Hamas | psychosputnik

Kategorie-Archiv: Hamas

The Necessity of the Existance of a Jewish State

Veröffentlicht am 15. Januar 2015 von jsbielicki Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

The Existential Necessity of Zionism After Paris: A COMMENTARY Editorial

Commentary 02.01.15 – 1Autors: From the Editors of the Commentary

The jihadist siege of a kosher grocery store in eastern Paris on January 9 was not the beginning of a new threat to French Jews and the Jews of Europe. Rather, it was the culmination of a decade of crisis. And it will not be the end.

The new era of deadly anti-Semitism in France began with the January 2006 murder of 23-year-old Ilan Halimi. Shortly after a Shabbat meal with his mother, Halimi was lured to a Paris slum, where he was ambushed by a gang. They held him captive for 24 days, during which time he was beaten, stabbed, burned with acid, mutilated, lit on fire, and tortured to death. Halimi’s murderers were African and North African Muslim immigrants with ties to Islamic extremists. They called themselves the Gang of Barbarians. And they chose Halimi because he was a Jew.

France’s 5 million Muslims account for 10 to 12 percent of the country’s total population. It is the largest Muslim population in Europe; it is also the most problematic. Several factors contribute to this reality.

The first is radical Islam. Since the late-20th century, a Saudi-funded, anti-Semitic strain of Islamist radicalism has spread to all corners of the Muslim world. Many of France’s recent Muslim immigrants from North Africa have brought their Islamist and jihadist sympathies to Europe. Indeed, a 2013 poll found that a startling 27 percent of French Muslims younger than 24 support ISIS.

Second, nationalism is a foundational aspect of French life. Old nationalist allegiances have made it hard for well-meaning Muslim immigrants to integrate into society, as they have no direct ties to Metropolitan France. They live largely among themselves in banlieues, whose customs and norms closely resemble those of the inhabitants’ countries of origin—not those of their new home.

The doctrine of multiculturalism, the idée fixe of postwar Europe, has a strange relationship with French nationalism: Though it would seem nationalism’s ideological opposite, multiculturalism offers rosy-cheeked cover to France’s deep unwillingness to allow anyone without centuries-old roots to become “French.” Nominally, according to the postmodern ideal of multiculturalism, no one culture is more virtuous than another. And so the anti-Western, anti-Semitic Islamism practiced by France’s most dangerous citizens is not to be vilified, but rather understood and, ultimately, tolerated. As a matter of daily reality, however, multiculturalism allows the French to keep the Muslims separate—and unequal. And it allows some in France to entertain the belief that Jews, too, can never be French.

France is also home to Europe’s largest Jewish population. For decades after World War II, French Jewry thrived both as a vibrant community of co-religionists and as integral members of French society. While European anti-Semitism was far from extinguished, France seemed a living example of successful Jewish life in Europe after the Holocaust. Today, the Jewish population of France stands at approximately 478,000—the world’s second-largest population of Diaspora Jews (after America’s).

But France’s Jews are outnumbered by its Muslims 10 to 1. The unspeakable murder of Halimi in 2006 heralded a sharp turn back to Europe’s most notorious hatred, at the hands of its newest population. There have been thousands—thousands—of attacks on French Jews and Jewish sites in the years since Halimi was killed. These range from muggings to firebombings to the desecration of Jewish graves to murder. In March 2012, Mohammed Merah, a radicalized French citizen of Algerian descent, shot and killed Rabbi Jonathan Sandler, his two children, and another child at the Ozar Hatorah school in Toulouse. The shooting led to further attacks. In retrospect, one of the more chilling incidents occurred in August 2012, when a French Islamist threw a grenade into a Kosher market in Sarcelles.

Muslim attacks on French Jews increased more significantly still in the summer of 2014, during and after Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza. On July 13, dozens of North African immigrants stormed Paris’s Don Isaac Abravanel synagogue, chanting “Allahu Akbar” and “Death to the Jews.” The mob, wielding knives, clubs, and axes, tried for hours to get through the barricaded door to some 200 congregants on the other side. Police and representatives of France’s Jewish Community Protection Service eventually dispersed the attackers. In July and August, there were a total of eight attempts to destroy or burn various synagogues in Paris. And in Sarcelles, mobs set fire to Jewish-owned business. All told, anti-Semitic incidents in France shot up an estimated 90 percent in 2014.

From the Halimi murder to the attacks in January, the official French response has been one of sympathy for the victim and denial of the nature of the victimizer. On the afternoon of January 9, at the close of a week in which gunmen who claimed to be avenging the prophet Muhammad killed 17 French citizens, President François Hollande stood in front of television cameras and announced that the terrorists had “nothing to do with the Muslim religion.”

The ineffectual response of Hollande and his predecessors to the Muslim problem in their midst has sent many French into the arms of the National Front (FN). This far-right party, founded in 1972 and led today by Marine Le Pen, scored its biggest victory ever in municipal elections in March 2014. Le Pen is an outspoken opponent of Muslim immigration, but the FN is ultra-nationalist in every respect, and neither the party nor its supporters can be considered friends of the Jews. Far from it. Le Pen, daughter of FN founder and unabashed anti-Semite Jean-Marie Le Pen, supports a ban on the wearing of yarmulkes in public. And like many extremists before her, she has sought to make common cause with anti-Semitic figures from opposing parties. Thus the tentative rise of the French far right poses its own potential threat to France’s Jews. This was exemplified on January 16, 2014, when 17,000 French nationalists gathered in central Paris for a “Day of Anger” and chanted, “Jews, get out of France,” “Jew, Jew, France does not belong to you,” and “The gas chambers were a bluff.” Working-class French are increasingly drawn to both the far right and far left, both of which have a propensity to lay blame on the Jew.

The battle lines are drawn. The French elite may occasionally condemn anti-Semitism, as did Hollande after the attack on the kosher market. And on January 11, Hollande, arm-in-arm with world leaders including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, led more than a million people in a march supporting the victims of the January attacks and condemning hate.

But there are no substantive signs that France’s leaders are prepared to stop the radical Islamists who have declared war on French Jewry. Meanwhile, members of the French working class are coming to see the Jews more and more as a hindrance to their own economic well-being. And Europe’s steady turn against Israel has sharpened anti-Semitism of all stripes.

Caught between the deadly reality of radical Islam and the potential manifestation of a neo-fascist revival, what are French Jews to do? For ever greater numbers, the answer lies in Israel. Last year, a record-high 7,000 French Jews immigrated to the Jewish state—more than double the year before. The Jewish Agency, which oversees immigration of Jews to Israel, now estimates that some 15,000 French Jews will make aliyah in 2015.

Jews should have the right to choose to stay in France or anywhere else on the planet Earth they wish to live, from the center of Hebron to the top of Mount Everest. But the issue is not right but reality. Jews in France—and, given certain trends, elsewhere in Europe, from Great Britain to Scandinavia—have to consider their literal survival.

II.

In 1894, the Viennese journalist Theodor Herzl was on the scene in Paris to cover the official public degradation of Alfred Dreyfus, a French officer who had been convicted of spying for Germany and sentenced to life on Devil’s Island. No matter that both men were Jews; Herzl had believed the prim, stuffed-shirt, more-French-than-the-French Dreyfus to be guilty. But once Dreyfus’s military colors were torn from his clothing, with crowds screaming “death to the Jews,” as they had for months, Herzl had not only changed his mind about Dreyfus’s guilt but had come to see him as the representative figure of the Jewish crisis in Europe. As Herzl’s biographer Amos Elon wrote, “the degraded man symbolized the Jew in modern society, conforming to its ways, speaking its language, thinking its thoughts, sewing its insignia to its shoulders only to have them violently torn off.”

Jews should “not delude ourselves,” Herzl wrote in his diary. The cause “is a lost one.” The cause of which he spoke was the effort to secure equal rights to life and liberty for Jews as a minority population living among non-Jews. For Herzl, the Dreyfus case marked the conclusion to years of rumination about the existential condition of his people. In the wake of the Dreyfus conviction, Elon wrote, Herzl “finally made up his mind to lead a worldwide action on behalf of the Jews.”

Eighteen months later, Herzl published The Jewish State. This pamphlet, which changed the world in 23,000 words, is startling even today, not because of the power of its rhetoric but because of its unprecedented practicality. It does not advance uniquely powerful or memorably polemical arguments against anti-Semitism: “I do not wish to take up the cudgels for the Jews in this pamphlet,” Herzl wrote. “It would be useless. Everything rational and everything sentimental that can possibly be said in their defense has been said already. If one’s hearers are incapable of comprehending them, one is a preacher in a desert. And if one’s hearers are broad and high-minded enough to have grasped them already, then the sermon is superfluous.”

The Jewish State is not a sermon. It is a blueprint. It was revolutionary because Herzl argued there was nothing to be done to “cure” anti-Semitism when Jews lived among non-Jews. It was a by-product of that coexistence. His answer was a step-by-step program for what Jews needed to do as a practical matter to continue to exist—what organizations they needed to establish, what tactics and techniques they needed to employ to secure the aim that was stated very plainly in his title.

III.

For all the opinions among the Zionist leaders who followed Herzl as to what form Jewish self-rule should take—and there were many—there was one thing on which they all agreed. Any debate over what kind of state Israel should be was irrelevant unless there was a state. This was a practical nationalism.

Although he is now considered the founding father of the ideological right in Israel, the revisionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky was dedicated to a pragmatic, not a religious or historic, need for a Jewish national home in Palestine. He called it “humanitarian Zionism.” As the anti-Jewish storm clouds over Europe gathered strength once again, Jabotinsky aimed for a simple goal: the rescue of as many Jews as possible. Jabotinsky, the most literate and literary of the early Zionist leaders, grew to disdain the arguments about what a “good” Israel ought to look like—thus, he dismissively called the project of other Zionist leaders an “amusement park for Hebrew culture.” What Israel needed was not to become but to be.

Jabotinsky died in 1940, before he could know the full measure of how desperately his humanitarian Zionism had been required. The Holocaust did not create the need for a Jewish state. It proved the need. “Who is willing and capable of guaranteeing that what happened to us in Europe will not recur?” David Ben-Gurion asked a UN commission in 1947. “There is only one security guarantee: a homeland and a state.”

The pervasiveness of anti-Semitism throughout the world continued proving the need after the state of Israel became a reality. Arab countries either expelled their Jews or made it impossible for them to survive without leaving. This resulted in an immediate refugee crisis: 850,000 Jews fled the Arab world in the years following Israel’s independence. Nearly 600,000 settled in Israel. The Jewish state’s absorption of those refugees was unprecedented; the immigrants nearly doubled Israel’s nascent population. Such a thing was only possible because of practical Zionism—the organizations and the banks and the bureaucratic systems originally envisioned in The Jewish State.

The Jewish Agency was formally established in 1929 with immigrant absorption as one of its main areas of concentration. It took its name from Article Four of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine: “an appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the administration of Palestine in such economic, social, and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine.”

Although the Jewish Agency had other functions, aiding aliyah was the reason it was kept intact after the founding. Ben-Gurion had wanted it to go out of existence but was overruled. The Israeli historian Anita Shapira explains why:

Many in the Israeli leadership…recognized that the Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency (which had shared personnel) were experienced in organizing immigration and absorbing and settling immigrants. They therefore supported the organization’s continued existence despite Ben-Gurion’s opposition.

Keeping these organizations intact was again a practical decision, owing in part to Ben-Gurion’s own demands. Early on, there were calls to slow the tide of immigration from lands east of Palestine or to impose requirements on prospective immigrants’ health or ability to work. Ben-Gurion would have none of it. “We must bring the Jews of Iraq and all the other dispersions that are prepared or have to immigrate,” he said, “as soon as possible—without considerations of property and absorption possibilities.” And so they were brought. Not without immense difficulties, and not without creating social tensions that exist inside the Jewish state to this day. But there they are. They are still there. As are their children. And their grandchildren. And their great-grandchildren.

The influx from Arab lands was not the only astounding wave of immigration. Soviet Jews, desperate for relief from institutionalized totalitarian hatred in the 1970s, found a crucial ally in U.S. Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson and Representative Charles Vanik, who successfully moved legislation restricting U.S. trade with countries, such as the Soviet Union, that did not permit oppressed minorities to emigrate. Jews began, slowly, to find their way to the other side of the Iron Curtain. The trickle became a flood with the Gorbachev government’s liberalization and finally the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

Today, there are 1.2 million Jews from the former Soviet Union in Israel, the third-largest Russian-speaking Diaspora after the United States and Germany. The Jewish Agency is now led by Natan Sharansky, who spent nine years in the Gulag for the crime of wanting to live as a Jew. And it is the Jewish Agency that will be there to aid the Jews of Europe over the coming years.

IV.

Zionism was not a utopian vision. It was a program, and remains a program—the means by which Jewry can and will survive into its fourth millennium. It is about providing Jews with a safe haven in the world and allowing them to exercise rights they have been denied almost everywhere on earth where they have been governed by others—save the astonishing exception of the United States. It is about letting Jews be. That is one of the many reasons Israel was established as a democratic state, and one that respects minority rights.

And yet, to some of Israel’s professed supporters, this is controversial.

The classic opposition to Zionism outside the Jewish community has always been that the need for an Israel was and is not pressing, or that competing practicalities outweighed the need. Within the Jewish community, the most potent opposition to Zionism has had a religious source—in the belief among some in the ultra-Orthodox community that a state preceding the arrival of the Messiah is an idolatrous offense against God. The religious objection to practical Zionism, in other words, lies in its practical success.

Today, within the Jewish community, anti-Zionist Jews do not pose much of a challenge. Now the real challenge comes from within Zionism itself—with the way practical Zionism has disappointed some Jews. These are people who have replaced practical Zionism with what might be called “conditional Zionism.” For the conditional Zionists, Israel was once the port of call for Jews adrift. Now, they say, the storm is over and the threat to Jewry comes more from what they see as the calamity that the storm has wreaked on the port.

In his 2012 book The Crisis of Zionism, Peter Beinart insists he sleeps better at night “knowing that the world contains a Jewish state.” His very next words, however, might count as a succinct motto of the conditional Zionists: “But not any Jewish state.” If Israel does not behave as the conditional Zionists wish it to behave, if it does not enact policies the conditional Zionists wish it to enact, if it does not confront its own external challenges in a manner that salves the consciences of the conditional Zionists, then it is not deserving of their support.

And what is the alternative to Zionism for them? In a darkly ironic passage in the book, Beinart points to Europe: “The vast majority of European Jews now live in democracies that ensure religious liberty.” The Jews of France, warned not to wear yarmulkes or Stars of David or even, at times, go to synagogue, might disagree.

The conditional Zionists have a way of mistaking a lull in the waves for a permanent low tide. Consider this sentence Beinart wrote only three years ago: “For the most part, young American Jews don’t experience their campuses as hostile or anti-Semitic.” In fact, crude anti-Zionism is ruthlessly enforced both among the faculty and the student body across American higher education.

In their own words and actions, conditional Zionists implicitly acknowledge that the end of the need for practical Zionism is a necessary prerequisite for their own brand of Zionism—one in which left-leaning American Jews can use the State of Israel as their moral playground, the successor to Jabotinsky’s “amusement park for Hebrew culture.” While the 2014 war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza was used as a pretext for the kind of popular violent anti-Semitic expression in Europe that the conditional Zionists had assured us was a thing of the past, in the United States the liberal Zionists were agonizing over the supposed irreconcilability of their progressive values with Israel’s method of self-defense.

“Israel Is Making It Hard to Be Pro-Israel,” complained the headline of a New York magazine post by Jonathan Chait. He flubbed the facts of the conflict—“The operation in Gaza is not Netanyahu’s strategy in excess; it is Netanyahu’s strategy in its entirety,” he writes, preposterously—but he was actually quite honest about his own brand of Zionism. He explains that his long-running definition of what it means to be pro-Israel includes “two possible qualifications: a sympathy for the country’s history vis-à-vis its critics, or an ongoing support for its political stance in relation to its international foes.” This is conditional Zionism, heavy on the “conditional.”

So what happens to the conditional Zionists’ arguments when anti-Semitism reasserts itself with a vengeance? The answer comes from the academic Alan Wolfe. His latest book, At Home in Exile, purports to explain “why Diaspora is good for the Jews.” Wolfe accepts, to some degree, the premise of practical Zionism. But then he caricatures it, asserting that the credibility of the Zionist project, at least as its most dedicated adherents see it, depends on the complete collapse of Diaspora life:

Intentionally or not, a focus on diasporic success undermines that unity, for if Jews can flourish outside the Jewish state, the fundamental rationale for that state’s existence is inevitably brought into question. Zionists did not build a home for some Jews so that others could treat it as a place to go on vacation.

According to Wolfe, then, the Zionists’ response is threat inflation in the service of particularism at the expense of universalism. Wolfe says Jews don’t appreciate, or don’t permit themselves to appreciate, their good fortune. “Far from representing an appeal for the rights of powerless minorities to live in dignity,” Wolfe writes, “repeated accusations of anti-Semitism under such conditions all too often lose their innocence.”

It is, we fear, Wolfe and the conditional Zionists who must now lose their innocence, if innocence it ever was. The conditions in France reveal the dangerous complacency of conditional Zionism. Israel was not established as a messianic project or a secular haven. It is not a socialist workers’ paradise. It is not a capitalist-imperialist outpost. It is, instead, a country, now 66 years of age, freer than most, fairer to minorities than most, in which 6.2 million Jews now live.

“Home is the place where, when you have to go there,/They have to take you in,” wrote Robert Frost. For every French Jew at risk, for every Jew everywhere at risk, and for every Jew who chooses, Israel is home. Its existence before the Holocaust would have saved millions. Its existence after the Holocaust saved and created millions. Seventy years after the Holocaust, Jews in Europe are in need of it again.

Alas, the promise Herzl offered at the conclusion of The Jewish State was dreadfully naive: “The Jews, once settled in their own State, would probably have no more enemies,” he wrote. In two months, Jews will gather for the Passover seder and sing: “In every generation they rise up against us to destroy us.” Anti-Semitism is a disease for which there is likely no cure.

The existential necessity of Zionism after Paris is not only a fact. It is a charge for the future.

About the Authors: From the editors of Commentary

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-existential-necessity-of-zionism-after-paris-a-commentary-editorial/

How Not to Fight Anti-Semitism in France

Author: Seth Mandel

Commentary Magazine 01.14.2015

Anti-Semitism in France is nothing new. And even the “new” anti-Semitism in France isn’t new, as our COMMENTARY editorial on the plight of Jews in France and the necessity of Zionism points out. What’s new, it appears, is that France is in danger of its Jews giving up on the sustainability of Jewish life there. The current trend of French Jews making aliyah is seeing the numbers double each year. In response, the French government has taken to saying nice things about how integral Jews are to France’s national identity. It’s a kind sentiment. But is it true?

In a speech yesterday, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls offered the following stirring declaration:

How is it possible to accept that France, which is the land of emancipation of the Jews many centuries ago, but which also seventy years ago was one of the lands of the martyrdom of Jews, how can it be accepted that we hear on our streets “Death to the Jews”? How can we accept the acts that I have just recalled? How can one accept that French people be murdered simply because they are Jewish?

… We must say to the world: without the Jews of France, France would no longer be France. And that message is one that we all have to deliver strongly and loudly. We did not say it in the past. We did not show our indignation in the past.

First, it must be said that the prime minister deserves praise for his defense of the Jews. The rest of Europe should take note. We should temper our cynicism by recalling that words and ideas are the currency of a society reckoning honestly with its political demons. And if positive change is going to come to France, it won’t arrive overnight. Valls’s speech is in some ways a plea for patience, to buy time for the state to begin turning things around.

But it is unlikely that real change is, in the end, on the horizon in France. And Valls’s speech even hints at why. The talk of “emancipation” of the Jews of France in the time of the revolution is a bit of a misdirection. “Emancipation” in France was a graduation to secularism. The revolution was a psychotically violent one, and that violence was aimed, much of the time, at the clergy.

Loyalty oaths were instituted, Constitutional clergy were foisted upon faith communities that preferred their own, and the state engaged a struggle to render unto Caesar far more than what is Caesar’s. That was merely a reverse power structure from the ancien regime, in which the clergy were part of an aristocratic governing structure. For the ancien regime to be uprooted, so did the clerical class. And it was a bloody uprooting.

What does this have to do with the Jews of France? A lot, actually. The French Revolution inculcated a fear and suspicion of religious authority as a threat to secular Enlightenment power. It’s true that when the dust settled under Napoleon’s feet, there had been at least a façade of reconciliation for the purposes of putting the country back together. But it was only really a façade. And a Napoleonic power structure sowed the seeds of its own undoing. French society remains unnerved by strangers among them, as well as anyone they believe answers to a higher authority than the state. The French government can talk all it wants about appreciating its Jews, but unless and until those Jews feel comfortable and safe actually showing outward signs of their Judaism and religiosity, it won’t change minds. A Frenchman who happens to be a Jew at home cannot be the only Jew who feels at home in France.

Additionally, the French government appears poised to make precisely the same mistakes over and over again. If Valls is right about the importance of Enlightenment principles and personal liberty in his country, they wouldn’t be arresting the notorious anti-Semite and popularizer of Nazi social signaling Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, which authorities have now done.

Dieudonne is actually a perfect test case for how France chooses to fight its battles going forward. He is fully and truly repellant in virtually every way. And so his freedom must be defended forcefully. If the lesson of the “free speech uber alles” protests after the massacre at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and then the censorship conducted by Western media (with the New York Times as the chief self-censor) is to censor Dieudonne–or worse, criminalize his demented stupidity–then France will doom history to repetition.

Censoring and criminalizing anti-Semitism, in addition to being incompatible with a free society, does two major things wrong. First, it suggests that the Jews get special treatment and that therefore the anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists are right. This will certainly not make Jews–or anyone in France–any safer. Second, it allows these ideas to gain the credibility of the counterculture while simmering and metastasizing unchallenged out of view. If sunlight is truly the best disinfectant, then France is enabling this infection to spread.

Is France truly still France without its Jews? The last thing the government wants is to have to find out. But that’s where they’re headed, and they haven’t done anything yet to change direction.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/01/14/not-fight-anti-semitism-france/

Remember: Do X! Don´t do Y!

Protect innocent, respect life, defend art, preserve creativity!

What´s Left? Antisemitism!

http://www.jsbielicki.com/jsb-79.htm

DJ Psycho Diver Sant – too small to fail
Tonttu Korvatunturilta Kuunsilta JSB
Tip tap tip tap tipetipe tip tap heija!
http://www.psychosputnik.com
http://www.saatchionline.com/jsbielicki
https://psychosputnik.wordpress.com/

They want 1984, we want 1776

They are on the run, we are on the march!

Dummheit ist, wenn jemand nicht weiß, was er wissen könnte.

Political correctness ist, wenn man aus Feigheit lügt, um Dumme nicht zu verärgern, die die Wahrheit nicht hören wollen.

“Im Streit um moralische Probleme, ist der Relativismus die erste Zuflucht der Schurken.“ Roger Scruton

Antisemitismus ist, wenn man Juden, Israel übelnimmt, was man anderen nicht übelnimmt.

Islam ist weniger eine Religion und mehr eine totalitäre Gesellschaftsordnung, eine Ideologie, die absoluten Gehorsam verlangt und keinen Widerspruch, keinerlei Kritik duldet und das Denken und Erkenntnis verbietet. Der wahre Islam ist ganz anders, wer ihn findet wird eine hohe Belohnung erhalten.

Wahnsinn bedeute, immer wieder das gleiche zu tun, aber dabei stets ein anderes Resultat zu erwarten.

Gutmenschen sind Menschen, die gut erscheinen wollen, die gewissenlos das Gewissen anderer Menschen zu eigenen Zwecken mit Hilfe selbst inszenierter Empörungen instrumentalisieren.

Irritationen verhelfen zu weiteren Erkenntnissen, Selbstzufriedenheit führt zur Verblödung,

Wenn ein Affe denkt, „ich bin ein Affe“, dann ist es bereits ein Mensch.

Ein Mensch mit Wurzeln soll zur Pediküre gehen.

Wenn jemand etwas zu sagen hat, der kann es immer sehr einfach sagen. Wenn jemand nichts zu sagen hat, der sagt es dann sehr kompliziert.

Sucht ist, wenn jemand etwas macht, was er machen will und sucht jemand, der es macht, daß er es nicht macht und es nicht machen will.

Sollen die Klugen immer nachgeben, dann wird die Welt von Dummen regiert. Zu viel „Klugheit“ macht dumm.

Wenn man nur das Schlechte bekämpft, um das Leben zu schützen, bringt man gar nichts Gutes hervor und ein solches Leben ist dann nicht mehr lebenswert und braucht nicht beschützt zu werden, denn es ist dann durch ein solches totales Beschützen sowieso schon tot. Man kann so viel Geld für Versicherungen ausgeben, daß man gar nichts mehr zum Versichern hat. Mit Sicherheit ist es eben so.

Zufriedene Sklaven sind die schlimmsten Feinde der Freiheit.

Kreativität ist eine Intelligenz, die Spaß hat.

Wen die Arbeit krank macht, der soll kündigen!

Wenn Deutsche über Moral reden, meinen sie das Geld.

Ein Mensch ohne Erkenntnis ist dann lediglich ein ängstlicher, aggressiver, unglücklicher Affe.

Denken ist immer grenzüberschreitend.

Der Mob, der sich das Volk nennt, diskutiert nicht, sondern diffamiert.

Legal ist nicht immer legitim.

Wer nicht verzichten kann, lebt unglücklich.

Ohne eine starke Opposition atrophiert jede scheinbare Demokratie zur Tyrannei, und ebenso eine Wissenschaft, zur Gesinnung einer Sekte.

Man kann alles nur aus gewisser Distanz erkennen, wer sich ereifert, empört, wer mit seiner Nase an etwas klebt, der hat die Perspektive verloren, der erkennt nichts mehr, der hat nur noch seine Phantasie von der Welt im Kopf. So entsteht Paranoia, die sich Religion, und Religion als Politik, sogar als Wissenschaft nennt.

Islamisten sind eine Gefahr, deswegen werden sie als solche nicht gesehen. Juden sind keine Gefahr, deswegen werden sie als solche gesehen. So funktioniert die Wahrnehmung von Feiglingen.

Humorlose Menschen könner nur fürchten oder hassen und werden Mönche oder Terroristen.

Menschen sind nicht gleich, jeder einzelne Mensch ist ein Unikat.

Erkenntnis gilt für alle, auch für Muslime, Albaner, Frauen und Homosexuelle.

Islam gehört zu Deutschland, Judentum gehört zu Israel.

Der Konsensterror (Totalitarismus) ist in Deutschland allgegenwärtig.

Es wird nicht mehr diskutiert, sondern nur noch diffamiert.

Es ist eine Kultur des Mobs. Wie es bereits gewesen ist.

Harmonie ist nur, wenn man nicht kommuniziert.

Man soll niemals mit jemand ins Bett gehen, der mehr Probleme hat, als man selbst.

>>Evelyn Waugh, sicherlich der witzigste Erzähler des vergangenen Jahrhunderts, im Zweiten Weltkrieg, herauskommend aus einem Bunker während einer deutschen Bombardierung Jugoslawiens, blickte zum Himmel, von dem es feindliche Bomben regnete und bemerkte: “Wie alles Deutsche, stark übertrieben.“<< Joseph Epstein

Man muß Mut haben, um witzig zu sein.

Dumm und blöd geht meistens zusammen.

Charlie Hebdo: solche Morde an Juden sind euch egal, mal sehen wie”angemessen” ihr reagiert, wenn (wenn, nicht falls) eure Städte von Islamisten mit Kasam-Raketen beschossen werden.

Christopher Hitchens großartig: „In einer freien Gesellschaft hat niemand das Recht, nicht beleidigt zu werden.“

Je mehr sich jemand narzisstisch aufbläht, desto mehr fühlt er sich beleidigt und provoziert.

“Das Problem mit der Welt ist, daß die Dummen felsenfest überzeugt sind und die Klugen voller Zweifel.” – Bertrand Russel

Das Problem mit den Islamisten in Europa soll man genauso lösen, wie es Europa für den Nahen Osten verlangt: jeweils eine Zweistaatenlösung, die Hälfte für Muslime, die andere Hälfte für Nicht-Muslime, mit einer gemeinsamen Hauptstadt.

Was darf Satire? Alles! Nur nicht vom Dummkopf verstanden werden, weil es dann keine Satire war.

Islamimus ist Islam, der Gewalt predigt.

Islam ist eine Religion der Liebe,und wer er anzweifelt, ist tot.

Krieg ist Frieden. Freiheit ist Sklaverei. Unwissenheit ist Stärke. Der Islam ist die Religion der Liebe – George Orwell 2015

Islam ist verantwortlich für gar nichts, Juden sind schuld an allem.

Islamisten sind Satanisten.

Leute fühlen sich immer furchtbar beleidigt, wenn man ihre Lügen nicht glaubt.

Stupidity is demonstrated by people lacking the knowledge they could achieve

Political correctness can be defined as the telling of a lie out of the cowardice in an attempt to avoid upsetting fools not willing to face up to the truth

“In arguments about moral problems, relativism is the first refuge of the scoundrel.” Roger Scruton

Antisemitism is when one blames the Jews or Israel for issues, he does not blame others

Islam is less a religion and more a totalitarian society, an ideology that demands absolute obedience and tolerates no dissent, no criticism, and prohibits the thinking, knowledge and recognition. True Islam is totally different, the one who will find it will receive a very high reward.

Craziness is, when one always does the same but expects a different outcome

If a monkey thinks “I am a monkey”, then it is already a human

A man with roots should go for a pedicure

Self smugness leads to idiocy, being pissed off leads to enlightenment

If someone has something to say, he can tell it always very easily. If someone has nothing to say, he says it in a very complicated way

Addiction is, when somebody does something he wants to do, yet seeks someone who can make it so he won’t do it and doesn’t want to, either.

If the clever people always gave in, the world would be reigned by idiots. Too much “cleverness” makes you stupid.

If one only fights evil to protect life, one produces nothing good at all and such a life then becomes no longer worth living and thus requires no protection, for it is already unlived due to such a total protection. One can spend so much money on insurance, that one has nothing left to insure. Safety works in the same way.

Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom.

Creativity is an intelligence having fun.

If working makes you sick, fuck off, leave the work!

If Germans talk about morality, they mean money.

A man without an insight is just an anxious, aggressive, unhappy monkey.

Thinking is always trespassing.

The mob, who calls himself the people, does not discuss, just defames.

Legal is not always legitimate.

Who can not do without, lives unhappy.

So called social, culture sciences, sociology, psychology psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, are not anymore scientific, but immanent religious cult-prophets, organized as sects.

Without a strong opposition any apparent democracy atrophies to a tyranny, and as well a science , to an attitude of a religious sect.

You can recognize everything from a certain distance only, who is zealous, outraged, who sticks his nose in something, this one has lost the perspective, he recognizes anything more, he has only his imagination of the world in his head. This creates paranoia, which is called religion, and a religion as politics, even as a science.

Islamists are a real danger, therefore they will not be seen as such. Jews are not a danger, therefore they are seen as such. It is how the perception by cowards functions.

People without a sense of humor are able only to fear or to hate and become monks or terrorists.

People are not equal, each single person is unique.

Insight applies to everyone, including Muslims, Albanians, women and homosexuals.

Islam belongs to Germany, Judaism belongs to Israel.

The totalitarian Terror of consensus is ubiquitous in Germany.
There are no discussions anymore, but defamations only.
It is a culture of the mob. As it has already been.
Harmony is only if you do not communicate.

One should never go to bed with someone who has more problems than you already have.

>>Evelyn Waugh, surely the wittiest novelist of the past century, in World War II, coming out of a bunker during a German bombing of Yugoslavia, looked up at the sky raining enemy bombs and remarked, “Like everything German, vastly overdone.”<< Joseph Epstein

One has to be brave, to have a wit.

Stupid and dull belong mostly together.

Charlie Hebdo: you don´t care if such murders are comitted to Jews, we will see how “adequate” you will react when (when, not if), Islamists will begin to bombard your cities with Kasam missiles.

Christopher Hitchens: “In a free society, no one has the right not to be offended.“

The more someone narcissistic inflates , the more he feels insulted and provoked.

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” – Bertrand Russell

The problem with the Islamists in Europe should be solved exactly as Europe requires to the Middle East: a two-state solution, a half for muslims and the another half for not-muslims , with a common capital.

What may satire? Everything! Except be understood by the fool, because then it was not a satire.

Islamimus is Islam preaching violence.

Islam is a religion of love, and he who doubts is dead.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Islam is religion of love – George Orwell 2015

Islam is not responsible for anything Jews are guilty of everything.

Islamists are satanists.

People feel always terrible offended if you do not believe their lies.

Der Frosch und der Ochse (Ein Islamist und Europa) / The Frog and the Ox (An Islamist and Europe) / ŻABA I WÓŁ (Islamista i Europa) (deutsch/english/po polsku)

Veröffentlicht am 10. Januar 2015 von jsbielicki Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

Europe pampering its Islamist

Der Frosch und der Ochse (Ein Islamist und Europa)

Eine Fabel von Aesop

Ein Frosch sah auf einem Feld einen Ochsen und wollte so groß sein wie der. Er begann sich aufzuplustern und aufzublähen und sagte zu seienn Freundenl:

»Schaut her, Freunde, bin ich nicht so groß wie er ?«

»Nein, mein Freundchen, du bist noch weit entfernt davon, ungefähr so groß wie sein Huf bist du.«

» Wartet, ich will mich weiter aufplustern. Und jetzt? Bin ich gewachsen?«

»Du bist immer noch derselbe, kein bißchen hast du dich \erälldert.«

»Na und jetzt?« fragte er und plusterte sich noch mehr auf.

»Du bist der gleiche, der du vorher warst – So groß wie einer der Hufe.«

Doch der dumme Frosch plusterte sich immer weiter auf, und schließlich platzte er.

The Frog and the Ox (An Islamist and Europe)

An Aesop Fable

One afternoon a grand and wonderful ox was on his daily stroll, when he was noticed by a small haggardly frog. The frog was too impressed with the great ox, impressed to the point of envy.

„Look at this magnificent ox!“ he called to all his friends, „He’s such a grand size for an animal, but he’s no greater than I am if I tried.“

The frog started puffing and swelled from his normal size.

„Am I as large as the wonderful ox?“ he asked his friends.

„No, no, not near as grand as the ox,“ they replied.

So, the frog puffed himself up more and more, trying to reach the state of the ox.

„Now? now?“ asked the frog.

„No, no. But please, don’t try anymore,“ pleaded his friends.

But the frog continue to puff and swell, larger and larger until he finally burst.

ŻABA I WÓŁ (Islamista i Europa)

Bajka Esopa

Żaba ujrzała wołu,

Co wzrostem sięgał olbrzyma.

Mogąc co do wielkości z jajem iść po społu,

Zazdrością podniecona, pręży się, nadyma,

By dorównać zwierzęciu, męczy się usilnie.

«Siostro — mówi — zważaj pilnie: Czy dosyć?

Mówże! Czym mu dorównała?» «Nie.» — «A teraz?» — «Bynajmniej.» — «Czym dość już nabrzękła?»

«O, jeszcze ci daleko!» I gadzina mała

Tak się nadęła, że pękła.

Wielu ludzi winno się dojrzeć w tym obrazie.

Mieszczuch wznosi pałace na wzór pańskich dworów,

Każde książątko ma ambasadorów,

Każdy markiz chce mieć pazie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZXFP_3zORQ

watch: Friday: The Alex Jones Show. Terror Attacks Will Rise In The West: British Intelligence Echoes Alex Jones Months Later. Plus: RPG Used By Charlie Hebdo Killers.

Date: 01/09/2015

Alex covers the latest developments in the Paris shooting on this Friday, January 9 edition of the Alex Jones Show. The suspects have been reported killed by police, according to the Associated Press, after a massive shootout with police. At least five explosions were heard near the shootout. The terror attack has created a debate over the radical Islamization of Western countries, with many fearing it will lead to the loss of their respective cultures. In other news, a drug cartel reportedly placed a bounty on Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s head and a fake terror group plans a „mass casualty attack“ against the West. On today’s show, filmmaker Kevin Booth talks to Alex about the failed War on Drugs and other trending topics

Lieber Kontinent,

Gerne möchte ich Dir einige Zeilen schreiben, denn ich bin jemand der Dir sehr nahe steht, hier im Nahen Osten, und es liebt, durch Deine bewundernswerten Landschaften zu reisen. Jedoch auch weil ich jemand bin, der tief in Dir verwurzelt ist.

Europa, tausende von Jahren warst Du unsere Heimat, insbesondere während dieses jüngsten Jahrtausends. Dies waren die Tage guter, nachbarlicher Beziehungen, wie auch wirtschaftlichen, kulturellen und geistigen Wachstums. Es gab auch schwere Tage der Feindschaft, Vertreibung, Demütigung und Beschuldigungen des Ritualmords.

Irgendwie haben wir überlebt. Und dabei meine ich uns beide. Was für uns Kummer und für Dich Schande ist… Das ist die Angelegenheit unserer Trennung. Es ist erwähnenswert, dass die Entscheidung diese Bekanntschaft zu beenden, nicht unsere war. Der Plan wurde auf Deinem Boden entworfen, wo Lager aufgebaut wurden und Todeszüge fuhren. Gräber wurden aus Deiner Erde gegraben und Blut floss in Deine Flüsse. Über einen kurzen Zeitraum gelang es Dir eine bedeutsame – da sie tausende Jahr alt war – Jüdische Präsenz zu zerstören. Millionen von treuen Jüdischen Landeskindern wurden von Dir verjagt oder ermordet.

Nicht nur das, sondern auch ihre Beiträge zur Kultur, Wirtschaft, Kunst, Geisteswissenschaft, Universitätsleben, Literatur, Medizin, Bildung, Handel, Bankwesen und dem Leben im Allgemeinen.

Europa: Ich wollte Dir schon seit langer Zeit schreiben, doch aus irgendeinem Grund schien ich nie in der Lage die richtigen Worte zu finden. Diese Woche sah ich jedoch zwei Dinge die mich endlich dazu veranlassten, eine Entscheidung zu treffen.

Erstens sah ich einen Bericht vom Experten der Bevölkerungslehre und Soziologie, welcher angab, dass Du, Europa, zu einem Moslem wirst.

Natürlich bemühst Du Dich Dich selbst zu schützen, irgendwie… In der Schweiz verbietest Du Minaretts, in Frankreich Burkas, und du beschränkst die Anzahl der Immigranten und so weiter. Dir sollte mal klar werden, dass dieser Zug abgefahren und nicht mehr aufzuhalten ist. Keiner wird mehr in der Lage sein einer Muslimin das Tragen eines Kopftuchs zu verbieten. Und, in der Tat, beginnt die freisinnige, aufgeklärte und leicht bekleidete Europäerin langsam zu begreifen, dass dieses Schauspiel eines Tages enden kann.

Zweitens bemerkte ich die zahlreichen Warnungen hinsichtlich terroristischer Bedrohungen, welche in vielen Nationen an Europa-reisende Touristen trafen. Jemand, der nicht zwingend Jude ist, bemerkte einst eine bestimmte Faustregel, die besagt, dass zwar die wenigstens Moslems was mit Terrorismus zu tun haben, jedoch die meisten Terroristen trotzdem Moslems sind.

Langsam wird Dir klar, womit du es zu tun hast und Du fängst an, die Kultur zu verstehen die der radikale Islam mit sich brachte. Schnell hast du das Phänomen der Shahid-Märtyrer, der Intoleranz und der Isolation entdeckt. Selbstveranlasste Distanzierung von der Demokratie und Verachtung der Menschenrechte, als auch Frauenverachtung.

Rasch wurde es klar, dass der radikale Islam sich in eine Fischgräte in Deinem Rachen verwandelt hat, welche Du nicht entfernen kannst, da diese Handlung unverzüglich öffentliches Aufschreien mit der Forderung Menschenrechte zu respektieren, zur Folge hätte. Schlucken kannst du diese Gräte jedoch auch nicht, da sich solche radikalen Elemente nicht in die weiße, demokratische und Christliche Europäische Kultur miteinbeziehen lassen. Das würde zur Explosionen etlicher Flugzeuge führen.

Europa, die Natur verabscheut die Leere. Ihr habt uns gemetzelt und verjagt, und im Gegenzug die Welt des Islams erhalten. Dieser Hauch Nah-Ost fühlte sich zwar anfangs recht angenehm an, veränderte sich jedoch mit der Zeit in einen radikalen muslimischen Orkan, der in der Lage ist Dich wegzupusten, lieber Nachbar.

Europa, man erntet nun mal was man sät. Von einem Moment auf den anderen findest Du Frauen in Kopftüchern, hitzige Blicke und Moscheen an jeder Ecke. Plötzlich musst Du Dich mit der hohen natürlichen Geburtsrate der muslimischen Bevölkerung auseinandersetzen, welche Du doch selbst hervorgebracht hast, sowie mit Terrorismus und Gewalt, welche Du bisher lediglich ignoriert hast.

Du kannst es nicht mehr vermeiden. Der Konflikt ist bereits mitten in Dir. Leider sind auch wir gut mit diesem vertraut, wobei wir jedoch keinen Mangel an denen haben, die sich auf naivste Weise ihrer Rechtschaffenheit sicher sind.

Als der Schöpfer sich erstmalig entschied auf Grund unserer Unwürdigkeit in unsere Welt einzugreifen, gab Er den Menschen eine zweite Chance. Er bat Noah die Arche zu erbauen, um die Welt auf ein neues Fundament zu setzen und eine bessere, moralisch fortgeschrittene menschliche Rasse zu gestalten. Das war unsere zweite Chance und unser sicherer Unterschlupf.

Liebes Europa, wirst Du denn über ausreichend Weisheit verfügen um im Voraus eine neue Arche vorzubereiten und Dein Überleben zu sichern? Oder werden vielleicht Deine Arroganz, Aggression und Scheinheiligkeit Dich davon abhalten, die sich abzeichnende Katastrophe zu erkennen, die Du eigens bewirktest? Die Zeit wird knapp…

Avi Rath

Jüdischer Nachbar aus dem Nahen Osten

http://izrael.org.il/opinie/790-dobry-wieczor-europo.html

[Avi Rath ist ein Journalist und Wissenschaftler an der Bar-Ilan Universität]

Dear Continent,

I would like to write you a few words, for I am someone who is very close to you, here in the Middle East, and I love voyaging across your beautiful landscapes, but also because I am deeply rooted in you.

Europe, you have been our home for thousands of years, especially during this most recent millennium. Those were the days of good neighbourly relationships, as well as economic, cultural, and spiritual development. There have also been difficult days of hatred, exile, humiliation, and accusations of ritual murder.

Somehow we’ve survived…. I mean, the both of us have. What is sorrowful to us and shameful to you… That’s the issue of our separation. It must be said that it wasn’t us, who decided to end that acquaintance. The plan was drawn on your land, where camps were built and death trains rushed. Graves were dug out in your soil, and blood streamed to your rivers. Over a short time, you managed to destroy a significant – for it was thousands of years old – Jewish presence. You murdered or chased away millions of loyal Jewish subjects. Not only themselves, but also their contributions to culture, economy, arts, humanities, university life, literature, medicine, education, business, banking, and life in general.

Europe: I’ve wanted to write to you for a long time, yet, for some reason, I never seemed capable of finding the right words. However, this week I’ve seen two things which finally made me come to a decision.

First of all, I saw a report by experts of demography and sociology, which states that you, Europe, are becoming Muslim.

Obviously, you are trying to protect yourself, somehow. You ban minarets in Switzerland, burquas in France, limit the numbers of immigrants, and so on. You must realize, that that ship has sailed and can no longer be stopped. No one will be able to forbid a Muslim woman the wearing of a hijab. And indeed, the liberal, enlightened, and scantily dressed European woman begins to realize that one day that show may be over.

The second thing that hit me was the large number of warnings issued in many countries to tourists travelling to Europe. They were regarding the terror threat. Someone – not necessarily a Jew – once noticed a certain rule of thumb which says that, while most Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism, still most terrorists are Muslims.

You begin to gradually realize what you are dealing with, and begin to understand the culture brought along with radical Islam. You quickly discovered the phenomenon of shahid martyrs, intolerance, and isolation. Self-alienation from democracy and contempt for human rights, and women in particular.

It rapidly became clear that radical Islam has transformed into a fishbone in your throat that you can’t take out, for that action would immediately result in a public outcry demanding respect for human rights. You can’t swallow that bone either, because the white, democratic, and Christian European culture cannot incorporate such radical elements. That would end up in explosions on so many planes.

Europe, nature abhors vacuum. You slaughtered us and chased us out, and in return you got the Muslim world. That Middle-Eastern breeze felt quite nice in the beginning, but as time went by, it changed into a radical Muslim hurricane that could blow you away, dear neighbors.

Europe, you reap what you sow. Out of the blue, you find women in hijabs, fervid glances, and mosques at every corner. All of a sudden, you must deal with the high natural growth rate of the Muslim population – which you bred yourself – as well as with terrorism and violence, which you’ve simply ignored thus far.

You cannot prevent it anymore. That conflict is already inside you. Unfortunately, we’re also all too familiar with it, although we don’t lack those who are naïvely confident of their righteousness, either.

When the Creator first decided to deal with the world, due to our unworthiness, He gave his people a second chance. He asked Noah to build the Ark, in order to put the world on a new foundation, and create a better, ethical human race. That was our second chance and safe harbor.

Dear Europe, will you then possess sufficient wisdom to prepare beforehand a new Ark and ensure your survival? Or maybe your arrogance, aggression, and hypocrisy will prevent you from seeing the looming catastrophe you’ve brought upon your own head? Time is running out.

Avi Rath

Jewish neighbour from Middle East

http://izrael.org.il/opinie/790-dobry-wieczor-europo.html

[Avi Rath is a journalist and a scientist at Bar-Ilan University]

Witaj drogi kontynencie. Chciałbym napisać Ci kilka słów, jako że jestem kimś bliskim tutaj na Bliskim Wschodzie i kocham podróżować przez Twoje piękne krajobrazy, a moje korzenie tkwią głęboko w Tobie.

Europo, byłaś naszym domem przez tysiąclecia, a zwłaszcza przez ostatnie milenium. Były to czasy dobrych sąsiedzkich relacji oraz ekonomicznego, kulturalnego i duchowego rozwoju. Były też trudne dni nienawiści, wypędzeń, poniżenia, no i oskarżeń o mord rytualny.

Jakimś sposobem przetrwaliśmy, tak my, jak i Wy. To co dla nas jest żalem, a dla Was wstydem, to kwestia naszego rozstania. Trzeba powiedzieć, że to nie my zdecydowaliśmy się zakończyć tę znajomość. Plan został nakreślony na Waszej ziemi, tam zbudowano obozy i tam kursowały pociągi śmierci. Groby wykopano na Waszej ziemi, a krew lała się do Waszych rzek. Przez krótki czas udało się Wam przeciąć znaczącą (bo tysiącletnią) żydowską obecność. Zamordowaliście i wypędziliście miliony lojalnych żydowskich obywateli. Nie tylko ich samych, ale także ich udział w kulturze, ekonomii, sztuce, naukach humanistycznych, życiu uniwersyteckim, literaturze, medycynie, szkolnictwie, przedsiębiorczości, bankowości i życiu jako takim.

Europo, od dawna chciałem do Ciebie napisać, ale ciągle jakoś mi nie wychodziło. Jednak w tym tygodniu po zobaczeniu dwóch rzeczy w końcu się zdecydowałem.

Po pierwsze zobaczyłem raport napisany przez ekspertów od demografii i socjologii, którzy twierdzą, że Ty, Europo, stajesz się muzułmańska.

I rzeczywiście próbujesz jakoś się bronić. Zakazujesz minaretów w Szwajcarii, burek we Francji, ograniczasz liczbę imigrantów itp. Musisz zdać sobie sprawę, że tego pociągu już nie da się zatrzymać. Nikt nie będzie w stanie zabronić muzułmance noszenia chusty. I w rzeczy samej liberalna, oświecona i roznegliżowana Europejka zaczyna sobie zdawać sprawę, że kiedyś ta impreza może się skończyć.

Druga rzecz, która mnie uderzyła, to fakt licznych ostrzeżeń płynących z wielu krajów do turystów udających się do Europy. Chodzi o zagrożenie terrorystyczne. Ktoś już kiedyś zauważył (niekoniecznie Żyd) pewną prawidłowość, która mówi, że o ile większość muzułmanów nie ma nic wspólnego z terroryzmem, to jednak większość terrorystów to muzułmanie.

Powoli zaczynasz sobie zdawać sprawę z tego z czym masz do czynienia i zaczynasz rozumieć kulturę, która przyszła wraz z radykalnym islamem. Nagle odkrywasz fenomen szahidów-męczenników, nietolerancję i izolację. Alienowanie się od demokracji i pogardę dla praw człowieka czy kobiet w szczególności.

Nagle się okazało, ze radykalny islam stanął Ci kością w gardle, której nie potrafisz usunąć, bo to momentalnie podniosłoby płacze i apele o przestrzeganie praw człowieka. Tej kości nie możesz też połknąć, bo biała, demokratyczna i chrześcijańska kultura Europy nie może zawierać takich radykalnych elementów. To się zakończy wybuchem i to na wielu płaszczyznach.

Europo, świat nie znosi próżni. Wymordowaliście i wypędziliście nas, a w zamian dostaliście muzułmański świat. Na początku było całkiem miło z tą bliskowschodnią bryzą, ale z upływem czasu pojawił się radykalny islamski huragan, który może Cię zdmuchnąć, drogi sąsiedzie.

Jak sobie pościelesz, Europo, tak się wyśpisz. Nagle odkrywasz kobiety w chustach, żarliwe spojrzenia i meczety na każdym rogu. Niespodziewanie musisz się uporać z wysokim przyrostem naturalnym muzułmanów (który sama wyhodowałaś) oraz z terroryzmem i przemocą (to akurat ignorowałaś).

Nie możesz już temu zaprzeczyć. To zderzenie już jest u Ciebie. Niestety, my też się na tym świetnie znamy, choć i u nas nie brakuje naiwniaków przekonanych o swojej prawości.

Kiedy Stwórca zdecydował się pierwszy raz rozprawić ze światem na skutek naszych niegodziwości, to dał jeszcze ludziom drugą szansę. Poprosił Noego o zbudowanie arki, by postawić świat na nowych fundamentach i stworzyć bardziej etyczną ludzkość. To była druga szansa i schronienie.

Czy zatem droga Europo starczy Ci mądrości, by się przygotować zawczasu na nową arkę i przetrwać? A może Twoja arogancja, agresja i hipokryzja nie pozwolą Ci przyznać się do katastrofy, którą sama na siebie ściągnęłaś? Zegar tyka.

Avi Rath

Żydowski sąsiad z Bliskiego Wschodu

http://izrael.org.il/opinie/790-dobry-wieczor-europo.html

[Avi Rath jest dziennikarzem i naukowcem z Uniwersytetu Bar Ilan]