The devil’s bargain of Hillary Clinton

Young Hillary Rodham


Barbara Olson perished when her plane slammed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Two years before that, she wrote a devastating book on the past of Hillary Clinton. The puzzle of Hillary is that she is an idealist in a sense, but she is also a person who doesn’t let ethical considerations stand in the way of goals – such as getting rich, or achieving the restructuring of society that she believes is necessary.

In Olson’s biography of Hillary: “Hell to Pay” she tells the story of a 14 year old girl named Hillary, a Methodist who knelt by her bed to pray every night, and what’s more ironic, a conservative Republican.  Hillary grew up to become a passionate advocate of social transformation. Perhaps her character was also transformed in the process.

Lets look at the political transformation:

The transformation started when the Reverend Donald G. Jones arrived in Hillary’s town of Park Ridge as the new youth minister.

Jones drew explicit parallels between the utopia of Karl Marx and the heavenly kingdom. He took the group into inner-city Chicago, where Hillary for the first time came to know poor people, “trailer people,” black people, Hispanic people—families who, he taught, would not have been welcome in Park Ridge, even if they could have afforded it. The University of Life took Hillary and her friends to nearby farms, where the students set up a program to babysit migrant children while the parents toiled. For the first time, Hillary performed social work for the poor, this time for Hispanic migrant laborers and their families.

So far, there would seem to be no problem. On the contrary, taking time to help migrants and poor people is praiseworthy.


At Wellesley college, Hillary took time from her studies to work trying to teach poor black children in Roxbury to read.
She was active in student war protests and increasingly vocal in private over her opposition to the [Vietnam] war…Hillary knew that she was sheltered. And the feeling that evil ran amok outside was at times overwhelming. On the day that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., was murdered, Hillary burst into her suite, startling her roommate, threw her book bag across the room, and yelled, “I can’t stand it anymore. I can’t take it.” She soon broke into sobs.

That doesn’t sound so bad either. She had principles, even if cautious types might not agree with all of them.

Then the path leads to the dark side.  We see how Christian and Marxist ideas can produce a synthesis that excuses murderers.

For Hillary, the convergence of power and Christian ends had come together in Motive, a magazine for college-age Methodists…She told a writer for Newsweek that she still treasured a 1966 Motive article by theologian and SDS leader Carl Oglesby called “Change or Containment.” Oglesby is variously described as a Marxist or Maoist theoretician, in the piece so admired by Hillary, Oglesby defended Ho Chi Minh and Castro, and Maoist tactics of violence. “I do not find it hard to understand that certain cultural settings create violence as surely as the master’s whip creates outcries of pain and rage. I can no more condemn the Andean tribesmen who assassinate tax collectors than I can condemn the rioters in Watts or Harlem or the Deacons for Defense and Justice. Their violence is reactive and provoked…

Hillary spoke at her graduation to her fellow students, saying:

“We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty, “But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us.” After this impenetrable declaration, she went even further into the depths of murky sixties thinking: “We’re searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating modes of living.”

HillaryCommencement3There is Hillary the non-materialist.

For Hillary’s thesis at Wellesley, Olson writes:

She interviewed [left wing organizer Saul] Alinsky, and concluded that Johnson-era programs [such as the Great Society, which was meant to solve poverty] did not go far enough. The problems of poverty made it necessary for a fundamental shift in the structure of power.

Remember when Obama promised to “transform America”? Hillary also thought it needed transforming.

All this happened by the end of her college years. Then Hillary went to Yale Law School.

In the town of New Haven, where Yale is located, members of the Black Panther Party, including the infamous Bobby Seale were being tried for murdering one of their own.

The victim, Alex Rackley, had been suspected by the Panthers as a police informant. What was certain was that he had been brutally tortured, beaten, scalded, mutilated, and killed. The evidence against the Black Panthers was overwhelming—including an audio tape of part of the “trial” to which Rackley was subjected. Two Panthers confessed to shooting Rackley as part of a plea bargain. But Bobby Seale fought extradition from California and became …a rallying point for student radicals who idolized the Panthers as the leaders of a necessary black insurrection against the repressive white establishment. That the Black Panthers could actually be guilty was an idea that had never occurred, or mattered, to their defenders, who were not at all fazed by a political act of protest against white oppression, or that glorified the killing of police officers—or, in their words, “pigs.” Yale was a natural forum, perhaps battleground, for the privileged white students who wanted to show their solidarity with the Black Panthers and the forces of revolution against the presumed racism of American law.

Alex Rackley

This sounds familiar. Just recently, Hillary Clinton told the 335,000-member National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) that she won’t even bother applying for their endorsement for the 2016 election. This is at a time when the Black Lives Matter movement claims that police are killing blacks due to racism. It is also a time when police have been assassinated – in New York, in Dallas, in Mississippi and elsewhere.

At Yale, Hillary chose to serve as one of the editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, where she worked side-by-side with future Clinton insiders Mickey Kantor and Robert Reich….It included many cartoons depicting the police as hominid pigs, their snouts wet while they mutter, “niggers, niggers, niggers, niggers.”

Now we could stop here, and say – wait a minute – the sixties caught up a lot of people who are somewhat sorry for their excesses, and their heart was initially in the right place. Or we could get alarmed at the above. I happen to be alarmed.

I mentioned Marxism. What about Stalinism? Hillary’s friends included Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford. Treuhaft was a former lawyer for the Communist Party. He and his wife Jessica Mitford were both committed Communists. Stalinists, in fact. But heck, who doesn’t have radical friends.

At Yale she met Bill Clinton. Clinton campaign coordinator Neal McDonald remembered that Bill “had a girlfriend in every county (of Arkansas].” So why did Bill choose Hillary?

According to Dick Morris, another Yale student, also a former follower of Alinsky, but one who reformed, “Sunday-morning [Bill] Clinton felt no hypocrisy in marrying Hillary Rodham,” Indeed, he probably saw marrying for brains as a notch above marrying for glamour as Kennedy had done. It mimicked more closely the behavior of his other role model, FDR, who betrothed to Eleanor but tarried with Lucy Mercer.”

Bill and Hillary at Yale

As we know, just like Bill’s role model JFK, Bill’s pursuit of women continued after his marriage. The book shows that Hillary had to obfuscate this to the public as much as possible. Perhaps this means she was a good wife, perhaps it means that she was a liar. Or both.  As far as ethics goes, the book gives the impression that her political career with Bill did not bring out the best in Hillary.  But she was indispensable in keeping it going.

Hillary once prevented a corrupt deal:
“Walking around” money was a southern tradition. It was taken for granted that the Democratic party had the right to work with labor unions and church groups to disburse large sums of cash to bribe people to vote. Bill [Clinton] himself had handled piles of such money for the McGovern campaign in Texas. Now it was his turn. Paul Fray matter-of-factly explained to the candidate that dairy interests in the state were willing to put up the cash to buy absentee ballots. All Bill had to do was say “yes.” Left to himself, there is little doubt what he would have done. But Hillary had not yet become the operator she was later to become. From an adjoining room, she found out about it and allegedly killed the deal.
Maybe the lesson Hillary learned from the narrow election defeat than followed was that she had to develop the stomach for breaking laws.
Bill did not act well after his 1980 defeat when he ran for governor of Arkansas:
Losing to Republican Frank White in 1980, Bill visited [Dan] Lasater at his Quapaw Towers apartment…Bill had to have known that Lasater was a dealer of drugs as well as bonds. The very apartment he visited was widely known as the e-ticket to euphoria, the scene of legendary parties that rivaled the groupie rock scene for its outrageousness, with ashtrays brimming with cocaine, and young women and high school girls offering themselves as party favors.
Bill’s brother Roger Clinton had been caught on tape by a Hot Springs narcotics officer. After snorting coke for a buy, he said, “I’ve got to get some for my brother, he’s got a nose like a Hoover vacuum cleaner!”)

Now consider this: “Asked which U.S. president of the past 25 years they admired most, 42 percent [of Americans surveyed] named [Bill Clinton] — more than twice the percentage of any other president.”

Its as if a large group of the American people don’t care about government money used for personal enrichment, and that a man who represents them has the sexual appetite of a unusually prolific rabbit, that he lies to cover up both attributes, and incidentally, implements left-wing ideas. But I digress.

Hillary started showing truly unethical behavior when Jimmy Carter became president Under his administration, Hillary was appointed to the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), a federally funded nonprofit organization established by Congress. LSC was a leftist organization already, but she carried it to new heights:

[She] put together a cadre of committed activist lawyers who…could use individual cases as levers with which to broaden mandates for social welfare spending, to create new rights needing new programs… Under her leadership, the LSC budget grew from $90 million to more than $321 million. What she did with the money was a serious scandal, but one which she managed to brazen her way through—like scandals to come. The LSC used public funds to print political training manuals to show “how community organizations and public interest groups can win political power and resources.” The LSC contributed taxpayer dollars to a mayor’s campaign in Georgia, as “a project to educate clients about their rights in the legislative process.” It held training programs that taught political activists how to harass the opposition, from nailing dead rats to an opponent’s front door, to the black arts of private investigations and dirt digging.

in the 1980 election, the LSC diverted funds from cases and threw its resources into a frantic effort to use indigent clients in a letter-writing campaign against Reagan. In a later investigation, Republican Senate aides were astonished to see videotaped training sessions in which staffers spoke openly about how they were organizing the LSC’s national network to defeat Reagan.

Says Olson: “she had spearheaded a deliberate, national plot to undermine the political process with millions of dollars’ worth of staff work and the diversion of taxpayer money into political campaigns.”

By this point, we have to ask, what is going on? It seems that Hillary had the idea that the end justifies the means, even if the means are illegal. Perhaps she also thought that this was the way the game is played, or that if the power structure is really irredeemable, then she might as well exploit it. Who knows?

Hillary chaired the New World Foundation from 1982 to 1988, where she disbursed funds to some other militant organizations:

…left-wing recipients of Hillary’s largesse included the Committees in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, or CISPES. CISPES unabashedly sought to bring a Communist revolution to Central America.

There were plenty of other nasty groups that got the funds.

Olson sums up:

Hillary rolled up her sleeves and made sure that American taxpayer dollars were disbursed to people dedicated to terror, disinformation, and violent revolution. She has never expressed a single word of regret for her support for these organizations and causes.

The U.S. constitution is to some extent a system of restraints on power. Whether it is ideal can be debated, but consider this:

William Dixon was a member of the committee that investigated the impeachment of Richard Nixon. After seeing Hillary, who was also on the committee, in action, he said that Hillary “paid no attention to the way the Constitution works in this country, the way politics works, the way Congress works, the way legal safeguards are set up.”

Hillary’s “idealistic” statements when she graduated from Wellesley against our “acquisitive, and competitive corporate life” seem like a bad joke. As far as “acquisitiveness”, she has, with Bill, amassed over a hundred million dollars, in a way that would make anyone cynical about the way our government works.

So what is the “devil’s bargain” of Hillary Rodham Clinton?  The bargain is that for the sake of power to carry out her ideals, and for the sake of money to live a good lifestyle, she has transgressed all sorts of moral boundaries.  And the devil’s bargain exists for American voters in a different form.  They are all too willing to overlook character flaws, and there will be hell to pay.

Olson, Barbara. Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Kindle Locations 2107-2108). Regnery Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Barbara Olson

Popularity Poll:

Avoiding police praise:

Life lessons from mental illness

There are various traits of some mental illnesses that we can see in normal people to varying degrees.  Trying to relate the normal to the abnormal for this post (even though I am not suggesting that normal people are just mild versions of abnormal people) gives a different angle on certain flaws of thinking.  The following are just seven examples, I’m sure there are many more flaws that could be categorized.

1) Jumping to conclusions:
Several groups found that …
a deluded person needs less information to arrive at a definite decision than persons without a delusion or people with a depressive disorder. The latter needed significantly more information. With regard to delusions, this phenomenon was called “jumping to conclusions”
2)  The pattern recognition tradeoff:
I can’t find the source, but I have read that deluded people often see patterns where normal people do not,  The interesting angle is that sometimes the patterns are real and they see things that others miss.  Perhaps there is a tradeoff involved.  There certainly is a “signal to noise” tradeoff in medical imaging – are you seeing an artifact – or are you seeing the beginning of a tumor?   Or in crime-detection – a Muslim man begins flight training on a flight simulator .and tells instructors that while he wants to learn how to fly a 747 jet, he does not intend to earn a pilot’s license.  Is that a mild oddity that means nothing, or a clue to an impending crime that will change history?

3)  The theory of mind deficit
“Autistic patients also have a “theory of mind deficit”. This makes them behave inappropriately, because they do not understand other people.
A large number of experiments using fMRI, electroencephalography (EEG) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) have shown that certain brain regions (in particular the anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and inferior frontal cortex) are active when people experience an emotion (disgust, happiness, pain, etc.) and — this is the interesting part — when they see another person experiencing the same emotion.
So I would speculate that a deficit in theory of mind might affect your understanding of facial expressions, and therefore your understanding of other people’s thoughts about you.
Conversely, if you don’t have the deficit, and if you can read an expression, that means you can feel the emotion behind it.  So for instance, if you go to the movies and watch the villain’s facial expressions, perhaps you have a little bit of potential villain in you.  Perhaps you have to be able to feel cruelty to recognize it.

3b) Misreading social cues:
Because they cannot read social cues, including facial expressions, body language, or tone of voice,…[autistic people] are at a disadvantage. Another person may look at his watch (“You’re boring me” or “I’ve gotta go, I’m late!”), use a sarcastic tone, grimace to show increasing annoyance, quirk their eyebrows in disbelief – all of it lost on the person with an ASD. They cannot “see” the social signals that bombard us every day. Neither can they respond appropriately. How could they? They never received the message that was sent: I’m bored. I’m late. You’re making me mad.
Theory of mind simply refers to the understanding that other people have their own thoughts, perceptions, and intentions separate from one’s own. It is part of seeing others as separate beings with their own agendas. To accommodate others, to predict their future behavior, to manipulate or please them, you must have this inbuilt capacity to guess something about who they are and what they might do or desire. Individuals with autism lack this ability to a staggering degree.
In my experience, there is a laziness some normal people have – they don’t take the time to think of how their actions or speech look to others.  Its not that they can’t understand, its that they don’t try to understand, until truly disastrous results ensue.
Even when we desperately want to understand, we may fail.  Pundits and Intel officials can try to understand the motives of world leaders they have never met personally.  We really want to know how to interpret the intentions of Vladimir Putin, for example.  There is a huge spectrum of different interpretations of his motives, even among people who agree on many other issues.

4) Delusions of Reference:
Persons with ideas of reference may experience:
a) Believing that ‘somehow everyone on a passing city bus is talking about them, yet they may be able to acknowledge this is unlikely’.
b) Believing that the lyrics of a song are specifically about them
c) Seeing objects or events as being set up deliberately to convey a special or particular meaning to themselves
d) Believing that the behavior of others is in reference to an abnormal, offensive body odor, which in reality is non-existent and cannot be detected by others (see: olfactory reference syndrome).

Does this apply to normal people?  I suppose a normal person could pass a group of colleagues, hear one make a sarcastic comment, and worry, until he is reassured that the comment was not about him.
(In regards to (c), it is actually true that in certain real situations objects CAN be used for communication.  For example Mafiosi will sometimes dump a dead animal on someone’s porch.  Its a non-verbal communication, and presumably when the home-owner emerges in the morning, he gets the point.)

5)   Seeing what isn’t there – Missing what is.
Crazy people can see things that aren’t there.  Normal people can have the opposite problem – they may not see what is in front of their noses.  The following story comes from a book by Amy Herman called Visual Intelligence.  She teaches people how to notice things that others miss.  Among her clients are the FBI.  The interesting thing is that she started out as an art historian – and that is what gave her the perceptual practice.  But anyway, here is the story.  It is a very sad and disturbing one, but instructive.
“this [not seeing things] proved to be true for four-year-old Daniel Pelka…the little blond boy was starved and beaten to death by his parents–despite authorities having been called to his home twenty-six times.
School officials had noticed when Daniel showed up with a broken arm, two black eyes, and bruises around his neck.
And teachers noticed he was wasting away.
They documented that he was stealing food from other children’s lunch boxes and eating scraps.. from garbage cans…
His stepfather claimed that the boy had broken his arm when he jumped off a couch.  It was even determined that Daniel had an “obsession with food.”  His mother claimed that Daniel had a medical condition that made him underweight and small.  His pediatrician agreed!
The police would often visit the house because of violent domestic disputes.
Strangely, the police never thought of asking Daniel himself what was going on.
So here, we have professionals – a pediatrician, teachers, policemen, none of whom saw what was going on or did the most basic sensible and obvious thing they could do – talk to the kid!
And they were all sane.
Makes you think.

6)  Hemi spatial inattention
Hemi spatial inattention is an attention disorder that prevents the patient from attending to stimuli on one side. Patients with hemi spatial inattention may draw items they see like this:
Patients frequently deny that they have a problem.  Its not just that they don’t perceive something, its that they don’t know they don’t perceive something.
This reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld’s remark (he was secretary of defense during the war that toppled Saddam Hussein in Iraq):
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
Interestingly, the Iraq Intelligence Commission reported that
Perhaps most troubling, we found an intelligence Community in which analysts had a difficult time…identifying…what they do not know.
7) A social convention disorder:
About a third of its Tourette’s syndrome sufferers yield to outbursts of obscene language.  “The symptoms have the quality of a mad desire to violate social conventions.”   Think of this the next time you feel like driving your car through a bourgeois neighborhood, with your stereo on full blast.  Social conventions may be worth heeding

So can we draw any useful ideas from all this?  It would be productive to teach normal people how to overcome flaws in thinking.  For instance it might be possible to teach rules such as “think of what can go wrong with your actions” or “think how you would feel if someone else acted this way toward you.”  It might be possible to teach people when they are jumping to conclusions, and making assumptions. In fact, Amy Herman does talk about showing people how to identify their assumptions, even when they are told to make a simple description of a artist’s painting that is presented to them.   Teaching people to be able to recognize and admit what they don’t know would also be helpful.
As a child, both my brother and I could not make friends.  And when the kids around us reached the bullying age, some saw us as prime targets to bully.  It started early, I remember a little Jewish girl with some companions on the school bus charge me with an umbrella, and cut me under the eye.   This was my first bad experience with women, and it certainly was not the last!
Both of us had problems understanding and communicating with others.  Perhaps children with these problems can be taught some skills in perceiving and interacting.  If not, I would suggest they be home-schooled until old enough so that their reasoning abilities can compensate for their blind spots.
I know someone who makes social misjudgments often because of some thought flaw that I see, but I can’t quite define.  It expresses itself in all sorts of situations.  And yet I myself have caused a bigger and more embarrassing disaster than he ever has, partly because of thinking errors that most people would not make. When people have certain flaws in thinking, their life becomes equivalent to running a gauntlet where they keep getting hit.
An interesting question is – is our theory of mind complete? Could we lack certain emotions or feelings that someone else, perhaps someone abnormal has, and therefore not understand him?
I was not autistic, but I would look down instead of at people in tense situations. I thought I had gotten over this by college, but a job interviewer explained to me one time I failed an interview – “they said you always looked down!” There was a feeling, that if I stared at people I would look abnormal.  I just didn’t know what to do with my eyes, and in some cases there was a feeling similar to shyness, but more extreme that led me to act in this odd manner. The interviewers did not know what caused the behavior, but they decided that it was a danger sign.
In another situation, I had  feelings, slightly similar to that Tourette’s in that they involved a desire to act weirdly.  While it seemed to me that my behavior was silly but harmless, others saw it as something more sinister.  I haven’t had that feeling since, but the events it led to put my life on a different track.
Our “theory of mind” might not deal compassionately with abnormal people if we don’t understand that they can have abnormal feelings. Conversely, in history victims of attacks often do not understand what normal people feel and believe, even in cases when their continued existence depends on it.

Societies of Brains – A Study in the Neuroscience of Love and Hate – Walter Freeman (1995)
Visual Intelligence – Amy Herman (2016)
The Mask of Sanity – H M Cleckly (1955)
Garety P.A, Freeman D. Cognitive approaches to delusions: A critical review of theories and evidence. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1999;38:113–154. [PubMed] (on jumping to conclusions)
A Quote by Hoche:: “There is no delusional idea held by the mentally ill which cannot be exceeded in its absurdity by the conviction of fanatics, either individually or en masse”

A bleak future for Jews?

This blog is not supposed to be all that political, however, …
I know people who see the leftist movement in the U.S as the force of progress and good.  Leftists are against racism.  Leftists care about the poor.  They care about women.  They care about the environment.  Two of these people that I know are Jewish women.  So the following (which they would never read), would surprise them, assuming they believed it:
Mike Konrad writes the following in a recent article Latin America: Becoming Anti-Israel Right under Our Noses:
What is clear is that the left congenitally hates Israel.  This is hidden in America, where many of the left are “progressive” Jews, but step outside the USA, and it becomes obvious – especially if one speaks another language – that the left is radically anti-Zionist.
People hasten at this point to say you can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Jewish, but I would point out given that Israel is the only country with a majority that is Jewish, and sees itself as a haven for Jews, and wants to maintain that Jewish majority, it isn’t surprising that the two go together.  One clue: the people who say that the “Zionists” control the press, Hollywood, the government, and push us into wars in the Middle East, are transparently just substituting the word “Zionists” for “Jews” and feeling clever about it.
From Britain, Stephen Pollard reports:
For most of my 51 years, anti-Semitism was something I encountered only fitfully…but the past few years have been different.    I have not gone a day without encountering it.  As a journalist, I have reported the spate of such comments from Labour members with astonishment…
An American Jewish conservative sent this bitter message out to his mailing list, (it was his forward to an article on a black Muslim anti-Semite embraced by some in the Democratic party:)
[There] is going to be an increasingly virulent strain of racism running through the increasingly far left Democrat Party. This is there. That is a simple fact. But empowering it is the fault of the Republican Party, which had numerous candidates for their Presidential nomination who would have handily beaten Hillary Clinton and left the haters part of her party looking more like what they are – haters. Instead, they are going to be woven into the fabric of Clinton’s party – whether she wants it or not – and our country is going to continue its slide into a divided society, filled with hatred across every fault line among our people. No more e pluribus Unum. There will most likely always be a country called the United States of America. But it will be neither united nor the American constitutional republic envisioned by the Founding Fathers. I profoundly believe with all my heart that we have been “exceptional” in the best possible way in which that word can be used. But Barack Hussein Obama detested that idea and has spent eight years undermining and vilifying the very notion of American exceptionalism. The result will now be an increasing cascade of American self loathing as the coming generations are taught what Obama’s party believes. The academy has long believed it. Its disciples captured academia after the Vietnam War and have spent the last 40+ years infecting students with their poison. We are now seeing one aspect of that poison going mainstream – Jew hatred – overlooked and tolerated by the political party most likely to control our country very shortly.”
My guess is that a Jewish liberal reading this would think that quote is raving mad.  They would remember their progressive friends, of all colors, who don’t hate Jews, and plus, the Democrats are about inclusion and anti-racism.  Aren’t they?
Ian Buruma, in a recent article titled Where anti-Capitalism and anti-Semitism Intersect explains one reason that the many Muslim immigrants to the West are good candidates to ally with the left, writing:
 Israel is now inextricably linked to New York and Washington (not to mention Hollywood), where the Jewish diaspora is supposed to be pulling the strings. Many Arabs and European Muslims see Israel as an illegitimate colonial outpost of American capitalism in the Middle East. Another word for the domination of American capital is globalization. In the words of Michelle Battini [an Italian historian who wrote a new book on anti-capitalist anti-Semitism]: “In the ‘antiglobal’ attitude, which has taken the place of the old anti-capitalism, there are often ideological residues of European anti-Jewish anti-capitalism, unearthed above all in Central and Eastern Europe or reemerging in the language of Islamist extremist groups
Michelle Battini

In the historical pattern before Marxism, anti-Semitism usually came from the right. But we see now a convergence of anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist ideas on the left. Since the left in America tends to play identity politics, leftist politicians and activists associate with Muslim radicals.

Now you might, like I myself originally did, dismiss much of this.  You might say, of course Muslims are going to be anti-Israeli at various campuses, but they are a small minority, and the leftists that associate with them are a minority too, and I’m bored.

But lets look at California.  Dr. Richard Cravatts writes:

The situation on California campuses with regard to anti-Israelism, and even raw anti-Semitism, continues to grow in intensity and frequency… the state has a long tradition of radicalism by Leftist professors and students…. The student radicals of the 1960s have now become tenured professors…Many in California’s liberal professoriate …also embrace an essential cynicism about the West, a suspicion of capitalism, a condemnation of the military, and a general attitude that the imperialism of America and Israel continues a trend of hegemonic powers wronging Third-world victims. Since much of the on-campus agitation against Israel is spearheaded by pro-Palestinian Muslim student groups, the fact that 20 percent of America’s Muslims live in California (representing over 1,000,000 people and 3.4 percent of the State’s population) is likely also a contributing factor. Relevant, too, is the fact that while the age group of individuals between 18 and 29 represents only 14.1 percent of the overall U.S. population, in that same age group—a sizable chunk of whom are college students—Muslims represent 26.1 percent of that total.

So Muslims are not such a “small minority”.  But surely you would say, there is nothing leftist about Islam.  Islam is about social conservatism, isn’t it?  It does not say much about economics or class warfare.

And yet:

the university’s war against Israel has been pervasive and intensifying, promulgated by the active participation both of Leftist faculty and radical Muslim student groups on campuses where the long-suffering Palestinians have replaced South African blacks as the Left’s favorite victim group—whose behavior, however violent and politically irrational, is excused as justifiable in a 63 year-old campaign to demand that Israel grant the Arabs self-determination and social justice..

What is the immediate effect of this radicalism? Cravatts gives the example of San Francisco State University where:

… the pro-Palestinian student groups took it upon themselves the following month to disrupt a vigil for Holocaust Remembrance Day where some 30 Jewish students who were reciting the Mourners’ Kaddish—the Jewish prayer for the dead—were shouted down by protesters who countered with grisly prayers in memory of Palestinian suicide bombers. The pro-Palestinian counter-demonstrators, armed with whistles and bull horns, physically assaulted the Jewish students, spat on them, and screamed such charming epithets as “Too bad Hitler didn’t finish the job,” “Get out or we will kill you,” “Fuck the Jews,” “Die racist pigs,” and “Go back to Russia, Jews.” The violence escalated to the extent that San Francisco police officers finally had to usher the Jewish students to safety off campus.

Digression: Telling the Jews to go back to Russia is Chutzpah. Of the protestors who are Muslim, they are usually much more recent arrivals than the Jews were.

Black Muslims and leftists get into the act too: For instance writes Cravatt,

a “Politics of Genocide” event included the speaking talents of such luminaries as the vitriolic Amir-Abdel Malik-Ali, a black Imam associated with the Masjid Al Islam mosque in Oakland and frequent guest of the Irvine MSU; former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a member of the Free Gaza Movement and Green Party presidential candidate, who, while in Congress, when she was not frantically suggesting that the CIA and George Bush were behind 9/11, had pointed to a sinister “pattern of excessive, and often indiscriminate, use of lethal force by Israeli security forces in situations where Palestinian demonstrators were unarmed and posed no threat of death or serious injury to the security forces or to others;”

these events inevitably devolve solely into hate-fests against Israel, with condemnations, blood libels, conspiracy theories, Nazi imagery, anti-Semitic ravings, physical attacks on Jewish students, and a visceral loathing of Zionism, Judaism, and the Jewish state.

On seeing this material, certain things start making sense to me. For instance, the Palestinian flags waving in the audience at the Democratic coronation of Hillary Clinton. The fact that Cornell and Columbia are among the top universities for anti-Israel phenomena (one out of ten schoolchildren in New York city are Muslim). And the fact that as far as religious hate crimes go Jews are more targeted than any other group. Obama lied to Israel about what he would do vs the Iran nuclear program – and that makes sense now too.

Many Jews are clueless as to what all this portends.

Florida State students trample on Israeli flag
Florida State students trample on Israeli flag

At the moment, the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, seems to be in self-destruct mode, and that could well mean that the Democrats finish the job of “transforming America” that Obama started. Hillary Clinton also wants to bring in many more Muslims, which will change the demographics.

Finally if our economy continues the way it has been going under Obama, then we will have a permanent group of people without upward mobility who are very angry. And I would not blame them. None of this is “good for the Jews.” Or for everyone else.

Here is a link. to a YouTube interview of Jewish (and pro-Jewish) students across the country. Its worth watching.

This one is too: click here

One thing that strikes me about both videos is that the Jewish students interviewed here come across as very ordinary and positive people.  Their stories ring true.

(I put in dashes in some to avoid splash screen)
Roots of anti-Jewish sentiment in the left
Anti-Jewish sentiment in the left in Latin America
Cravatts, Dr. Richard L.. Genocidal Liberalism: The University’s Jihad Against Israel & JewsDavid Horowitz Freedom Center. Kindle Edition.

Reality, possibility, and “the novelist” test


Suppose you are an English teacher and you assigned your students a writing assignment where you gave them an odd situation, and had them write a background story for it so that it became plausible.  A possible situation you come up with might be this one: “a young man gets a job in a new city, and for a while is treated like everyone else, but suddenly he meets random strangers who treat him with disgust and contempt.”   Another possible situation might be “a scrawny balding middle-aged man with glasses who is anything but handsome gets a reputation of being a handsome type who impresses the fair sex, and he is pointed out to an incredulous out-of-towner, who asks “that is him?” and is told “I swear to God!”
And the third situation is the men in both stories are the same person.
(These scenarios did happen, or at least I claim they did.)
Your students would have a problem coming up with a plausible scenario for any of these, but assuming it could be done, then an important conclusion follows.  The conclusion is that these scenarios are possible.  That doesn’t mean true, it just means that given what we know, we can’t rule them out.
The reason this is important is because we often reject stories in which too many pieces are missing.  I think this is why, for example, an entire Jewish village (Sighet) in the path of the Nazis rejected a warning by an eye-witness of the awful fate that was in store for them.  I suppose wishful thinking might have played a part, but my guess is that they simply couldn’t come up with a scenario in which people from an advanced country such as Germany would want to kill harmless villagers who mind their own business.  And rationally, they should have been correct, but there many missing pieces to the puzzle which they knew nothing about.
Author Elie Wiesel’s village was warned, and did not believe the warning.

Admittedly, there are real scenarios where no student of yours could up with a plausible scenario.  For instance, if you told your students in the first days of the internet that there would be a social site called Facebook, they could accept that.  If you said that people would reveal details about themselves, such as birthday, gender, family photos, etc, your students would yawn.  But then you say that you wanted your students to explain that Facebook would have the following choices for gender:

Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Try as they might, even with the help of a few beers, your students might not be able to write a plausible scenario of how this could happen.
I think the reason is that people simply don’t understand other people all that well.  That’s one reason why “the novel test” doesn’t cover the stranger possibilities.  To give another example of strangeness, Leon Trotsky, who was himself a Bolshevik (early Communist), made a good point when he said that Stalinism was “the perfect theory for gluing up the brain.”  He said this because social justice advocates all over the world defended the Russian dictator’s actions (Stalin murdered 40 million people).  David Horowitz, whose parents were communists and who himself was a leading leftist as a young man, explains: “What glued up their brains was the belief that a brave new world of social justice..existed in embryo in Soviet Russia.”
The point here is not to argue politics, but that its truly hard for anyone, including English students, to come up with a plausible scenario where many good-intentioned people could somehow miss the murder of tens of millions, and defend the person responsible.
To take another example, you could assign students who were in college in the 1950’s an essay on what could go wrong with government charity.  They would probably list the loss of initiative, or dignity, in recipients but its unlikely they would foresee this:
The reason that the children have no fathers is that government pushed them out. I saw it with friends in the sixties. All they talked about was getting pregnant so they could get on welfare and get their own apartment away from their parents. Many never finished school. If they [the government?] found the men living with them they cut off the money. The men could live on very little so they had no reason to advance or become successful. They lived in what we called flophouses and could sit and get high and have a good time. Soon that good time took its toll on the body and that part time job wouldn’t buy the drugs they needed to get high. so they stole and sold it to the dealers who sold it to the black market shops. I had so many friends who went this route.
While we can’t predict the future, the “novel test” does have a useful function.  If you reject someone’s experience or beliefs simply because you would have to make many assumptions for it to be true, you could be wrong.  Sit back, and ask yourself – what would have to be true for these experiences to correspond to reality?  If you could come up with a chain of events, then the “probability” of the experiences (or worldview) might be low, but it would not be zero.
So the next time a wild eyed disheveled man speaking in tongues says that he is Napoleon — well OK, that one isn’t plausible.
Clinton and Obama (a pamphlet) by David Horowitz (one of the comments)
Elie Wiesel’s book “All Rivers Run To The Sea”

Life as a ‘zero-sum game’

Ronald Reagan once said “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one!”
This applies in international affairs as well.
Perhaps authoritarian personalities believe the zero-sum view of life.
The extreme left, at least in its Marxist incarnation, believes that the factory owners exploit the workers.  So in their view, there are two social classes, and one rises by pushing down the other.  Its a zero-sum game.
SchmittThe extreme right, in its Nazi incarnation, had a philosophy of “lebensraum” or living space.  Herpen writes that German theorist Friedrich Ratzel developed an organic state theory. States were, according to him, living creatures that could not be restricted by frontiers: they expanded or contracted according to their organic structure. They needed Lebensraum, “living space.”   The Nazi ideologue Carl Schmitt adapted Ratzel’s theory to the needs of Hitler’s Germany.  Of course to get that Lebensraum, the Nazis decided Slavic peoples had to be conquered, and often killed.

HayekFree-market theorist Friedrich Hayek wrote that what in the United States we call the free-market conservative, or libertarian, is not on the left-right spectrum at all. Rather than a line with the extreme left on one side, and the extreme right on the other, and the rest of us in the middle, he sees a triangle, and the third vertex is the believers in free markets and human rights.
Lets take a look at Russia. That country is spying on Western countries just as much as it did in the bad old days when it was the Soviet Union.  Also, Russian and Chinese (and other) hackers steal U.S. trade and technology secrets.  This type of espionage was described by NSA expert Keith Alexander as “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.”  They win, we lose.
Russia does not want its people to admire the United States, and its internal propaganda makes us look decadent, and not only decadent, but responsible for starting an anti-Russian campaign in the Ukraine.
In March 2014 a group of Ukrainian journalists started a website,, run by the London-based Ukrainian Institute, with the aim of checking the facts and verifying the information disseminated by Russian news channels.
One of the examples of misinformation they found was a video on YouTube of Russian soldiers throwing into a heap bodies of Dagestanis they had killed. This video was “recycled” and spread on YouTube with the (false) text “Punitive Ukrainian National Guard Mission throwing dead bodies near Kramatorsk” (Donetsk region)
In July 12, 2014, the Russian Pervyy Kanal (First TV Channel) interviewed a woman named Galina, who claimed to be a refugee and who told how Ukrainian soldiers had taken a three-year-old boy and crucified him “like Jesus.” This story caused great outrage in Russia, which was unfortunate, because it was invented.
In another post of mine I had this quote from the WSJ:
They [the Russians] are writing things about us and our defense forces that are not from this world,” says the senior [Finland] official, such as the yarn that the Finnish government removes children from ethnic-Russian Finnish families for adoption by gay couples in the U.S.
The above shows a contempt by the Russian leadership for their own people, who they feel must be deceived. They might be deceiving you too, for instance, if you see a set of comments on your favorite news or opinion site, those comments may come from a surprising source.  There are internet warriors, working for the Kremlin as paid online mercenaries: “Each troll is expected to post 50 news articles daily and maintain six Facebook and ten Twitter accounts, with 50 tweets per day.”
Van Herpen adds:
Hackers from Anonymous, a vigilante activist network, hacked the e-mail account of one “trolling” group that is charged with running the campaign in the U.S. and gave me some of the information they discovered. . . . Russia’s “Internet trolling squad” made detailed studies of such sites as The Blaze, The Huffington Post and Fox News, including their audiences, owners, official and actual editorial policies, as well as their attitudes toward Russia and Obama. Screenshots show comments posted in English with serious grammatical errors. According to the Ukrainskaya Pravda, the Kremlin bloggers were also active in Ukraine. They were said to be paid twenty-four euros per day for their activities.
So if you read those comments by those trolls, you are being manipulated.  You may be led to believe that there is a large number of your fellow citizens who feel a certain way, for example.
 The cable channel Russia Today, (which is larger than Fox News)  has direct access to the homes of tens of millions of Europeans and Americans.
RT’s staff includes an office with about one hundred personnel in Washington.   In 2009 Nielsen Media Research found that viewers in the Washington, D.C., area preferred to watch prime-time news on Russia Today rather than on other foreign English-language networks, including Al Jazeera, France 24, and Deutsche Welle. In 2013 two million Britons watched RT regularly, and its online presence was “more successful than those of all its competitors. What’s more, in June [2013], Russia Today broke a YouTube record by being the first TV station to get a billion views of its videos.
Now such success in itself is OK, even admirable, except that they manipulate their audience.  Consider:
RT started inviting representatives of marginal, often extreme right antigovernment groups, who were presented as “experts.” One of these groups was the so-called 9/ 11 truthers, people who believe that the 9/ 11 attacks were not the work of al-Qaeda terrorists but a US government conspiracy…  RT’s “experts” also included Malik Zulu Shabazz, the leader of the New Black Panther Party, a hate group. Another invited pundit was Daniel Estulin, who considered the European Union to be the realization of a secret plan invented by the Bilderberg Group …Manuel Ochsenreiter, a guest speaker about German affairs on RT’s English-language channel, is actually the editor of the neo-Nazi magazine Zuerst!, a monthly radical-right magazine that pledges “to serve German— not foreign— interests” and speaks out against “de-nazification.” For James Miller this is problematic, “as RT used Ochsenreiter to defend Russia’s invasion of Crimea, an invasion which the Kremlin said was done to defend the peninsula against neo-Nazis.” Another RT guest, Ryan Dawson, who was presented as a “human rights activist,” was in reality a Holocaust denier who wrote blogs about anti-Semitic ideas.
Russia Today Anchor
Russian military preparations are worrisome. Their bombers fly along the coasts of Alaska and California.  They are largely responsible for the Iranian nuclear program’s technical progress.  And remember, Iran’s leaders have repeatedly called us “The Great Satan”.
Putin has noted that Russia is the only country that could “destroy America in half an hour or less.”
Four Russian bombers and a refueling tanker off California
We really have to hope that Putin does not see his competition with us as a zero-sum game.
Russian government ideology differs from ours. Russia glorifies a strong state. And from Herpen’s book, the Russian Orthodox Church preaches that human rights must be superseded by traditional values, because otherwise we lose morality and civilization. There seems to be an idea that human-rights have to give for morality to prevail. You can’t have both unlimited rights and morality.
Yanko Tsvetkov makes fun of Putin’s view of our decadence.
In this country, there is another debate where zero-sum thinking comes into play. That is the debate on whether we should put tariffs on foreign imports, and whether we should punish companies that move factories abroad.   Donald Trump, the Republican candidate, feels we were taken advantage of in our free-trade deal with Mexico and wants to renegotiate it.  In other words, he does not see mutual benefits, rather he sees Mexico profiting at our expense. On the left, Socialist candidate Bernie Sanders also believes this.
Scott L

Free trade advocates argue that the problem is not Mexican greed, or naïve American negotiators.  They argue that the United States has gotten so dominated by “progressives” that it has created a difficult environment for businesses to thrive, and so they eventually move to other locales.  Moreover, a free trade advocate such as trade-attorney Scott Lincicome stresses that when businesses do fail, there is a lack of “labor dynamism” in the U.S. so people do not find new jobs to move to, and he says free trade reveals the problems with the economy, rather than causing those problems.
Its interesting that several anti-immigrant movements in Europe are also protectionist. One example is the French National Front. In this country, Pat Buchanan is an example of a conservative protectionist who has long called for restricting immigration. My own view is that restricting immigration is reasonable, and restricting economic transactions that interfere with national security is reasonable, but otherwise, we are better off trading with the world rather than having each nation embrace so-called economic-patriotism. We are better off with strong, prosperous neighbors than with weak unstable ones.
Though some situations in life really are a zero-sum game, we should at least try to avoid that philosophy whenever possible.

When Revenge is evil – Micah Johnson avenges black lives

A black sniper took up a position near a peaceful protest against the police shootings of two black men, one of those black men, Alton Sterling, shot in Louisiana and the other,  Philando Castile, shot in Minnesota.  Then the sniper proceeded to shoot at police, using a “shoot and move” doctrine, killing 5 and wounding several others.
Its a big mistake, as Sherlock Holmes, the fictional detective said, to theorize without data, and I made that mistake already, believing initial reports that there was more than one sniper.
Its not a mistake though, to see his actions as part of a bigger problem.  For example:
If you take a look at the Black Lives Matter Twitter feed, you’ll find photos of activists wearing shirts that say, “Assata Taught Me.”
So who was Assata?  Katie Pavlich tells us:
They’re referring to infamous cop killer Assata Shakur, otherwise known as Joanne Chesimard, who shot and killed a New Jersey State Trooper back in 1973. In 1977, Shakur was convicted and sentenced to prison but quickly escaped and has been a fugitive in Cuba ever since. She’s also on the FBI’s most wanted terrorism list. BLM glorifies Shakur as a hero and uses her writings and materials during training sessions.
I’ll make a point about BLM later, but lets look at the injustice that drove sniper Micah Johnson.
First, the two black men shot by cops were very different people  Sterling had molested a fourteen year old girl (she became pregnant) and had been previously arrested for aggravated battery, criminal damage to property, unauthorized entry and domestic abuse. .

Castile though had not such record. He was just driving with his girlfriend Diamond, and when the officer stopped their car, he told the officer who stopped his car that he had a (legal) gun, and then obeyed the officer’s order to get his driver’s license.  It may be that the officer then mistook the movement to get the license as a movement to get the gun, and so he shot the driver.  This is all speculation, and I should remember what Sherlock Holmes said.  Diamond Reynolds (the girlfriend) says that the police officer screamed “f*** oh my God, I can’t believe it” after shooting Mr. Castile multiple times.

Diamond Reynolds, the girlfriend of Philando Castile of St. Paul
Of course this is the story at this moment.  Stories often change as more facts come out, and we should not “jump the gun”, any more than that officer in Minnesota should have jumped the gun.
Many people seem to assume racism in a case like this.  However, common sense tells me that most policemen do not want to lose their jobs, plus be tried in court, plus attract years of hostility by shooting people who are innocent.  Plus even if the policeman was very racist in private, if he has to go into a black neighborhood day after day, he wants to be on good terms with the people around him.
The case reminds me a bit of the shooting of an African immigrant, Amadou Diallo in the year 2000.  The Los Angeles Times reported:
Testifying through tears, the police officer who fired the first of 41 shots at an unarmed West African immigrant told a jury Monday he pulled the trigger because he believed his target was wearing a bulletproof vest and was shooting at his partner.
After 19 bullets struck  Officer Sean Carroll said he knelt alongside the victim, who was breathing his last breath in the vestibule of a building in the Bronx.
“I said, ‘Oh my God,’ and I just held his hand,” Carroll said, recalling he pleaded, “Please don’t die.”
In that case at least, the mistakes of the cops were understandable.  It was a tragedy of errors.
It may not be much comfort to know that a man is killed due to a mistake, rather than to racial hatred, because in either case he is just as dead.
However, assuming that it is racism is the engine of the “Black Lives Matter” movement, and may have been the motivation of the snipers.
So where is the evil in this story?
  1. A man’s character is shown not only by how he treats people he likes, but how he treats people he does not like.
  2. A good man does not shoot first and ask questions later.
  3. A good man is honest with himself, even it makes him, or people he identifies with, look bad. He does not blame others for problems that they are not responsible for.
  4. And a good man does not shoot Persons A (policemen in Texas) because of what Person B (a policeman in Minnesota) did.  The appropriate response is to go after Person B, via the legal system, assuming the legal system works.  And if Person B meant well, you look at how the mistakes happened. If the policeman had a hearing problem, or was incompetent in some way, you change procedures so that admissions tests weed people like him out. If the problem is that reaching for a wallet looks too much like reaching for a gun, you push to change police procedure so that misunderstandings do not happen.
  5. A final point about BLM. The protest in Dallas was peaceful, but protesters should do their homework about organizations such as “Black Lives Matter”. It is not truthful about the supposed campaign to kill innocent blacks, and its members have chanted “pigs in a blanket, [this means policemen in a body bag] fry em’ like bacon,”
Now for some unpleasant facts:
If the policeman in the Minnesota case was more afraid of a black driver than he would be of a white driver, it was because blacks have a higher proportion of murderers (at least 3 times higher) than other groups in the U.S.  Not only that, but policemen who go into black areas to arrest someone are often surrounded by people jeering at them.  Even if they are black policemen, they hear taunts.  One black policeman, Robert Reedy says this:
“They call me a slave, a field nigger,” he says. He responds contemptuously: “That’s ‘house nigger’—get your terms right.” The perps then whine: “You black like me!” Reedy shakes his head in amazement: “What’s that got to do with taking the lady’s handbag?”
Ask Detective Carl McLaughlin if the police prey on black people, and this normally ebullient Brooklyn cop will respond icily: “I just prey on people that are preying on others. It shouldn’t be a race thing.”
A cop’s denial that policing is racist is perhaps not noteworthy—except for one thing: Detective McLaughlin is himself black.
But a frightening change is happening to a segment of the black population.
I remember when two policemen were killed in Brooklyn, ambushed by a black man who had driven up from Maryland, as they sat in their car. The motive was “revenge” on police treatment of blacks.
Perhaps the idea is: “Those police won’t mess with us anymore if we kill a few.”
But what do these snipers think will happen if policemen stop policing?  Or if for that matter, the law-abiding portion of America all left for Greenland?
When you create a policing vacuum, or a defense vacuum, something will fill it.  There are very ruthless countries some made up of black or brown or yellow or white people, and they may  be armed with very sophisticated weaponry, and human rights are not their priority.
There are countries that have literally millions of slaves (I’m thinking India, and I say that even though the Indians I meet here strike me and my parent’s friends favorably. Some Muslim countries have black slaves (I’m thinking Mauritania, and Sudan)).  In some countries the slaves are of a different color than the rulers, in others the same color.  A recent book (The Slave Next Door) tells us at least 50,000 people are enslaved any given year in the U.S of A.
There are countries where the difference between organized crime and the government is murky. They work together, or are friends.
without law and order you will get chaos, and eventually get order imposed by ruthless people who don’t care about “rights”.
I mentioned honesty.  In the Ferguson shooting case of Michael Brown, there was dishonesty.
One witness said ‘crowds of people had begun to gather, wrongly claiming the police shot Brown for no reason and that he had his hands up in surrender. Two black women approached Witness 102, mobile phones set to record, asking him to recount what he had witnessed. Witness 102 responded that they would not like what he had to say. The women responded with racial slurs, calling him names like “white motherfucker”.
The colleges are finding they have students who don’t want to argue – because they know they are right, and if you argue with them, you are being hurtful, and even evil.  Or racist.  They have “safe spaces” – safe from being hurt.  Safe from hearing any idea they don’t want to hear.  This is a great recipe for trouble.
 Megan Bautista, was a smart black Bronx girl who went to college at Oberlin. She was interviewed there by Nathan Heller of the New Yorker,
 When I asked what she hoped to do after she graduated, this spring, she said, “I can see myself leaving the country.” In the immediate term, she hoped to join AmeriCorps and build her résumé. She thought she might end up being a class-action or impact-litigation lawyer. Then she wanted to get as far away from the United States as she could. “Working my piece of land somewhere and living autonomously—that’s the dream,” she said. “Just getting the eff out of America. It’s a sinking ship.”

She should ask the question: “Why is it sinking?”

The day after Micah Johnson gunned down policemen, I noticed blacks and whites getting along as usual.  I noticed a nice black couple cycling on the bike path near here.  I noticed a white employee of the hospital I visited talking to a very friendly African employee.  Some things did not seem normal.  I noticed black people who seemed rather depressed and quiet – more than usual.

We do have a race problem in this country.  I have memories.  My twin was whipped with a chain by a black youth when we were kids.  The white kids getting off my school bus in Manhattan were robbed by black kids as they hit the pavement.  I remember the news reports of burning cities in the sixties.
I remember news items, such as one about a Jewish teacher who tried to help a troubled black student, and who got tortured and murdered by that student and his friend.
Years ago, I had made some disparaging remarks about blacks (I forget what they were).  They were unfair.
And that might have something to do with the black youth who looked shamefacedly down at his sneakers, then rebounded and told me “we will annihilate you”.
“We” turned out to be multi-racial.
I have taken the sting of the hornet, over the past 22 years,  and its not over yet.
Collin Flaherty, a reporter who has written for several major newspapers, has put together 100 videos of black violence here:   The point is not whether he is racist or not (his past shows he isn’t).  The point is whether he is accurate.  Watch a few.
Again we get to the point of honesty.
That is not to say that white people are angels.  My brother once told a liberal friend that if black people are exactly the same as white people, then they are just as bad as white people.  This may seem silly, but it struck his friend like a thunderbolt.  He had never considered this.
If I were black, I would not assume that the people who agonize about white privilege are better than the people who don’t.  Or that the people who want to give me special preferences to go to the head of the line are doing me favors.   I would not respect the politician who promises me that he will help me with handouts – after all, its not his money.
My uncle’s take was that half of black people were like everybody else, and he told me “the other half – I stay away from.” My uncle is not a “supremacist” or a nasty type at all. So it is sad that he felt driven to that conclusion.
And where is the revenge for this (see photo below)?

“Black on black” violence produces scenes like the above.

Also, note that there are always people who want to fan the flames, for their own ideological reasons… Here is one example, but there are others as well:

Finally, the strangest aspect of all this is a recent study that found that police do not shoot black suspects at a higher rate than white suspects. Yes, the study found cops were more likely to put their hands on an equivalent black suspect vs. a white suspect — also to cuff, push to the ground or pepper-spray him. But less likely to shoot him! See the article by Larry Elder (who is black) at   On the other hand, John Stossel, a libertarian, has an interesting article at the same website saying anger is justified – see

Are we all crazy?

Are we all crazy?
Craziness involves a departure from reality due to flaws in thinking.  But that can’t be all of the definition.  There is a book on cognitive biases by Rolf Dobelli – The Art of Thinking Clearly – which shows that we often make mistakes due to correctable flaws in thinking.  But that doesn’t mean we are crazy.

Jonathan Haidt, who is a liberal Democrat, warns that a new “religion” of “social justice” is entrenching itself among students on America’s campuses.  It prosecutes blasphemy, it is very intense and passionate,   He says this: “It’s just a fact that as humans, we are really good at making something sacred. … When you do that, you bind yourself together, you trust each other, you have a shared sacred object and you go forth into battle…
In religion, people seen as heretics or blasphemers are not dialogue partners; they are simply to be silenced, punished, and ostracized. And that’s what’s been happening at many, many campuses.
He gives an example
There is no nuance, you cannot trade off any other goods with it….then when someone comes to class, someone comes to your campus, and they say the rape culture is exaggerated, they have committed blasphemy.
This is reinforced by an interview with Tuvia Tenenbom, who went undercover in the West Bank to talk to Palestinians, wrote a book about it, and is coming out with his next book, Don’t Quote Me about his talks here, in the U.S with Americans.   He says that
I start hearing free Palestine even in Republican states like Montana, the millennials especially and of course in colleges, this is one thing that’s happening and also in Israel, and in America as well, American Jewry minus the Orthodox, there is a huge self-hating that comes out, self-loathing and this passionate commitment of the jew to point a finger at the rest of the Jews as how bad they are, occupiers, racists and whatever.
In other words, social justice becomes a very emotional and not very rational cause.
Speaking of religion, recently a believing Muslim named Omar Mateen killed 49 people in a gay nightclub, and wounded many more.  The strangeness of this is his double standard.  He found their behavior filthy, but did not find the Islamic-State’s practice of sexual slavery at all filthy.  He complained about America bombing ISIS, but the fact that recently several Yezidi women slaves who decided to take a stand and not have sex with their captors, were burned alive by Islamic State didn’t bother him.  So there is a craziness here, if double-standards are evidence of craziness.  ISIS of course praised him.
Omar’s handiwork
Before Hitler attacked Russia, the head communist of Russia, Joseph Stalin, killed many of his military officers in a fit of paranoia.  Actually, his henchmen killed them for him.  This meant that Russia was without a competent military leadership when the invasion, which Stalin confidently said would not happen, happened.   Despite this and other evidence of incompetence and evil, Stalin was a hero to ‘progressives’ all over the world.
Leftist Israeli newspaper headline “The Progressive World mourns the death of Stalin” (Al Hamishmar was the very extreme)
This all seems very irrational.
Well, maybe those practical Chinese who are the “factory to the world” – maybe they are sane?  Not really.  They increased their total debt by 21 trillion dollars in the 7 years before 2014.  (The U.S. increased it own debt by 7 trillion dollars).  Elected governments all over the world who were in debt decided to solve their problems by getting into bigger debt (see “The Committee to Destroy the World” by Michael Lewitt (2016))
My family is conservative fiscally and politically.  Both parents have PhD’s,
and they are fairly practical people.  So they don’t fall for the above type of craziness.  Unfortunately, they didn’t fall for my type of craziness either, and they should have.  Let me tell you the story:
I claimed this:
For the past 32 years, a movie of “regrettable” behavior from my past has been loose across the land, and in other countries.
I was put in a mental hospital for believing that sentence.
I spent 2 months in a locked ward in this hospital
Arguments I heard from my family were
  1. If there was a movie, we would have heard of it. The truth always comes out eventually.
  2. If there was a movie, it would be in the newspapers
  3. No behavior of yours, not matter how disgusting, would interest people.  They have their own problems.
  4. There are various famous actresses who have movies loose that they wish were not loose.  That may interest voyeurs.  But you?  Forget it.
After ten years of the movie, there was a new development. For the next 22 years, I told my family that my house, and later, when I moved in with them, their house, was entered on a daily basis by bad guys.  I said they had gasses that put people into sexual frenzies, that they have gasses that put people to sleep, and more.  I even said I heard them talking once or twice.
When I told a policeman that I had heard two men talking to each other in my house, he said “Ah, hearing voices!”

Counter-arguments I heard from my family were:

  1. If someone wants to get you, they will beat you up, or kill you – they will not enter your house on a daily basis to watch you, or to use drugs on you.
  2. Nobody has any motivation to bother you.  You are an insignificant failure at life, with obvious mental issues, and nobody cares about you, except your family.
  3. Entering our house would be a risk.  Nobody would keep taking that risk.
  4. You say you have loads of subjective evidence – vast numbers of experiences pointing to this “conspiracy” by this widespread criminal/ideological organization – an organization that includes people of all ages, races, etc.  But subjective evidence is worthless.
The interesting point here is that once a parent, or mental health professional decides that something is impossible, no amount of “subjective” experiences can budge them.
For instance, my subjective experience has had me hear quotes such as:
We will annihilate you” (from a black youth accompanied by another black youth)
You will end up in a hospital” (from a black youth accompanied by two white youths)
We’re going to f*** you, you f*** (inaudible)” (from a white guy with curly black hair in a van)
You’re so GAY” (from another guy in  a van as I bicycled around Greenwood Lake)
faggot” (I’m not gay)
Swine” (OK, I was a swine for a while)
I’ve been drugged and sexually assaulted at least three times that I know of, perhaps I am unaware of other attacks.
My father’s spine is damaged, my mother has to sleep large parts of the day, her back is damaged, I have a “compression area” in my spine, I have a damaged arch in my foot, both heels of my feet fell as if some destructive substance was injected into them.
I believe that this Mafia has drugs that can be sprayed at people to put people into a daze, so that their possessions can be stolen, or their computers and homes and offices invaded.  I believe that this Mafia has drugs that affect the sex drive.  They have poisons that damage the heart.  I believe that they have other drugs, perhaps even drugs that affect suggestibility.
I believe that they can get control with this type of technology – or at least shift things further to whatever agendas they have.
So am I crazy?
Or is society?  I have yet to see a policeman talk to me for more than five or ten minutes about this.   I have yet to see anyone test any of my assertions.
When you talk to a crazy person, and raise an objection, that person might react by making his worldview even crazier. For instance, if he believes that aliens from outer space have taken over the minds of his friends, and you explain to him that you are a friend and obviously no alien has taken over you, he might decide that – indeed they have taken over you.
Another aspect of craziness is that it is not falsifiable. How do you prove to this person that his friends have not been taken over by aliens?
So let us look at my beliefs with these two criteria.
Are my beliefs falsifiable? Obviously not. How can you prove, for example that there is no “movie”?
As far as coming up with wild explanations – well yes, if I drink a half open bottle of water in my refrigerator and get hit by the most intense sex urges that have ever hit anyone in the history of man, then I’m going to come to the reasonable conclusion that someone put a drug in that water, and when I speculate to make sense of it, there is no avoiding radical speculations.
So I fit both criteria.
And then there is the question of alternate explanations. I mentioned my parents both have bad backs. Well, so do many old people. I mentioned my mother has to sleep for hours every day. Well, that happens to some extent to some old people. So what is the big deal?
And as far as drinking that water – maybe I just had a coincidental hallucination that conveniently happened right after I drank it?   My brother even suggested I was a lonely middle aged male and that was the problem.
These arguments work both ways, however.  For instance:
If we talk about falsifiability – when you believe someone is crazy, can that belief itself be falsified?
In some cases it can be. During the holocaust. for example, some Jews found out that the witness who warned them of the danger was actually not crazy after all. It was too late for them when they found out, of course.  One survivor tells us of such a witness in the book “All Rivers Run to the Sea“.
In other cases, it might not be falsifiable, in practice. The truth does not always come out, and when it does, it does not always come out to everyone.
Also there is the idea that you reach wilder and wilder explanations to maintain your worldview. I have reported so many detailed experiences that point all to the same conclusion, and every single one becomes proof that I must be hallucinating right and left and center.
The fact that the experiences point in the same direction are explained away as my “experiencing what I expect to experience”.
The fact that my family has never seen me hallucinate is explained away as “the insanity is compartmentalized.”
So my family also has to dispose of many inconvenient experiences (of mine) to maintain the illusion that all is OK, except for a son who has a compartmentalized lunacy..
I have to admit that I’ve been wrong about quite a few issues in my life, before and after the onset of these “experiences”. And once anyone is in a situation like this, a part of his brain always wants to know what it can’t know. When any ambiguous situation comes up you want to be prepared for the worst case scenario. And so I jump to conclusions. Usually I realize I’m jumping to conclusions, and sometimes I can test whether I am jumping to conclusions. When I’m drifting off to sleep, my critical faculties seem to turn off, so I talk aloud as if I know things that I do not. I talk aloud because I assume that either there is a hidden microphone in my room, or the bad guys are nearby, or just because thinking is easier when talking aloud.
It can be quite embarrassing when I’m overheard.  Not as embarrassing as finding out about the movie, of course..I have no doubt that even making allowances for all of this, that there is plenty of unpleasant truth remaining. The question I started this post with was, “are we all crazy?”. If I’m not crazy, obviously to most people a debatable proposition, then this Mafia is somewhat crazy.I am told that all criminals are interested in is money. They would never be interested in me. But one conclusion I’ve drawn from years of reading books for this blog is that many people have strange motivations that a naïve view would not expect them to have.  In many people there is a totalitarian, or at least a busybody, screaming to get out.

I can speculate all I want to – that perhaps the Mafia is worried I would give away some information – but then a reasonable rejoinder is — then why do they allow me to post this blog? Or I could speculate they just enjoy persecuting people, or I’m an opportunity to study their drugs in action, or, as I have seen personally, there is a big animus, a belief, as one of them (a middle-aged female) said that “he must be kept DOWN”, and more. But it is all speculation. And that is an important final point. We have to be able to tolerate some ambiguity, and ignorance. I may never know more than what I know now.

One way to look at this is that–by being so abnormally weird and sickening for a fairly small part of my life, I became a magnet for attack by elements in society who normally want to stay below the radar. In the process, they stuck their heads above the radar.  This should have been a great opportunity for law enforcement.  But you have to look at the radar screen to begin with to see the signal.

If I’m right, then we all have a big problem.

Remember, a teen aged thug with a gun beats a middle aged doctor with an MD-PhD every time.

A Mafia with new types of drugs that can be unobtrusively sprayed out of cars, out of hollowed-out smart-phones, that can be smeared on door knobs, that can be inhaled when you get into your car etc is going to go to the races and win.  The rest of us are going to lose.

Of course I don’t believe the skeptics in my case are crazy.  But I do believe they depart from reality.