In a zero-sum system, one man's dark sky can be another
man's silver lining, and vice versa. In a winner-take-all system, the loser
dies a sudden death. In a system that's equitable, everyone gets a piece of the
pie commensurate with the effort they put into the shared enterprise and the
nature of their contribution.
When civilized people sit down to negotiate over an issue,
they have equity on their mind. What they do, therefore, is seek to apportion
the duties and rewards that each participant will receive for an enterprise
they plan to undertake jointly. In the event that they have already
participated in an enterprise that took place without prior agreement, they
negotiate to distribute as equitably as possible the gains and the pains that
came of it.
This system has worked so well for humanity through the
ages, we were able to go from the Stone Age to the Space Age in less than
10,000 years or a mere 400 generations. But this does not mean that all human
beings were in harmony with each other all the time. On the contrary, our
ascent to civilization was paved with all sorts of conflicts, many of which
were so savage; we behaved at levels below those of wild animals.
Unfortunately, we have not completely freed ourselves of
such tendencies. There are people among us who continue to believe in the Nazi
creed that war – and all that comes with it – is the highest form of civilized
conduct. At no time do you hear them counsel that “the other” may deserve to be
treated well, or be spared. That's because these people are permanently seized
with the idea that every conflict must be intensified till one side undergoes
sudden death.
An example of how these people go about expressing
themselves on such matters has come under the title: “Kerry's Syria Offer” and
the subtitle: “The Secretary of State has a new sweetener for Vladimir Putin,”
a piece that was written by the editors of the Wall Street Journal and
published in their paper on July 16, 2016.
The editors tell the story of John Kerry's trip to Moscow where he presented the Russians with a proposal to
end the 5-year old civil war in Syria .
And right away – before anything else – the editors offered an opinionated
piece of speculation that sounds more like a wish than a well reasoned out
theory. Here it is: “Too bad another bad deal with Russia isn't likely to achieve that
goal”.
These people wish to see the political if not the real
sudden death of Syria 's
President Bashar Assad. It is an old wish that remains the driving force behind
everything they say and do. They show this tendency in the editorial despite
the effort they make to appear like they softened their stance in that matter.
Having rejected Kerry's initiative offhand, they go on to
describe how he and the Russians may conduct negotiations over his proposal.
They reveal that in the short term, America
wants Assad's air force grounded in return for cooperating with Russia in the
field of intelligence. In the long term, America wants Assad out of power.
The editors call this a reasonable bargain, but shoot it down immediately, the
way that Jews always do these things. Here it is: “...if only Putin had any
record of abiding by previous commitments”.
This behavior points to the fact that Jews view life as a
zero-sum game. They consider everyone that's not with them to be against them,
which makes it so that what they win, the opponent loses and vice versa. This
is why they can never bargain in good faith, and why they accuse others of
doing what is known to be their trademark. Look what they say about Putin: “Russia will pocket U.S. intelligence while continuing
to press their advantage.”
The truth is that there is no proof at all Russia behaves in that manner whereas Israel 's
negotiations with the Palestinians has been nothing but that. The truth is that
Israel never reciprocated
after pocketing the concessions that the Palestinians said they would make if Israel
reciprocated. What happened time and time again is that the Jews kept their
cake even after they ate the Palestinian lunch and ate their cake too.