Displaying posts published in

July 2013



Girls on Palestinian TV Call Jews ‘Barbaric Monkeys’ and ‘Wretched Pigs’ Her poem:

Oh, you who murdered Allah’s pious prophets (i.e., Jews in Islamic tradition)
Oh, you who were brought up on spilling blood
You have been condemned to humiliation and hardship.
Oh Sons of Zion, oh most evil among creations
Oh barbaric monkeys, wretched pigs

My respone and counterverse :

Dear adorable little maggot: So much poise. Such a precocious little reciter of poetry. Stop and think dear little one. Here is my verse.

You whose people murdered children in schools and babies in their cribs.

You who were brought up on spilling blood.

You who have been condemned to humiliation and hardship by your barbaric leaders.

Oh child of jihad the most evil among ideologies.

You who personify “monkey see, monkey do.”

There is a saying “pigs might fly”….did you ever hear of Israel’s Air Force?


Educating Daniel Pipes On Islamic Antisemitism Andrew Bostom

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2013/07/10/educating-daniel-pipes-on-islamic-antisemitism/ It is common knowledge to every schoolboy and even every Bachelor of Arts, That all sin is divided into two parts. One kind of sin is called a sin of commission, and that is very important, And it is what you are doing when you are doing something you ortant, And the other kind […]


Boko Haram Increasingly Turn To Killing Children to Get Attention Boko Haram Increasingly Turn To Killing Children to Get Attention: Unable to hit well defended military and government targets, Boko Haram has recently concentrated on schools. In the last month nearly fifty teachers and students have been killed and several schools damaged by fire and […]


http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/egypts-army-chief-trained-at-army-war-college-in-pennsylvania?f=puball With unrest in Egypt, U.S. military officials looking for insight might test the ties they formed with the Egyptian defense minister, Lt. Gen. Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, when he was a student at the Army War College. “In this little historical Pennsylvania town, the most important school in the world operates under the radar,” said retired […]



HE IS A NASTY LITTLE CREEP BUT AS ALAN CARUBA SAYS: “Maybe Snowden is a hero? There are such people, you know. Or a dupe? That’s possible, too. One thing is sure, more and more Americans are coming to fear the current administration..”

Interesting to see how Edward Snowden, former employee of a National Security Agency contractor, has dropped off the front pages; how quickly he has become “old news”.

The leaders of the European Union are shocked to learn that the U.S. spies on them. Since their own spy agencies routinely share information with the intelligence agencies of our government, it did not come as a big a surprise to them.

The real surprise is how much spying our government does on American citizens.

Even in the days when the Continental Congress sent representatives to France to negotiate deals to acquire arms and secure its support for our Revolution the British spied on them, opening their mail, and such. George Washington won the Revolution in large part to an excellent network of his own spies. Spying is as old as mankind.

Now, having embarrassed the President and the National Security Agency, Edward Snowden is not likely to be granted asylum in Russia. The odds are that Snowden has been a witting or unwitting agent of what used to be called the KGB and now goes by the name of the Federal Security Services, FSB. It is responsible for internal security and counter-intelligence.


http://frontpagemag.com/2013/davidhornik/backing-egypts-al-sisi-good-for-the-west/ Tense calm prevailed in Egypt on Tuesday. The new military-led government laid out a timetable for returning to some semblance of civilian democracy in about six months. The government also appeared to have come up with a broadly acceptable, technocratic, interim prime minister in Hazem el-Biblawi, an economist and former finance minister. Saudi Arabia […]


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323936404578582133236947310.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion Having spent months searching for Bonaparte’s fleet, Horatio Nelson’s task force finally found it anchored in Aboukir Bay, Egypt, on Aug. 1, 1798. In the ensuing attack, in which the French got hammered from both inside and outside their line of anchorage, one of HMS Swiftsure’s midshipmen observed the devastation aboard the French flagship, […]

No First Amendment Here: French Court Finds Me Guilty in Al-Dura Affair Philippe Karsenty ****

http://pjmedia.com/blog/no-first-amendment-here-french-court-finds-me-guilty-in-al-dura-affair/?print=1 I’ll have to pay the 7,000 euros. On June 26, the Paris Court of Appeals found me guilty of defamation against television station France 2 and broadcaster Charles Enderlin. After waiting one long week following the verdict, I was finally able to get the written arguments of the judges. The arguments state that — […]



The Banality of Hannah Arendt – In a new movie, Margarethe von Trotta attempts to fight Arendt’s battles over Eichmann in Jerusalem; she doesn’t understand those battles any better than Arendt herself understood Eichmann. Margot Lurie, Standpoint.

“So,” the motherly brunette asks conspiratorially, a billiard cue slung below her arm, “Was he the greatest love of your life?”

No, it’s not a scene from the latest chick flick; it’s from Hannah Arendt, Margarethe von Trotta’s new biopic about the German-Jewish political theorist. The questioner is the American critic and novelist Mary McCarthy, and she is referring to none other than Martin Heidegger, the controversial Nazi-aligned philosopher. The film’s central plotline follows Arendt’s coverage of the 1961 Eichmann trial and its aftermath. Particular attention is given to disputes about the “banality of evil” — Arendt’s notorious thesis intended to explain why the Nazi leader took care of the trains while letting the categorical imperative run on empty. But Geschichtsphilosophie this ain’t.

Part of the problem is that the film leans heavily on the correspondence between Arendt and McCarthy: long stretches of dialogue are taken verbatim from their letters and recast as verbal exchanges. This is curious, for in recent years more information has become available on the Eichmann trial and especially Arendt’s perspective on it than ever before. So why is von Trotta relying largely on the chatty, theatrical exchanges of McCarthy and Arendt for her source material?

Both Arendt and McCarthy are the subject of seemingly endless fascination and study. And no wonder: they led extraordinary lives. McCarthy, born in Seattle in 1912, became a famously cutting wit among the Partisan Review crowd. Arendt, born in Hanover in 1918, studied under (pun sadly intended) Heidegger and went on to write her dissertation with Karl Jaspers. Arendt’s topic was love: specifically, the idea of love in Augustine. McCarthy’s topic was sex: her taboo-busting, bestselling novel The Group included frank treatments of lesbianism, birth control, and sex from the woman’s point of view.

While the friendship, however unlikely, was a deep and loving one, Arendt’s temptations and querks of character — exhibitionism, imprecision, imperiousness — emerged dramatically under McCarthy’s influence. Each woman’s work came to betray the stamp of the other’s thought. While writing Eichmann, Arendt breathlessly read McCarthy’s essay “General Macbeth”, in which the Shakespearean murderer emerges a petty bourgeois bureaucrat:

“The idea of Macbeth as a conscience-tormented man is a platitude as false as Macbeth himself. Macbeth has no conscience. His main concern throughout the play is that most selfish of all concerns: to get a good night’s sleep.”

In these lines, McCarthy replaces the usual understanding of Macbeth’s driving force as ambition with a sense of his generality (yes, the title is a pun) — just as Arendt would later replace the usual understanding of Eichmann’s driving force as vicious anti-Semitism with that of unreflective conformism. McCarthy doesn’t use the word “banal”, but there’s enough to suggest that Arendt’s understanding of Eichmann follows McCarthy’s understanding of the Scottish lord.

So it was literary ingenuity and verve that the two women encouraged in each other — and not necessarily truth. This was the case from the start: the friendship almost didn’t take, after a disastrous first encounter.

It happened at a party in New York in 1945. Mary McCarthy (herself possessed of a Jewish grandmother) expressed pity for Hitler, “who was so absurd as to want the love of his victims”. Arendt was furious. “How can you say such a thing in front of me — a victim of Hitler, a person who has been in a concentration camp!” Amends were only made three years later, when McCarthy apologised, and Arendt conceded that she had not in fact been in a concentration camp, but rather a French internment and refugee camp from which she escaped after a few weeks.



The difference between history’s winners and losers obviously depends on the criteria we adopt to discriminate between success and failure on the level of nation, culture and civilization. For the purposes of this article, I will leave the display of military splendor and the creation of great art out of the equation. Neither military parades in a public square nor architectural wonders constitute a boon for ordinary people, even if they produce a feeling of national pride. Rather, I define success as a function of three complementary factors: the ability to survive intact for extended periods; the achievement of approximate prosperity in a largely impoverished world; and the fostering of a relatively free, confident and vigorous citizenry. (Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian calculus developed in his A Fragment on Government [1], based on “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” plainly does not consort with these observations, since happiness is both an ambiguous concept and a non-measurable “quantity.”)

Naturally, political and social conditions will differ markedly owing to the contingencies and realities of the epoch in question, but these three criteria appear essentially stable. I should also specify that the term “winner” in this context does not designate mere brute power leading to longevity but comes with a moral valence as well, ideally, a quality of mercy [2], respect for one’s fellow citizens and the sane administration of reasonable laws. President Kennedy was no paragon of virtue and some of his pronouncements are distinctly troubling; yet he clearly recognized the moral component of national success when he wrote, in his Cuban Missile Cris address [3] of October 22, 1962, in refutation of Thrasymachus’ “might is right” doctrine in Plato’s Republic [4]: “Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right.” It should be noted, too, that the three basic factors I have outlined do not necessarily apply as an indivisible unit; sometimes one, sometimes another, will predominate, but no single one is sufficient in itself.