Define and Dehumanize the Enemy: Jihadists as Nithings or Nidings

by Bill Levinson
It is an ancient principle of magic (which modern people recognize as stories that reflect a society’s culture and psychology) that knowledge of a person’s real or True Name delivers power over that person. What it really means is that, if you know the person’s psychology, you can gain an advantage over him. It is also well known that the side that controls the language of an argument controls the argument. As an example, Hamas terrorists and their enablers refer to Israel’s military as an “occupation force” and terrorisitic violence against civilians as “resistance.”

We have long sought a single word that strips the enemy of all humanity, and reduces him to something less than an animal that is worthy of nothing less than extermination. As far as we know, the English language contains no such word, although “dreck” (garbage or refuse) comes close. “Homo sapiens by BIRTH, subhuman by CHOICE” describes Islamic supremacists perfectly, but it is a phrase and not a word. We now propose to refer to Islamic supremacists as nithings or nidings: a Scandinavian word that strips its object of all humanity. Webster’s dictionary (1913) defines it as “A coward; a dastard; — a term of utmost opprobrium.”

We remind readers who object to the dehumanization of Islamic supremacists that those enemies are already attempting to dehumanize Jews, and to a lesser degree Christians, with images that could have come directly from Adolf Hitler. As they have chosen to sow the dragon’s teeth, our position is that they must now reap their rightful harvest: the complete hatred and loathing of all civilized human beings.

Read more …

February 13, 2009 | 33 Comments » | 1 views

“Annapolis” is a separation process, not a peace process

By Ted Belman

David Samuels, who wrote “In a Ruined Country”, the definitive article on Yasser Arafat in The Atlantic in 2005, and a stunning article last year in The Jewish Press entitled “The Silence of the Lambs”, has now written another essential article in the February 13 issue of The New Republic entitled “The Father of Palestine”, dealing with Pres Bush’s attempt to birth Palestine.

Before sharing with you some key paragraphs in this very profound article, I would like to comment on the central idea driving the peace process from the point of view of the Government of Israel. It is to arrive at a Declaration of Principles which is really a negotiated separation as opposed to a “unilateral” disengagement. It tells us, it will only be a “shelf agreement” but the reality is that it will cast a giant shadow on all Israeli policies. Israel will have received a “recognized border” that is given the stamp of approval by the western world and Abbas on behalf of the Palestinians. Then Israel will proceed to implement it as she see fit. Thus all settlements east of the agreed border will no longer get any government support and all Israelis living there will be offered compensation to return to the west side. I am confident that this D of P will not include the final agreement on Jerusalem, other than a commitment to solve Jerusalem in ten years, nor will it include an end to the “right of return”. This issue will be fudged. The name of the game is separation, negotiated or otherwise.

Read more …

February 3, 2009 | 16 Comments » | 2 views