Racism Reconsidered: The case of South Africa in the 17-18th centuries

Newsletter 32
Racism Reconsidered: The case of South Africa in the 17-18th centuries
Seth J. Frantzman
June 4th, 2007

Historians in the last twenty years have begun to add the word ‘reconsidered’ to as many topics as possible. The 1948 War: Reconsidered, History of the American West: Reconsidered. In general the term denotes revision and usually revision that implies that a given situation was worse and more ‘racist’ than previously thought. It denotes the attempt to ‘destroy myths’ and end the ‘romance’ associated with certain topics that are usually tied up with national epics.
However the received wisdom on racism has never been thoroughly critiqued except in largely ignored books such as Dinesh D’Souza’s The End of Racism. In fact the envelope on what is ‘racist’ has been expanded to include nearly everything. When historians and activists and social critics have been confronted with two nearly identical peoples fighting one another they have either applied the world racism or contrived new terms such as ‘ethnic-cleansing’. It is not uncommon today to see the word ‘racism’ applied to anti-gay protests or things that have nothing to do with race.
With that in mind it is interesting to seek the roots of racism and the obsession with which society holds the phenomenon. As the definition of racism has expanded so has the history of it. Few would today deny that the Atlantic slave trade was ‘racist’. Colonialism and imperialism are seen as ‘racist’. The Crusades are seen as racist. But what was this racism that existed in the 16th and 17th centuries, this supposedly European phenomenon that sprang up and eventually led, so we are told, to the Holocaust? When did ‘racism’ come to life in Europe?
Most tend to think that Europeans were innately racist and that contact with foreigners was the impetus for ‘racism’ especially when those foreigners were seen as ‘lesser’ and ‘sub-human’ and as ‘the other’. So racism is supposed to being in 1099 with the First Crusade and it is supposed to have truly begun with Colonialism. Thus the Cape Colony in South Africa must have been a perfect place to find racism. Second only to the Holocaust, Apartheid has been seen as one of those uniquely European forms of racism. The roots of Apartheid must surely be found in those centuries before its development.
So logically a great place to find racism would be with the first centuries of Dutch colonization of Southern Africa. The book Frontiers by Noel Mostert provides us with a large number of primary sources from the period: letters, books, travel diaries and court cases(all quotes in this article come from this book.
Around 1701 one Dutch East India Company official stationed at Cape Town wrote of the indigenous inhabitants: “I found this people with one accord in their general daily life living in harmony with nature’s law, hospitable with every race of man.”
By contrast one official described the local Dutch colonists thus “We find many reckless, useless subjects, and still more among their servants, disobedient and worthless characters.(page 137)” Later in the late 1700s another company official described the Dutch ‘Boers’ thus “There are many such nomad families..no way connected in society with any of their fellow creatures, so that they are almost sunk to the situation of savages.”
But the Dutch did coined a phrase for the people they first met at the Cape; Hottentoos(sometimes Hottentot or Ottentot). The word, now considered ‘racist’ was a descriptive term for the way in which the local Khoikhoi spoke, with a series of clicks(as Bushmen do, the two peoples being related in ethnicity but not in lifestyle or culture). Indecipherable, the Dutch mimicked the sound of the language in the name they gave the people. Although the modern anthropologist has done away with this ‘condescending’ term, oddly enough the new term invented for the Bushmen, San, is a word that the Khoikhoi used as slang for those who dwelled in the Bush. So modernity discarded one slang term for one people while borrowing from them a term for other people.
But the Trekboers as the local Dutch colonists who moved deep into South Africa became known were also “sexual freebooters” who produced such a large number of mixed white/black offspring with local women that they created their own nation of people today known as ‘coloured’. Such was there ‘racism’. One English writer noted in 1813 “A boor from the colony who had fallen deeply in love with a black woman, and who on account of the opposition of friends to his marrying her, and likewise of the minister’s refusing to perform his office, had left the colony and wandered thither.”
But sex with women and maltreatment of male natives were two different things(as was the case in Spanish Mexico). When asked why the Boers felt they had a right to take on native servants and treat them badly one supposedly justified it on the basis of the Bible, trying “to prove that the Hottentots were the race of Ham, accursed by God, doomed to slavery.”
But the Khoikhoi and Bushmen were not the only natives encountered by the colonists. Of foremost importance, certainly for the future of South Africa, were the much larger group of Bantu speaking blacks(who were separate ethnically and historically from the Bushmen and Khoikhoi), of which the Xhosa tribe was one of the largest(the other large tribe being the famous Zulu). From the end of the 18th century travelers began carrying back accounts of these people.
Europeans were enraptured by these people. Ludwig Alberti, a European, said they were “remarkable for their imposing height…the head of the Kaffir[Xhosa] is well formed, the eye lively and his teeth are sparking white. The arms and legs reveal health and strength, as do all parts of the body evince the greatest possible blend of perfection.”
We might pause here and note that the word ‘Kaffir’ which is widely seen as a ‘racist’ word in modern South Africa developed from the Arab word for ‘infidel’, Kaffir. It was borrowed by Europeans explorers from the Arabs to describe the local blacks of Africa.
But Europeans understood the difference between the South African blacks and those of West Africa. Reverend Henry Calderowood, a missionary, noted “They have the woolly hair, and many of them have the thick lip and flattened nose of the Negro.” The ‘negro’ quite clearly being the blacks that Calderwood was familiar with from elsewhere, likely slaves from West Africa.
Captain Edward Alexander noted in the 1830s that one tribe, the “Amakosa-are among the finest specimens of the human race: tall ..and active.” W.R.D Fynn, another Englishman, noted that “no people are more loyal than Kafirs.”
However the Bushmen, the third group of native people to inhabit the region were widely derided. A Swedish naturalist named Anders Sparrman wrote in the 1770s: “the maxims of the Bushmen are to live on hunting and plundering…by this means they render themselves odious to the rest of mankind, and are pursued and exterminated like wild beasts, whose manners they have assumed, others of them are kept alive and made slaves of.”
In the 1790s an English woman, Lady Ann Barnard recalled the Xhosa as “very fine men, their height is enormous.” John Barrow, an English sailor, in 1797 noted that “there is perhaps no nation on earth, taken collectively, that produces so fine a race of man as the Kaffers.”
Meanwhile as the English and other travelers marveled at the perfection of the Xhosa the Boer frontiersmen were dealing with something altogether different. Mostert noted in his book that “the view of the South African frontier offered by liberal historians, who for the past sixty years or so have been inclined to regard the eighteenth-century Cape frontier as the original mould from which the rigidities and narrowed racial perspectives of the later Transvaal Boer and Nationalist Afrikaner were case whole.(page 240)” However it must then seem strange that in the 1790s and afterward the Dutch Afrikaners began conspiring with the natives against both their country and later against the English. One famous Boer, Coenraad De Buys, a descendant of French Huguenots turned frontiersman, described the English as the “Bushmen of the sea, predators and robbers” when he was acting as a councilor to a Xhosa chief, having married the chiefs mother.
But the narrative must pause now. The Boers derided the Khoikhoi ‘Hottentots’ for being less than human. Even black slaves, purchased elsewhere, refused to marry the Khoikhoi servants of the Boers, for the slaves felt their status better. Although Khoikhoi served with the Boers on their farms and frequently as auxiliaries in battle one Boer noted, after being given command of a unit of them that “I do not think that I have been appointed to do commandoes[military raids] with Hottentots but with human beings.” And yet we are told the same men were working with Xhose chiefs against a common enemy, marrying and producing offspring. But surely the Xhosa and the Khoikhoi and the Bushmen were all black, all members of the same race?
Another English Reverend noted of the Xhosa that “their colour is dark brown, mixed with a warmer tint of yellow; their hair id black and wooly, but their faces approach to the European model, and far surpass, in our ideas of beauty, the Hottentot’s or the Negro’s.”
So was the 18 and early 19th century South Africa ‘racist’. No. The culture of the period differentiated between the natives they met. The Boers understood that they were one people among many. For them the English were no more natural allies due to ‘race’ than the blacks. But the Boers were not universally ‘tolerant’. But neither did they paint all the blacks with the same brush. They understood as intimately as the local inhabitants, the differences among the people. And the local people were just as harsh in their treatment of one another. The Xhosa looked down on the Khoikhoi and Bushmen as sub-human, not members of the tribe. The fact that so many Afrikaners took native wives must point to a rejection of the way in which ‘racism’ is said to have developed during this period. De Buys produced such a large clan of mixed offspring that in the 1970s his descendants, then living in Transvaal, were known as the Buysvolk or Buys nation of coloureds. They were described as ‘non-white’ under Apartheid.
And here is where it important to understand the true nature of racism. In many ways our definition of race today is simpler and more foolish than the definition employed by the 18th century colonists. Our definition today sees very little difference between all the blacks in the world. For us there are no Negros and Hottentots and Kaffirs and Bushmen. There are, instead, Africans and Blacks and African-Americans and San and Xhosa. But our terms do not describe different peoples, they are merely dumbed-down words for us to try to be politically correct. For Apartheid, which was a modern invention, there were just Asians and Coloureds and Blacks and Whites.
We look on the Boers as racist because they used ‘improper’ words like Negro and Kaffir and Hottentot. But what were they to do? They were not anthropologists. They called people what they could out of expediency on the frontier. Since the Arabs called the blacks ‘Kaffir’ they borrowed the word. They couldn’t understand the clicking sounds and mimicked it as best they could in the name they gave the people they first met. The Bushmen lived in the Bush, and received their name from it. Today’s anthropologists use native slang terms to describe long extinct tribes today, but the native terms for people are not always ‘politically correct’, usually indigenous people call eachother by equally descriptive terms, that could be construed as racist. Hence borrowing ‘Kaffir’ from the Arabs didn’t denude the term of its ‘racism’ in the 20th century.
But where did Apartheid come from? It certainly didn’t come from the period 1700-1850. Usually modern ‘race theory’ and eugenics are said to have begun with Darwin. This is true, the age of science that began in the 19th century led to the classification of all things. Humans felt similar ideas such as the ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘social Darwinism’ and ‘natural selection’ could also explain why people were different and some seemingly superior to others. But even in the 1920s the American quota laws on immigration defined 24 ‘racial groups’ including “Welsh, Syrians and Hebrews”. Few would consider the Syrians or Welsh a ‘separate race’ today. But the conception of the 18th century would have. In many ways the concept of ‘race’ was not fully developed until the 1930s and then not fully until the 1950s.
However in the liberal society’s quest to prevent another Holocaust the idea of anti-racism and multi-culturalism and diversity became paramount in the 1960s and 1970s. The condemnation of racism then truly began. Suddenly all western history was laid bare to the critiques of the modern and everything in the past became racist. All the anti-racist had to do was find the word ‘Kaffir’ and ‘Negro’ in any primary source from the 18th century and thus the society that produced such ‘intolerance’ and ‘ignorance’ was construed as ‘racist’. But the anti-racist was merely projecting backwards his current understanding of these terms and what they implied.
The racists of today are a unique phenomenon. Their over-arching simplicity and their categorizing of people on the simplest terms would have surprised the Boers of the 18th century. They would not have been welcome, nor would they have had the intellectual or moral caliber to survive the frontier in South Africa. That is because today’s racist is an armchair racist. He has accepted many of the anti-racists judgments and simply reversed them. Diversity says one must love blacks and Asians so he hates them. But diversity is equally racist in its classification of all people with black skin as ‘African-American or ‘black’. Diversity sees no difference between Cassius Clay(Mohammed Ali), Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama, Bob Marley and Tiger Woods. They are all blacks. To dislike one would be to dislike all. There is no recognition of the idiocy with which these people are all lumped together. The overall ‘blackness’ of them is completely suspect, between the five there is at least one whole white person given that most of them are of a mixed heritage. And what does a Jamaican Rasta really have in common with a Xhosa Prince. Probably most leftists would be baffled by Mandela’s heritage anyway, for the leftist, as for the neo-Nazi, he is just a Nigger, or an African. Because Mandela stopped being a Xhosa in the West long ago.
But there was a time when he was a Xhosa and when the Afrikaners were Boers. There was a time when they intermarried and waged common war against a common enemy. There was a time when people were more intelligent and more honest. That was the hallmark of 18th century society. It was honest. When the first Dutch sailors met the naked Khoikhoi they said of them that they were “of all the people the most bestial and sordid” but they also noted that “it is noteworthy that the men have a member surprisingly longer than that of Europeans, so that it more resembles the organ of a young bull than that of a man.” What people only might whisper today or speak of in the company of friends, in those days people put down to paper. When people in the 18th century saw something they liked, they described it thus. When they hated a custom of people they were honest in their hatred. The ‘natives’ were also honest. Everywhere they came up with their own slang terms for the various Europeans they encountered. The 18th century was the last honest century. The Crusaders and the Europeans who colonized the world were not racist. They had more in common with those they fought in Asia and Africa and the Middle East than modern day Europeans have with the black and Arab immigrants who today live next to them in London and Paris. The Crusaders called the Arabs ‘Saracen’ and the Arabs called them ‘Frank’. Today we lie to ourselves and we lie to others in an endless game of political correctness and fear of our own stereotypes of others, our own true feelings about other cultures and our fake desire to think everyone is exactly the same and equal and no one should ever be judged.
The 18th century Europeans were guilty of judgment. But at least they were also guilty of honesty. That’s more than can be said for the world today.

The 31,755 day war

The 31,755 day war
June 9th, 2007
Seth J. Frantzman

Forty years have passed since the ‘Six Day War’ and therefore, given the Western predilection for celebrating anniversaries it has been a media fest. We are all hearing the same tune, the same mantra: The Six Day war changed the Middle East. The war is supposed to be the seminal event, upon which a ‘re-creation’ of the Middle East took place. The logic goes like this: the 1967 war ended with Israeli occupation, thus leading to the Intifada and the ‘Peace Process’, the 1967 war created more than 400,000 Palestinian and, oft forgotten Syrian refugees, the 1967 war caused the destruction of the famed ‘maghrebi quarter’ of Jerusalem and the occupation by Israel of the holy sites of Christianity and Islam, the 1967 was the turning point between Arab national and Islamism in the Middle East, the 1967 war made Israel a colonial apartheid power, the 1967 war helped fan the flames of terrorism across the Middle East and may have led to the Sept. 11 attacks, the 1967 war caused the Arabs to lose pride and suffer humiliation, forcing them to yearn for revenge.

If this were all true and accurate the event would indeed be revolutionary. It would be a ‘turning point’ and the six day battle that made up the war would indeed be one of those decisive battles alongside Stalingrad(1942), Hastings(1066), Agincourt(1415), Salamis(480 B.C), Lepanto(1571), Tours(732) and Hattin(1187). But what if the prevailing opinion was wrong about 1967, what if it wasn’t the end all be all turning point, the source of all the troubles in the Middle East, and even the world?

There is new revisionist history being written about the Six Day War, primarily coming from the likes of Tom Segev and other ‘new historians’ who seek to prove that anything hitherto considered positive about Israel is in fact a ‘myth’. Segev has trotted out the best and most eloquent arguments in his new book. He argues that the Israeli leadership in May of 1967 was split between the locally born Sabras such as Moshe Dayan who called themselves the ‘Prussians’ and the foreign born elders such as Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, who Dayan and his ilk called ‘the Jews’. Dayan and his young bucks were pressing for a surprise attack. The argument continues, claiming that Israel was whipped up into a frightened, illogical, hysterical frenzy following the Egyptian decision to order the U.N peacekeepers out of Sinai on the 16th of May, 1967 and the decision by Egypt’s president Nasser to blockade the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping on the 22nd of May. At the time Egypt and Syria were a union and the two countries were run by Gamal Abdel Nasser, who threatened, through his radio broadcasts, to destroy Israel. But the argument of Segev is that the Israeli leadership knew that Nasser was bluffing and that in fact there was nothing for the ‘Jews’ to worry about. All the talk in May of 1967 about a ‘new Holocaust’ was just a scare tactic, like the modern ‘war on terror’. The stories circulating in the Israeli press about German scientists working for Egypt and free copies of ‘Mien Kampf’ being handed out to Egyptian soldiers were either fabrications or gross misrepresentations(in fact both were true). The ‘evidence’ for this line of reasoning is, like the ‘evidence’ for Israel’s culpability in the 2006 war with Hezbollah, that Israel planned the war beforehand. By this logic, the existence of military plans, drawn up long before the 1967 war, and plans for the conquest of the Golan and the West Bank, all point to a conspiracy by the Young Turk generals around Dayan and Yitzhak Rabin to conquer territory and destroy the Arab armies. The ‘Prussians’ secretly knew that the Arab armies, despite outnumbering the Israeli army by 3:1 or more, were in fact weak. Even though Egypt and Syria had modern Soviet equipment and Jordan had British tanks, the Israelis ‘secretly’ knew they would win and that Israel in fact provoked the war. Then the argument tells us that Israel conspired to take over the West Bank, that it was part of a ‘secret’ plan from long before the creation of Israel and that Israel was just waiting, chomping at the bit, to steal these lands from Jordan. Apparently where all this scholarship leads is to a determination that Israel was sort of like Nazi Germany. Just as Hitler whipped up the Germans to believe they were waging a defensive war against an onslaught by the West, so the Israelis made the people feel frightened while a militaristic government schemed for war. After all didn’t Moshe Dayan refer to himself and his generals as ‘Prussians’? The ‘Prussians’ is a code word for the German military establishment and ‘Blitzkrieg’, the type of lightning warfare practiced only by Nazi Germany and Jewish Israel. The connection is obvious.

All the new research on 1967 is suspect because of its emphasis on ascribing so many problems to one event. It seems easy to say that ‘six days changed the world’. After all, the Bible says the world was created in Six Days, so it has poetic logic to it. But the Six Day War did not take place in a vacuum. It was not truly a ‘turning point’. It is not like the battle of Tours from which the Umayyad Muslim invasion of France never recovered(in Edward Gibbon’s words in 1776: ‘had the Muslims triumphed we might today hear the cry of the Muezzin from the steeples of Oxford’). It is not like Salamis, that led to the end of the Persian invasion of Greece. Perhaps the Six Day War should be compared to the wars of Pyrrhus of Epirus of the 3rd century B.C, from whose name the term ‘Pyrrhic victory’ is derived because the Greek general lost half his army in a series of battles trying to frustrate Roman expansion in Italy. Perhaps it should be compared to one of the many decisive battles of the Punic or Peloponnesian wars. In retrospect it could be compared to Hattin or Agincourt, but only because those decisive battles were part of a longer conflict.

The Six Day War was not a war, it was a Six Day Battle, a massive decisive battle where Israel destroyed three Arab armies and captured a great amount of territory. But it was six days in a 31,000 day war, an 87 year war. It didn’t cause Islamism to break out in the wake of the failure of Arab Nationalism to uproot the ‘Zionist entity’. It didn’t cause the Arab’s pride to be so damaged that they all turned to religion, all 250 million of them. It didn’t cause Muslim terrorism. History shows that Muslim terrorism, especially against Israel, had been employed since the 1930s and there were the famous Muslim ‘Fedayeen’ terrorists who killed hundreds of Israelis between 1948 and 1967. The Six Day battle didn’t cause the occupation of the Palestinians, they were occupied between 1948 and 1967 by Jordan and denied their rights to vote and their right to self-determination.

The 1967 war was planned by Israel, but that is because it is the nature of militaries to plan wars, just because an army plans for a war doesn’t mean it is involved in a conspiracy. The U.S planned for war with England during the 1930s under a secret document known as Plan Orange that envisioned the invasion of Canada. It may be true that Moshe Dayan referred to Levi Eshkol as a ‘Jew’ and that he was alluding to the idea that, as an Eastern European born Jew, Eshkol was a shtetl dweller, a weak and cowardly person. This seemingly racist insult might not have been out of place in an Israel that largely tried to forget about the Holocaust between 1948 and 1967 and an Israel that looked upon the weakness and lack of self defense of the Jews of Europe in the face of Nazism as a pathetic response(in fact the drive to fight in 1967 among Dayan and the generals was encouraged by a revulsion to the Holocaust, they wanted to show the world that as Jews they would go down fighting, not like sheep). Eshkol, the Israeli Prime Minister was an accountant and leading bureaucrat during the 1930s while Dayan and Rabin and the other generals of 1967 were leading the Haganah, busy fighting the British and the Arabs. Should it have been a surprise that they viewed themselves as young bucks, or ‘Prussians’ ready to fight while the old men twiddled their thumbs? The ‘Prussians’ understood in late May of 1967 that every day that went by gave the Arabs another day to call up soldiers and prepare for war. But Israel had efficiency on its side and interior lines which allowed it, as a small country, to call up large numbers of troops and commit them to battle on any of the three fronts of the war. The allusion to ‘Prussian’ is not a bad one here, for it brings back the memory of 1914 when the Prussian generals such as Von Molkte explained to Kaiser Wilhelm II in July of 1914 that Germany had to mobilize in order to fight a two front war against France and Russia. It wasn’t a German conspiracy to begin the First World War, but the Germans launched the war because a countdown had begun in Sarajevo with the assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand. This sequence of events has been told in detail in various books such as Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August and Robert K. Massie’s Dreadnought. Israel followed the German model of 1914, not the Nazi model of 1939.

The Arab-Israeli war has gone on for a long time. Since the riots of 1920 there have been 8-10 major battles(‘wars’ in the official parlance). That is how they should be looked at in such a conflict. There was the 1929 riots where Jews were massacred and cleansed from Hebron. There was the Arab revolt of 1936-1939 where the Jewish villages in Palestine came under unending attack by guerillas led by Hajj Amin Al Husayni. There was the 1948 battle, Israel’s war of Independence when some 600,000 Arabs fled the new state of Israel and five Arab armies invaded Israel, three of whome were defeated while the Jordanians occupied the West Bank. There was the 1956 conflict when Israel invaded Egypt alongside the U.K and France. There was the 1967 battle when Israel fought Syria, Egypt and Jordan and Iraqi units and secured herself the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan. There was the 1973 battle when Syria and Egypt surprised Israel and defeated her for the first days of the conflict. There was the 1982 conflict when Israel invaded Lebanon in order to rid itself of the PLO run Palestinian bases there. There was the 1987-91 Intifada where the Palestinians rebelled against Israeli control. There was the 2000-2004 Intifada II where the Palestinians carried out massive numbers of suicide bombings, again to rid themselves of occupation. There was the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah battle.

Why call all these events wars? It is convenient. In the 14th and 15th centuries it was also convenient for the Knights of England to differentiate between Agincourt(1415) and Crecy(1346), but we can’t help but lump them together as part of the Hundred Years War. Who can distinguish between Lutzen(1632) and Brietenfield(1642), all part of the Thirty Years War. Do we distinguish between Pylos(425 B.C) and Notium in 406 BC, both part of the Peloponesian war. We have come to accept these long and ancient conflicts as lasting over long periods. But in the Arab-Israeli conflict we have come to consider it as part of a series of wars. This is incorrect. Perhaps the ‘Six Day War’ was a turning point in the overall 87 year conflict, perhaps it is akin to an Austerlitz(1805), where Napoleon famously marched his army from the English Channel to Austria in a lightening campaign, destroying the Austrian and Russian armies and winning one of his greatest victories. Might we recall that it is called the Era of Napoleon for a reason. We are living in an Era of Israel in the Middle East, perhaps. The ‘myths’ of 1967 were not myths. It was a plucky little Jewish state that destroyed the massed Arab armies. Without the victory perhaps the setback of 1973, the Yom Kippur War, would have come earlier and its consequences been worse(ironically the Arabs refer to the 1967 war as ‘al Nahsa’ or ‘the setback). The idea that Israel ‘conspired’ to take land from the Arabs is misleading. Of course the Jewish people wanted to have access to the their Holy sites in the Old city and the West Bank(which they were forbidden by Jordan to visit from 1948-1967). They did bide their time. And they won. Land changes hands all the time in war. How many times was Alsace-Lorraine owned by Germany? Why is East Prussia today called Kaliningrad and owned by Russia? How exactly did Morocco come to own the Western Sahara, Pakistan to rule half of Kashmir, China to rule Tibet or Turkey to rule half of Cyprus? One would like to know.

Perhaps its time people learn the story of Moshe Dayan and David Ben-Gurion the way we learn about Pericles and Alcibiades or Napoleon and Ney. Perhaps its time the names Manachem Begin, Ariel Sharon, Bashir Asad and Gamal Abdel Nasser resonate with us the way Paul Von Hindenberg, Lord Kitchner, Douglas Haig and Joseph Joffe do. Which is to say without the extreme emotion heaped upon them today by historians, without the extreme prejudice, without the accusations of conspiracies and ‘racism’ and without the subjecting of the past to our modern notions of ‘imperialism’ and ‘colonialism’. Once the idiotic emotions are taken away from the Arab-Israeli conflict it becomes like other great struggles, it becomes truly a great tale. However due to the predelictions of the West for emotionalizing everything and for the Muslims of attributing the most extreme rights and wrongs to everything there is little chance of this. Only in places such as India and China, removed from the monotheistic-pluralistic Muslim-West relationship might one have a chance of appreciation, rather than condemnation, hatred and judgement.

Kurt Waldheim and the Russians in 1945

Frantzman Weekly Newsletter 35
Why the Russians were right in 1945: Human rights and war-crimes colonialism in 2007
Seth J. Frantzman
June 23rd, 2007

In Serbia Carla Del Ponte, a white westerner and prosecutor for the International criminal court, tramps around lecturing Serbs, demanding they catch war criminals and deploring their ‘slow progress’, threatening to suspend Serbia’s ability to join ‘the family of nations’ in the EU. In Cambodia Robert Petit, a white Canadian, sits as the head of a U.N tribunal of white men and a few token Cambodians and he deplores how slow Cambodia is to bring the Khmer Rouge to justice for its genocide in the 1970s. He lectures the Asians, demanding they move faster and do as they are told. In Sierra Leone, Stephen Rapp, who formerly led the International War Crimes Tribunal in Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, serves as head of the Special Court for Sierre Leone as the U.N’s chief prosecutor. There he runs a court of blacks who he demands move faster in prosecuting war criminals. However he has gained much fame of late for winning a case against three ‘warlords’ in Sierre Leone who were accused of using ‘child soldiers’.
Meanwhile at the Hague Charles Taylor, kidnapped by white Europeans a year ago, sits in prison refusing to testify in his own trial against him, which accuses him of war crimes in his home country of Liberia. Taylor may recall that Slobodan Milosevic was mysteriously found dead on March 12th, 2006 after rotting in the International Criminal Court’s jail since 2001. CNN informed its readers that day that the ‘Butcher of the Balkans’ was found dead just weeks before the conclusion of his trial. Taylor has said he knows he cannot receive a fair trial from the U.N tribunal. A week before Milosevic died another Serb, Milan Babic, was mysteriously found dead of ‘suicide’.

Meanwhile Kurt Waldheim died peacefully at his home on the 14th of June, 2007. Kurt, Austrian, had joined the German Army in 1941, like most Austrians who sympathized and supported the Nazi cause. He served for four years as a professional Nazi officer. He was stationed in Bosnia where he served under General Lohr and took part in Operation Kozara, where up to a hundred thousand Serbs were murdered by the Nazis. Later he was sent to Thesaloniki in Greece where he helped murder the last remaining Jews after 40,000 had been deported to Auschwitz. In 1944 Waldheim personally oversaw the distribution of anti-Semitic material on the Russian front where civilians were encouraged to “kill the Jews.” He led an eventful life, beginning as Austria’s first former Nazi to represent the country to the U.N in 1964 he was elected Secretary General of the U.N in 1971, becoming the first Nazi to run the U.N. He served until 1982 and became president of Austria in 1986. During his tenure he made sure that when he visited the Holocaust memorial in Israel, Yad Vashem, he didn’t wear a Yarmulke(Kippah, skullcap) like everyone else, pretending that he didn’t want to seem partisan, but actually betraying his hatred of the Jews. When he died he was eulogized by leftists and liberals and Nazis worldwide. Tom Segev eulogized that “it may be said that Waldheim died a liar, not a murderer…one way or another - whether he was a murderer or just a liar – they [the Jews who accused him of being a Nazi] managed to make his life miserable until the day he died. That was his punishment.” Waldheim was a victim. A victim of being accused of being a Nazi, even though he actually was one. So Waldhiem joins Eichmann, as yet another Nazi that leftists such as Hannah Arendt and Eyal Sivan have tried to make clean, dull, banal and not responsible for their actions.

But Waldhiem wasn’t the only Nazi roaming free in Europe for the last 60 years. Former SS officer Erich Priebke was free under ‘house arrest’ in Italy since being extradited from Argentina in 1995. He had only ordered the killing of 335 people in the Ardeatine caves. As an Italian lawyer explained, “the Italian justice system is about rehabilitation, not revenge,” so the Nazi was was being rehabilitated, he is 93, but he certainly should’nt be punished. Literally thousands of former Nazis, officers and high level staff clerks and camp guards and camp camandants ran free in Europe and the world over the last 60 years. When caught they were almost always released for being ‘too old’.
If one studies the history of the European aspect of prosecuting former Nazis it is always the same story. There is first the extremely slow and plodding justice system in Europe, where it becomes almost impossible to bring the Nazis to trial due to extradition and other procedural matters. Then there is the long trial and the appeals. Finally the rulings usually find that the former Nazis are ‘too old’ and they are sentenced to a short term in prison followed by house arrest or are given freedom due to their old age and the European feeling that it would be ‘unjust’ to punish them at such an old age. Certainly they shouldn’t suffer, they only killed millions of people. After all, the European justice system is not about ‘revenge’.

But if Nazis, who are real war criminals, are allowed to roam free, and even allowed to run the U.N and become the president of European countries, why are white Europeans tramping around the world schooling Asians and blacks about ‘war crimes’? Why are there people like Carla Del Ponte lecturing Eastern European states about ‘corruption’ and ‘non-compliance’ and demanding they ‘speed things up’? Why was the trial of Milosevic so much about revenge for his crimes?

It is not a coincidence that wherever there are ‘war crimes tribunals’ there are also white people. And wherever these things exist there are always Europeans. It is not a coincidence that while the U.N must colonize half the world with its expensive SUV’s and its wealthy compounds and its soldiers who trade food aid for sexual favor, that in Europe in conflict areas such as the Basque areas, there are no U.N troops.

There is one standard for Europeans and another standard for everyone else. The Europeans were the Nazis. It was Europeans from all over Europe, from Italy to France to Germany to Austria, to Hungary that joined the Nazi parties and collaborated with the Nazis. It was Europeans who murdered some 10 million civilians between 1939 and 1945. But ever since then Europeans have spent the next sixty years lecturing the world about human rights. Europeans with blood on their hands. Kurt Waldheim himself ran the U.N and lectured people on ending conflicts, and he was up to his knees in the blood of civilians. The U.N itself is largely a construct of Nazism and Leftism. Does that sound far fetched? Kurt Waldheim was not only a Nazi but a Socialist as well, and lest we forget, Nazis were ‘national’ Socialists.

Why does it take a white face to know justice? Can only white people determine right and wrong? Must one have a name like Steven, or Kurt, or Robert or Carla, to know the difference between right and wrong? In 1945 it was not just the western Europeans who understood ‘justice’. In fact those who handed out justice most effectively and most efficiently were people with the name Ivan and Dmitri and Constantine. It was the Soviet Red Army that meted out justice in the correct manner. The Soviets killed all the Nazis they came across. There were no trials, there were no fake tribunals. There was no ‘human rights’ and there was no sympathy. The SS officers who were captured by the Soviets were lined up, forced to dig their own graves, just as they had done to their victims, and they were gunned down like the dogs they were. There was no wincing among the Soviet high command. There was no moralizing. After all, the deaths of 20 million Russians compared to the mass execution of 10-20,000 Nazi officers and politicians was hardly comparable. The Soviets meted out justice in the non-western way. They didn’t need former Nazis like Waldheim to advise them how. They didn’t need the children of Nazis to advise them how. They didn’t need the grandchildren of Nazis to advise them how. They didn’t need all the former collaborators now ‘socialists’ in Europe to advise them how. They didn’t need all those countries whose leaders and populations sat silent between 1939 and 1945 in the face of the Holocaust, such as Ireland and Sweden, to advise them how. The Russians did the right thing in 1945. They killed and murdered, and slaughtered and butchered the Nazis. If only the Russians had caught Waldheim. If only they had caught SS officer Erich Priebke. Oh, but Mr. Priebke would’nt be riding on his scooter today saying how he was ‘forced’ to murder 300 people. Mr. Priebke would be six feet under ground in the Ukraine somewhere, in an unmarked grave. There would be no protests outside his house, there would be no fancy Italian lawyer talking about the wrong of ‘revenge’. Mr. Priebke might have been taken to a cave, much like the one he marched his victims to. He might have been made to dig a little in the icy ground. He might have been kicked in the face and had his knees brocken. He might have begged for his life. He might have cried. He might have claimed that he was ‘just taking orders’. But there would have been no sympathy for him from the jury consisting not of his western European white peers, but of hardened Soviet soldiers. And he would have been shot. And left for dead. And that would have been justice. If only the Soviets had not stopped at Berlin, if they had cleansed the rest of Europe of its Nazis past. How tragic that the Europeans would have had to live under Moscow’s rule. But it was Europe that waved the Nazi flag wasn’t it? It was Europe that turned its back in 1941 and supported evil. It has been Europe for the last 60 years that has colonized the world and shaken its fingers at the world’s peoples lecturing them about ‘justice’ and ‘human rights’. But under every European house is the rotting corpses of Europe’es foul history, its stench, its hateful, genocidal past. Under the house of Robert Petit and Stephen Rapp and Carla Del Ponte, under the house of every westerner who works for the U.N is the body of the past, the evil and hideous and hateful past of the westerner and his lies and his colonialism and his endless attempts to tell other people how to live. Charles Taylor is right, he cannot get a fair trial at the U.N. Its not just his skin color. Its becaue he wasn’t a Nazi. If Charles was just 40 years older he could have served with Eichmann and Waldhiem and Priebke and then Mr. Taylor would be free today and he could dress like one of those elderly Africans with a big hat and a walking stick and no one would bother him. Oh but Mr. Taylor, you were born to late, you were born in the era of European human rights colonialism. So you will rot in jail, and there will be no sympathy and justice for you from the white man.

According to the modern European, the world is a bunch of children, especially Africans who are all considered child-like, and thus white Europeans must re-colonize Africa through their ‘war crimes tribunals’. While Nazis roam free in Europe, Charles Taylor must rot in prison. But Taylor did no worse than Waldheim. So why not elect Taylor head of the U.N?

The Secret History of the Iraq War

Frantzman Weekly Newsletter number 20
The Secret History of the Iraq War
March 5th, 2007
Seth J. Frantzman

Seymour W. Hersh(whose article appears after this one) has made some interesting claims lately regarding American policy in the Middle East. He said recently that the U.S ‘gave the green light to Israel’s attack on Lebanon’ and that the U.S is now funding Sunni jihadist groups along with Saudi Arabia to counter the growing influence of the Shiites in both Lebanon and Iraq, not to mention Iran. The rhetoric goes further, insinuating that Nasrallah, the Hizbullah chief, is in fact the victim, that he is now on the ‘hit list’ of the Israelis for being the leader of the first Arab group in history to defeat that country. He is therefore the true victim, and he is wrongly mislabeled as running a group whose symbols, slogans and propaganda, not to mention overall aesthetics, are like the Brown Shirts.

The problem is that people like Mr. Hersh, not to mention most informed people, have never understood the real reasons behind the war in Iraq. Let us return to the post 9/11 policy sessions at the White House. At that time it became clear that almost all the 9/11 hijackers, fifteen of nineteen to be exact, were from Saudi Arabia, which was second to Israel, America’s strongest ally in the Middle East. Many people in the administration, who after all were veteran Cold Warriors, had joined with the Saudis in the 1980s to funnel money to a CIA and Pakistani ISS program to fund the Jihad in Afghanistan against the Russians. Much romance was made of this Jihad at the time, as chronicled in the book Charlie Wilson’s War and it was popular with Democrats and Republicans, Neocons and Paleo-cons alike. But the Jihad was forgotten about. Few people saw the relationship that it had to all the other Jihads, in Thailand, the Philippines, Sudan, Chechnya, Bosnia, Israel, Lebanon and Algeria. For those who won in Afghanistan, many of whom were recruited from listless Arab groups such as the Palestinians and those with too much money, such as the Saudis, the victory in Afghanistan in 1990, which came after the battles in Lebanon in the 1980s, led them to join up with the terrorists in Algeria. ‘The Afghans’ became a pseudonym for those Arabs and other Muslims who were marching as part of a worldwide movement. They had changed strategy since the 1970s, when their terrorists focused on murdering Arab heads of state(Anwar Sadat being the high-point in 1973, as well as a raid on the Great Mosque in Mecca). Increasingly after defeat in the Algerian war in the 1990s they turned their eyes on the west and America.

This was a by-product, apparently unforeseen, to the Afghan struggle. America had long known the power of militant Islam, after all the Iranian revolution and the hostage Crises in 1979 and 1980 had been part of this struggle, but somehow America, having supported the Secular Socialist Baathist Saddam Hussein against the Iranians, had forgotten about this problem. The attacks on Americans were brazen and ignored in the 1990s, the U.S.S Cole, the Kaibur towers, the Tanzanian and Kenyan embassies, the ‘battle of the Black Sea’ in Mogadishu, the world trade center and numerous other incidents. America’s strongest Muslim allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, were the main centers of terrorist and Islamist training and ideology and yet they fell under the radar during the 1980s and 1990s. Oil was one reason, but their alliance with the U.S in the Cold War was the primary one. Men like Charlie Wilson absolutely loved and admired the ‘desert Arabs’ and the Pakistanis for their bravery in standing up to the Soviets. It was the Soviet allied regimes that had long been the thorn in America’s side in the Middle East, including the PLO and Syria. Nasser’s Arab Nationalists and the Baathists were the ones that brought U.S forced to Lebanon and Iran in the 1950s under the Eisenhower Doctrine and brought the English to the Canal Zone in 1956 and to Jordan in 1958.

It seemed that the Islamist inspired monarchy of Saudi was much more American in her conservative religious values and this appealed to many of the right wing Americans who supported the Jihad(this was part of the wider ‘Arab Cold War’ that took place between the Nasserist coup in 1952 and 1990 that split the Arab world between nationalists and monarchists, religious and secular). They also liked Zia al Haq of Pakistan who had been a longtime ally of the U.S. Pakistan had been the back-channel for American communications with China, and as an ally of China and the U.S, Pakistan was implicitly not only opposed to Soviet rule in Afghanistan but also to India, her longtime enemy since 1948. India under Nehru had steered herself into the non-aligned pact and thus along with Nasser, Tito and many others was strongly opposed to the U.S. Thus through the 1990s, despite the end of the Cold War, Cold war friends remained close to America. America did not change course on her policy vis-à-vis India, despite the victory of the BJP and the fall of the Socialist INC. Pakistan was the conduit for American influence there. Indonesia too, a Muslim state who had long suppressed non-Muslims in East Timor, Hindus in Bali and Chinese throughout the country had been a U.S ally since the 1970s.

But Sept. 11th did change all of that. Suddenly the perceptions of the Muslim religious regimes changed abruptly. Neo-conservatives who made up a large swath of influential voices in the administration and old Cold Warriors understood that a profound change of policy was needed. The invasion of Afghanistan in the fall and winter of 2001 and 2002 was an easy decision, that was where Al Quaida was. But the decision for Iraq was much more complicated.

Iraq, like the Saudi hijackers, had turned on America. Like the Jihadists in Afghanistan, Iraq had been a U.S ally against Iran. Long coveted by the Sunni loving Arabists who ran the State Department’s Near Eastern division(as chronicled in The Arabists), Saddam was a friend of the U.S until he went too far. Due to the debts he owed the other Arab nations, they had bankrolled him to fight for them and their security against the Iranian Shiite threat in the Persian gulf, Saddam resurrected an old 1920s dispute with Kuwait and invaded that country in 1990. The Cold War had just ended and as America was searching for a new role in the world, Islamists seemed to hand her that role, although it was not readily visible.

The Iraqi invasion presented a problem. Saddam was indeed a friend of the U.S, but the Iran-Iraq war, the reason for the friendship, had ended in 1989. Saddam invaded the Gulf Arab state because of money and because they undercut him in OPEC sales. But he threatened Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States(Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain) all of which were in many ways U.S protectorates, very close allies. America sided with Saudi Arabia because hers was the oldest relationship, dating back to the 1930s, and because Saddam had styled himself a new Saladin, he was vehemently anti-Israel, the PLO had sided with him and he was positioning himself to dominate more than 50% of the world’s Oil.

When the war was over Saddam was weakened and the U.S did indeed set up a Kurdish mini-state in northern Iraq, under the protection of the Special Forces and the U.S Air Force. However a Shiite uprising was not supported, no doubt the Saudis did not favor it since they had their own Shiite problems and they recalled the Iranian threat in the 1980s, Saddam was allowed in 1991 and 1992 to use his remaining helicopters to crush the Shiites.

However in 2001 the situation was different. Revelations that Saudi Arabia was funding radical Islamist doctrines across the world were met with dismay. In the old days such hatred had been directed at the atheistic Soviet Union, but in the 1990s it increasingly targeted Christians and the west. America realized the pernicious influence this was having the United States and also in Europe, among the burgeoning Muslim community.

A decision was made that it was imperative that America no longer rely solely on Saudi Arabia and the gulf states for her oil, since this money spent on oil was indeed funding terrorism. But other oil producing states such as Libya and Iran hated America, there was no chance of allying with them. However there was one state in the Middle East whose regime was secular, whose regime was weak and who had once been a U.S ally; Iraq. In the 1990s Bush Sr. had objected to taking out Saddam and so had Clinton, preferring containment and bombing, because an Iraq without Saddam would be a power vacuum into which radical Islam and all sorts of terrible things would come. There was also the problem of the Kurds and the Shiites and Sunnis.

However in 2001 it was determined that the time was ripe to finish the job. It should be an easy war, Saddam had a weak army, and there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction to fear, U.S intelligence confirmed both these things. It was not a Haliburton ‘war for oil’ but it was supposed to be a war that would garner America a new ally in the Middle East, a secular style democracy with diverse groups to balance one another and a record of a strong middle class(Iraq had that into the 1980s and the public was highly literate and intellectual and not prone to fanaticism). That was the assessment, for a short war, there would be a new ally. America would dismantle her bases in Saudi and move them to her new friend in Iraq, just across the border. Iraq and Kuwait would form the new bulwark of U.S influence in the Middle East. Saudi would be left to wither, after the war, the U.S would scale back her influence there and her alliance. Also with Iraq as a U.S ally America would have more leverage with the Saudis, now when she condemned Saudi for sex-slave trafficking, human rights violations and supporting terrorism she could back it up with sanctions, Saudi could no longer use the oil weapon effectively because oil reserves would be secured in Iraq(recall that in the 1980s Saudi was Americas only oil producing friend in the middle east, outside the gulf states, where Saudi wielded great influence due to her size and power).

That was the secret history of the Gulf War. Iraq was supposed to be a pushover. It had one been governed by the British, it had a history of moderation. It was supposed to be transformed into a U.S ally. The Iraqi national congress opposition groups assured America of that as did CIA allies like Chalabi. The Shiite threat(they were the dominant demographic group) was downplayed. America understood that al Quaida would set up groups in Iraq to fight the U.S but it was felt that fighting them on their own soil would be easier than waiting for them to attack, and that the fight would go America’s way as it had in Afghanistan. The Kurds were already strong U.S allies. It was felt that the Iraqi army and infrastructure would be left intact after the war and that America might even hire many of the Sunni Iraqis who had the know how to plan post-war Iraq, they were reliable secularists and Saddam had hated al Quaida so they would too, and they hated Iran, which America did too.

Much has been written about the neo-cons influence and the doctrine of pre-emption championed by Paul Wolfowitz but this idea has been mislabeled. It was not necessarily pre-emptive if one accepts that high level American leaders knew that Saddam was no immediate threat(certainly less than North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran). The idea that Democracy would lead to peace and allies in the Middle East(The Democratic peace scenario) was certainly at the forefront but it was not a neo-con idea either. The neo-con, if they had as much influence as they have been credited with, revolution was one that saw a strengthened more muscular, more involved U.S foreign policy, a Wilsonian like, making the world safe for democracy, as should have been done in the 1930s(the Americans who went to fight in Spain have euphemistically been called ‘early pre-emptionists’). The neo-cons were profoundly repulsed by Clinton’s lobbing of bombs at the Serbs(twice) and at Sudan and Afghanistan and Iraq and not doing anything, as they were dismayed by America’s useless invasion of Haiti that changed nothing and put a dictator(Jean Birtrand Aristide) back into power. Neo-conservativism was first coined as a phrase and ideology in the early 1980s to label those men, many of whome who had been leftists, who converted to Reagenism, such as Jean Kirkpatrick and Norman Podhoretz, and advocated the Reagan doctrine against the Soviets, the notion that Containment was a failure and so was détente and that the ‘evil empire’ had to be rolled back. These were the ideas that came to the fore again after being in abatement since 1988(Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and the other advisers to Bush Sr. were not interventionists or Wilsonians. Clinton’s advisors such as Madeline Albright. Richard Holbroke and Bill Richardson as well as Carter holdovers such as Zvignew Brizinski believed that America should be sort of a worldwide Svengali policing human rights abuses and wielding the unwieldy power of Nato and the U.N to accomplish her goals. Profoundly more pro-European than the Reaganites or neo-cons, it trusted in the ability to solve most problems through bombing and negotiations, which seems like a TR carrot and stick approach but is not, there was no follow through and this author has referred to the Clinton era in foreign policy as the ‘walk in the clouds’. From Somalia(1992) to Haiti(1994) to Rwanda(1994) to North Korea(1996) to Bosnia(1996) to Kosovo(1998) to Sudan(1997) to Afghanistan(1997) to the bombings of Iraq(1994, 1996, 1998, 1999) the Clinton years netted not one policy success and in fact there does not appear to have been any policy, like Bush Sr. there was a desire to ‘put out fires’ but not anticipate them and in putting them out they were never extinguished).

But something went horribly wrong. The Shiites formed militias including the Mahdi army and they didn’t take to Democracy so well, and then they understood too well that Democracy would bring them dictatorial rule and they tried to suppress and destroy the Sunnis, who were long time allies of the U.S, horrifying the Saudis who now contemplated funding the very terrorist groups confronting the U.S and Shiites in Iraq. The Shiite plague spread to Pakistan and also to Lebanon. People spoke of a Shiite Ascendancy and the election of Ahmadinjad a hard line Holocaust denying, nuke building, fascist in Iraq, was no helpful. The de-Baathification that took place in the first few days in Iraq harmed U.S interests. It turned out the Defense Department hadn’t planned for a post war Iraq(see Fiasco). Even the idea that America would fight al Quaida ‘over their’ instead of in New York proved wrong because it turned out the Sunni Islamists preferred murdering Iraqi Shiites and vice-versa more so than Americans and a semi-Civil war began in 2006.

American boggling also led to a number of major setbacks. The over-reliance on civilian contractors, whose deaths and lynching at Fallujah led to numerous struggles in the ‘Sunni triangle’. The inability to consider self-determination for the Kurds(as was considered for the Kosovars) in the wake of the Baker-Hamilton report of 2005. Most ruinous was the first weeks after the conquest of Baghdad, the dismantling of the Iraqi army, the failure of Rumsfeld to come up with a post-Iraq plan, feuding between the State Department(pro-Sunni Arabists), the CIA(who were pro-Chalabi), NSA(pro-Israel) and the Defense Department. The apparently idiotic attempt to ‘learn’ from the Israel experience in the West Bank and the French experience in Algeria as to how best to win against insurgents, incapsulated in the twin Pentagon documents; A paper by Major Gregory D. Peterson, TheFrench Experience in Algeria, 1954-62: Blueprint for U.S. Operations in Iraq, Ft Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military Studies, and the less than brilliant screening of the film The Battle of Algiers at the Pentagon where the informative poster for it read “How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.” Anyone thinking that the term ‘the French have a Plan’ was going to turn out well could only hope to be quickly dismayed. America was at least saved lives when it turned out that the ‘insurgency’ in Iraq was primarily one between two or more rival Arab groups(Sunni versus Shia, Al Quaids versus the Mahdi army, Zarqawi versus al Sadr, foreigners versus Iraqis, Arabs versus Kurds, Assyrians and Turcomen). The result of the insurgency was eventually to drive all the former secular Baathists and other secular people out of the country, including any progressive Muslims and Christians. The Palestinians who had found refuge also all were forced to flee to Jordan and Syria, complaining as they have in the past against others of ‘ethnic-cleansing’.

America found herself relying more than ever on Saudi Arabia. There is no clear end to the Iraq war in sight. 3,000 Americans have died. America hasn’t even dared to partition the country so as to get a Kurdish ally out of it with oil fields at Karkuk for fear of alienating Turkey and Saudi(because the Shiites would implicitly get autonomy then too).

All America can do is watch it get worse and watch the Islamists kill eachother, which isn’t a terrible thing, but was not the original intention.

Democracy has been a patent failure in the Middle East. It has brought Hamas to power in the Palestinian territories, Hizbullah to power in Lebanon, strengthened the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and it has brought Shiite fascists to power in Iraq. America should have been aware that Islamism had the greatest popularity on the street in the Arab and Muslim world. The victory in Algeria of Islamists in a 1990 election led to a decade long civil war there, someone should have realized that Islamism was ascendant by the late 1980s. Someone forget that democracy has not always led to peace. The Democratic peace theory, championed by most political scientists(it apparently competes with the ‘economic peace’ theory that claims free markets lead to peace) claims that democracies have never fought one another. This is in fact a massive lie. Democracy allowed fascists to seize power in Italy and Germany and gave them great inroads in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Spain in the 1920s and 1930s. Democracy, in a tragic way, was responsible for the weakness of Weimar Germany that led to Nazism. Indeed Mussolini and Hitler ended Democracy but no one can forget that it was Democracy that brought them to power. Democracy is the concept that more than half the people make correct choices more than half the time. However as Churchill pointed out it was merely the least of a number of bad choices for how to organize government, the only countries that didn’t go fascist in the 1930s were those with long Democratic traditions(the U.S and England, France doesn’t count). If Fascism was brought to power through democracy why would anyone assume Islamism would be different and Islamist parties openly speak of their scorn for democracy, despite exploiting it, are they any different in their ideology than the fascists? No. Indeed the idea that democracy alone will solve the world’s problems, along with self-determination, those Wilsonian ideas, were proved mostly wrong long ago. However Dictatorship does no better.

And Shiism is indeed ascendant in the Middle East.

Some have claimed the oft-repeated ‘America gave the green light’ to Israel’s response to a Lebanese kidnapping attempt in the summer of 2006 which led to a month long Israeli bombing campaign and partial invasion of Lebanon which then led to a perception that Israel lost the war because she failed to win. When one survey’s overall America’s allies in the Middle East one therefore finds that the two pillars, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are weakened of late. The Mersheimier and Walt ‘working paper’ from Harvard that claimed that the Israel lobby endangers U.S foreign policy in the Middle East was mistaken(an old Arabist canard) but it is true that an enfeebled Israel and a Saudi that is afraid of the Shiites is not helping the U.S. Egypt received billions of U.S aid and military equipment(per the Camp David accords) but she is only barely a strong ally. Jordan is an ally but is also weakened by the Iraq problems. Syria, Iran and Hizullah have formed an arc of terror hostile to the U.S stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediteranean. Turkey is now run by Islamists, rejected U.S troop placements in the second Iraq War, and cannot resolve its own Kurdish problems. Algeria and Libya are not U.S allies. Morrocco is but has no influence. Pakistan, an ally, is also host to Bin Laden and the Taliban. The only good thing to come out of the last 6 years has been a reorientation in American policy towards supporting any regime that is anti-Islamist and thus garnered the U.S alliances with India and Ethiopia, which will serve the U.S well in the future. However the U.S missed a chance to ally closely with Thailand’s Thaksin Shinuat before his fall from power in 2006. Singapore, a long time anti-communist ally under Lee Kwan Hew is still close to the U.S. America has worked to gain closer relationships with Uzbekistan but recent anti-opposition crack downs in all the central asian states(Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgizistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) has not served the U.S and U.S bases have been thrown out of at least one of those countries. Kazakhstan is still firmly in the Russian orbit. There is great fear that they will all go Islamist once their Soviet holdover leaders die. Kosovo and Bosnia have proved to be failures in terms of the international effort to make them states. The U.S policy in the Balkans has therefore also proved to have been a failure. The U.S should have sided with Serbia and Macedonia. Now the U.S has the problem of being beholden to weakened allies in the Middle East and confronting not only Sunni Al Quaida Islamism but also Shiism(in the 1980s the U.S briefly confronted the Shiites in Lebanon after the marine barracks bombing and the embassy bombing, but the conflict resulted in the death of the CIA station chief, dozens of kidnappings, Iran-Contra, and the death of the president of the American University of Beirut, and the withdrawal of U.S troops in 1984). The American contest with the Shiites in Iran in 1979(chronicled recently in Guests of the Ayatollah) was also a failure.

Wither American foreign policy in the world?

The author was a long time Republican Activist in Southern Arizona, a clerk to Congressman Jim Kolbe and a leader of the Bush2000 campaign in Arizona. Through this work and a variety of other channels he became privy to information regarding a number of revelations about the road to America’s war in Iraq of 2003. His study of the conflict since moving to the Middle East in 2002 has only confirmed these views.

The World Without Men

Frantzman Weekly Newsletter 39
The World without Men
July 24th, 2007

Imagine a world without men. What would change? It seems quite obvious on the face of it. However it is worth exploring in order to understand the position of women in society. In the West a world without men would mean that some 50,000 sex workers in New York alone would be out of business. Semi-sexual services such as ‘Topless Golf’ and ‘Bikini Lawn Mowing(a service offered in Memphis)’, topless drive-thrus or the various restaurants such as ‘Hooters’ and others that offer mostly nude waitressing, would no longer have a clientele. How many women would suddenly no longer have ‘work’ in porn, prostitution and stripping and their various other forms, such as the sex-slave trade? Millions of women, perhaps tens of millions out of the half a billion people that live in the West and states with a Western culture. It would be a strange world wouldn’t it. In London alone on one day of walking around the city the author noted a number of index cards advertising ‘girls waiting to please you’ and ‘Polish supermodels’. One can’t enter a newsstand in England without noting that two thirds of the magazines are devoted to porn or ‘boob contests’. But it would all disappear without men. A massive industry would collapse. All those women who spend so much time posing nude and going to strip clubs to be ‘cool’ and dancing in ultra-tight shorts for men, would find themselves with nothing to do. A whole culture would evaporate. The reverberations would go far beyond the sex industry though. Women would no longer wear thong underwear and no longer wear high heels. Women might even stop spending hours making themselves up to look nice for men. The entire worldview of western women would have to change.

A world without men would illustrate the degree to which women in the West are completely enslaved to the notion of what they need to do for men. We speak of a society of ‘equality’ and Feminists spend most of their time whining that women aren’t paid equal to men, but they don’t seem to note the incredible transformation that would take place should one sex simply disappear and women be forced to fend for themselves in the world. It’s not just a matter of how they would fend for themselves but the massive changes that would happen in terms of how women would dress and behave without men around. All the women who ‘play stupid’ in order to attract men would suddenly have to re-tool their entire vocabulary.

But how would the situation of men in Western society change if women were to disappear? Imagine all the men waking up tomorrow without women around. What would they do differently? What would they wear differently? Well it turns out men’s clothing is incredibly comfortable, unlike wearing and walking in high-hells, so men wouldn’t alter anything. Men don’t work in a sex industry that requires the presence of women, so their jobs wouldn’t change. Millions wouldn’t be out of work because men don’t work in industries that are composed of solely female customers, unlike women who primarily work for men. The world of the man would not change at all in the West. This exposes the degree to which the West has lied to itself about ‘equality’. The fact that the roles of women and men are so disparate, as illustrated by the changes in the cultures and occupations of the two groups should one group not exist, shows the degree to which the Western view of women is primarily a lie. Women are not equal and although they appear equal under the law they have conspired on the most part in Western culture to degrade and disenfranchise themselves. In an attempt to show that they have been transformed from the women of the 1950s, who cared for their men by cooking and cleaning, women have simply replaced their role in society with a new one that enslaves them to men, the role of sex object. As women abandoned morals in the 1960s they suddenly found that men had such a vast choice of women to sleep with and because of abortion and birth control, never had to suffer the consequences, women find themselves sidelined in society, in a position that requires them to forever be on display, hoping to be noticed by men who no longer have any responsibility.

But the West is not the only place to blame in this respect. The opposite of the West in terms of the position of women in society has usually been Islam, at least in our popular perception. Since women are so ‘free’ in the west, certainly Islam would be the opposite. But imagine the same question posed regarding the Islamic world: the disappearance of men. How would the role of women change in the Islamic society without men. First of all we can be assured women would discard all the ridiculous clothing that Islam designed for women to wear. That’s not a surprise since we know that the clothing, the Burka, Abbaya, Chador, Purdah, veil, all the black clothing, was designed by men to act as a virtual prison for women when they leave the home, which is their prison. We know this because we have illustrations of what women wore in pre-Islamic times. In Egypt and Turkey we know how they dressed. In fact we know that in India and Indonesia just two hundred years ago they went about in comfortable clothing that allowed them to move about with ease in the hot climate. We also know today that they are now swathed in layers of black and hot clothing that restricts their movement and health as much as possible in those places. So we can be sure that women would no longer wear the ridiculous outfits imposed on them by an intensely male religion.

But clothing is not the only thing that would change. Women would no longer have to submit to the male rules forcing them not to leave the home, not to travel alone and other things, women would no longer be worth half of a man under the law and in testimony. As the only people in society Muslim women would do what they pleased and go about as they pleased. They would no longer be beaten by their husbands and have to ‘obey’ their husbands because of the requirements of their religion.

But, as we asked in the West, how would the position of men change in a Muslim society if women disappeared? The position would not change at all. Men would still dress as they do because Muslim men dress as they please already, they don’t have uncomfortable clothing imposed on them. Men would still go to work and go relax and smoke with men after work. They would still go to mosque and pray. Nothing would change in the male world of Islam because nothing is imposed on the man in regards to women. He doesn’t have to stay home, he isn’t required to receive permission to travel, he doesn’t have to cover himself up, he does whatever he wants today.


The West and Islam are not so different in this respect. In both societies the role of the women is directed entirely towards the man. Almost everything that takes place among Western and Muslim women is identical in terms of their subservience and obedience to the needs and desires of men. The situation of ‘Purdah’ or covering and modesty found among women in Pakistan is no different than the situation of strippers in the West, in both cases the woman is either covered or uncovered because of men and their desires, in one case the desire to keep other men from seeing one’s women and in the other case the desire to see women nude.

The ideal society, so far as equality goes, is the society where the role of women and their culture and dress would not change dramatically should men disappear. The ideal society in terms of equality would also be one where the position of men would change should women disappear, where both sexes influence and are obedient and devoted to one another. That would be a society in which both sexes have responsibilities in regards to one another. It would be a society in which both sexes have obligations towards one another.

Islamic and Western societies are examples of cultures where men have no responsibility. The western man may go to his whores and his strippers and impregnate many women and he has no responsibility towards any of it. He does whatever he wants in regards to women. He marries and divorces. His is a life devoted to himself and his selfishness. The Muslim society is composed of the man who does whatever he pleases while his wife stays home and is obedient and faithful. The Muslim men may take more wives, he may visit prostitutes and strip clubs, he may view porn, he may flirt with non-Muslim women and be alone with them as much as he pleases. The Muslim man, like the Western man has no responsibility. He has no obligations towards women. He doesn’t have to be honest to his wife. He doesn’t have to be faithful to her. He can discard her in divorce by saying “I divorce thee” three times(the ‘Triple Talaaq’ divorce). He may enter into temporary ‘Muta’ marriage should he feel the need to give religious sanction to his sexual appetites, a marriage that exists for merely an hour in the Shia form of Islam. His wife is just a beast, an object. But the woman in the West is also an object, as the poster in England describes it best; “hundreds of girls waiting to please you.” The position of the woman in Islam and the West exists for the man and the man has no responsibility in either society.

There may not be a society that would miss its women should they disappear and this is a tragedy. It is a tragedy that the world of the man in most societies is one in which he exists purely for himself and his own self interest. It is also, equally, a tragedy that the role of women in most societies whether ‘liberal’ or ‘fundamentalist’ is one in which they do everything to please men, whether it is wearing a Burka or a G-string.

Could we say that there are societies where this is not the case? It seems that there are. The conservative society expressed in many places does offer an alternative. It is an alternative where women dress modestly, not with Burkas, but with clothes that they enjoy wearing, ones that are not designed for the eyes of men. Men in the conservative society have self control and responsibility and obligation. They have guilt and a conscience. It is these qualities that make the conservative society one that values women and men in a more equitable way. Such a society is always lampooned as one in which the women are un-equal and suffer discrimination. But do they? They don’t grow up thinking the options in life involve the brothel, the strip club and the porn acting studio. Is there any greater discrimination against women then viewing them as beasts of sexual burden? The answer that Islam offers for the West is that the West’s ‘immorality’ shall be swept away and it should imitate Saudi Arabia. But is there any greater immorality in the world than the lands of the gulf Arabs? In these areas the men import foreign prostitutes to please them, they marry whoever they please, they divorce their wives when they become too old to please them, they drive fast cars and sit on the beach and go swimming, by contrast their wives are covered and kept at home, they cannot drive or go abroad, they cannot go swimming unless they go in their long black all-covering clothing. In a recent case in ‘moral’ Saudi Arabia a woman was gang raped by five men and she was punished by the court for being ‘alone with a man who was not her husband’ and sentenced to hundreds of lashes. In short a woman was raped and then whipped for being raped.

Of Indians and Islam

Of Indians and Islam or
why you don’t have dress like other people to understand them
Newsletter 40
Seth J. Frantzman
August 3rd, 2007

They called him Nantan Lupan or the ‘grey fox’. General George Crook was one of America’s most well known ‘Indian Fighters’. He served against the Sioux and other tribes, but his greatest fame came from his attempt in the territory of Arizona to bring the Apaches to heel. He was successful, but one American Indian leader refused to submit. Geronimo, and his small band fled their reservation on May 17th, 1885. The U.S army threw up a net of forts and search parties, numbering over 4,000 men to find less than a hundred of Apache, many of whome were women and children. The ensuing campaign took the American army into Mexico to track down Geronimo who eventually surrendered on Sept. 4th, 1886. The agents sent by the U.S government had encouraged the Apache to adopt the ways of the white man, to wear western clothes and to farm.
Perhaps Geronimo had heard of the fate of the Cherokee, a tribe that had once lived in Georgia. They had not been forced to dress as Westerners, they had attempted to ape the white man of their own accord. They dressed in suits and their women gave up their immodest ways and wore long dresses and covered their hair with bonnets. The men bought black slaves, like their white neighbors. But their assimilation of the white mans’ values and culture and habits could not save them. In fact their appeasement sealed their fate. When the soldiers came to remove them they were so thoroughly infused with white culture that they had lost their will to fight and their ability to go to the hills and resist. The Cherokee nation was relocated, with their slaves, to Oklahoma after a brutal winter march where many died. Perhaps Geronimo knew the story of his fellow American Indians who had worked so hard to understand the other, to their detriment.
While Geronimo languished in exile in Florida for the remaining twenty years of his life his old adversary, George Crook, campaigned on behalf of the rights of natives.
These two men present a compelling story of two warriors who understood one another. Neither adopted the others culture, except when it was forcibly imposed. They didn’t need to dress like one another to understand eachother. They didn’t need to ape eachother’s religions in order to understand one another. Geronimo never entered a church and to this authors knowledge Crook never entered a sweat lodge or believed in the religion of the Apache or any other tribe he came into contact with.
The American Indian of old had many responses to the invasion of foreigners. Some fought. Some were vanquished by disease. Some dressed in top hats and tails and their wives dressed in the best of East coast fashion. Many converted to Christianity. Whatever they did it didn’t save them. Their destruction was carried out with tragic consequences by all the powers they came into contact with, from the Spanish to the French, the English and the Americans.
We are no better than the American Indian, and in many ways much worse. Our attempts to ‘understand’ and combat Islam are frustrated by the same problems as the Indians had in grappling with the white man. A recent article by a Caucasian ignoramus entitled ‘Four young Americans on a Journey into Islam’ which appeared in the Herald Tribune on Friday, August 3rd, 2007 noted how four white Americans had taken a ‘journey’ with a professor named Akbar Ahmed to a number of Muslim states including Pakistan and Egypt to understand the other. Jonathan Hayden(of Alabama), Hailey Woldt(a ‘blonde Texan’) and Hadia Mubarek(an American born Muslim) were among the students that Ahmed brought with him to meet with Muslims and build cultural bridges.
We are informed of the lengths the whites went to please the other. Woldt dyed her hair brown. “As the trip progressed she began dressing more traditionally. Reaching Jinnah’s mausoleum [in Pakistan], she realized she had forgotten a head scarf, or hijab, and refused to enter. Ahmed and some Pakistani women assured her she did not need one, but she held firm until she could borrow a scarf.” Hadia Mubarek, who wears a head scarf in America and in Muslim countries was almost refused entrance to a university in Istanbul because she was covering her hair, something secular Turkish institutions frown upon. All the Muslims spoke about how their role model was Mohammed. The group made sure to meet with all the anti-western Jihadist organizations it could including members of the Deoband madrasa. When, after many days of meeting with the friendly Islamists, one of the Islamists named Aijaz Qasmi, finally stopped referring to them as “American barbarians” the white women, Hailey, “was moved by Qasmi’s gesture and by what it portended.” The white woman noted that “it’s like changing the rotation of the Earth.” The moronic author of the article noted that Ahmed’s book ‘Islam Under Siege,’ “talks about dialogue, common humanity and the need for understanding.”
Its always interesting to see how Westerners, particularly Western women, always think that the only way to have understanding between cultures is for westerners to become part of the other culture, to dress like it and act like it. The western woman on the trip never once bothered to ask why she alone, rather than her male counterparts, had to dress differently in order to please Islam and why one should change their dress just to please others’ conception of ‘morality’. Note the hypocrisy of these actions. The Muslim women, Hadia, doesn’t conform to the west by taking off her head scarf when she comes to a western country. But the white woman, Hailey, makes sure to don the headscarf and even wears it when Muslims don’t. The Westerner rejoices at getting people to perhaps not call them ‘barbarians’ to their faces. The westerner thinks that a book entitled ‘Islam under siege’ is really a book that speaks of a ‘common humanity.’
Can anyone imagine a black student who is interested in ‘building cultural bridges’ going up and spending a weekend with the KKK at one of their retreats and being ‘overjoyed’ because the KKK members stop calling her ‘nigger’? Oddly enough we don’t see too many blacks doing that. But while blacks don’t show much interest in embracing their former slave masters and colonial overlords who still hate them, the whites seem intent on always embracing any culture that hates them, especially Muslims who formerly colonized half of Europe and enslaved its people.
The Cherokees were taken in by the same levels of idiocy as the Westerner is today. The Cherokees dressed like the white man. The Cherokee women covered their hair. They built bridges of understanding. They also begged white people to stop calling them ‘barbarians( in order to be ‘civilized’ they purchased slaves and created a writing system for their language).’ They must have felt it was a world changing revolution when they stopped being referred to as ‘heathen’. But words didn’t mean much when they were uprooted and deported from their land. One wonders if all the Cherokee women who had been wearing bonnets and long uncomfortable hoop skirts threw them away on the Trail of Tears, if they finally realized that their stupid modest clothing had bought them nothing. If they didn’t they may have feared for the lives of their husbands, for many of the Cherokee collaborators who had preached peace and subservience to the white man were later hacked down by full blooded Cherokees, who had refused to yield. They say that the collaborators were purposely butchered with Cherokee ceremonial axes once they arrived in Oklahoma(their new home), a reference to the traditions that the top hat wearing, slave owning Cherokees had so disdained and abandoned.
Poor Geronimo in exile in Florida. He finally did take to Western clothes. In a picture from an expo in 1904 he appears in a top hat selling souvenirs of himself. Perhaps he recalled another time he had been photographed. In 1886, beside General Crook, he appears in his natural environment, the Sanoran desert, with his own clothing. In that 1886 black and white photo taken by C.S Fly the only non-western addition to Geronimo’s wardrobe was a Winchester Rifle(later surrendered at Ft. Bowie and now at the National Museum of the American Indian). The American Indian was superior to Islam. In many ways he was superior to the white man. But he succumbed to the white man. After the 1880s he was confined to reservations, his children’s hair was shaved, his language was forbidden, his ‘savage and barbarian’ ways were eradicated. Sometimes, in a forlorn manner, he was called upon. An Apache helped train Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders before the Spanish-American war. Navajo code-talkers(their ‘code’ was their language) served with the U.S army in the Pacific in the Second World War. When Geronimo was being shipped through Oklahoma on his way to Florida in 1888 he would have passed close to the birthplace of Jim Thorpe whose real name was Wa-Tho-Huk among his Sac and Fox ancestors. Tragic Jim Thorpe’s mother had married an Irishman and Thorpe was raised a Catholic. But throughout his life, whether at the Carlisle Indian College or when he was winning the Gold medal for the Decathlon and Pentathlon in the 1912 Olympics, it could not esacpe him that he was an American Indian. He took fourth place in the high jump and seventh in the long jump as well as well as third in the Javelin, a sport he had only learned that year. When King Gustav V of Sweden noted at the close of the games(which were held in Sweden) that “you, sir, are the greatest athlete in the world”, Thorpe is reputed to have replied “thanks, king.” Thorpe never cowtowed to royalty or Islam, because Mr. Thrope was an American, and unlike Hailey Woldt, Jim Thorpe never dyed his brown ‘Indian’ hair blonde for the edification of others.

Quadrumvirate of Evil

Quadrumvirate of Evil: The media, the international community, Islamism and human rights activists

Seth J. Frantzman
August 2nd, 2007

A recent article entitled ‘Bosnia changes its mind on foreign fighters’ by Nicholas Wood, which appeared in the Herald Tribune on August 2nd, 2007, illustrates the main problem that the world has in confronting Islamism, terrorism, genocide and human rights abuses. The story goes something like this. From the late 1980s to the mid 1990s a large number of Muslims from throughout the world made their way to Bosnia. Some initially came for disparate reasons, such as Iraqis avoiding the draft in the Iran-Iraq war. But after the Yugoslavian wars of secession broke out in the early 1990s many of the Arabs and other Muslims who arrived came for Jihad. They believer their fellow Muslims were fighting a ‘defensive Jihad’ and many of these fighters were veterans of the wars in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Algeria. For them the Jihad would mean the continuing fight against non-Muslims. Whatever they tell the media and whatever lies they told themselves these men, and they were all men, came for one reason: to kill, to murder non-Muslims, to murder infidels and kaffirs.

They succeeded splendidly in murdering as many Serbs and Croats as possible. They were the most fanatical and devoted members of the Bosnian paramilitary forces. They were renowned for their brutality and ‘efficiency’ in cleansing Bosnia of its minorities. They were also influential in making Bosnia more religious, leading to an Islamic revival which ahs swept Bosnia and Albania and the Muslim minorities of Serbia in places such as Sanjak.

The article would not have told the reader any of this. One has to read to between the lines or do some independent investigating to learn what really took place. According to the article these Arabs are all victims, like all Arabs in the world. The story, as Mr. Wood informs us, is tragic. These poor Arabs came to Bosnia to start a new life in 1994. They happened to arrive in a warzone and according to Raffaq Jalili “I didn’t know there was a country called Bosnia-Herzegovina.” But his sentiments betray his lies. Mr. Jalili, along with other suspiciously named Arab men such as Imad al Hussein and Fadhil Hamdani, realized, according to Mr. Wood, “it was only natural to fight for his adopted country.” So although he didn’t know where he was, he was perfectly willing to take up arms for it. Obviously Mr. Jalili is lying and Mr. Wood is covering up his true motives.

His motives are revealed in other passages. Mr. Hussein, speaking on the possibility that he may be deported from Bosnia, claims that “I keep asking myself, will I be able to contain my instincts…if you defend yourself on your doorstep you become a martyr and that is a great temptation.” Mr. Hussein is, so Mr. Wood wants us to think, an innocent man, but one wonders, if he is so innocent why is martyrdom the first thing on his mind. Millions of people are deported from places every week and 99.99% of them don’t believe they need to be ‘martyrs’ to oppose deportation. Imagine if all the Mexicans deported everyday from the U.S decided to be martyrs and die on their ‘doorsteps’?
But Mr. Wood cannot betray the truth completely. He informs us that most of these peace-lovers were residing in Zenica which was “a hub of ma mujahideen community.”
Imad al Hussein became “the public face of the Muslim fighters, or mujahideen, after the war.” We also learn that “between 1996 and 2001, many of the former [Arab] fighters occupied Bocinja, which had been a Serbian village in central Bosnia. The fighters lived there under sharia law until they were evicted by the government and they dispersed throughout Bosnia.”

Wait a sec. Did we read that correctly. These men came from all over the Arab and Muslim world, thousands of them flocked to a foreign land, they cleansed a village of its former inhabitants and set up a legal system for themselves. What does this sound like. Well in 1492 a pleasant Genoese captain sailed a few fellow believers across the ocean and set up a small town in a foreign land after kicking out t he natives. That was called imperialism and colonialism. Oddly enough, when Arabs do the same thing in Europe it is just a bunch of nice peaceful people who happened to arrive their by mistake. Its odd, considering the fact that these same peaceful Muslims all whine and complain that Israel is doing just that in the West Bank, it is ‘settling’ on ‘Arab’ land. Isn’t that what they accuse of Israel of doing in 1948, ‘ethnic-cleansing’ Palestinians? But those Arabs didn’t seem to have much guilt over going a thousand miles to a completely different culture and massacring the local Christians and taking over their villages and setting up their Muslim law and, no doubt, building mosques atop the churches.

But the Arab Muslims Mujahideen or holy warriors are the victims. Mr. Wood writes, concerning the current Bosnian government’s attempt to et rid of their murderers, that “ostensibly, the government’s grounds for removing the veterans’ citizenship are technical…[Jalili’s] years of living in Bosnia seemed to count for little.” Indeed the Crusaders’ years of living in the Holy Land from 1099 to 1230 also counted for little when Saladin removed them. The English colonists who settled the ‘white highlands’ in Kenya and the French Pied Noirs in Algeria also found their ‘years of living’ counted for little. Why is it that when Muslims decide to go-a-colonizing we are expected to feel sorry for them if they are removed from their imperialistic dreamlands?

Of course its not just Mr. Wood and the media that feel sorry for the 420 Arab Muslims who have so far been put on a list for deportation from Bosnia. We are informed that “international officials here concede that there is nothing linking any of the former veterans to terrorist activity.” A “Western diplomat” supports the cause of the poor Arab Mujahideen. But the alliance of the media and the international community with these Islamists is not enough. It turns out that there are “concerns among human rights groups that the deportees could face ill treatment in their countries of origin.”

The Quadrumvirate of Evil works very efficiently whenever it turns out there is Islamist terrorism. Between 1994 and 1998 when the Mujahideen arrived in Bosnia and succeeded in ethnically-cleansing 150,000 Serbs and murdering another 50,000, the human rights groups, the media, and the international community supported Bosnia and accused the Serbs of ‘ethnic-cleansing’. The international community and Nato bombed the Serbs into submission. The international community then colonized Bosnia by sending pro-consuls there to run the new country. Meanwhile, under their noses, the Mujahideen colonized former Serb villages. They enforced their Shariah law. Then they began exporting terrorism. They have been linked to every major terrorist network operating in Western Europe and the U.S. They have served as a conduit for other Islamists to arrive in Europe. Bosnia provides safe houses and even training for Muslims interested in committing terrorism. From time to time these networks have been uncovered and this has led the Bosnian government, which is Muslim, to want them deported.

But then the same Human rights organizations and international community and media organizations that brought these mujahideen to Bosnia and called them freedom fighters work to keep them there. This is always how terrorism succeeds in establishing itself. This is the model the foreign volunteers, among them Bin Laden, used to set up a mini-state in Afghanistan and Sudan. It is the same model used in Kashmir. It is the model used in Indonesia, southern Thailand and the Philippines. It is also the model used in Western Europe. Once the terrorists get in it becomes impossible to remove them or fight them or deport them because they “might face torture in their home countries.” This is a brilliant tactic.

In the Second World War many people of German ancestry answered the Fatherland’s call to return and fight for Lebensraum, living space. American Germans returned, Germans from the Baltic states, Germans from Poland, Germans in Austria, Germans in the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, Germans in Hungary and Germans in Russia and Rumania. These Germans formed the bulk of the S.S volunteers and were responsible for the most horrific crimes of the war, in among other places, Bosnia and Serbia, where they murdered 10% of the Serbian nation, in addition to mention the 6 million Jews they also murdered. After the war the Soviets came to control many of the countries from which these Germans had left to volunteer in Hitler’s legions. Many of these Germans were repatriated between 1945 and 1950 to their home countries, where they faced trials for crimes against humanity. Many of these S.S officers were executed by the Soviets. There was no ‘international community’ and no ‘Western diplomats’ and no ‘human rights organization’ and no ‘media’ to feel sorry for them. They had volunteered to murder and they had enjoyed themselves between 1933 and 1945. But in 1945 there happy days come to an end.

Today we have reversed ourselves. We offer no help to the victims of terror or Islamic hatred throughout the world, but we continually condemn those countries who combat Islamism, even Muslim ones. This is the root of the problem in the west and it handicaps out ability to defend ourselves and save lives.