Something to ease the Angst of one German

Jochen Bittner who is the political editor for the German newspaper Die Zeit wrote an article that was published in the New York Times on October 21, 2014 under the title: “Germany Without Angst? That Worries Me.” The point he is making is that despite the fact Germany's infrastructure is not falling apart or that the economy is not tanking … although it is slowing down, there is much that needs to be done. However, the angst is not there motivating the people to do it, according to him. And that worries him.

This means that according to this German, he is the only one currently living in a state of anxiety about the rest of the population not being anxious enough with regard to its state of affairs or its future. But that's not all which preoccupies our dear author, something else does. He expresses it this way: “The German language, as far as I know, is the only one in the world in which the words for debt and guilt are etymologically the same – the word for debt is 'Schulden' and for guilt it's 'Schuld.'”

Well, I can do nothing to ease his angst about German affairs, but I can ease his angst about the German language having the two words “debt” and “guilt” derived from the same root. In fact, the same situation exists in the Arabic language; something I am delighted to discuss because it gives me the opportunity to correct some bad impressions that were circulated by people who know very little of what they talk about. And those who know enough but deliberately distort reality.

First, let me say something about pronunciation both in English and in Arabic. In English, there is the sound of “th” which is pronounced as in “the” or as in “think.” The Arabic letter of concern to us here has a sound as in “the.” It is the letter “thal” in the Arabic Alphabet. For a reason too long to explain, an Arabic word that contains this letter is sometimes represented in English as “dh.” I shall not use this representation.

Now, the two Arabic words of concern to us are (1) the word “thanb.” Used alone and out of context, it means guilty. When you add to it prefixes, suffixes or midfixes (which is done in Arabic), you form new words that range from “thaneeb” which means stem, to “muthneb” which means guilty. And (2) there is the word “themm.” Used alone and out of context, it means deserving of disparagement. That's close enough to being guilty. Variations on that word range from “themmah” which means debt, to “thameem” which means protection.

And then, there is that famous word “themmi” often represented in English as “dhimmi.” It was used in ancient times to refer to a non-Muslim living in the Hejaz (now Saudi Arabia.) People who translate that word and may or may not know what they are talking about often say that the Muslims considered the non-Muslims as sinners or guilty of something. This is false because when used as is, the word is no more offensive than the English word gentile, used by Jews to refer to non-Jews.

There is more. When used in a phrase, the word themmi is put in the plural and becomes “themmah.” The phrase often used is “Ahl al-themmah” which means people owed protection, also people owing a debt. Here is what went on in the Hejaz long ago. Non-Muslims who lived there were considered guests and had all the rights of citizenship. In addition, they were owed a special protection because hospitality was and still is a highly appreciated virtue in the Arab world.

But when the country was at war, and young Muslims were drafted to go to the front and fight, the non-Muslims who were not drafted had less competition at home, and more space to do more business. They got rich at the expense of the Muslims who died to protect them. For this reason, they were asked to pay what you might call a “war tax.” Nothing more serious than that.

And that was a long time ago. None of this is happening now in Saudi Arabia or in any Muslim country.

I hope this clarifies the thing for Mr. Bittner and those who might have read his article.

The bitter Predicament of a losing Predator

A predator that loses the chase in hunt after hunt ends up realizing he is too weak to hunt. When convinced he has been weakened so much that he will never hunt again, he turns on the smallest and weakest among his own and feeds on them. This is true of wild animals as much as it is among the humans that project the image of being political animals, or the image of being driven by an ideology urging them to take control of everything in sight to avoid being annihilated physically.

Under normal circumstances, mutual recriminations take root and spread inside an organization that starts to lose in a serious way after being the leader in its field. Each partner inside the organization starts to point a finger at the others to deflect any criticism that might be leveled against him or her. Some criticism may be justified and some may not; some deflection may be warranted and some may not but in the end, nothing matters because when the sky begins to fall, it falls on everyone.

By contrast, something worse can take place when the circumstances are extraordinary. We have an example of this in the article that was written by Ira Straus under the title: “Fighting to lose in Iraq and Syria” and the subtitle: “Obama's coalition is falling apart before it can get going.” It was published on October 20, 2014 in National Review Online. Like the title indicates, the author sees America losing in Iraq and Syria not because America's turn to be the undisputed leader has come and gone, but because someone inside the “organization” has decided to do the unthinkable and lose the fight rather than win it.

What is worse than being a political animal is being a political cannibal. Whereas the animal will deflect criticism away from him and be happy with that, the cannibal will go further and do the equivalent of burning the house to the ground to kill everyone in it in the hope that he will escape the fate and feed on the charred remains of his own. This is what Straus has done in this article … but he is not alone. In fact, this stance is the one taken by the majority of Jews and their supporters; those who do to America today what Jews have been doing to others all the time since the beginning of time ... here and there and everywhere on the Planet.

Straus begins the article by describing a situation that would be more in the realm of political animals at each others' throats rather than political cannibals ripping each others' heart out of the body and devouring it. Here is a taste of that: “the grand coalition is fraying as never before … it is flying into mutual collision … Turks, Kurds, Shiites, and Westerners are fighting at cross-purposes.”

Knowing how he wants to end his presentation, he starts paving the way to make that end sound plausible. And the way he does that is vintage Jewish style. He makes a prediction he does not have to justify and builds on it. He expects that by the time he gets to the end, the reader will have forgotten that the entire presentation is based on a flimsy prediction that was neither here nor there. Here is that prediction: “Obama may go down in history as the man who grew the Islamic State into a major threat … the man who unraveled the global coalition and undermined NATO.”

He goes on to spin and re-spin the major Jewish and Israeli talking points while mutilating history where he must to square circles that refuse to square. All the while, he paints a picture of a hypocritical Obama that says something and does something else: “The U.N. passed a resolution … Obama pushed it through but he is unlikely to comply himself.” And a picture of an incompetent Obama that “believes in international cooperation and organization he does not know how to build or sustain.”

All of which forces the allies to do the things they would not normally do, he says. For example: “Turkey has thrown away a golden opportunity – not because it loves the Islamic State, but because we have not been serious about leading our side strongly enough to hold it together.” And this seals the argument exactly the way he wants it sealed. It lays all the blame on the shoulders of President Obama – that for which he is responsible, and that for which the allies would have been responsible.

And this allows Ira Straus to express his cannibalistic instinct openly: “It leads me to favor every means that can be found, including means that [are] unfair, simplistic, crude, mean-spirited, politically motivated … Obama has subordinated national interest to his political sympathies … Reducing Obama's base in Congress to minority status … in 2016, America will elect a new president. Americans have to use what levers they have to hold the existing president responsible.” Feel like a glass of Chianti to wash it all down, Ira?

New Euphemism to sustain a perpetual War

As if to atone for the decades of complicity that the New York Times has dedicated to the destruction of millions of lives among innocent Palestinians and other Arabs – all butchered by the world original and so far only plague known as the Judaist ideology – and doing it using American weapons, American financing and American encouragement, the Gray Lady has at long last decided to tell it like it is.

No, the editors did not write an editorial in which they do the mea culpa; they spoke instead in the form that editors use at times to express themselves with clarity. It is to juxtapose a number of writings done by others which (viewed together) tell a story that has a greater value than the sum of its parts. In this case, the editors of the Times published on the same day an article by Tomis Kapitan, and another article by Israel's minister of intelligence, Yuval Steinitz. Together, they expose the Jewish creation of a new euphemism by which the Jews hope to sustain the perpetual war they launched against a human race they despise so very much.

The Tomis Kapitan article has the title: “The Reign of 'Terror'”; that of Yuval Steinitz has the title: “Don't make a Bad Deal With Iran” both of which were published in the New York Times on October 20, 2014. In this work, Kapitan shows conclusively how the creation of a single euphemism such as the word “terrorist” makes it possible for an actual terrorist to commit acts of terror against innocent victims he labels terrorists, by convincing others to join his crusade and fight the terrorists that are not, using acts of terror that are real to the victims but not to the duped participants who believe they are doing God's work.

Tomis Kapitan does not come out and says openly that the Jews are the real terrorists, the Americans are the ones that were duped, or that the Palestinians are the victims. But the narrative which describes the events he uses as examples to make his point, speaks for itself. Thus, even though the writer's comments and conclusions are meant to paint a general sort of picture, the resulting canvas identifies who is who in the story being told.

He ends his article by mentioning the idea of doublethink that George Orwell made use of in his novel 1984. Kapitan says this about it: “in sanctioning the use of modern weaponry to achieve this end, we are effectively advocating the very thing we condemn, and this is closer to doublethink than we should ever be.”

Perhaps stirred up by the sense of the mea culpa, the editors of the New York Times use their newly discovered wisdom to juxtapose the Steinitz article with that of Kapitan. In his work, Steinitz uses a newly minted euphemism to do to the innocents in Iran what the use of the word “terror” did to the Palestinians. The new euphemism is this: “No deal with Iran is better than a bad deal.” Its purpose is to preclude any possibility of ending the perpetual war now raging, and go from there to implement the long term Jewish agenda.

In fact, this is the notion that comes in the title of the article he wrote. He wrote it, yes, but where was he when he wrote it? He was in occupied Jerusalem. That flagrant, huh? Yes, occupation being the culmination of a string of terrorist acts, the Jewish doublethink apparent in the description of Iran as having an “infamous track record of [terror], abusing human rights, calling of [someone else's] destruction, and lying unabashedly about its nuclear program,” is astounding, and out there for the whole world to see.

Steinitz ends his article with this plea: “The Islamic Republic of Iran remains the world foremost threat. We must guarantee that it never obtains nuclear weapons.” The good thing is that the world knows how to treat every utterance that comes out of occupied Jerusalem. Turn the thing around and rephrase it like this, for example: “The presumed Jewish State remains the world's oldest, foremost and only threat. Humanity must guarantee that the Jews never, ever again take control of a country the way they took control of America.

This being the sensible thing to do to find a humane Ultimate Solution to the Jewish problem rather than be presented with the same old Final Solution, it is up to the editors of the New York Times – who contributed so much to the making of the current situation – to reverse themselves and openly advocate the destruction of the apartheid regime in Israel, and the ending of occupation in Palestine.

Let the juxtaposition of these two articles not be the only New York Times act dedicated to the cleaning of the Jewish horror show that the publication has done so much to help create.

The Gray Lady has gone senile

When an “Eminence Grise” starts doing things in public that cause her to be injured, to look silly or to look pathetic, you know that the graying lady has crossed a certain threshold, and is now operating in the senile zone. This is what happened to the Gray Lady that is sometimes referred to by the name New York Times.

Its editors published a piece in which they tell the world how goosey they have become. They did it by adopting former President Carter's concerns with regard to what is happening in Egypt at this time, and deliberately misrepresented what he said. They then added their own dressing on the concoction, making the whole thing look like a pile of dung such as that created by wild animals, and seen when on a safari in Africa.

Under the title: “From Jimmy Carter, a Rebuke to Egypt,” published on October 19, 2014, the editors of the Times describe a statement issued by the Carter Center with regard to its operation in Egypt as being a “withering judgment” and a “damning critique.” They go on to say that the statement “sends two powerful messages to the Obama administration” with regard to its dealings with Egypt. They elaborate to make it sound like Carter was urging Obama to punish Egypt.

This is human dung like the stuff a senile lady would produce when she soils herself in public. The fact is that the statement issued by the Carter Center is 2800 words long, a quarter of which (700 words) concerns the history of the Center in Egypt over its 3 years span. It tells what the Center did and what it saw. The rest (2100 words) consists of recommendations to the Government of Egypt such as you find in any Blue Ribbon or Royal Commission report.

The whole thing was written by a staff that does this sort of work professionally for a living. The only time that the thoughts of President Carter appeared in the statement is when he was quoted as expressing the following 40 words: “The current environment in Egypt is not conducive to genuine democratic elections and civic participation. I hope that Egyptian authorities will reverse recent steps that limit the rights of association and assembly and restrict operations of Egyptian civil society groups.”

Notice that he said “Egyptian civil society groups” and not Egyptian as well as foreign groups. In fact, there is nothing, anywhere in the statement that suggests Carter or the staff are asking Egypt to go back to a system that the senile lady craves to see return to Egypt, now that: “Mr. Sisi has amended the penal code so that anyone charged with receiving money or arms from a foreign country or organizations could face a life sentence.”

Just imagine a graying dung-soiled lady from China, Russia, Zimbabwe or Venezuela telling America to welcome the moving of money and arms across the border from Mexico into America – activities that will be carried out by al-Qaeda and ISIS operatives and similar characters. Piss on the gray-haired thing and flush her down the toilet.

But why would the editors of an aging rag like the New York Times want Egypt to transform itself the way they describe? Here is the answer to that question: “It would be helpful if Israel, which prides itself on its democracy, encouraged [Egypt] to abandon the authoritarian course.” Never mind that the same Carter who voiced just a little concern about Egypt is the same Carter who personally accused Israel of bargaining in bad faith, and personally wrote a book about it being an apartheid regime as well as a murderous one – the editors of the New York Times still want Egypt to become like Israel. Flabbergasting.

The trouble is that Egypt has a population of 94 million people. If it were to use American weapons or any weapons to kill as many people as do the Israelis every couple of years in Gaza, it will have to kill something like 120,000 people each time. And this is something that Egypt or anyone who is not a Jew will never do.

One more thing. Look at the map of Egypt and see if it is possible to build an apartheid wall in that ancient republic of peace, quiet, eternal optimism, and a glorious history that continues to make itself. You will spot no such place because there is none.

You are full of dung, gray lady of the New York variety. There is no tolerance for your voice of hate, strife and death in a country that values life so much, the dream shared by all Egyptians from the ancient times to our time is that life continues in the afterlife.

A midlife Crisis guided by hormonal Fury

On the bell curve of human life, beginning with a rising side which reflects childhood … to reaching a relatively flat apogee which reflects adulthood … to sliding down a falling side which reflects old age, there are two inflection points. One represents the adolescent rising years; the other the falling midlife years. What the two points have in common, however, is that they trigger a hormonal change in the human body, a phenomenon that affects both the mood and the outlook on life.

Unable to comprehend the physical significance of the rising hormonal levels – which he feels are taking place in his body – the adolescent interprets the sensations as being a sign that he is more capable of doing things physically and mentally than he is given credit for. Motivated to claim what he sees as his rightful place under the sun, he does not wait to develop the knowledge or the skill that will take him there, but tries to force his way to the top of the heap by stepping on the toes of others, and climbing on the backs of those who let him.

On the other hand, fully cognizant of the physical significance of the falling hormonal levels he feels are taking place in his body, a human being that is going through the midlife years interprets the sensations for what they are: his body is telling him he is less capable of doing the physical things he used to do, and will eventually start losing it mentally as well. Eager to maintain his current status for as long as he can … the part in his brain which regulates the secretion of hormones goes on overdrive. It triggers a hormonal fury that results in a virulent behavior whose aim is to show a physical potency that is simply not there.

Whereas all of that is true to the life of human beings, it is also true to institutions which are, after all, populated by humans and run by them. And because nations are made of institutions, they too have the tendency to display the same kind of behavior. Moreover, whether a nation is fully on the democratic side of the political spectrum or fully on the autocratic side or somewhere in-between, it can only reflect the mood of the people who run it. That is, an autocracy which is run by benevolent figures will adhere to human values more readily than an abstract democracy run by ideologues holding on to borrowed ideas they have no clue what they mean.

To take a specific example, what is bubbling to the surface at this time in America is the image of a nation that is behaving like a specimen going through a midlife crisis. While most people in the land want to maintain the status quo, hoping it will last as long as possible, a faction of the population is unhappy with that, and tries to convince the others that America is still potent because it can become virulent if only they will allow it to be that.

That faction is known as the “Right” of the American political spectrum. It stands against the “Left” which opposes it at every level on the domestic and foreign policy issues. While the Left, which is headed by President Obama, is trying to level the playing field for all Americans on the home front while intervening in foreign affairs in matters that only involve American interests, the Right which has no apparent leader, has several operators who are united by the idea that America is the target of an evil world trying to destroy it. Thus, in their view, the country must starve its people to the extent that it can be done, go on a war footing, mobilize its resources, and charge in all the places of the world where evil people are plotting to undermine America.

To make their theory sound plausible, they begin by saying that the current administration does not know what it is doing both domestically and internationally. They go from there to spin everything which happens locally and internationally, and make it sound like an existential threat is crossing at the gate on its way to annihilate America and everyone in it. Thus, the people of the Right want their members to be elected to office so that they save the Republic from a destruction which is sure to come if they are left out.

You can see an expression of all this in two articles that have appeared on October 27, 2014 in the online edition of the right wing publication, The Weekly Standard. One article came under the title: “The Protocols of the Elders of Liberalism” and was written by William Kristol. The other came under the title: “Obama's Synthesis” and the subtitle: “McGovern plus Kissinger.” It was written by Ray Takeyh.

Kristol tackles the domestic scene; Takeyh the foreign scene. They are by no means an exhaustive view of what the Right in America stands for at this point in time, but they are a good start for those who wish to savor the political battles raging in America today.

Anatomy of a perpetual self-Destruction

Here is a tragi-comical case of: I didn't do it but I apologize, and will pay the applicable penalties. The tragedy is that the thing has been going on since the dawn of history. The comedy is that it is a case which is playing itself out in the upside-down mode. It sounds more like: They kicked me in the butt, but I don't mind it because they don't mind it.

That's what comes out a freakish piece that was written by the editors of the Wall Street Journal. It came under the title: “The Parliament of Palestine” and the subtitle: “British MPs show the extent of their anti-Israel leanings.” It was published in the Journal on October 18, 2014. And here is the summoner of both the smile and the tears: “The vote by the British Parliament to recognize a Palestinian state is being treated as a nonevent in both Jerusalem and London … But symbolism can also be revealing.”

The people at the Journal who wrote that passage are the same who bring out the bugles, the drums and the megaphones to trumpet to the world that there has been another unanimous and bipartisan vote in favor of Israel in the American Congress. How is that? It is that a handful of legislative cockroaches got together in the middle of the night, suspended the rules and voted – all half-dozen of them – on a nonbinding resolution which basically says nothing except that when it comes to choosing between serving the interests of America and those of Israel, the cockroaches always choose Israel.

Understood. But how does that compare with their view on what happened in the British Parliament? See for yourself. Here is their rendition on that score: “Though the margin of 274 to 12 was lopsided in favor of recognition, more than half the Parliament either abstained or didn't show up. The nonbinding resolution will have no effect on Britain's policy...” No bugles, no drums and no megaphones in this case to trumpet to the world that Palestine is one step closer to being born at last.

Instead of that, the editors have come up with the usual lamentations which are meant to say that the Jews didn't do it even if they apologized for it at times. Here is how they put it this time: “Some of the revelations came in comments by the MPs. A Tory offered the view that the U.S. was 'susceptible to well-funded lobbying groups in America.' A Liberal Democrat tweeted that he'd fire rockets at Israel if he were living in Gaza.” Well, let me ask: If this is not bipartisan, what is?

Still, the lamentation is not produced simply to lament and stop here. It is used as a tool to turn the whole matter upside-down. It is also used as a weapon to scare off anyone who might want to end the tragedy here and now – once and for all. Here is the tool: “The mindset such statements betray speaks for itself.” And here is the weapon: “It is particularly disturbing after witnessing anti-Semitic venom on Europe's streets.”

Used as a tool, the lamentation has the effect of saying that the Jews didn't do it because they never do anything wrong. If they periodically murder thousands of people they have been occupying for several generations, it is because these people have the habit of becoming restless for being robbed of their freedom. They become agitated instead of doing the right thing which is to love the Jews who keep them confined. Look at the American legislators, the more that the Jews screw them and screw their country, the more the legislators love the Jews. That's being civil. Why can't the Palestinians be like them?

To use the lamentation as a weapon, the editors of the Journal summon what has come to be known as the pretzel logic. With it, they contort the argument in such a way as to make mind blowing statements. A favorite of theirs is the one about there being a cause and effect relationship between say, someone wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday and the advent of World War III. A variation on that theme is used in their latest editorial. Here it is: “Meanwhile, ISIS is at the gates of Baghdad – realities Palestinian statehood does nothing to fix.”

To which billions of human beings on this planet are saying under their breath: If not, then maybe another holocaust will do the fixing. And that's no laughing matter … but here we go again.

Is America having its political Period?

Even in a country where unbounded democracy is said to flourish without interference from the outside, there is a kind of self-censorship that restrains people from carrying on with loose talk with respect to certain topics, most of these having to do with bodily functions or sexual reproduction.

And there lies a long story whose bits and pieces were cobbled together in my head upon reading the latest Rich Lowry article … to produce the following presentation. The Lowry article came under the title: “The God That Failed” and the subtitle: “Alison Lundergan Grimes is the Todd Akin of 2014.” It was published on October 17, 2014 in National Review Online.

The story is that I was taking a course in film-making when we were shown a half-hour work about a girl that just had her first period. She suffered horribly at the hands of her peers of both gender because in this culture, having a period was something to be teased about, even shamed for. Over the years I became aware of such preoccupation being expressed in other works of art. Later, I taught in schools where year after year, the “thing” flared up among the student population to the point where it could not be kept quiet enough to escape the eyes and ears of teachers and staff.

What brought that history to mind upon reading the Lowry article was the cobbling together of these points: “Grimes has committed a defining gaffe. Her refusal to say she voted for Obama has the same characteristics as Akin's rape comment. She refused to say she voted for Obama in an editorial-board interview. After getting roasted by every political commentator in the country, doubled down during debate.”

This told me immediately that democracy in America is wasted on the adult-size teenagers now in charge of putting out the first draft of American history; those who are feeding a kind of popular culture which fails to rise above the mentality of a mob teasing a girl for having her first period.

What Lowry does after that is what you would expect a half-witted teenager will do when he gets to believe he's got the whole world so well figured out, he has it in the palm of his hand. Having said she made a gaffe of the worst kind, he now sets out to show that she falsely tries to present herself as being better than that. He starts that part of his argument with this: “She elevated her refusal to high principle.” And he ends it with this: “In her own mind, Grimes is the Rosa Parks of the secret ballot.”

The fact is that Alison Grimes is neither Todd Akin nor did she present herself as a Rosa Parks. What she did is cite Kentuky's constitution regarding the sanctity of the ballot box to refuse revealing who she voted for years ago. This is a right that everyone has. You can cite it to refuse telling which way you voted, or you can violate it and reveal who you voted for. It is entirely your prerogative, and no one has the right to force you to explain how your period affects your mood.

How did America get to be like that? It may take several decades before a definitive answer to this question emerges. For now, I shall keep an eye on the undeclared civil war that is raging among the Jews – always centered around the question: what would be the best way to serve Israel and World Jewry?

For a long time the Jews have lobbed subtle missiles at each other without naming names. Forced to be more explicit than that, they invented the concept of the two camps: the Left and the Right. And since they have near monopoly on the political debate in America, they sucked everyone else into their political sphere – the place where everyone is automatically labeled of one camp or the other.

In a climate such as that, how can any subject be discussed outside the Jewish context when, for example, the Wolf Blitzer “Situation Room” gathers a panel that is made almost entirely of Jews?

But you don't have to be on CNN or Fox News to get drenched with Jewish ideas on political polarization. Keep reading the Lowry article and you'll see how he uses the Grimes incident to participate in the Jewish civil war.

Meanwhile, the next time a male interviewer asks which way you voted, ask him if he had sex with a woman having her period. If the interviewer is a female, ask her if she had sex while having a period. That will shut them up.