The people who study the human brain are working hard to determine what biological functions and activities contribute to the creation of sentiments such as love and hate. Good luck to them. But until they have all the answers, we know that these sentiments do exist and that they can be turned into powerful locomotives that will do as much as pull the train of history. Setting aside the naturally occurring affinity between two beings such as a mother and her child, or the hormonally induced attraction between two beings at the start of their reproductive cycle, we observe that tools are used on a daily basis to artificially create sentiments of love or hate for the purpose of serving one cause or another.
In fact, these sentiments can be tailor-made and manipulated at the micro level by an individual whose motivation might be the petty attempt to influence the course of mundane events, and thus satisfy the personal desires of the perpetrator. In this case, the fabricated sentiments will affect a small number of people, perhaps as limited as a handful or as much as a group. On the other hand, sentiments can be tailor-made and manipulated at the macro level by highly trained professionals whose mission will be to shape the course of much broader events, and thus help to nudge history and force it to take a predetermined direction. In this case, the fabricated sentiments will acquire the potential to affect people at the national level or even the planetary level.
The tool that comes into play to produce love is envy, something that happens naturally but for an exception or two. As to hate, the tool often used to produce it is fear, something that happens artificially most of the time. For example, if a number of men and one woman -- who is plain and ordinary in their eyes -- find themselves working in the same space, nothing happens till one man expresses interest in the woman. Almost immediately, the other men will envy him and begin to compete for her attention. Each man will then come to believe that he always had feelings for her, and may convince himself that she is someone he can love someday if such is not the case already.
There is also the possibility of making people love someone or something by making them hate the opposite -- an artificial feat that is complicated to pull off but that is done often enough. The trick works because people can be incited to hate to the point of harming someone or vandalizing something. This is accomplished by making people fear a person, ascribing to him or to her both evil intent and the power to inflict it on others. Salvation is then promised to come by embracing the opposite. We see, therefore, that artificial means exist to make people hate someone or something, or make them love by way of hating the opposite. I call this the game of love and hate. If you look around, you will see that playing it is a very common occurrence and you will see that it represents a large part of the human preoccupation both at the micro and the macro levels.
Not all the cultures play the game with the same interest or play it at the same level of intensity. In fact, the spectrum is full of examples that range from one extreme to the other. The interested observer will discover that some cultures are too innocent to know how to play the game well, and so they play it very little. Some cultures are too sophisticated to want to play the game at all but play it nonetheless in the absence of having something better to do. And throughout history, cultures have come and gone that were depraved enough to want to play the game incessantly -- and so they did. These cultures were sophisticated enough to get away with playing the game for a time at the macro level before they were unmasked and punished for the damage they were causing.
In this last category, the culture known as Judeo-Yiddish is the most depraved thing you could ever meet on this planet. It never stops playing the game, always playing it in the most savage way you can imagine. In fact, the people who adhere to it are removed from reality by such a distance, you cannot miss detecting this reality every time you look at the trail they leave behind. An example of this is a piece written by Josef Joffe and published in the Wall Street Journal on April 17, 2012 under the title: “Gunter Grass's Tin Ear” and the subtitle: 'The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz' runs a mind-bending quip.
Joffe discusses the commotion that has erupted in Germany when Nobel Laureate Gunter Grass published his newest poem: “What Must Be Said,” a work in which he criticizes Israel despite his re-education by the American method, an exercise that led him initially to denounce the Nazi philosophy of life, an attitude he maintained during a good part of his long life. But contrary to the presumption that he will continue to love Israel, love it unconditionally and love it for ever, he seems to have had a change of heart. But aside from reporting on this snippet, a chagrined Joffe does not say much more about the Grass poem or its author.
What Joffe does in detail is report on the reaction of the German and European public to the Gunter Grass poem. And he concludes the article by making the point that antisemitism still exists on that Continent, though to a lesser degree than it used to be. What we get from this reporting and from the author's conclusion is not so much what he consciously wishes to communicate but what he unwittingly says about himself and his culture which happens to be the Judeo-Yiddish. And what comes out in a stark manner is how these people play the game of love and hate.
As you go through the first few paragraphs of the Joffe article, you get the sense that he believes only the Jews have a full fledged history, one that is replete with human endeavors. All the while, everyone else has nothing but a histrionics of cold facts as they can be expressed in dates and places. In his eyes the Jews are human at the core while the others are plastic characters in need of reeducation if not a remake from scratch. A good example to look at is the way he tells the story of Gunter Grass who wrote the novel “The Tin Drum” in 1959 for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1999 but then revealed in 2006 that he was a member of the Nazi SS during a previous life. A long life described in such cold terms.
But in the face of those cold facts, Joffe makes the following comment: Had he “sprung the shocker a decade earlier, his novel … would still shine … but without the Nobel Prize.” This says how much he regrets that the events played themselves out in the wrong sequence. The real shocker, however, is that he allows no consideration to the possibility that the poet may be a full fledged human being that must have agonized before deciding to alter his position. On the contrary, the Jewish writer of the article treats the non-Jewish poet as if he were a physical thing that can be blown from here to there by the winds of change.
And now, says Joffe, comes the “bigger bombshell, a poem titled 'What Must Be Said'” in which Grass explains he was cowed by the 'verdict of anti-Semitism' but now that he is getting older, he finally dares to speak out because Israel is getting ready to wage war against Iran, and thus threatens the peace of the world which is fragile to begin with. And Israel is behaving the way it does because it was armed in part with German-made weapons such as submarines, a reality that will make Germany share the guilt.
In response to these charges, Joffe says without giving proof or giving a hint as to where the proof may be found that “Iran is routinely threatening Israel with eradication.” And he follows with this bizarre gag: “President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is but a 'loudmouth,' a lamb in wolf's clothing” without telling us what we're supposed to make of it. But he asks: “Was this anti-Semitism?” Actually he quotes Israel's envoy to Germany as having asked this question and having explained that it was in the European tradition to stick the Jews with blood libel just before Passover. He has conspiracy theory on his mind, you see.
Joffe then makes the point that “After the Holocaust, traditional anti-Semitism is out.” Where it used to be that the Jews were fingered as being Christ killers who made matzo with the blood of Christian children, and were fingered as being usurers and plunderers of the other races, the Jewish state of Israel is now charged by analogy “with concocting the greatest possible evil: a nuclear Holocaust to be visited on Iran and the entire world.” And he goes on to explain that Grass believes Israel was able to achieve all this because it could enslave 80 million Germans. It did so by wielding the Holocaust thus gouged the submarines from the Germans and suppressed what must be said.
From this point to the end of the article, a picture is painted that clearly demonstrates why the Judeo-Yiddish culture was rejected by every race and every religion; every time and everywhere on this planet. Look what Joffe does instead of engaging in a serious discussion: “This is mendacity to the max, for critical coverage of Israel is a staple of the German media.” He dismisses the entire premise of the Grass poem with one sentence by asserting something that is totally false. And you can tell it is false because if it were true, he and people like him would be writing an article a day similar to the one we are discussing. And as if he had not done enough, Joffe finds a motive as to why the Grass poem was written in the first place: “The motive is unbearable guilt feelings … How to regain moral worth? By projecting culpability onto Israel.”
Here too, you see a loaded statement without proof or explanation as to how it is arrived at and why it is there. And this is where you realize that when the bell tolls and the writing goes on the wall, the Judeo-Yiddish culture does not see or hear a warning to the effect that it must reform, but sees and hears a call to attack the messengers and accuse them of telling falsehoods. But there is more because aside from expressing a mild contentment that Germany is now a liberal democracy, he does not see the need to probe deeper into the matter or try to understand why the Germans and the Europeans describe the current situation by what he calls the three classics: “They are the new Nazis,” “Gaza is like the Warsaw Ghetto,” and “We learned our lesson, the Israelis did not.”
That lesson, of course, has to do with understanding history but the problem is that the Yiddish culture is based on the Jewish religion which itself is based on fictitious events that have no trace in recorded history. In fact, the stated events amount to nothing more than religious fantasies used by these people to interpret current events, predict what will happen next and prepare for that. And you see how the Jewish inability to understand history has affected Joffe's writing. Instead of taking up the history behind the transformation of Gunter Grass from being a supporter of Israel to becoming its critic, he writes useless histrionics and lashes out at everything that contradicts the description of Jews and Israelis as being the infinite expression of absolute perfection.
Then comes the typical Jewish attempt to have it both ways, the consequence of which is to explode the whole presentation and send it to kingdom come. Bear in mind that these are the people who would violate every sense of measured response as they mobilize all the forces that they can, recruiting anyone who would join their effort to go after an ordinary individual who might have said something they consider to be unflattering to Israel or to the Jews. When asked why they do this, they parrot the refrain: Nazism started with a single man and look how it all ended. But you look for the real reason as to why they do what they do, and you find it to be that they do it because they can. And they can because they are allowed to do it. And so you ask: What happens when they cannot do it? Well, this is something else altogether.
Here is what happened with Josef Joffe. He set up a good-news-bad-news situation and began by telling the good news. It is “that the poem did not play well in the Middle,” he says. He then tells about the bad news which “oozes out from the underground.” He explains that while the mainstream media (which represents the middle) has criticized Grass's poem, the internet (which represents the extreme on both sides) has brought people by the thousands, 90% of whom cheered Mr. Grass with the “At last!” type comment or worse. He also reports these facts: “The norm for Europe is for 15% -20% of the population to possess opinions labeled … anti-Semitism.” And he expresses this opinion: “Germany is … mainstream … that is reassuring.”
See? See how these people would turn the world upside down to go after a single person whose life they try to destroy, but find it reassuring that 20% of the population has turned antisemitic?
And this, my friend, is the contrived approach to life that takes these people from one calamity to the other, punishing the world alongside them for not stopping them before they go too far.
Like says Gunter Grass the German poet, the time has come to defang Israel, bring peace to the Middle East, save the planet in the process and help ourselves to boot. I would add to this that we must also clip the wings of the Jewish organizations for, they are the disease that keeps plaguing mankind.