Two articles by Jewish writers published on May 16, 2013 in
National Review Online will help me illustrate a cluster of ideas I have wanted
to discuss for some time now. The first article by Clifford D. May comes under
the title: “Newseum's Wall of Shame” and the subtitle: “Is one man's terrorist
another man's bureau chief?” The second article by Michael Rubin comes under
the title: “Erdogan's Agenda” and the subtitle: “Turkey was once a staunch ally
of the West and a reasonably free country. No longer.”
Let me say at the outset what I believe is happening. I
believe that the tendency of Americans to respond to the bumper sticker sort of
arguments more than anything else, is something that began to happen long
before the intrusion of the Judeo-Yiddish culture on the American culture. What
the intruder did when it spread throughout America some half a century ago, is
that it took advantage of an existing situation by intensifying it and molding
it to promote its own causes, and fulfill its own ends.
So you ask: What's a bumper sticker culture? The answer in
my view is that when it comes to understanding the world and when it comes to
responding to it, human beings go through a cycle in three steps. First, as
children, they respond to command words uttered by the parents. These would be
single words such as: look, come, no, up. In this sense, they resemble a puppy
that can be trained to respond to the same sort of commands. The latter,
however, will not develop much further than that as it grows older but the
human child will. In fact, the human will, after a year or two, start asking
two important questions: What's that? Why is that?
Second, as a result of receiving answers to those questions,
the human will form concepts about the world that surrounds it. These will be
simple concepts at the start, but then turn elaborate with the passage of time.
By the time that the child is a preteen, it will prefer to dabble in ideas
rather than respond to simple command words. In fact, if you try to tell this
child what to do, it may resent you. But if you explain why it is better to do
something this way rather than that way, the child will appreciate you even
imitate you by explaining to someone else what you explained to it.
Third, when life becomes complicated, and the amount of
available information multiplies such as it often happens in the urban centers
of the advanced industrial societies, human beings tend to simplify complex
ideas by codifying them into expressions that would fit a bumper sticker, for
example. The more that these people get into the habit of interacting with each
other in this manner, the more they will distance themselves from dabbling in
more complex ideas. In time, they will even resent someone who may throw at
them ideas that would be hard enough to challenge a preteen, therefore delight
him.
After several generations of urban industrial living, a
bumper sticker culture will have developed, and will have the potential to
intensify further and be molded for use as a tool by an intruder. This is what
happened to America when the Judeo-Yiddish culture overwhelmed it and started
using it to promote its own agenda which is the foreign causes of Israel and
those of World Jewry.
The Clifford May article shows what the end result will be.
The Michael Rubin article demonstrates how it can all be done in the first
place. Look at this passage in the May article: “The Newseum announced that it
was adding the names Mahmoud Al-Kumi and Hussam Salama to the engraved glass
panels … Just to be clear: Al-Kumi and Salama were not terrorists because I say
they were terrorists. They were terrorists because the United States government
says they were terrorists.” So what's the big deal? you ask. Can this
designation not be reversed? Oh no! No! These things are sacrosanct; they can
never be reversed. Not ever – comes the answer.
But we all know how the United States government gets to
designate terrorists. The idea would originate with the likes of Clifford D.
May and be picked up by others of the same ilk. Together, they beat the drums
while hounding the lawmakers who will then huddle in the middle of the night
and designate someone a terrorist because Israel and the Jewish organizations
consider him to have been enemy of the day. Is this not a good reason to be
skeptical about such end result? you remark. Oh no! No! Once something has been
accepted, it is accepted for good no matter how it came to be – comes the
answer.
Okay then, let us look at another passage in the Clifford
May article: “Al-Kumi and Salama were targeted with a missile. To what news
reports they contributed – if any – is unclear … might they have been simply
gathering intelligence? Did anyone at the Newseum attempt to gather such basic
facts? … Later the Newseum issued a statement saying that the “Journalists
Memorial selection committee conducts case-by-case reviews” of the criteria
qualifying those honored, adding that “Hussam Salama and Mahmoud Al-Kumi were
cameramen in a car clearly marked 'T.V.'” … Is it possible that the members of
the selection committee have never heard of terrorists putting such markings on
their vehicles?”
Whoa! Look at this avalanche of skepticism. What happened to
the: “Oh no! No! Once something has been accepted, it is accepted for good no
matter how it came to be.” Well, my friend, it is that a joker is a joker is a
joker. A clown is a clown is a clown. A Clifford May is a Clifford May is a
Clifford May. This guy is hopeless.
As to the Michael Rubin article, the presentation is a long list
of the things that Turkey as a nation and its Prime Minister Recep Erdogan are
doing wrong. The only thing the writer forgot to mention is the proverbial
brown shoes that someone was seen wearing in Istanbul on a Wednesday. How Rubin
forgot to mention this item when it would have been the most significant part
of his presentation is beyond comprehension. Well, my friend, it is that a
joker is a joker is a joker. A clown is a clown is a clown. A Michael Rubin is
a Michael Rubin is a Michael Rubin. This guy is hopeless.
In any case, the important thing now is that you see how
these clowns have managed to grab a superpower and turned it into a bumper
sticker culture. What follows is a montage of the points that the writer has
peppered throughout the article demonstrating that for several decades, the
Jews deemed Turkey to have had a sterling history. But when the Turks tried to
be even handed between Palestine and Israel, the Jews had an abrupt change of
heart regarding that same history, and so they rewrote it in gloomier terms.
Here is that montage:
“Erdogan is now in his second decade of power and quite
openly plotting for his third. A decade ago, Turks saw themselves as aligned
with the United States, Europe and Israel. Today Turkey is firmly in the camp
led by Iran. Turkish attempts to support and supply Hamas terrorists – the
'Gaza Freedom Flotilla' being just the most famous example – have made Turkey a
terror sponsor in all but name.” The message is simple, everyone who is with
Israel is good to the last minute; so says their history. But when they turn
away from Israel, that's because they were terrorists to begin with and all
along; so says that same history.
Thus, Michael Rubin ends his presentation this way: “When
Obama meets Erdogan, what should the president say? A few choice words
regarding the importance of standing up to terrorism regardless of the religion
of the perpetrators would go a long way. Every emperor sometimes needs to be
told that he is naked.”
To that I say amen; let the President assure Mr. Erdogan he
sees Jewish Israel as being the worst terrorist state to ever plague this
planet. As to you, Michael Rubin, you are naked and you need to cover your ass.