Footer Pages


Naomi’s Homework


beware old jinn in new bottles



this brief study is dedicated to Ariadna Theokopoulos and Jay Knott, who have pioneered the application of scientific method to deLiberation. the author would also like pro-actively to thank Naomi Wimbourne-Idrissi of JBIG for permission (pending) to use the extract discussed.

* * *

from You-Tube: In the following short recording, JBIG’s (Jews Boycotting Israeli Goods) leader presents her criticism of Gilad Atzmon. She also confirms that as far as ‘Jews within the movement’ are concerned Israel “should” and “needs” to exist as a “Jewish State”. This audio segment is taken from Gilad And All That Jazz, a documentary film about Gilad Atzmon, music, ideas and controversy:


the second part of the JBIG supremo’s argument is transcribed below. it breaks easily and naturally into five short sections referred to as A, B, C, D & E. for each section the starting point in time and the number of syllables are estimated. naturally, the extremely subtle stress-patterns used by such a skilful and experienced presenter can only be rather crudely expressed in print, but the upper-case words in the extract are more highly stressed – this rough-and-ready emphasis should at least serve as a moderately useful aide-memoire. the agogic information is  supplemented by estimates of emotional intensity derived from significant pauses and the variation in syllables emitted per minute.


the italic and bold emphases do not relate to speech stress, but are intended to facilitate the reader’s navigation of the text in relation to the questions that have been added at the end to assist anyone who wishes to deepen their study of the JBIG philosophy. they are, naturally, only meant as suggestions.


A 0:42 (13)
i know that there are many people
in the movement


B 0:45 (14)
who share the opinion,
which is GENERAL
throughout the WEST,


C 0:49 (21)
that Israel
NEEDS to exist
as a Jewish state
SHOULD exist
as a Jewish state


D 0:52 (13)
and there are many JEWS …….pause…….
in the movement


E 0:56 (13)
who don’t want to criticize
that fundamental FACT.


0:59 *** END



Section speech-rates in syllables per minute


A 270 B 210 C 420 D 195 E 260



-1. in section A, is the use of the term many, whilst technically permissible, nevertheless disturbingly ambiguous? there are, for example, many Jews in the world, yet they make up only 0.18% of the human population of planet Earth.


0. in section B does the use of the term share (in place of a more value-neutral term such as hold) serve as a rhetorical device to intensify an impression of consensus?


1. with reference to the phrase don’t want to criticize in section E, give your own view on to what extent criticism or non-criticism of any X should be determined by the expediency of individual emotional attachment to X, rather than by the results of an attempt to objectively assess the nature of X in the light of its relevance to significant events etc.


2. again concerning section E, in what circumstances could anyone reasonably be expected to criticize something acknowledged as a fundamental fact? what arguments are offered as to the factuality or fundamentality of what it is claimed many people do not want to criticize?


3. assess the speaker’s use of the term ‘movement’. if you believe that there is a genuine movement, what would you say are its goals?


4. give a brief definition of the phrase general throughout the WEST which occurs in section B.
5. what is the West?
6. discuss the referential inter-relation between the word opinion in section B and the word FACT in section E. is it reasonable to assume that  the opinion (section B) and the FACT (section E) are both referring to what is asserted in section C?
7. examine the arguments for and against the idea that an opinion can also be a FACT.


8. in section C, the two modal verbs needs and should are used:


(a) explain in what sense Israel needs to exist as a Jewish state


(b) do you consider your answer to (a) suggests that should exist is a logical consequence of needs to exist, or is this connection better viewed as a deliberate or accidental rhetorical sleight of tongue?



9. suggest possible reasons for the very heavy emphasis placed on the phrase and OTHERS in section D. how would the meaning of the whole  be affected by simply omitting this phrase from the text?


10. attempting to discount the superfluous post-alveolar fricative after the terminal dental stop of the word movement (sections A and D), do you think this statement is phonetically and semantically characteristic of an anthropic or of an ophidian* creature? if you believe it to be an anthropo-ophidian hybrid, give a rough estimate of the proportion of the creature’s genetic material you think comes from each source.


*cf wikistumble:


an ophidian is a snake-like spirit from Middle-Eastern (primarily Persian) mythology. Ophidians were said to come to a person as they woke up and steal their memories, especially the memories of what had happened to them while they were in the world ruled by Morpheus.

11. in the light of your answers to the preceding questions, can you  suggest any explanation for the extremely rapid speech-rate observed in section C.

18 Responses to Naomi’s Homework

  1. Ariadna Theokopoulos October 15, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    Thanks for parsing it so skillfully, David.
    It made me realize I had viewed it all wrong, thinking it was a recorded session of self-stimulation performed by Naomi in a ‘happening.’
    In A Naomi imagines herself surrounded by a multitude, all of whom ardently desire to share her opinion;
    in B the sharing rises and grows to the entire West in a general crescendo;
    in C and D her need becomes overwhelming, and in E she achieves ecstasy with her opinion shimmering into fundamental fact.

    My simplistic reading may have been influenced by the opinion shared by many, generally throughout the West, that the core of zionism is self-love, which is a fundamental fact.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos October 15, 2012 at 9:52 pm #

      Why am I forced to speak in italics here?

      • Jonathon Blakeley October 15, 2012 at 10:09 pm #

        There is a em tag that need closing in the html with a /em

        • Jonathon Blakeley October 15, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

          I fixed it, … I think it was me that broke it to start with. :-/

    • David Holden October 15, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

      thanks Jon for properly embedding the video. i’m learning (very gradually) 😉

    • David Holden October 15, 2012 at 10:40 pm #

      Ariadna, as always you are too modest. your reading is far from simplistic – it is joyful, poetic, life-affirming. it does not contradict the shabby picture i drew – but transfigures it beyond all recognition.

      my analysis, whilst perhaps not entirely without merit at the technical level, reveals all too clearly the dull mechanical plodding persona i have spent a lifetime in futile attempts to escape from.

      i have captured, in a bizarre and inadequate notation, the croaking of frogs – you have pulled back a silk curtain to reveal the unsuspected spiritual hinterland – a forest of enchantment whence crystal streams trickle joyfully into the frog-pool to the transcendental music of iridescent birds of paradise cooing billets doux.

      no man is an island, and though Naomi cannot quite be called a man (due to culture-specific gender issues crystallised in our still-imperfect language), yet she is, at the very least, a peninsula – at one end firmly joined to the Land of the Chosen people, but at the other, stretching out indefinitely into the vast and trackless ocean of universal human sympathies, from which she is greeted by narwhals, walruses and other more familiar marine mammalians, representing the transfigured goyim as a variegated herd of liberated sea-cattle at once more intelligent and free than their banal landlocked counterparts, and entirely worthy of the occasional sympathy and even companionship of the larger-hearted amongst Khazarian princesses.

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos October 16, 2012 at 12:24 am #

        “Naomi c’est moi!” –you probably exclaimed as you wrote the last paragraph above. And you must have been, to achieve this penetrating psychological portrait from within, of compelling realism yet (unlike that other fellow, your precursor) in such memorable poetic language.
        You made me truly see her and understand her peninsularity and you made me feel like a narwahl, clumsily cavorting around her, thrilled to be favored by her and deeply accepting of the natural order of the archipelago.
        I have read this twice already, not as many times as future generations of women studies scholars, psychologists, philologists, literary critics and Boycott and Sanction (BS) historians will.

  2. Jonathon Blakeley October 15, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

    Great piece, different.

    I often like to strip out the word content entirely and just listen to the notes and rhythm of peoples voices. This part expresses the emtional content with the words wrapped around the tune.

    Zionism is selfish self-love, narcissism Nazi-style.

    Ophidian, maybe, Icke is looking more right than wrong.

  3. fool me once... October 15, 2012 at 11:28 pm #

    I’ll have a go at your puzzle David, but don’t expect anything too deep 😉 . Here goes;
    -1. The “i know” bit, to me, is more “disturbingly ambiguous”.
    0. The term “share” is used as a velvet cosh for those who consider straying from “the scripture”.
    1. Criticism is strictly forbidden.
    2. The “circumstance” where one finds oneself reading and enjoying deLiberation. The “facts” speak for themselves, that’s why she doesn’t want to draw attention to them.
    3. To make sure the contents of the movement are thoroughly flushed down the pan.
    4. Lazy way of trying to big up her opinion.
    5. A sweet shop sleep-over on the way to her Promised Land.
    6. Yep a clear case of bs creep. One minute there’s a few flies buzzing about, next you’re up to your neck in Magen manure.
    7. Only in this sense; “Nah, your opinions fac’t mate!”
    8. a) It don’t. b) It was definitely a shady sly move.
    9. I interpreted that as “Be careful now, as even your fellow goy agree with us, the jews, who are your superiors.”
    10. Hybrid, 98% reptilian and 2% anthropic for dealing with the goy.
    11. An uncontrollable tongue and larynx spasm caused by a premature morphing into the ophidian serpent state, the completion of which can be heard quite clearly after the last word of the speech at 1min in the video link – an audible “Hiss”.

    • fool me once... October 15, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

      Ha ha I started writing the above when there was no comments, so apologies if I appear to have robbed a joke or two 😀

      • David Holden October 16, 2012 at 4:57 am #

        nah, brilliant answers, deffo an A* 😉

  4. Jonathon Blakeley October 15, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

    Yeh She is well creepy, snake eyes too.

  5. Blake October 16, 2012 at 4:25 am #

    Fundamental facts like Pamela Geller says if Iran attacks Israel, Israel should nuke Europe.

  6. Jay Knott October 16, 2012 at 4:35 am #

    “Dedicated to Ariadna T and Jay K… who pioneered the application of scientific method…”. Thanks, David. But we’d be nobodies without our mentors, Crick and Watson. Crick for Ariadna, Watson for me.

    • David Holden October 16, 2012 at 5:24 am #

      😉 we all owe much to our mentors, Jay. even Sir Winston Churchill in late 1914 remarked if i have seen further than other men it is because i borrowed Aristide Briande’s binoculars . unfortunately this additional insight did not suffice to prevent considerable damage to French and British warships from Ottoman mines in the assault on the Dardanelles. nani gigantum humeris insidentes. on deLib everyone is, or has been, in some sense or other, my teacher. even Khalid initiated me into some of the basics about the use of invective in controversy, though i could never aspire to be more than a crude imitator of his style at its most trenchant.