(out or up is anyone’s guess
in spite of what they might profess).
The bodies that he did possess are numerous
and moving on…
like we who’ve heard by way of name
it’s something something Bowie Bush –
for those who’d thought they knew his game
it’s Ziggy’s Spiders he did push.
I will not deign to’ve seen him move
right up until the end, and still
going from day into evening, and now
peacefully still at night.
The concern moved by the current preoccupation is that very soon an electorate should be engaged. And how! – that is, precisely how the electorate should engage itself, as well as precisely how it should not. This might illuminate the image of masses who would seem perfectly able to rise up and sever the heads of several snakes but cannot otherwise agree on anything.
The question “if not now, when?” is often spun right round into “if not then, why now?” This employs relativism, but that cuts both ways. Nowadays it is often mocked as “whataboutery”, which relates a fair observation in general but too oft misses the point that the latter question is as rhetorical as the original lament, and bringing up then compared to now — or someone else’s misdeed compared to someone’s — does not mean that someone should be spoken free of guilt; it is intended to bring an additional charge that would encompass a greater number of breaches and establish a stricter threshold, lest a precedent be set that continually allows the tendentious crossing of lines.
Given that that pernicious precedent has pretty well been set, long already indeed, wedged de facto & deeply woven into our political nervous system, we have a situation where well-meaning people would like to know where the threshold is, yet are always concerned about the timing of the drawing of a line at some point prior to wondering why a line is not being drawn. Meditate on that a moment and I think you’ll find that it applies to either side of this particular style of discussion. Take it back far enough and you could replace the donkey and the elephant with a chicken and an egg, even if you think the egg is most demonstrably wrong.
Is someone right and someone else wrong here? Is there anything new under the Sun? Is it more a question of degree over style or the other way around? Have the frogs in the cauldron failed to acknowledge how blessed they are by those of the kingdom, if not of their class, who wield a superior sense memory that tells them when now is the time to jump?
Well, what an oversimplification that would be! However, rather than abandon the metaphor I’ll extend it just a smidge to make it more material to my point of departure: The brilliant — or perhaps only organic — design of rule by division has employed a nice little procedure whereby the ostensible dialing back of the water temperature only allows for a deep breath of relief, not for a group effort to keep bringing down the heat enough to make it survivable for everyone, let alone to turn off the damn stove. And that’s just among those of like mind who, twist as the mind might, can never be taken for chickens and are hardly ever only eggs.
Never forget that when the occasion presents itself, which is at a minimum annually, each plays the other on television. And never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice of a more machiavellian nature — even if the mockery is more fun. And always follow the money. That’s an imperative unfortunately conflated with a philosophy of resignation. Nevertheless, once you follow the money you pretty well know where they stand.
This article in the Berliner Zeitung takes a feelgood event and — maybe in striving to be fair & balanced or, even more maybe, in an effort to avoid appearing to ignore the devil in our midst, lest they confirm the treachery the anti-Islam crowd crow about whatever the media do or don’t do — highlights a controversy that turns it into a referendum on the radical associations of religious Muslims at home. If indeed it were only as fair & balanced in background detail as it is through its otherwise laudable microscope.
On its face — assuming one read the face from start to finish — it appears pretty fair & balanced. I would even give it high marks for the editor’s inclusion of pertinent details one doesn’t find in other articles, yet I cannot help but stroke it with a thick red marker for something I find missing, albeit on the obscured ground of the light kind of propaganda-by-default that results from the critical mass of a nation assuming one’s own occupy higher ground. The extent to which one’s own are not above reproach is considered, if taken into consideration at all, hardly relevant to the topic at hand.
The topic at hand is a band of imams & rabbis taking to the streets on tandem bicycles, pedaling together against anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, so to spoke. But all is not well, for one-or-another of the participants “has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood”, which is not okay if you’re an imam not under the aegis of one-or-another of the host nation’s spy agencies, if you’ll excuse the digression.
It is the Berlin Office for the Protection of the Constitution who says so in a report. For those unfamiliar with this office, it is not a grassroots-minded, independent watchdog, but rather a opaquely-funded, government spy agency. But who better to gather intelligence than an intelligence agency with absolutely no history of- or proclivity for bending the rules on behalf of their conflicts of interest, if you’ll excuse the sarcasm.
The article is fair & balanced insofar as it gives the do-gooders the final word, those who remark that the imam in question is not who the spooks say, and others who are, anyway, more concerned about the downside of shutting people out of the conversation, which would drive them into the limbs of the rads, if you’ll excuse the trans-lingual pun.
The mosque man’s alleged connections aside, one should order one’s own house. If the concerns are real and legit, then they’re just doing their job in reporting on them. I have to wonder still what the official constitutional protectorate has to say about their host state’s support of Saudi Arabia, not just because of the latter’s alleged support for the same Muslim Brotherhood, but as it relates to the former couple’s brutally collegial project that has created the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.
Just as the strife between the Union side of the current government coalition threatens (at least as one reads in the media) to destroy European unity with its collateral damage, does no one find it strange that the same government should supply weapons to regimes that violate the same human rights as the party named in that particular intelligence report, said to model themselves after the historical regime, unreformed, while that current regime are with the support of their Western allies killing thousands and driving many more away from home, exacerbating the refugee crisis, which crisis is what this internecine political strife is all about? This connection is not even alluded to by any of the parties mentioned in the article or its editors, regardless of which of the ostensible two sides they come down on: for the iman ridin’ the bike vs. against the imam ridin’ the bike.
While we have learned from the media about the horrors in Yemen, it has not been as comprehensive and obsessively set to REPEAT as has been their reporting on the War between the CDU and CSU. Lemme ask you this: If the imam in question had procured for this so-called brotherhood just such weapons as Berlin has the Kings of Oil, would NATO missiles have destroyed his entire neighbourhood by now, or would they find a better solution?
Update: es geht weiter so. .. . ..mit Gänseblümchen:
Among the massive amount of data bouncing around my brain, for which this email is the required distraction (albeit hardly qualifiable as such), comes the non-native E-speaking dough scent, i.e. Jermine l’eh d’preaux Fessor with whom I’m splitting a course and who I only this very morning, several weeks in, discovered had made available to the group a table intended to explain in engrossing detail the form & forming of that mode of expression dubbed Passive, and, which, along with other peculiarities, had featured throughout the repeated use of intransitive words of action, which, as you may know, are not used in that voice in any becoming sense. I swear to you the example “was/were went” was displayed in this collation, and be me trusted when you’re told it ain’t got nuttin’ to do with an amusingly instructive riff on the Cisco Kid or a more sophisticated or archaic connotation or phrasally coupled variety of the verb “to go”.
Let it be sufficed to be said that said document is being massively reworked as is currently being addressed, with the temptation barely being avoided to be it provided such nuggets as:
Let dog be eaten by you!
Neulich in Karlshorst durchgedreht mit Schmopfkerzen. Eine eventuell ältliche Dame nach der Uhrzeit gefragt, und sie, als wie mit Stulle im Mund, »Fuff vor hap eens.« Entlang der Treskowallee gibts keine Normaluhr mehr. Woran liegts? Der Uhrindustrie. Janz jenau! Drecksverbindlicher Mangel an Sitzbänken gewiss zur Gunst der Gastronomie. Die Wörterbuchbranche? Frag bloß nicht.
Beine haben ihre Ruhe erst an der Ecke Am Carlsgarten, gerade als man denkt, von Treskow abgesehen, da ist der Carl schon lange weg. Gerade als ich denke, Kopp platzt gleich. Bloß nicht wieder einschlafen.
In diesen Zeiten ist die Freedom Industry zu beachten. Na, jut. Zu jeder Zeit. Ich lebe aber nur in dieser. Während dieser glauben alle an alles und nichts. Durchschnittlich bedeutet das, dass eine Masse einer von zwei am vorherrschendsten Gewalten vertrauen. Mehr oder weniger. Genügend. Daheim wird das eine Regierungsmehrheit genannt, gedeutet auf da drüben eine Diktatur.
Was ist zu glauben, wenn Waffen zusammen mit Perspektiven für die weiter Entwicklung von frisch zerbombten rohstoffreichen Länder ins Spiel kommen? Auch wenn das Gelobte Mittel nicht stimmt, also die Förderung nicht so reibungslos wie im Vertrag läuft, liefern sich Waffen uneingeschränkt weiter. Bodenschatz bleibt Bodenschatz. Verträge tragen Verträge. Abkommen kommen von Abkommen ab.
Könnte es dadurch ein Ende geben? Jeder Zeit ist eine Endzeit. Damit meine ich, zu jeder Zeit glaubt der Durchschnittsmensch, dass er zur Endzeit lebt. Ich glaube, ich habe einen Satz dafür: Die eschatologische Paranoia wird von einer Perspektive geprägt, dass andere gerade jetzt eine persönliche Apokalypse erleiden und dass niemand, der mit ihrer Ursache vertraut ist, immun gegen ihre Auswirkungen bleiben sollte.