"China quietly saved the world last month" | Max Fisher

The above vid dropped before the most recent increased hostilities. And the recent spike over $100 a barrel. It's had 3 million views to date. 

But still, it's a fascinating outline of what's going on in the international oil market, and likely reasons. 

Max Fisher, the presenter, now makes his living off The Bigger Picture, an Explainer-type vid. He's ex The New York Times, The Atlantic and the Washington Post, so you can make your own judgements of his priors.

I will say however, the above presentation comes across as based and neutral, even to me, a man of a certain bias. 

I asked Grok to do a summary of Max's vid: 

The Zombie Apocalypse: Communism Redux (or.. What Paul Krugman DIDN'T say)

I recall an Oxford Union talk, in 2020, with the guest American Nobel laureate in Economics, professor Paul Krugman. He of a weekly New York Times column. He, a beloved man of the liberal-progressive Left. Oft-quoted in the uber-liberal academic blog "Crooked Timber".  

Krugman talks of "Zombie ideas". Which, he claims, are very severe on the Right, in the Republican party. But not in the Democratic Party: "...all important Zombies are on the Right because that's where the money is."

The Zombie idea on the Right that most got on his goat is "the trickle down theory", described in his talk as "cutting taxes for the wealthy". Which Krugman claimed had been debunked over and over, yet kept reappearing, he said, like a shambling Zombie. 

The trickle down theory, aka "tax cuts for the rich", and whether or not it's a "Zombie idea" is for another time. But no "important" Zombie ideas on the Left?

Well, I thought. Paul K may not recognise any "Zombie ideas" on the Left, but I sure do. What about the idea of Socialism for a start? 

Socialism, no matter what form ("nice" Democratic-Socialism, or not-so-nice Authoritarian-Communism), has been tried again and again. Again and again it's failed. Yet again and again it rises. How it this not seen as the monster "Zombie idea" of the Left? The OG of Zombie ideas. Answer: because it's actually believed. The Left genuinely believes -- at least I believe they believe --  that Socialism holds the promise of equality and justice for all. 

And for that reason will do "Whatever it takes" to bring it about. 

The fact that it's not succeeded a anywhere it's been tried? The Left's answer: it's never been tried properly. (!)

The Soviet Union, China, East Germany, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Venezuela, Cuba, dozens of African countries... all these don't count as "trying properly"?? Well, I'd call BS on that. But if you still don't accept that, and you still say "it's not been tried properly" there's no falsifying your view. It is inarguable. 

In which case, the Zombies have won. At least on the Left. The Zombie idea of Socialism has won. 

What then of an idea that's a bad idea, that's been killed off but rises from the dead, like the Zombies, yet still captures the attention of all of academia and swathes of the political Left? What of that? 

Well... we might have to admit that the Zombies have won! 

And what is it when the Zombies have won?  I asked AI and the answer is: Zombie Apocalypse. That's what the Zombies winning is called. 

We've now a Zombie Apocalypse in the west. 

An old idea. A horrid idea. An idea that impoverishes humankind. Has nonetheless won. 

Well done, Left! You've won. 

The saddest thing, for me is: I've no longer any hope that in winning "the Left will find out". That the Left will see failure and impoverishment. That they will learn from that. No. The Left has learned nothing of the many previous failures. There's no reason to believe that they'll learn from yet another failure. 

Yet now, this Zombie idea, this Zombie Apocalypse, infects not a poor, agrarian post-Tsarist Russia, not a poor agrerian post-imperial China, but the United States. The Anglosphere. The West. The inheritors of the Enlightenment. The vanguard of modernity.

If I'm right that socialism is a very bad idea, that it impoverishes countries it infects, then this Zombie Apocalypse is very bad news indeed. 

Yet Paul Krugman, guest at Oxford University, did not talk about this major Zombie idea of the Left. Nor did Oxford Union ask him. 

Gloom.

ADDED: re-watching the Krugman talk at Oxford U, I notice in particular that what he does, well enough to fool his audience, is to create one Straw Man after another. And then to rebut the Straw Men. I'll leave that here for now, just to note: see if you can spot the Straw Men!

Below is an article by Brivael Le Pogam, from the French, describing how Marxism was re-purposed by the French and German Schools, and injected into western academia, for ingestion by society. Which is where we are today. It's a good article. Spot on, as far as I know the facts. 

Which are handily summarised in Christopher Rufo's book "America's Cultural Revolution". 

Silence of the Dogs

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times puts his name to a Hamas-sourced alllegation abkit mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners in Israel. Including alleged rape by dogs. 

Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz discusses with JNS podcast.

Timed to cover and overwhelm a much more soundly sourced and exhaustive report on the October 7th invasion, mass murder, mass raps, mass tortures. Canine Complicity by silencing the real crimes. 

The New York Times has a long anti Israel and anti Jew history. There’s books about it. I’ve read a couple. The most recent and most authoritative being Bad News by Batya Ungar-Sargon. 

This way lie Dragons, Demons and Hell: the Murderous Lunacy on the Left | Briget Phetasy

 

If we celebrate killing people more people will be killed. If you make it heroic, the guillotines will be set up in town squares. 

I remember when the disgruntled insuree, Luigi Mangioni, killed Brian Thompson in cold blood, on the streets of New York. He was cranky that a claim for medical reimbursement had been denies by his insurer, whose boss was said Mr Thompson. 

I remember reading about this, and assuming that Mangioni would be severely criticised. That it's be something like "you may have your issues with the insurer, but killing the CEO is not the way to resolve them". Or something. 

But, nothing like it. The left immediately was on Mangioni's side and said that the killing was "understandable" and "justified". 

Famous people agreed. I remember, to my horror, seeing comedian Bill Burr on Colbert throwing up a peace sign and shouting "Free Mangioni". To cheers from the audience. 

Then came the killing of Charlie Kirk. Again, I assumed that this would be called out. Nothing like it. At least from the Left. Who could not stop themselves from celebrating. 

Donald Trump was nearly killed by an assassin. The Left was only disappointed tht the bullet was just a shade too far to the left, that it missed his brain. 

All of this is shocking. Though now, months later, I'm no longer shocked. Just depressed and horrified at where the Left in the United States has got to. 

That promoting, that celebrating, that enabling, that encouraging, violence for political ends, is not just fine, but noble and heroic. 

That way lies Hell. I've seen it in China. I've read about it in Soviet Russia. In North Korea. In Vietnam. 

Yet here we are in today's America, with the New York Times giving a fawning interview to a Merchant of Death, the radical Marxist Thug, Hasan Piker. 

Briget Phetasy is sound, common sensical. As is Mike Solana of Private Wires.   

Iran Crumbles...

 

... and it's good news for the West. 

I am most certainly aware that that's not the view of the legacy media. That they're taking every opportunity to big up any perceived negatives against America; and to diminish any of the achievement of Operation Epic Fury. 

I find it disgusting that the European West, the American media, the media in Australia, the UK, the EU, can be against winning a defensive war on Iran -- defence against a burgeoning Islamist caliphate -- because they don't like the man waging it. 

I'm fully on side with winning this war. I know that America and Israel are trouncing Iran. But also that Iran's is not a finished regime. And that the main battle now is against the headwinds from the West itself. Weird and disturbing. And should not be so. 

Shame on pusillanimous leaders like France's Macron, Britain's Starmer, Italy's Meloni, Germany's Mertz and the Spanish socialist shill whose name I can't be bothered to remember. But who seems happy to have the Modern Moors reconquist Andalusia. Which, bottom line, is what this war is all about. Pushing back Islamist Jihadi attacks, of which Iran, its Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, are just the tip of the spear. 

Is that too tough to read? Too difficult to acknowledge? So be it. 

00:00 Long View on Iran War 03:02 Iran Weakened Militarily 04:24 Winners and Losers Russia Gulf 06:22 Global Fallout China Europe NATO 09:16 US Outlook and Conclusion

Victor Davis Hanson is an American classicist, military historian, and political commentator. He has been a commentator on modern and ancient warfare and contemporary politics for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Washington Times, and other media outlets.

Things you won't see in the news: 12 Muslim nations denounce Iran

The Ministers in Riyadh. Pic from the World Socialists 
 site, who are very angry at the Ministers! 🤣

How about this? 

On March 18, 2026, foreign ministers and top diplomats from 12 Arab and Islamic countries met in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for a consultative ministerial meeting where they issued a joint statement strongly denouncing Iran for its recent military actions. They're calling it the "Riyadh Statement". 

The countries: 

• Azerbaijan
• Bahrain
• Egypt
• Jordan
• Kuwait
• Lebanon
• Pakistan
• Qatar
• Saudi Arabia
   (Host)
• Syria
• Türkiye
• United Arab Emirates

Never before today, never before the current situation in the Middle East, have we seen such unity amongst Arab and other Muslim states. Denouncing a rogue, terrorist Muslim state. 

Muslim states denouncing Iran. Now, who does NOT denounce Iran and its fanatical terrorists?

1. The mainstream media, all the usual suspects: the BBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times. And all the rest. They don't even acknowledge the Riyadh Statement! 

2. All of leftie Europe and the U.K. They do not denounce the Iranian regime. My own Australia is pretty limp as well. The PM, Anthony Albanese is in hock to the Muslim vote. 

3. And the Democratic Party is actively hoping for an Iran win, because otherwise, Orange Man Bad would have a win. Can't have that.

Isn't that somehow disgusting? 

That the most involved states in the region reach unprecedented unity in denouncing this horrid extremist Shi'a Iranian regime. But no one on the Left in the west can bring themselves to wish for a US and Israel victory, so much do they hate Donald Trump. 

A US-led victory, should it happen, will be a victory for the West. Also a beginning of real peace in the Middle East. For if Saudi Arabia joins the Abraham Accords, the wars against Israel will cease. 

"Where's the Truth?": a case study from New York

 

It keeps coming up at our gatherings. "What's the truth?", and "where can you find it?".

My answer is always: you have to read around a subject. Read Left, Right and Middle. Imagine the Venn diagram of those three, and the middle bit is going to be the Truth or thereabouts. 

A simple way of saying this: In America, read the New York Times and the New York Post. Watch CNN and Fox. In the U.K. read the Guardian and the Telegraph. Watch BBC and GB News. In Australia read the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian. Watch the ABC and Sky News Australia. 

If you're really obsessed, get Ground News, a news aggregation site, for a collection of news from all perspectives. 

The latest "What's the Truth?"  brouhaha is about the recent bombing attacks at the NYC Mayor's Residence, Gracie Mansion. 

This is "The Truth", as far as an reasonable person would agree: 

1. There was a demonstration outside the mansion, to "Stop the Islamic takeover of New York". This demonstration was perfectly legal under the 1st Amendment free speech clauses of the United States. 

The reason for the anti-islamification theme is that the current mayor, Zohran Mamdani is a Muslim. And a pretty radical one at that. 

2. There was a counter protest against those protesting against Mayor Mamdani. This too was perfectly legal. 

3. Suddenly two teenagers threw Improvised Explosive Devices, IEDs, at the first group. The IEDs didn't go off. But if they had people on all sides would have been killed or wounded. 

The two teenagers have been arrested. They have admitted they are ISIS members. Which is why they bombed the anti-Islam protesters. 

That's the truth of what happened. The Important Truth. Not yet the Full Truth, but enough to know, that's the Important Truth. 

Now, here's the thing.

The reporting on CNN and also in the New York Times, made it seem like the bombing was from the anti-Islam protesters, in Group 1, and that they were targeting Mamdani. This is the opposite of the truth.

The reporting on this issue from the Right, from the likes of Fox and Sky News Australia, plus a myriad YouTube sites was far more on point, far more truthful, far more correct and far more honest than any of the reporting on the Left. 

That's the TRUTH, right there. 

If you only follow the likes of CNN, you don't know the correct story. If you only follow the likes of Fox, you know the story. At the very least: You're much closer to The Truth by watching the horrid, "far-right" Fox, than you are  from watching the supposed purveyor of truth, CNN. 

I've thought that I might look at the media over the period of Trump 45, from 2016 to 2020. I would guess that, objectively, if you were after getting at what the Truth is, you'd have been better off with Fox than CNN during that time. Not that I'm saying that right now, I'm just thinking that. And also thinking that, of course, it's always better to go for both. Watch both. Read on both sides. 

But the concept that -- if you had to choose one cable channel -- it might be Fox that is the better source of *FACTS*, would be total anathema to those on the Left. 

But it might be true nonetheless. 

The recent NYC terrorist bombing incident is just the most egregious of recent failures of the media on the Left to report the news. The TRUTH. 

ADDED: CNN’s Abby Phillip’s on-air apology.

No, the war in Iran is NOT “illegal” | Natasha Hausdorff

 

Natasha Hausdorff, expert in International law, explains why the current et attacks on the Iranian regime are entirely lawful according to international law.

Of course we’re all instant experts these days. Me, if it’s a choice between believing a random Tik Tok post or an actual, real, expert, like Natasha, then I’m going to go with Natasha. If it’s a choice of Jane Fonda or Natasha Hausdorff then it’s Natasha every time! 

We must remember: this was NOT America declaring war against Iran. Iran declared war against America and the west since 1979. For nearly fifty years Iran has been attacking and killing westerners, including thousands of Americans. 

It’s not an attack. Its defence against ongoing attacks .

ADDED: critics will say "oh, she's just a shill for Israel", or some such. To which I' say, if you disagree with her, if you don't like the points she makes, you have to come up with some refutation. So far, on the Left, all I've heard is the bleating "this was is illegal". In not a single case have I heard anyone make the case "WHY". 

Iran war: SIX possible outcomes | Michael Doran and Gadi Taub

 

Gadi Taub sets out 6 possibilities:

1. No real change. 

2. False Reform of the regime 

3. Real Reform of the regime 

4. Regime change 

5. Quagmire. Afghanistan or Vietnam redux 

6. Occupation: South Korea redux 

Gadi describes the options starting at 21:00. 

Michael Doran gives some interesting takes and counters after that. He does not see any role for the Pahlavi family, the last Shah’s son in particular. 

He describes the massive fortified tunnels through Iran — underground two-lane highways— that will make it difficult to impossible to completely degrade.

Michael and Gadi describe themselves as “classical liberals”. Wikipedia describes them, of course, as “right wing”. 

If you want the views of the Left then go to any of the mainstream media, like CNN, BBC, MSNBC, New York Times, Haaretz. Bearing in mind that in all cases their views and analyses will be coloured by self-admitted TDS. Eg: “chaos and uncertainty” from the Guardian and the NYT. 

Though some Left wing media have been forced to recognise huge Iranian  diaspora support for the attacks.

"My best of 72 sit downs in 2025" | Dave Rubin

Dave Rubin is a ex Leftie. Now a self-described "classical liberal". AKA, kind of middlish slightly Right. So, he platforms mostly conservative voices. 

But that’s OK. 

Because the mainstream media, aka the “legacy media”, are all on the Left. We know their views. They surround us. They are the water in which we swim. The likes of CNN, MSNBC, abc, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post…. In Britain, the BBC. In Australia, the ABC. These are the media that tell us ever day what the view of the Left is. 

Above video: Dave showing us some of his best interviews of 2025.

The new Middle East | Dan Schueftan

Broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti speaks to professor Dan Schueftan.

I’ve posted Dan Schueftan before. 

Many will find him too… Right Wing. I’d rather call him Sound. Robust. Based. 

Some of his points:

In the Middle East you have to be strong. And you have to show your strength. If you are weak and seen to be weak you risk attack. Israel has shown its strength since October 7. It has come out of two + years of war much stronger. 

If someone is not afraid of you, you have to be afraid of them. You can’t appease. 

Israel has come out of this latest war much stronger. It has weakened Iran and all its proxies. Weakened Syrian Jihadist forces. 

 Arab countries support Israel because they’re decimating their strongest enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood. But publicly they have to diss on Israel because that’s what the Arab Street expects. 

“I don’t like the Jews or Jewish society — too noisy, too messy. But I Love them.” 

Meantime western countries like Britain, the EU, Australia and even the U.S. allow the Muslim Brotherhood free rein, with its dozens of allied bodies. Which Arab countries do not allow. They ban the Brotherhood. They tell us we must do the same. We ignore them. Because we are smarter! We know more than all these Muslim states.... Right. 

From the Show Notes:

Condemned by mobs on the streets of the West, denounced by governments across Europe and beyond, and vilified by the United Nations and its satellite institutions, Israel might nevertheless be in a stronger strategic position than at any point in its history.
 
Two years after October 7th, Israel’s international standing has deteriorated even as its regional power has expanded. What appears in Western capitals as isolation and moral failure is understood very differently in the Middle East, where strength is measured not by approval but by the capacity to act, to endure condemnation, and to defeat enemies who interpret restraint as weakness.

This discussion moves beyond the battlefield to examine why Europe has drifted from strategic thinking into ideological paralysis, why progressive politics treats self defence as a moral failure, and why Israel’s greatest strength lies not in its political leadership but in a society willing to fight, endure and rebuild without illusions.

👁‍🗨 Watch if you want to understand why Israel’s unpopularity in the West has coincided with a historic consolidation of power in the Middle East, and what that reveals about the condition of Western opinion.

Black voters desert the Democratic Party

 

I don't know who Doc Rich is, but I've followed him for some years and he's got 1.8 m subscribers which makes him a major influencer on the Black Conservative side. 

People who are in the Democratic Party and then leave, are those that have been surrounded by the Democrat atmosphere: CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post. All that media, all on the Left, plus all of academia, on the Left. So, to get to leave, it's got to be because you know all that, all the Dem talking points, all its philosophies, all its views, all its talking points, but you see the Other Side, which takes some effort, yet you find it more congenial. 

I respenct these people because they have used their own minds. To come to a conclusion that makes more logic than simply going along with the Common Narrative. 

China: Past, Present and Future

Click above for the link to the radio pod

I knew Linda Jaivin, one of the writers featured in "China: Past, Present, Future", the radio podcast on Australia's ABC. We met in Beijing in 1976. She married one of my classmates, the China scholar Geremie Barmé. Though they've since separated, I believe, and he lives somewhere in the wilds of New Zealand. Though none of this is mentioned in the Wiki-entry. 

This is a really good talk, from people that really know China. I've been with Chinna and about China since 1976, still live in the Hong Kong part of China, but I  still learned stuff. Not that I agreed with every single thing, mind. But still, very good, and some wonderful insights. 

From the show notes: 

To deal with China as a major trading partner, and also a national security threat requires understanding the history that made China what it is today. 

That history is shaped by resistance and different waves of uprising. How have governments dealt with these movements? How do they influence politics today?

China: Past, Present, Future was recorded live at the 2025 Sydney Writers' Festival.

Listen to Big Ideas — Behrouz Boochani and Arnold Zable: The language of resistance

Speakers

Linda Jaivin
Australian author, cultural commentator, essayist and translator
Author of Bombard the Headquarters! China's Cultural Revolution

Louisa Lim
Award-winning journalist who reported from China for a decade for NPR and the BBC
Author of Indelible City: Dispossession and Defiance in Hong Kong

Edward Wong
American journalist and diplomatic correspondent for The New York Times
Author of At the Edge of Empire: A Family's Reckoning with China

Peter Hartcher (host)
Australian journalist and the Political and International Editor of The Sydney Morning Herald
Author of Red Zone: China's Challenge and Australia's Future.

Democrats say "Democracy is Under Attack". It is. But by whom?

Democrats say "Democracy is Under Attack". It is. But not by the Republicans. But by themselves. 

Consider this headline: 

And this: 

In The New York Times no less. The Grey Lady. The "Paper of Record".  

Calling in short for the upending and the destruction of the Constitution: "Abolish the Senate. ... Pack the Court."

And calling for the military to commit treason against the elected president of the United States who is their Commander-in-Chief. "We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong."

Meantime, I've heard that Karen Bass, that incompetent Mayor of LA -- who was swanning about in Ghana when the fierce firestorms hit her city, killed dozens and destroyed thousands of homes -- Karen Bass says she "will not abide by a Supreme Court decision" that confirms that ICE the power to enter LA in search of criminal illegal immigrants. 

Yet it's the Democrats who moan about Republicans being the threat to Democracy?!  Look in the mirror, Dear Dems. 

Sigh....

"The right dominates the online media ecosystem" | Media Matters

This news is not really news, but olds. It's from March this year, but I've only just learned of it. 

Media Matters who did the study is a very left of centre outfit. 

I did not know, and would not have guessed that the Right dominates on the Social Media platforms. But so it seems. Whereas in the past, influential Legacy Media -- the CNNs, the MSNBCs, the New York Times, the Washington Posts -- the leaning is very much to the Left. 

/Snip:

As Americans increasingly get their news from online shows and streamers, the influence of this media ecosystem becomes more prominent — and Media Matters has found that the most popular of this content is overwhelmingly right-leaning.

In a new study, Media Matters assessed the audience size of popular online shows — podcasts, streams, and other long-form audio and video content regularly posted online. To do so, we gathered data on the number of followers, subscribers, and views across streaming platforms (YouTube, Spotify, Rumble, Twitch, and Kick) and social media platforms that are used to amplify and promote these shows (Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok). Apple Podcasts does not publicly provide follower counts on its platform, so it was not included in the audience data.

This analysis was based on 320 online shows with a right-leaning or left-leaning ideological bent. We found that right-leaning online shows dominate the ecosystem, with substantially larger audiences on both politics/news shows and supposedly nonpolitical shows that we determined often platformed ideological content or guests. Read on... 

Putting below for reference a chart of the ideological leaning of various media. I think they all ought to be shifted left a bit (eg, I don't know too many who'd agree BBC is "Center"), but it's good enough for a relative positioning:

Absolutism vs nuance in Middle East

	Dumisani Washington ⁦‪@DumisaniTemsgen‬⁩ When they're attacking Israel, everything is absolute — no room for discussion, nuance, or context. It's simply the Joos! But when you bring up the fact that Arab Muslims have been enslaving and slaughtering Africans for 1400 years, then we need to understand context, nuance,   6/8/2025, 8:29 pm

Also, when looking for information about what's happening in the Gaza war:

A. When information comes from the Israeli Defence Forces, it is to be doubted, by default, until and unless it can be unimpeachably verified, by at least several sources. 

B. When the information comes from Hamas, or any of its surrogates, like the Hamas Ministry of Health, or the UNRWA, it is to be accepted, by default, unless there is immediate, clear and unambiguous debunking of the claim. Even then, even if it is debunked, the debunking will be reported at the bottom of page 57. 

Re "B" above, the most recent and egregious example of this was the photo on the front page of the New York Times. A Gazan woman is holding a severely malnourished infant in her arms, just skin and bones. The story was that this child was starving to death in his mother's arms because Israel was withholding food.

It turned out that this was a photo of a boy who was suffering from a birth defect of severe, and incurable, Muscular Dystrophy. His younger brother, who had been cropped from the photo, was in perfectly good shape, when the full photo was revealed. The New York Times had carried the photo on its main digital page, "The New York Times dot com", with its 55 Million subscribers. 

When the NYT were forced to retract the photo, they did so on their "NYT PR" page, which has 55 thousand subscribers. IOW, only 0.1% of the readers of the original, and horrific photo, would have seen the retraction. Of course, the NYT can say "we retracted the photo as soon as we knew it was fake". 

What the NYT did NOT do -- nor did the many western media outlets that also carried the photo -- was to try to verify the photo before publishing. They didn't do so because it had come from Hamas, and ... see "B" above. 

Lies about Israel

 In One Click. Then Click on the EYE icon, to read the article:

Then they're in order and all in one place. Or see below *

Oh, and the New York Times -- finally! -- admits that Israel is NOT a genocide in Gaza! 

Bret Stephens in The. New. York. Times. I stress this coz the "Grey Lady" does not much like Israel. Or even Jews, going right back to WW2.

Of course the backlash is brutal. If you're going to hate on Israel, facts don't matter. Your feelings don't care about the truth. Still. A feature article. It's behind a paywall but I found a free version below

Link here to a reprint of the paywalled NYT article. 

=========================

* Listed here:

Lie #1:  "Israel is a colonial, Imperialist State"

Lie #2:  “Israel Denied Statehood to the Palestinian People”

Lie #3:  "Israel caused the refugee problem of the Palestinians"

Lie #4:   "Israel is an apartheid state"

Lie #5:   “Israel is Guilty of Genocide and War Crimes”

Lie #6:   "Israel is engaging in forced starvation"

Lie #7:   "Israel Engages Illegal Occupation of Palestinian Territory"

Lie #8:   "Israel's Illegal Settlements in the West Bank Are aa Barrier to Peace"

Lie #9:   "Israel is Preventing a Two-State Solution"

Lie #10:  "Iran is not a barrier to peace"

Goals vs Systems: Dreaming vs Doing

There’s a big difference between Goals and Systems.

Not that there’s anything wrong with having a goal. But it does become an obstacle to reaching itself, if it’s just “A Goal”, a bright glittery object. With a capital "G". 

Here’s an example of the difference at its starkest.

Let's say the goal is: “Affordable Housing for all”.

The Goal-oriented folks (capital "G") will march on the streets. They'll wave placards plastered with the Goal “Affordable Housing for all”, “We Demand Affordable Housing”, “Affordable Housing is Housing Justice”. 

They will set up a Petition on Move.org, demanding Affordable Housing for all. 

They will give fiery speeches in Congress, write op-Ed’s in the New York Times. You get the picture. 

And the picture is that after a year or two of this, they will still have the "Goal", capital "G", but nothing will have changed and no progress will have been made to the goal (lower case "g"). 

Systems-oriented folks on the other hand, do have the same goal -- Affordable Housing -- but they break it down into Systems.

So, for Affordable Housing they’d go:

1. How much Affordable Housing do we have now?
2. How much do we need?
3. What resources do we need to get from (1) to (2)? Lumber, cement, steel, people. 
4. Where will the finance come from?
5. What regulations stand in our way and what can we do about them?
6. What manpower do we need to reach the goal?
7. Where will that manpower come from?
8. How do we increase it?
9. How do we get the public behind our effort?
10. How do we measure and report our performance?

Again, you get the picture. One side has a Goal with upper case "G" and much huffing and puffing. 

Another side has a goal in lower case, with the Systems, capital “S” -- the more important part of reaching that very same goal.

One side Dreams. The other side Does.

California is a classic case of a state run by Goal-oriented people. What a place like California needs is some Systems-oriented people to actually make some progress toward those goals. 

But it doesn't happen. In city after city and state after state, we see places run by Goal-oriented Dreamers, and the people keep voting in the Dreamers back in! Rather than the Doers. Sad, really. To me, anyways, as I watch previously great American cities fall into despair and disrepair. 

Here Endeth the Lesson. (Which lesson is: vote for Doers, not Dreamers). 

For heaven’s sake don’t watch that conservative media crap! You’ll get infected!

 Here’s a thing.

I’ve read the Koran, but I’m not a Muslim. I’ve read the Bible, but I’m not a Christian. I’ve read Marx, but I’m not a Marxist. I've read Mao (including in the original Chinese) but I'm not a Maoist. I’ve read Freud, but I’m not a Freudian. I’ve read the Bhagavad Gita but I’m not a Hindu. I’ve even read The Book of Mormon, and I’m most assuredly not a Mormon.

I watch CNN and BBC, but I’m not a liberal*. I watch MSNBC but I’m not a “progressive”…

But, heaven forfend, if I say I’ve watched Fox, the reaction from liberals!

Liberal: “My god, you actually watch Fox! No wonder you’re such a far-right nutter!”

Me: “but I also watch CNN, BBC and ABC.”

Liberal: “Yeah, but you watch Fox! No wonder your views”.

Me: “Have you ever watched Fox?”

Liberal: “No, never. It’s a terrible channel!”

As they say: “make it make sense”

“Fox” here stands for any conservative Podcast as well. Apparently I’m fine if I watch “The Daily” pod, by the New York Times, or The Breakfast Club by Charlemagne Tha God, but if I watch Megyn Kelly, or The Ruthless podcast, I’m going to swallow and regurgitate all sorts of misinformation. Can’t be helped. 

* [Using “liberal” in the American sense, not the U.K., or Australian]

The Democrats’ 10-point Agenda | Victor Davis Hanson

Click above for the video 

Brilliant summary from this famous historian. 

Is there anything to question or doubt in his 10 points when we look at— as I do, every single day — the media on the Left, MSNBC, CNN, CBC, ABC, The New York Times, WaPo? There is not. 

The anchors like Abby Phillip, Dana Bash, Rachel Maddow, Whoopi Goldberg and her cronies on The View, all follow the professor Hanson-identified Democrats’ playbook.

To a T. Though he may have missed specific mention of Lawfare V2.0. 

Thank you Victor! 

ADDED: Not that it helps much, TBF. I still feel depressed about what’s going on in America. It’s dangerous, deranged, quasi-suicidal.

Consider this: the likes of late-night slimeball Jimmy Kimmel, who once identified as a comedian, urges his audience to vandalise and torch Teslas, to laughter and cheering from the crowd. WTF??

00:00 Introduction and Apology 01:11 Thematic Points of the Democratic Agenda 01:20 Opposition to Trump and Musk 02:19 Immigration and Open Borders 03:03 Support for Palestine Over Israel 03:48 Federal Government and Deficit 04:25 Aid to Ukraine 05:12 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion 05:49 Radical Opposition Tactics 07:42 Conclusion and Closing Remarks