europe that there are no complaints when they are rounded up and deported. But when it is a wealthy blondish European women who chooses to break the law then suddenly ‘high level diplomatic channels’ must get to work. Israel should demand that if it is to allow Ms. Booth in then Europe should take in the thousands of African refugees who have arrived in Israel recently on their way to Europe. After all, one wealthy European woman must be equal to a thousand blacks. She certainly is when it comes to media attention.

Terra Incognita 50 humans, human rights and the future

Terra Incognita
Issue 50
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel

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

September 1st, 2008


1) Of Humans and Human Rights: When Jeff Halper, an American-born Israeli, went to Gaza as part of the ‘Free Gaza boat’ movement he enjoyed tea with the Hamas leadership and received awards from them. Meanwhile, just miles from his location, the Israeli-born Gilad Schalit was marking his third birthday in captivity. The life stories of these two people could not be more different. One served his country and the other serves only himself. One is a human and the other is a human rights activist.

2) The future of our way of life: A recent Lonely Planet guide to Tunisia included a loving description of its ‘progressive’ way of life where “foreign women exist as a separate and enticing species. Sexual harassment is par for the course.” Although the western female author perhaps missed some things about the actual way of life in Tunisia
she gives us a glimpse into the future, the future that every western leftist woman would like to bring upon us, of a world of male irresponsibility, of Islam, and of the complete degradation of women. It is an irony that the west and all its ‘freedom’ has produced this self hatred and need to degradation among its people, particularly its women.

3) The multiplication of rights: When people speak of the ‘universal’ right to an education or the ‘fundamental right to freedom of movement’, what are they speaking about? Does anyone pause and wonder where these rights came from? Were they one of John Locke’s ‘natural rights’? Where do people in the world get these notions that all sorts of imaginary rights apply to them? Why does the pretentious European ‘Court of Human Rights’ attempt through its ‘International Tribunal’ at the Hague to prosecute ‘war criminals’ such as Charles Taylor and Radovan Karadzic when actual war criminals, aging Nazis, live free in Europe and have for 60 years? Until the world has enshrined in its constitutions these fanciful rights they should stop telling us about them because in reality they do not exist and never have.

Of Humans and Human Rights
August 30th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman

On August 27th, 2008 as Gilad Schalit spent marked his third birthday in the captivity of Hamas, Jeff Halper, a human rights activist from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, was touring the Gaza strip, walking just miles away from the dank cellar of a prison cell where Schalit is held. Halper received Palestinian citizenship from Hamas and received a gold medal from them. He laughed and celebrated his time in Gaza, having come there as part of the ‘Free Gaza boat’ activist group oh wealthy leftist Europeans that had sailed to Gaza from Cyprus to ‘break the Israeli blockade.’ The juxtaposition of Halper and Schalit illustrates the degree to which ‘human rights’ and those who believe in it have no connection to actual humans. Take the letter recently signed by another wealthy Jewish intellectual, Yossi Sarid, calling for ‘freedom of movement’ for Arab Muslims from Gaza and declaring that denying three of them the ‘right’ to study as Fulbright scholars in the U.S was denying them a ‘fundamental human right’. There was, in that letter, no mention of a similar ‘fundamental human right’ for Schalit, because human rights has nothing to do with the actual rights and lives of humans. When the ‘human rights activist’ Jane Fonda visited North Vietnam during the Vietnam war she helped man anti-aircraft guns used to shoot down American pilots, like John McCain. When an American prisoner tried to pass her a note describing his tortures and telling his family he was alive she reported on him to the Vietnamese authorities. He was subsequently murdered by them. The ‘Human Rights Activist’ actually caused the death of a human. But because of democracy and our cherished ‘western’ way of life Jane Fonda and Jeff Halper and Yossi Sarid are all allowed to continue their lives, enjoying their wine and their villas and their vacations in Europe without any recompense for their obliviousness to the suffering of their fellow man. It is because out world is divided between those who are human and those who profess to fight on behalf of humans. The very notion that one would fight for ‘human rights’ represents the notion that a person is above humanity, after all when someone fight for animal rights they are not an animal. The person who fights for ‘human rights’ believes him or herself above humanity, playing god with it.

When one considers the biography of the ‘human rights activist’ and the biography of an actual human one becomes even more aware of the difference. Let us take the juxtaposition of Jeff Halper and Gilad Schalit. Jeff Halper was raised in a wealthy American Jewish home in Hibbing, Minnesota in the 1950s. He never worked any jobs as a young man and never did any menial labour or any other type of job. He lived a wealthy life, becoming an activist in the anti-vietnam war movement and the civil rights movement, as only a wealthy person can become because those who are not wealthy do not have the resources to live their entire lives as part of ‘activist’ groups. He immigrated to Israel in 1973 and became a visiting lecturer in Anthropology at various Israeli universities. In Israel he continued his activist, first fighting for the rights of Mizrachi Jews and then as part of ‘Ohel’ a group fighting for the rights of Ethiopian Jews. In 1997 he founded ICAHD, the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions. Through this committee he devoted his time to aiding Palestinian Muslim families of terrorists whose homes were being demolished by the Israeli government. His organization, ICAHD, received funding from the Spanish Embassy in Tel Aviv, The European Commission, the European Union and the Ford Foundation. Thus Jeff Halper, a wealthy American Jew, became wealthy in Israel off of money given by wealthy Europeans who themselves had built their homes on the demolished homes of Jews who died in the Holocaust and on funding from the Ford Foundation, whose founder wrote the famous anti-semitic tractate The International Jew. Thus the primary funding for Halper and his organization, which helps only Muslim Arabs, came from those who benefited from the deaths of European Jewry or those who supported the genocide of European Jewry. Thus the funding for ‘human rights’ came from the greatest destroyers of human rights in history.

Gilad Schalit was born in 1986 in Nahariya, in Israel to an upper middle class family, a descendant of French Jews. He graduated with distinction from his high school and began his military service in the Israeli army in 2005. On June 26th, 2006 he was abducted by Hamas terrorists on the border with the Gaza strip. In September the first letter was released by Hamas showing that Schalit was alive. While ‘Human rights activists’ such as the former American president Jimmy Carter and others have enjoyed tea with the Hamas leadership no human rights organizations have ever protested on behalf of Schalit.

Schalit and Halper were born in similar economic circumstances. One was born in his country and choose to do his duty in that country and serve in its army. The other was born in the United States and spent his youth protesting the actions of his country’s army. One was abducted and has been held in a cell for more than two years. The other enjoys vacationing where he pleases, lives off the money of others and has never done any sort of ‘duty’ in his life. One lived in his own country and was responsible to that country. The other grew up in one country, the U.S, and subsequently moved to another country and adopted the cuases of those who have nothing to do with him, the Palestinians. One obeyed the rules and worked hard in his short life. The other lived the wealthy life with no rules, moving from place to place and founding NGOs so as to fund his lifestyle. One celebrated three birthdays in a dark cellar. The other celebrates his birthdays in his villa with his friends. One is a human. The other is a ‘human rights activist’.

Humans deserve rights. But the human is forever at the mercy of the human rights activist who oppresses him. The human goes about his life and respects the law and does his duty to his country. The human rights activist goes from country to country receiving money from others and harming the lives of humans so that he may enjoy his wealthy bourgeoisie existence. One works at a job and the other lives off the blood of others. The world cannot exist with human rights activists. Humans deserve better. While we live in a world in which humans are guaranteed rights under the law we must ask whether human rights activists are guaranteed those same rights. Since they have positioned themselves above humanity one must wonder if it is not humanity’s role to throw off the shackles imposed upon it by the human rights activist and his NGO and his wealthy do-nothing life-style? Must humanity fight a war of liberation against those who do not work, those activists who live off the sweat of our brow? Do human rights activists deserve rights after they have trampled so blatantly on the rights of our fellow man? When Jeff Halper very likely stepped on the very ground beneath which the human, Gilad Schalit, was imprisoned, did he not trample on the lives of us all and on the conscience of us all? Did he not press his foot upon our necks as if we were but pawns in his enjoyment of life while we suffer beneath his regime? Man must raise his arm against human rights activist. Man must return rights to humanity so that it is us, the humans, who have the rights and not only the NGO worker and his European friends? We, humans, are the ones who toil and live for the state and we obey the laws. Yet we are punished for doing so. Our lives are meaningless. We are imprisoned and murdered and raped and abused. Yet all the while the ‘human rights activist’ lives without borders, he goes where he pleases and he is venerated by terrorists and loved by those who murder humanity. Thus Jane Fonda won awards from those who tortured John McCain and Jeff Halper won an award from those who hold Schalit. And yet Halper and Fonda are free and wealthy while the humans such as those POWs murdered by the Vietnamese and Schalit remain dead or imprisoned. Should it not be the other way around? Should not the lazy people who do not work and go from place to place and live off the blood of others and shake hands with the devil, should not they be the ones denied their freedom of movement? Humans deserve better. Humans deserve to be free. They deserve most of all to be free from the chains of the NGO worker and his nefarious wealthy arrogant attitude and his belief that he is above us.

The Greek author and soldier Xenophon after fighting his way through Anatolia remarked that the slavery of the Persians was primarily due to the fact that they could not bring themselves to say the word ‘no’. We, in our own time, have become slaves as the Persians soldiers were. We do not possess the word ‘no’. We cannot say ‘no’ to the NGO and the human rights activist and the European and the Ford Foundation. We cannot raise up our hands against them and say ‘no’. No, we will not have you in our country. No, you may not travel where you please and protest where you please. No, you may not go to Gaza and stand on the cell of one of our citizens. No, you may not go to Vietnam and condemn our soldiers to their deaths. No, you may not violate the rights of humanity. No, your UN vehicle may not drive on our roads. No, your Red Cross vehicle may not drive unimpeded and above the law on our landscape. No, you may not be above the law. No, you will no longer have your wealth and your funding sources. The Russians have learned to say no to the NGO. Other peoples in the world have learned to say no. But most of us are blind to the tyranny of this International Class of activists who seek to live above us and yet receive their financing from our own society and those societies who, in times of old, have oppressed us.


The future of our way of life
August 5th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman

The Lonely Planet Guidebook for Tunisia dishes up the usual propaganda laden pages that might well have been written by the tourism ministry of Tunisia. Under ‘Culture’ we learn; “ethnic and religious uniformity allows for social ease [oddly enough in the West when the KKK and the Nazis wanted ethnic-uniformity, people were none too happy]…Islam is pervasive…life revolves around the family, the mosque and hospitality…with typical Arabian-African generosity…Tunisians are not so interested in the trappings of wealth…prefer not to take things seriously…strong economy…level of education is high…men sit and chat in the cafes whereas women visit each other at home…thanks to Habib Bourguiba, this is a proudly forward looking nation with an egalitarian squint.” Part of this ‘egalitarianism’ is evident from the portion of the guide entitled ‘women travelers’; “Tunisian men have little opportunity to hang out with women prior to marriage…foreign women exist as a separate and enticing species. Sexual harassment is par for the course…harassment usually takes the form of being stared at, subjected to slimy chat-ups and very occasional physical harassment…you can try a few things to reduce the hassle…modest dressing…a headscarf can be useful to indicate modesty. The best policy is to ignore sexist remarks and sound affects. Sunglasses are good for avoiding eye contact. Its advisable to sit next to others women on buses…however, try not to let your desire to fend off unwanted attention get in the way of genuine friendliness.”

Who wrote this? One shouldn’t have to ask. In this day in age such propaganda could only come from one source: a western women. Loe and behold it is a western women named Abigail Hole. The irony of her propaganda is that it reflects less about Tunisia than about the hopes, loves and desires of Western liberalism. Abigail has given us a view of the future. This is the liberal future. It is the future of every western state. It is the future that every leftist western woman desires and wants. It is the future that freedom and democracy guarantee. Why? Why is it this way? Why is it that when society is given freedom that it inevitably embraces oppression? Why is it that a free secular society full of women who are given equal rights produces women who only want a society of Islam where “life revolves around the family, the mosque” and where “women visit eachother at home” because if they go out in public they will be “stared at, subjected to slimy chat-ups and very occasional physical harassment” to the degree that they are an “enticing species” and where “sexual harassment is par for the course” for men. Why would leftist-feminist-liberal women embrace such a culture and describe it as “egalitarian” and “forward looking”? We know why. Behind every door of liberalism and feminism and leftism is oppression and tyranny. Behind everything that liberalism preaches is the most conservative reactionary contradictory ethos. Behind Liberalism is Islamism. They are partners in the quest to subjugate our society and imprison us in a world of immorality where man lacks personal responsibility and the woman is encased in full length black cloths, her headscarf wrapped tightly around her face and where she resides at home.

I hate liberalism because it betrays our society. Islam cannot be blamed, for Islam is what it is. Just as one cannot blame Orthodox Judaism for its embrace of modesty. That is what it is. One can only blame the feminist and the liberal for preaching equality for women in our own society and yet excusing sexual harassment in other societies. Why is it that the Abigail Holes of the world forced our society to do away with the headscarf and the male who enjoys his pipe, his beer and his grab-assing? Why? I was in high school when we all had to learn about Anita Hill and how Clarence Thomas had made suggestive advances at her. I was of the generation where we were indoctrinated about sexual harassment. But what we have learned, having legislated against sexual harassment in our own society is that our women approve of it and call it exotic in another society. We have learned that our women in our western society would never don a headscarf out of respect for their own modesty or morality or religion in their own country but they will readily don one and live as a home-stay in a foreign land and then issue forth propoganda about that land and call it ‘egalitarian’ and ‘forward looking’.

We deserve Islam. It is the religion that our greatest intellectuals and freest individuals embrace. It is the religion that our most open minded feminists love. It is the religion of modernity. It is the religion that offers the westerner exactly what he needs: irresponsibility for men and the complete and utter submission of women. Liberals say things like “I purchased a headscarf and black Hijab as a joke for my wife and she puts it on and says ‘its so liberating.’” This is the western female perspective. “It is liberating.” Only the west can turn a prison into liberation. But this is the same western civilization that has turned ‘justice’ into genocide and ‘peace’ into ethnic-cleansing and ‘terror’ into ‘resistance’. What did Obama’s reverend say? ‘Godamn America’? He was wrong there. Its not America. Its Western Civilization. Its this whole idea of a progressive democratic free civil society. It’s the entire idea that is bunk. Who could have guessed that it would turn out this way? Who could have guessed that the society that grants freedom to its members produce people at the highest levels of that society who hate freedom. They don’t hate freedom the way the Nazi intellectuals hated freedom. This is the opposite. It is hatred of freedom and the desire for foreign oppression.

Liberalism must be opposed everywhere it exists. The battle against it is as important as the battle against Islamism and other forms of tyranny. One cannot defeat the ‘Other’ unless he has already succeeded in fighting his own inner Jihad against his own society that would betray him and make his countenance weaker, his judgment unsure and his aim faulty. Liberalism shackles the mind, numbs the spirit and murders the soul. And we have to strive to have sharp minds, full spirits and vibrant souls.



The multiplication of rights
Seth J. Frantzman
August 28th, 2008

On August 27th 2008 a prominent Israel ‘human rights activist’ signed a letter on behalf of Gisha, the legal center for the Freedom of Movement, in which he described the ‘right to an education’ as ‘one of the must fundamental human rights.’ The next day a western European ‘activist’ claimed that Palestinians have a “right to exit Gaza.” We often hear these days about some ‘fundamental’ and ‘basic’ human rights that people have. These include the right to ‘privacy’ and the right to ‘land’ and all sorts of extensions of the ‘right’ to free speech, including the ‘right’ to be published and the ‘right’ to speak at Columbia University. Everything these days seems to be a ‘basic’ human right’. Where did all these rights come from? When did people receive these ‘rights’? What responsibilities are people intended to give in order to receive these ‘rights’?

The American constitution was the first one in the world to guarantee any rights to the common people. Prior to it other documents had enshrined the idea that certain landed gentry were guaranteed some rights. Roman citizens had some rights. So did the people of Athens. So did the British aristocracy after the Magna Carta. But that most reviled and hated nation, the United States, is actually the first one to guarantee the average person numerous rights including the right to freedom of religion, speech, assembly, freedom from search and seizure, freedom from being forced to have government troops quartered in your house and the right to have weapons. The U.S constitution guaranteed these rights in the aptly named ‘Bill of Rights’. This spelled out, in some detail, individual rights that the founders believed the U.S must protect, usually rights the British colonial power had infringed, such as the right to a speedy trial and the right not to be subjected to ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment. Most importantly the U.S constitution included the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These rights remained dormant for a long period. Eventually some nations enshrined these American rights in their own constitutions. By the 1960s there developed ‘human rights activists’ in the U.S and Europe who, although preaching hatred against the U.S, began to speak often about these ‘rights’ and claim that they extended to all people in the world through the idea of the ‘universal’ nature of ‘human rights’. Leftists, many of whome were Jewish, became obsessed with this idea of ‘human rights’ and invented numerous new ‘rights’ that supposedly applied to people throughout the world. Organizations and NGOs such as Amnesty International and ‘Human Rights Watch’ sprang up to guarantee these ‘human rights’.

But along the way no one ever asked where these rights came from. Were leftist-liberals in Europe under the impression that the U.S constitution, the same country they compare to nazism and claim is run by an incarnation of Hitler, applies to them and the world? ‘Human rights activists’ never bothered to enshrine any of these American rights in their own constitutions and yet they often mention them. British people often mention the ‘right to free speech’ but they forget that no such right exists in the U.K. Israelis like Yossi Sarid preach about ‘the right to an education’ but there is no such right, not in Israel or anywhere in the world. There is no such right. Let us recall that most of the revered holier-than-thou Europeans who preach about such ‘fundamental rights’ do not grant them to people in their own countries. In Europe Gypsy children have never been given the right to an education and only in 2008 after a law suit by a Gypsy woman in Czech republic whose daughter was placed in a school for the mentally disabled even though she was not disabled but simply because she was a Gypsy, did the European ‘court of human rights’ note that Gypsys also have a ‘right’ to be educated alongside their wealthy liberal leftist neighbors. But that hasn’t stopped wealthy European ‘activists’ from tramping around the world telling people that they have all sorts of ‘rights’.

People in the world should read their constitutions. These ‘human rights’ they mention all the time do not exist anywhere in the world. Some of them exist in the U.S but they do not exist anywhere else. The right to free speech for instance guarantees Americans the right to deny the Holocaust. That right does not exist in Europe where one can be imprisoned for denying the Holocaust. That’s right. Those wealthy rich Europeans who preach so often about the ‘right to free speech’ seem to forget that they do not have this right. Canadians who preach about the right to free speech seem to forget that, like in England they are denied the right to hate speech. In the U.K a person is denied the right to slander someone else. So lets recall the rights people have in the U.S. These people in the rest of the world who speak about ‘human rights’ and the ‘right to an education’ forget that not only do these rights not exist but they don’t even have the basic rights guaranteed in the U.S constitution despite pretentious ridiculous things such as the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Europeans have decided that they can grant all sorts of freedoms and rights to people throughout the world, ‘rights’ that they do not even grant to their own people which is the height of arrogance, the typical European double standard. One finds that while the Europeans have put Radovan Karadzic on trial at the Hague, alongside Charles Taylor, they have neglected to prosecute dozens of actual Nazis living in their midst. These Nazis, some of whome worked at the most notorious death camps lived free in Europe for sixty years. Yet the European would have us believe he is fighting for ‘human rights’ by attempting to prosecute for ‘war crimes’ Israeli and Serbian generals and maybe even Donald Rumsfeld. Europe should first take out its own trash before complaining of the stench of others.

Leftist-liberals have created all sorts of fake rights that never existed and they use this claim as a rhetorical device and all sorts of their leftist wealthy friends join them in preaching about things such as a ‘right to an education’. There was never any such right and there never will be.

So get with it all you ‘human rights activists’ in the world. You will continue your pathetic quest to create imaginary rights for people that have never existed and will never exist because the world will never have a constitution like the American one. These ‘rights’ have never existed in the world and will never exist. But its just a pathetic way of not realizing that all these rights such as the ‘fundamental right to an education’ has never existed in the world and will never exist. In most places in the world, including the hallowed nations of Europe, even the right to free speech is denied under the auspices that it is ‘slander’, ‘incitement’, ‘hate speech’, ‘Holocaust denial’, ‘blasphemy’ or ‘insulting the state’. In those places one can be sued and put in prison for such things. But people in those places seem to believe there is a right to an ‘education’. And a ‘right to freedom of movement’. But they aren’t even educated about the rights guaranteed them in their own constitutions. Perhaps that’s because in some places, such as England and Israel, they don’t even have a constitution. They seem to preach about rights so much, and yet they don’t even have a constitution. What rights could they possibly have? The right to be a liberal-leftist and preach apparently.