No it's not me asking that question; it is one I hear America ask, having been culturally contaminated and effectively impregnated by the Yiddish culture. An illustration of this reality came on April 12, 2012 when two articles were published; one exposing the Yiddish mentality, the other showing its effect on the American state of mind. The first article was written by Clifford May under the title: “It's Not the Arab Spring, It's the Nahda” and the subtitle: “Uprisings in the Middle East are about the 'Islamization of life,' not democracy, ” and was published in National Review Online. The second article was written by Stephen Hayes under the title: “What the U.S.-Iran Talks Will Ignore” and the subtitle: “Everyone's talking nukes, but Iran is a world hub of jihadist terrorism, including al Qaeda,” and was published in the Wall Street Journal.
As you might expect, I aim to show that the two articles express a point of view to the effect that the world owes them something, and lamenting that the thing has not been delivered. However, each article gets into the meat of the argument after an introduction that shows one presentation as being a purely Yiddish approach that is tailor made to impress an American audience, while the other presentation is essentially an American discussion but one that has a Yiddish slant. The latter would be the Stephen Hayes article which starts normally but then bends to adopt the Yiddish mode. By contrast, the Clifford May article sprints into its unabashed Yiddish mode right from the start and stays on it till the end.
The May article takes two paragraphs to start a discussion based on the typical Yiddish bespeak: I am an American, you and I are okay but the world is screwed up and has been from the beginning. He tells of the many journalists, diplomats and academics who failed to properly diagnose what they have erroneously termed Arab Spring. Instead, he calls what happened in the Arab World a series of regional upheavals, and says that it all started “when a downtrodden fruit monger in Tunisia self-immolated.” He goes on to say that the journalists, diplomats and academics were mistaken because they thought they heard an echo of the Czechoslovakia reforms – those that were extinguished in the Spring of 1968 by a Soviet invasion.
This done, he says that America had the only genuine revolution in history because all the other revolutions -- such as the French, the Russian, the Iranian and other instances -- have only managed to replace one form of despotism by another. Obviously, this guy knows very little about American history because if he knew better, he would have realized that without the French, America would today be looking like another Canada; an adjunct to the British Commonwealth. Maybe Clifford May should go to the New York Harbor and take a good look at the Statue of Liberty.
Having established his ignorance with respect to American history, he musters enough hubris to educate his readers on the subject of the Muslim world. He asserts that in this world, there are only a few freedom fighters who are Western educated intellectuals anyway. The downside of this, he says, is that they are less disciplined than the Islamic militants who, besides being disciplined, have unlimited amounts of money. And he warns that these people would use violence to achieve their objectives. He refers to them as the Islamists who view the stormy new season not as being an Arab Spring but as being a “Nahda” which -- he correctly notes -- is Arabic for renaissance, itself a French word which means rebirth.
Where he compounds his ignorance is in the use of the Arabic word as a launchpad to make the following statement: “in this case, they believe, a rebirth of global Islamic power.” And this is where you see how ignorance quickly mutates to become insanity. It is that he believes -- and he wants you to believe that a downtrodden Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire, and was followed by hundreds if not thousands of others (mostly Western-educated intellectuals) who braved the bullets and the tank shells and who shed their blood … but to do what? To spark a rebirth of global Islamic power? Let me tell you something, this self appointed educator has more than hubris coming out of his ears; he has bullshit coming out of his mouth and his nostrils.
What he says happened that triggered this train of thought is that he attended a meeting where “Islamists” were invited to Washington to speak about themselves. He met several of them in person, some of whom he spoke with and some of whom he only listened to the speeches they gave. He quotes them in the article and comments on that. The puzzling part, however, is that he says someone named Khairat Al-Shater was there, but he does not say he spoke with him, and he does not quote him as having said something during the meeting. Instead, he reports on something that the man uttered a year ago; the very quote he used earlier to make the insane charge that the Western educated Islamists seek to spark a rebirth of global Islamic power. And so you ask: Why did he not confront Al-Shater and ask him to explain his uttering of a year ago? There is no answer to this question in the article. But who knows? Maybe he did ask the man and got an answer, but he is not telling us because it contradicts his theory.
In this case, let me tell you what the uttering was and what it meant. Khairat Al-Shater is a member of the Party in Egypt known as the Muslim Brotherhood. When the old regime fell and the Party realized it will be called upon to govern the country, Al-Shater spelled out his vision. He spelled it in Arabic, and this is how it was translated: “restoring Islam in its all-encompassing conception … establishing the Nahda of the Ummah [Muslim nation] on the basis of Islam.” The emphasis [Muslim nation] was made by Clifford May because this is the point he is making. It is the point where his insanity and those of many like him begin.
The truth is that the word “umm” in Arabic means mother. In the same way that in most languages, people refer to their nation as the motherland or the fatherland, the Arabs refer to their nations as “al ummah.” When in Egypt someone speaks in an Egyptian context, he will not refer to Egypt as “Al ummah al Masriah” which would translate into the Egyptian motherland, he will simply say al ummah. And this is what Al-Shater was doing as he spoke about Egypt in the wake of the Egyptian Revolution. If he wanted to say Muslim nation while speaking in the Egyptian context, he would have specified: “al ummah al Islamiah” which he did not do.
So much for this part of Al-Shater's speech. As to what he said about Islam and Egypt, it would not be too different from what someone like Rick Santorum would say about Christianity and America. It may raise the eyebrow of some people but it is hardly something that should trigger a hysteria such as it happens to Clifford May and those like him.
But how did the expression Muslim nation get into the Yiddish-American vocabulary of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim hate? It happened when the Americans used to love the Jihadists of Afghanistan. These were the people who fought the Soviet occupation of their country and were calling themselves Mujahedeen. The Americans loved them so much that they encouraged them to ignite their religious Muslim fervor and fight not a Jihad but a “Jihad fi sabeel Allah” against the godless communists. You see, my friend, just as you can say ummah to mean the nation, or say ummah Islamiah to specify Muslim nation, you can also say Jihad to mean struggle or say Jihad fi sabeel Allah to specify struggle for the sake of God. Jihad alone does not mean holy war; jihad fi sabeel Allah means holy war. Get it now?
And so, when the Mujahedeen kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan with the help of the Americans, only to be double-crossed by the Americans who spat them out after they used them, the spurned Afghans said to themselves that if the Christians could use them to beat the godless Soviets, they should seek to establish the Ummah Islamiah thus be in a position to spit on the Americans. These were the Talibans who could do no more to fulfill their dream than blow up a few Buddhist statues. They did this in their quest to show their Muslim credentials but succeeded only to show how stupid they were. And where they were spat out by the Americans, they were now spat on by the whole world. There is nothing to fear when it comes to these kids and less to get hysterical about.
But being who they are, Jewish Americans lack the intellectual integrity to describe something the way they see it even when they know what they are talking about. Instead, they grab every bit of information they can get their hands on; they place them in a cultural salad bowl, add to them vinegar if not a virulent sort of acid, toss the whole thing to mix well and serve it to an American consumer who suspects nothing but ends up poisoned by a food for thought that is more a dish of demagoguery than a buffet of knowledge.
Now comes the Jewish whining as it is exemplified by the expression: “What have you done for me lately?” To pave the way for that, Clifford May does something very Jewish; he serves the reader with a hefty dose of moral syphilism at the start of the discussion. Thus, he mentions a few regrettable incidents that happened in Muslim countries which pale when compared to the thousands who died in the name of the Revolution, something he pooh poohed as being insignificant. And certainly, those incidents look no worse than a ship of state caught in a stormy sea when compared to the shipwrecks that happened and still do in Europe, Asia and the Americas; when compared to the murderous calamity that is Jewish occupied Palestine.
But believing that he has prepared you well enough to hear what he wants from all this, he gets to say what that is. From Egypt he wants: “to have Westerners in Cairo supporting … civil-society groups, or businessmen and tourists sipping cocktails in hotel bars, or to restrain terrorists from firing missiles at Israel from Egyptian territory.” This, he says, is what he would have wished to hear a member of the Egyptian Parliament named Dardery say but did not. He then digresses for a moment to say something (too ignorant to mention here) about a Jordanian who spoke at the gathering. And he returns to Dardery who had taken the trouble to define the Arabic word Jihad.
Clifford May tells what Dardery said in this regard then adds his own two cents worth: “I waited for him to add something about Jihad as defined by Osama bin Laden … or Ayatollah Khomeini...” So you ask, how could Dardery have known that a Jewish asshole was sitting in the audience waiting to hear him say something about Bin Laden or Khomeini? And why did the asshole not ask if he burned with the desire to know the answer?
Based on this and this alone, he concludes: “The Arab Spring was a mirage. The Nahda is a reality … Journalists, diplomats, and academics might understand all this if they were relying less on optimism and more on analysis.” But the trouble is that he did no analysis of his own; he only frothed at the mouth all the garbage that was puked by other assholes like himself.
And so, to help him understand what he has been frothing about, let me analyze his garbage. On the matter of Westerners supporting civil-society groups, the people who have reviewed this matter understand that gangs have been set-up and are being financed by the two American Parties to operate in foreign countries. These gangs are more toxic to those countries than say, allowing al-Qaeda to operate openly in America. Just ask yourself who in the world would want to be governed by a congress where the members will chase Netanyahu in the corridors of the legislature and beg him: “Next time you come to our capital, please wear me like a condom and I shall protect you from our commander-in-chief.” This happens almost literally in America all the time, but would be a reason somewhere else to turn a legislator into pink slime.
As to the firing that is done by terrorists across the border between Egypt and Israel, the only terrorist state in the World today is Israel. It has killed a number of Egyptians (by accident, they say) and the Egyptians are taking steps to make sure it will never happen again. This is how it should be because everyone has the responsibility to secure their own borders, not rely on the neighbor to secure it for them. Moreover, if there are angry people in Africa who were incited to cause trouble in their own countries and promised to be taken to Israel where they will live the good life but were double crossed by their Israeli handlers – it is Israel's responsibility to address this anger and to contain it, not Egypt's responsibility. The Egyptian authorities have only the responsibility to protect their people from Israel and from the activities of the Israelis, not to protect the Israelis from their stupidity and their own doing.
We now come to the Stephen Hayes piece. Knowing how the Yiddish mentality operates in America, we easily detect its contagious effect on American thought as it is apparent in the Hayes article. Here too, we see that the piece is a lamentation. Speaking of the Americans and the Iranians getting together to talk, he says this: “their short-term goal is the same: to avoid military confrontation … So an agreement of some kind seems likely.” This is a bad thing, he says, because Iran is hostile. And this phraseology is the softer, gentler way to say that Iran is evil; that the regime governing it must be destroyed – through war, of course. But sadly, he goes on to lament, a war is not what Barack Obama wants at this time because it would complicate his re-election. You see, lamentation happens when cynicism is coupled with a sense of helplessness.
From this point on, Hayes dresses up a whole catalog of “underreported stories” about Iranian mischief committed against the United Stated of America without apparently a single response being initiated by America to defend itself or to push back, if only a little. It is as if America were Mother Theresa, and Iran were a “hooded” punk that is running around, distracting her, threatening her, pissing on her shoes, pulling her robe, messing up her head-cover and hair – and all she does is finger the rosary while praying to God that despite all this, his soul will be saved in the end. And you're tempted to say: Go to hell, kid. But you don't say it to Iran; you say it to Stephen Hayes.
He ends the article by lamenting once more; this time about an international community that lacks the interest to hold Iran accountable for what it does which, he says, are acts of war. Now, my dear reader, concentrate on the expression “international community” and keep reading the paragraph till you hit this: “But the real world doesn't work that way.” Now scream: But who is the real world if not the international community? Is it Israel alone? Is this your real world, Stephen boy? Do you mean to say that Israel and your Jewish bosses are all there is to the world? How does that work? Can you explain? Will you explain?