Saturday, April 12, 2008

Terra Incognita 30 Bulgaria, Bin Laden and European Courts

TerTerra Incognita
Issue 30
“Written to enlighten, guaranteed to offend”

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel


April 12th, 2008

1) How not to run a court: The release of the Albanian war criminal Ramush Haradinaj by the European established the International Court of Justice shows the degree to which European standards of Justice have nothing in common with the American legal system. The arbitrary, political and biased nature of justice at the ICC is the reason that it must never be respected as in ‘international’ institution.

2) Make sure Bulgaria apologizes for saving 48,000 Jews: Why should Bulgaria apologize for the fact that 11,000 Jews were deported from areas that were not part of Bulgaria in 1939 to their deaths during the Holocaust. This death toll palls in comparison to what was done to Jews throughout Europe and yet most European countries have never apologized for their collaboration with Nazism. Bulgaria is the only country in Europe that finished the war in 1945 with the same number of Jews as it began the ware with.

4) What is westernization? A recent book by Steve Coll about the Bin Laden family claims that, with the exception of Osama, the family was very American and westernized. They enjoyed their fast cars and they built a successful company. They loved alcohol. So they are latter-day James Madisons. Or are they? Perhaps Coll forgot about the fact that it was a family of 54 children born to one man and that this man discarded his 15 year-old wives at a whim and that even Mr. Coll can’t account for what became of the Bin Laden daughters, since in Islam a woman is worth half a man, who cares what befell them? Perhaps the Bin Laden clan didn’t become ‘American’ but rather Mr. Coll, like so many Westerners, has become more Islamic. Perhaps he doesn’t realize there is more to Western culture than drinking and raping 15 year old girls. On second thought, perhaps he is right, that’s all there is to western culture today.

How not to run a court
Seth J. Frantzman
April 6th, 2008

Everytime one reads a story about the International Criminal Court one becomes more incensed at realizing just how perverted everything with the word 'international' is. This court is an example of how not to run a court. It is politicized. The cases it takes have more to do with who the U.N thinks should be prosecuted rather than based on actual laws. What is amazing is that this high court of justice, established by an international body and which includes judges from many nations would not be able to function legally as a court in many countries. The degree to which it makes a mockery of 'justice' is astounding. No such court would be allowed, even in the most local circumstances, in the United States. Yet there is such a court with a juridistiction to put on trial the entire world. The foreign press, particularly Europeans, complain that the United States has not signed any protocols to allow the International Court jurisdiction over its affairs. Leftists whine that this is a 'double standard'. But why is it a double standard that the U.S will not submit its people to a court that lacks even the rudimentary codes and guidelines of the most lowly court in America?

One feels that every day Europeans need to be schooled, again and again, about how things work in the United States. Let us begin class. In America people have a right to vote. That is first. In America people have a right to assemble freely. They have a right to write what they please in a free and open press. They have a right to speak as they please. They have a right to attend whatever religious service they please. Those are the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Under the law Americans have a right to be protected from unlawful searches and seizures. Americans have the right to remain silent and not testify against themselves. Americans have the right to due process and a speedy trial. Americans have the right to be judged by a jury of their peers. Americans are innocent until proven guilty. The law applies equally to all and people are guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are also enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Europeans always have a hard time understanding these rights. Europeans think, apparently, that justice consists of prosecuting those that people feel 'should' be prosecuted, regardless of the law. Europeans think that courts are designed principally to serve political ends. Courts are thus a tool of politics, much as in Clausewitz's conception of war. For Europeans there is no concept of the independent judiciary. The judiciary serves political ends. It is no surprise that such a justice system has been perverted. The 'International' Criminal Court is staffed not only by Europeans but also by judges from other countries, many of which are dictatorships. Muslim judges sit at the Hague, judges whose experience in law stems from their work in Saudi Arabia sentencing women to be beheaded for adultery. So between thuggish Islamist judges and Europeans it is perhaps no surprise that the ICC is a farce.

Lets review how a European trial works at the Hague at the ICC. First a special prosecutor is appointed by the U.N. to investigate war crimes committed during the Yugoslav wars of succession that took place between 1990 and 2000. In this case it is Carla Del Ponte. After bringing countless Serbs to trial, a handful of Bosnians and a few Croats she sets her sights on three Albanians. One of them is named Ramush Haradinaj. He was a KLA commander in 1998 and 1999 and in 2000, became a politician, eventually becoming 'Prime Minister' of the breakaway province of Kosovo in 2004. He served for 100 days before being indicted for war crimes by the ICC at which time he surrendered to international police and was taken to the Hague. We should pause here to once again remind readers that, unlike in the United States of America, in Europe courts are not rooted in the people. In America a court is responsible to the people in the sense that it is part of a balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government. Every court has a check on its power, just as it serves as a check on the government. By contrast the European ICC has no check on its power. There is no appeals court and no supreme court. The ICC is the court. There is no higher power than the ICC.

Returning to Mr. Haradinaj. He was accused of at least 39 murders due to corpses found near his property. The bodies showed signs of torture and were bound with barbed wire. Some had their eyes cut out and others were mutilated. He was also accused of torturing and murdering Serbs and Gypsies and forcing them to flee Kosovo. But before he could go on trial at the ICC senior political operatives of the United Nations had to have their say. Nicholas Wood of the New York Times noted the following: "For Western diplomats, Haradinaj was a key partner in their efforts to bring peace to the province, so much so that they tried to prevent the case from going to trial, according to a former head of the UN mission in Kosovo and the court's chief prosecutor…'He moved this process forward in a way that nobody else has done,' said Soren Jessen-Petersen, who was the head of the UN mission in Kosovo at the time of Haradinaj's indictment, in March 2005… Carla Del Ponte, has referred to the case as 'a prosecution that some did not want to see brought, and that few supported by their cooperation at both the international and local level'… All along, international officials have tried to balance the need for political stability with the demands for justice. The UN administration in Kosovo repeatedly blocked the prosecution of Haradinaj in a case in which he was accused of attacking a rival family group of former fighters of the Kosovo Liberation Army." The UN, unlike the United States, has no tradition of a witness protection program. "The prosecution's leading witness, Tahir Zemaj, his son and nephew were shot and killed during the investigation. Another witness, Kjutim Berisha, died two weeks before the trial opened when he was hit by a car in the Montenegrin capital. More than a third of those giving evidence on behalf of the prosecution are allowed to conceal their identities." Needless to say this did not help the integrity of the case. In addition "senior UN officials had met with Haradinaj before his departure to the Netherlands at the time of his indictment in 2005 and when he returned there to stand trial. 'This has had a chilling impact on our witnesses.' " This would be akin to members of Congress chumming it up with a mafia boss before he goes on trial, sending the message to potential witnesses that the government was surely not interested in their story or in protecting them.
The decision in the case was a foregone conclusion. The U.N hampered its own prosecution from start to finish. It allowed the suspect to go free and return to Kosovo to continue his political activities. This is hardly equal treatment under the law. Thus while Milosevic and Serb leaders were kept at the Hague and not allowed to even communicate with the public this person, because of his ethnicity and the U.N's support, was allowed to return to his country while under indictment for war crimes. Europeans still have not learned that 'equal treatment' under the law actually means equal treatment. In the end the acquittal was a foregone conclusion. In order to not find him guilty of war crimes the ICC determined that his "murders and attacks were not on a scale or of a frequency to conclude that there was an attack on the civilian population." Thus he only committed a small genocide, not a real one.
The central problem with the ICC is politics. The statement: 'international officials have tried to balance the need for political stability with the demands for justice" is the heart of the problem. Justice and 'political stability' are not sitting on different sides of a scale. They are not related at all. Surely political stability could have been preserved in Germany by keeping Hitler in charge. The mafia guarantees a certain stability as well, it keeps people in line. The law is more important than the need for some arbitrary 'stability'. Myriam Dessables, a UN spokeswoman noted that "In decision after decision, the ICTY Chamber has made it clear that the United Nations Mission in Kosovo is in the best position to determine what is in the interest of promoting peace and reconciliation in Kosovo." This is the other central problem. The UN has decided that it, a group of Europeans, is 'in the best position' to decide what is best for the world. But a group of snobbish arrogant Europeans are not in any position to determine this. Between the 16th century and the 1960s Europeans had a chance to determine what was best for the world through their imperialism. That time is over. Europeans think the UN can be used as a new way to revive their ambitions to tell others what to do. Once again one sees the degree to which, in the mind of the European, the ICC is not a court but merely a political base from which to control the lives of others through selective prosecution and rigged courts.
To truly understand European justice and the ICC one must return to a few other things that came to light in the case. A co-defendant of Mr. Haradinaj, Lahi Brahimaj, "was sentenced to six years for the abuse of prisoners detained in a camp where he was in charge. It said that he had personally participated in beatings and torture. Mr. Brahimaj, who has already served three years, is likely to be freed in a year if he gets the usual reduction for good behavior that is common in European countries where he may serve his time." Recall that the Serbs who were 'brought to justice' not only did not receive the furloughs that Mr. Haradinaj received but also were either kept in prison until they died (like Babic and Milosevic) or sentenced to longer prison terms.

In total the ICC for the former Yugoslavia has indicted 161 people of which 5 have been acquitted, 48 sentenced, 11 transferred to local courts and 36 cases withdrawn due to lack of evidence. The Judges are from the following countries: Italy, Australia, Jamaica, Malta, Netherlands, Guyana, Turkey, China, Senegal, USA, Germany, South Korea, France, UK, Belgium, South Africa, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Congo, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Canada, Norway and Denmark. One will note here that the judiciary includes two Mohammeds, one from Guyana and the other from Turkey. It also includes judges from stable democracies such as the Congo and Pakistan as well as countries known for their robust human rights records such as China. In all the court is primarily European, there are no South Americans for instance.

If one examines the track record of indictments one will find that only Serbs have been sentenced to life in prison. The average sentence for 30 convicted Serbs has been 18 years, while the average sentence for the 10 convicted Croats was 13 years, for the two Bosnians was 11.5 years, and for the three Albanians it was only 6.4 years. Fifteen of the indictees have died either by their own hand, at the hands of the ICC police forces or while awaiting trial (10% of those indicted have thus died before their trials have ended!) Thirteen of these have been Serbs. One was a Croat and the other a Bosnian. Four Croats, two Albanians and a Bosnian have been acquitted of crimes. By contrast only 1 Serb has. Dozens are still awaiting trial or on trial for 'crimes' that took place more than 10 years ago. The ICC is so inefficient and so unable to provide people with a speedy trial that it allows most of the defendants to die before being sentenced, thus taking the burden off of itself. This contradicts the American law which requires that people not be 'denied life'. In this case, but putting people on trial for 15 years, they are denied their life. To use a word Europeans like so much, the track record of the ICC has been disproportionately anti-Serb, resulting in the deaths of Serb defendants, extremely long trials and a disproportionate conviction rate against Serbs for crimes that were similar or equal to the crimes Croats, Bosnians and Albanians were accused of. In the United States those who argue courts are biased against African-Americans usually show the statistics that Blacks are more likely to be put on trial and more likely to be convicted and form a disproportionate part of the prison population. Leftists who are proud of using such facts to draw conclusions should make the same conclusions about the ICC rather than praising its biased track record.

In the end the ICC must be judged a sinister kangaroo court. The then head of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), Søren Jessen-Petersen, described Haradinaj, who had been indicted by the court, as a "friend" and as a man of "dynamic leadership, strong commitment and vision" whose presence would be greatly missed. Carla Del Ponte has expressed her exasperation saying, "I don’t understand why there cannot be peace in Kosovo without Ramush Haradinaj." Kujtim Beriša, a Roma who was to be called as a witness by the OTP in the case against Haradinaj, was killed in a car accident in Podgorica, Montenegro on February 18, 2007. He had been given no witness protection by the court.

Most shameful of all is the track record of praise given to the court by some American politicians. United States Senator Joe Biden commented on Haradinaj's indictment, "In the overall post-Yugoslav context, Mr. Haradinaj's willingness after his indictment to surrender voluntarily and go to The Hague is striking. It stands in glaring contrast to the behavior of the three most infamous individuals indicted by The Hague, all of whom are still fugitives, resisting arrest: former Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, and former Croatian General Ante Gotovina." Joe Biden should be ashamed. Why would anyone surrender to a court when their trial might last 15 years, when they will be kept in solitary confinement due to their ethnicity and when they are guaranteed a longer sentence due to their ethnicity?

The international community had a chance to establish a war crimes tribunal and court that was just. They could have modeled it after the American legal system and given defendants the same rights. They could have set standards for it, rather than making them up as it goes along, and had checks and balances and an independent court of appeals. Indictments could have been served independently of political interests and without the influence of senior Un officials. Thuggish judges from dictatorships could have been prevented from being on the bench. But none of this was done. The existence of the ICC and its creation should serve as a lesson of how not to run a court rather than be praised as an ideal internationalist utopia.

Make sure Bulgaria apologizes for saving 48,000 Jews
Seth J. Frantzman
March 29th, 2008

Haaretz was giddy with a report that ‘Bulgaria accepts blame for 11,000 Holocaust deaths’. The story goes that President Georgi Parvanov said in a visit to Israel that in Bulgaria “we do not shirk our responsibility for the fate of more than 11,000 Jews who were deported from Thrace and Macedonia to death camps.” Its important that Bulgaria take responsibility for the deaths of these Jews even though these places in which Jews lived did not belong to Bulgaria until April, 1941 and Bulgarians did not take part in transporting them to their deaths. So Bulgaria is being good for taking responsibility for something it had virtually no role in.
The U.S Holocaust Museum makes it pretty clear just what kind of credit the Slavic Bulgars deserve. “During the war, German-allied Bulgaria did not deport Bulgarian Jews. Bulgaria did, however, deport non-Bulgarian Jews from the territories it had annexed from Yugoslavia and Greece…. Jews of Bulgarian citizenship were relatively secure from deportation to German-held territory… Also in the spring of 1943, the Bulgarian government made extensive plans to comply with the Nazi demand to deport Bulgaria's Jews. Significant and public protest from key political and clerical leaders moved King Boris to cancel these deportation plans…In 1945, the Jewish population of Bulgaria was still about 50,000, its prewar level. Next to the rescue of Danish Jews, Bulgarian Jewry's escape from deportation and extermination represents the most significant exception of any Jewish population in Nazi-occupied Europe.” It is important to note that the Museum’s discussion does not mention even one name associated with saving the Jews of Bulgaria. But the names should be known. Metropolitan Stefan of Sophia, the Metropolitan Kiril of Plovdiv, the Metropolitan Neofit of Vidin and MP Dimiter Peshev, were the lead protestors on behalf of the Jews. Apparently they sent word to the king that they would lie down on the train tracks to prevent the deportation of the Jews.
The problem with Bulgaria is that it didn’t do enough. It was the only country in Europe to have as many Jews after the war as it did before the war (Denmark by contrast had to send its 7,200 Jews to Sweden). Bulgaria declared was on Nazi Germany in October of 1944. That was not enough. One might stop here and wonder ‘what if all the countries of Europe had done as Bulgaria did? Then there would have been no Holocaust. But, no matter, it’s those 11,000 Jews that are blood on Bulgaria’s hands, not the 50,000 survivors. Bulgaria’s sin was to ally itself with Nazi Germany in March of 1941 and help in the Nazi invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece and accept territorial concessions given it by the Nazis. When the Nazis demanded in 1943 that Bulgarian hand over the 11,000 Jews in these newly won territories the Bulgarians complied. After the war these territories were given back to Yugoslavia and Greece.
What is most important is to make sure that Bulgaria gets no credit for saving 48,000-50,000 Jews, all the Jews who lived in Bulgaria before the redrawing of her borders in 1941. The President of Bulgaria mentioned this as well “when we express justifiable pride at what we have done to save Jews, we do not forget that at the same time there was an anti-Semitic regime in Bulgaria.” Thus the Bulgarian Socialist president who was formerly a communist is joining the self-flagellating dialectic of the west. The same self-flagellation imposed itself upon my high school teacher Jim Wigren who told me that the U.S was responsible for the Holocaust because America didn’t take in all the Jews of Europe and thus save them.

In 2000 a statue to King Boris III, who played a role in saving the country’s Jews, was torn down from its place in the Jerusalem hills after protests by Holocaust survivors who blamed him for not saving the 11,000 Jews in the areas ceded by the Nazis to Bulgaria. There is only one word for the treatment of Bulgaria and the revisionist writing on the country’s role in the Holocaust: Chutzpah. It is little different than the condemnations of the Catholic church for saving Jewish children by placing them with Catholic families (while the church’s role is distasteful, those who condemn the church for this seem to imply somehow that it would have been better had the children been killed. In an ideal world the children wouldn’t have had to be saved by being raised in such a manner-but 1942 in Europe was as far from an ideal world as could have been). The same logic propels both condemnations. The Catholic church and Bulgaria should apologize for saving Jews.

It is ironic that Bulgaria, one of the few countries in Europe whose priesthood and public leaders united to save Jews should be the one pressured into apologizing while countries who collaborationist Nazi-like leaders are allowed international fame and even become head of the UN. That is right. The countries where all the Jews were killed are not forced to apologize. Poland receives millions from Jewish tour groups year after year so that Jews can see the death camps on its soil. Poland has never apologized for its multi-faceted role. I say multi-faceted because Poles worked for the Nazis and the underground Polish Home Army, despite fighting the Nazis, also hunted down Jews. After the war there were pogroms in Poland. There has not been an apology. There has been no apology from Ukraine where many locals joined the Nazis and helped kill Jews. There has been no apology from Belarus. There has been no apology from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all of which furnished the Nazis with collaborationist units during the war. There has been no apology from Rumania, home of a fascist collaborationist Legion of the Archangel Michael party during the war. There has been no apology from Czech republic, home of the Arrow Cross. There has been no apology from Switzerland, whose Red Cross collaborated and where Jews were refused permission to enter. There has been no apology from France, where the Vichy regime collaborated. There has been no apology from Norway, home of Quisling. There has been no apology from Slovakia. There has been no apology from Greece. No apology from the Netherlands or Belgium. No apology from Macedonia. No apology from Hungary. No apology from Austria, a country that welcomed the Aunschluss and also furnished more men per capita as volunteers for the SS than any country in Europe. It later elected, after the war, the former SS officer Kurt Waldhiem as president. There has been no apology from Bosnia where the Palestinian Mufti Hajj Amin al Husayni went in 1942 to recruit volunteers for an SS unit, the Handzhar divison and where Muslims gladly joined. But most glaring of all there has been no apology from Croatia, that Catholic darling of the west which had the most brutal collaborationist regime, the Ustasha, and which cleansed itself of all its Jews. It was the only country to set up its death camps without the help of the Nazis. In the 1990s the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a bestselling booking Zagreb. Its president in the 1990s, Franjo Tudjman was a Holocaust denier who wrote in his book that “That the estimated loss of up to 6 million dead is founded too much on both emotional biased testimonies” But Croatia, the neo-Nazi state in the heart of Europe has not apologized. Neither has the Catholic church in Croatia, which independent of Rome’s mandate, helped organize the Holocaust in that country to the extent that one of its Franciscan priests, Miroslav Filipovic-Majstorovic earned the nickname father Satan.

No apologies will ever be forthcoming from these countries in which more than 90% of the Holocaust’s victims came from (less than 265,000 of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Germany). The collaborationists will not apologize. But leave it to Jewish groups and leftists to make sure the country in Europe which actively saved the most Jews should apologize for its ‘crimes’. What crime was that? Surely if it had just killed the other 48,000 Jews then it would not have to apologize. Then it might have had one of its former SS officers made a UN secretary-general. Then it would have been one of the first Eastern-European countries to join the EU, as was the case with Croatia.

The Europeans like to talk about the Holocaust. Some European countries make it illegal to deny the Holocaust. But when it comes to actually being interested in which countries helped Jews and which did nothing and which collaborated the track record is displeasing. In fact given the secular-leftist view of history, that heritage and history are not connected to modern man, this should be no surprise. Even though Bulgaria and Serbia saved Jews that is no reason to give them credit today. That was a one time event. Even Jewish groups are clear on that. The JDC supported Jewish philanthropy in Sarajevo, La Benevolencija made sure to help to Croats and Bosnian Muslims during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s. It is no surprise. They gave aid to the very people who had joined the Mufti’s Nazi units. They gave aid to the former Ustasha Nazis. Of course. There was no aid for the Serbs.

If the Bulgarian President wanted to tell the truth he should have apologized, he should have apologized for the fact that his country saved Jews. Had his country helped kill all the Jews, the way almost all the other European countries did, then his country could today be a proud member of the European family of nations and it could sit at the EU summits with all the other former collaborationist regimes and they could all pat eachother on the backs and say ‘we have no Jews and we are secular-leftist and liberal, isn’t that great. We sure got away with it. We got to be Nazis when it was fashionable. Then we were Communist when that was cool. Now we are secular liberals. Soon we will be Muslim. We have museums to the Jews but no Jews.’

What is westernization?
April 12th, 2008
Seth J. Frantzman

A recent book by Steve Coll entitled The Bin Ladens: an Arabian family in the American Century on the Bin Laden family, after mentioning that he was one of 54 children, claims that many of his siblings were ‘western’. According to the author they ‘loved America’ and they were ‘American’ in their love of ‘free choice’. The evidence for this is clear. They enjoyed fast cars. They liked to fly their own small planes. They were in rock bands. They had European friends. Some of them grew their hair long.

The iron in all this is that Liberalism in fact accepts Osama’s definition of westernism, it assumes that to be western is to be affluent, corpulent, bourgeoisie, decadent, and obsessed with consumer goods and materialism.

It is best to let a review of the book by the Washington Post speak for itself: “Steve Coll's marvelous book about the bin Laden family would begin like a familiar American saga. An illiterate youth arrives in a land of opportunity from his impoverished homeland and, by dint of ambition, talent and hard work, becomes immensely rich and powerful. He collects properties, airplanes, luxury cars and women -- tastes he passes on to his sons…Mohamed bin Laden was rigorous in prayer but liberal in interpreting the Koran's sexual strictures. He married countless times, occasionally for business reasons, often out of whimsy, sometimes to women he kept with him, usually to women he legally divorced. In 1958 alone, his wives gave birth to seven children, among them Osama, whose mother was a 15-year-old Syrian from whom Mohamed quickly split.. following Islamic law, he willed each of his 25 sons 2.7 percent of his company's assets, while each daughter received 1 percent…[Osama] At 17, he married a 14-year-old cousin, who quickly bore him a son; he kept her in strict Islamic seclusion…Osama, with three wives (a fourth had recently left him), 11 sons and an unrecorded number of daughters, chose exile in Sudan…Osama’s older brother, Salem—a free-living, chainsmoking, guitar-strumming pilot, adventurer, and businessman who cavorted across America and Europe and once proposed marriage to four American and European girlfriends simultaneously, attempting to win a bet with the king of Saudi Arabia.”

Perhaps this is the America of Hollywood and San Francisco. Perhaps this is the America of the Rolling Stones. But these qualities are not what makes the West. This is where the confusion rests. Hypocrisy is an Islamic quality. This story of the Bin Ladens reveals what Islam entails. It is a religion that combines an extremist legal code, hateful dogmas, the seclusion and imprisonment of women, with the fun-loving desires of men. That people have come to think that this is western shows the degree to which commentators simply do not understand the history of Western Civilization of America. When one reads Mr. Coll’s book they are invited to believe that this blend of Mohammed Bin Laden’s Rockefeller like rise and Salem Bin-Laden’s Howard Hughes like life make the family suddenly American. But perhaps people are forgetting an essential ingredient here. John D. Rockefeller loved his wife. He had one wife. He devoted his life to her. He tithed 10% to his church. His was not a world of hypocrisy. He did not enjoy the good life while keeping his daughters locked behind closed doors. Steve Coll’s book misses this essential point in his quest to westernize the Bin Ladens. Where are the Bin Laden women? Coll reveals the essential difference between American civilization and Islamic civilization without even realizing it. “an unrecorded number of daughters.” The essential difference between the American way of life and the Muslim one has nothing to do with the behavior of men. It has everything to do with the behavior and treatment of women. It has everything to do with the existence of women. In Coll’s book women exist as tools. They are the tools used to create more children. They are playthings for the wealthy men. They are virginal 15 year old girls, purchased and raped and discarded like trash. The only difference between the west and Islam is the difference in the use and abuse of women. Islam produces the Howard Hugheses. It produces the Brad Pitts. It produces the all sorts of males. But just because men enjoy fast cars and are able to succeed at running a business and just because they enjoy ‘cavorting’ does not make them western. Hermann Goring, the Nazi Air Marshal, also enjoyed his fast cars and his women and his planes and his expensive tastes. But he was not western. He was a Nazi. Levrenti Beria, Vyacheslav Molotov, Genrikh Yagoda and Nikolai Yezhov all enjoyed fast cars, beautiful women, beautiful estates, and some of them engaged in cavorting and more extreme sexual antics. They were Stalin’s henchmen. Good Communists all. They were not western or American and no one would describe them as such. Is it the fact that Molotov and Goring were European so we are more easily able to realize the fallacy of connecting their love of wealth with their being ‘American’ or ‘Western’?

Steve Coll’s American culture seems to be defined merely by wealth, love of easy women, fast cars and occasional hard work. These qualities may be found in Americans but they are not the soul of America. They are not what differentiates American Culture from other cultures. Decadence, despite Bin Laden’s claims, is not American. It is the antithesis of America. To be sure, some Americans are decadent. But does America truly love those who are decadent? When MC Hammer’s Hammertime mansion was shown to be bankrupt didn’t people silently smile that he his decadence had brought him down. Isn’t it the same with the Neverland Ranch of Michael Jackson? Decadence leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many Americans. It s the reason the Rockefeller family donated their estates in Maine to form Acadia National Park. That quality is more American. Few people are impressed with the Kennedy compound in Cape Cod. Still fewer are pleased with the extreme decadence of Paris Hilton.

The essential stupidity in defining every Muslim who enjoys having sex with 15 year old women and enjoys driving fast cars and is “free-living, chainsmoking, guitar-strumming pilot, adventurer, and businessman who cavorts across America and Europe and once proposed marriage to four American” as ‘American’ or ‘Western’ simply show the degree to which people are out of touch with what it means to be American. In truth, the fact that Mr. Coll can describe these qualities as ‘American’ shows the degree to which he has been converted to Osama Bin Laden’s viewpoint. Free-living and respect for the freedom of others are not the same thing. American civilization is replete with characters who are the opposite of the Bin Ladens. They are modest characters such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. They are men who respected the intelligence of their wives and daughters such as John Adams. America is a country that also included women, unlike the story of the Bin Laden family, the story of America is one that includes that other half of society, the female half. Had Coll stepped outside himself he would have realized he had written a book entirely about men, mostly one that involved men raping and exploiting women, and this quality, while it exists in the west, is one that is not smiled upon but one that is the underbelly of the west. Perhaps if Mr. Coll had read Cokie Roberts new book Ladies of Liberty about prominent First Ladies in American history he would have noticed that his book was an ingredient.

The Bin Ladens are not Americans. They are Muslims. Their way of life is Islamic. Their obsession with 15 year old girls is an Islamic custom. Their ‘love of life’ is Islamic, for Islam is a religion that primarily encourages men to have no responsibility and to cavort and enjoy life. Their ‘free choice’ is one that is Islamic insofar as an Islamic society encourages men to go to other countries and do as they please without regard to the law or the cultures and religions and customs of others. Their fast cars and their airplanes and guitars are Islamic for the Islamic life is primarily one wealth and privilege. The wealthy in Islamic societies, like in many other cultures, do not work for a living but instead play for a living, like the European aristocrats of the 19th century. The story of the Bin Laden’s is not even a story of the 20th century. The review of Coll’s book claims “At the story’s heart lies an immigrant family’s attempt to adapt simultaneously to Saudi Arabia’s Puritanism and America’s myriad temptations. The family generation to which Osama belonged—twenty-five brothers and twenty-nine sisters—had to cope with intense change… these Bin Ladens found themselves bombarded by Western-influenced ideas about individual choice, by gleaming new shopping malls and international fashion brands, by Hollywood movies and changing sexual mores—a dizzying world that was theirs for the taking, because they each received annual dividends that started in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. How they navigated these demands is an authentic, humanizing story of Saudi Arabia, America, and the sources of attraction and repulsion still present in the countries’ awkward embrace.” This has nothing to do with America. Coll’s book could just have easily been one of the stories found in Hugh Kennedy’s Court of the Caliphs which describes life in 8th and 9th century Iraq during the Abbasid caliphate. This was a similar Islam, an Islam of men playing and women wrapped up and hidden away. It is a story of pleasures and sex and cavorting and wealth and slaves doing all the work. This is an Islamic story. It is not American.

Those who read about the ‘secular’ Bin Ladens and feel that their partying and ‘enjoyment of life’ is a connection, something that ‘we have in common with them’ show the degree to which a part of western civilization has become Islamic. It is the reason Islam has such an easy time converting people in Europe. Part of the west has left the western tradition and it has taken all the weaknesses of it and boiled it down and turned Western Civilization into a fleshpot of dancing and enjoyment and ‘freedom’ without any of the morals and rights and liberties and strengths needed to keep the party going.

Saudi Arabia is hardly ‘puritan’ in this respect. It is America that was founded by the real Puritans. These were the men who listened to the sermon by Jonathan Edwards entitled ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’. It is America that had prohibition. But Prohibition and the Puritan settlers don’t make America ‘like’ Saudi Arabia. Our Puritans didn’t rape 15 year old girls and discard their wives like trash. Our Puritans didn’t glory in the killing of civilians. Our Puritans held self-reliance and individual responsibility high on the pedestal of human virtues.

The Bin Laden family has not become American. Americans have simply become more Islamisized. By allowing people like Mr. Coll to dictate to us what ‘American’ culture is and allowing him to denigrate it as cavorting with teenage girls and driving fast cars people are essentially admitting they have no culture. They have lost any attachment to the founding fathers of America. They have lost touch with the ideas that informed the founding fathers, namely Greek civilization and the Old Testament and the enlightenment.

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Terra Incognita 29 Haiti, Fitna and Liberal love for Industry

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

A Publication of Seth J. Frantzman
Jerusalem, Israel


April 5th, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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