Some people “don't get no respect,” and some get more
respect than they wish for. Two of the latter type would be Charles Darwin who
would be horrified by what is called “Darwinian economics,” and Sigmund Freud who
would be horrified by the mention of sexual repression to sex-up every argument
that is going nowhere.
We set aside Darwin
and concentrate on Freud's predicament because Tom Friedman of the New York
Times saw fit to return to an earlier era when everything was explainable by
Freud's theory of sexual repression. Friedman does it in his latest column:
“Say it like it is” which is a bastardized version of the old “Tell it like it
is,” an admonishment that was given to the Pentagon a million times a day during
the Vietnam War. Tom's column was published on January 21, 2015 in the New York
Times.
Here is the part where Friedman reverts to his fixation on
the genitals: “It is the struggle over modernity and women's rights. That
struggle … has left these societies with too many young men who have never held
a girl's hand, who then seek to overcome their humiliation at being left
behind.” When in the past, this kind of argument was used to describe some of
the ills in “Western” societies; it was defeated by the mention that if it were
true, the most violent people on the planet would be the nuns, the Christians
brothers and the Catholic priests who take a vow of chastity. But no one has
seen a nun wear the vest of a suicide bomber.
Moreover, the people who fight on their own soil, such as Chechnya , Afghanistan ,
Iraq , Yemen , Libya and what have you; have a
cause defined as the liberation of the homeland. It is something that has been
done for ages everywhere on the planet – by men and by women. What can be
difficult to explain at times, however, are the activities of young men (and
now women) that were born and raised in Western societies, and have embraced
jihad. These people cannot be said to have suffered sexual repression given
that they leave behind girlfriends, boyfriends, wives or husbands to go die for
a cause that sounds more like seeking the thrill of an adventure than the quest
to gratify a sexual urge.
The irony is that Friedman begins his argument by saying:
“When you don't call things by their real name, you always get in trouble.” And
here he is getting in trouble because he sees genitals where there are none.
This reminds me of a correspondent who once wrote something to the effect that
our so-called vibrant democracy is vibrated only by the gadgets which are
bought in sex shops. This observation is reinforced by the fact that more rapes
are committed against men and women in the two largest so-called democracies, India and the United States , than anywhere else
in the world.
Thus, instead of telling it like it is – which is that every
time a prominent figure is caught practicing sexual impropriety, the figure
turns out to be a Jew – Tom Friedman tells it like it is not. In fact, he
writes: “the real issues [that] many Muslims know and are actually starved to
discuss, especially women.” And guess what he does right after that. He quotes
prominent Muslim women who discuss the very issues he says are not being
discussed.
And guess what it is that he does not mention even though he
should be. He does not mention the fact that no Jew – man or woman – was ever
allowed to criticize the Jewish practices which are known to lead straight to
the gas chamber and the incinerator.
Tom Friedman would do well to tell his readers about the
shortcomings of the Jewish approach to “educate” the American public because
this is the time bomb that needs to be diffused before an uproar is raise to
the effect that “the Jews came with a smile on their faces, a plan in their
heads and a poison in their pockets.”
And the uproar will continue: “They lulled us into trusting
them, they poisoned our culture and took everything that used to be ours.”