If you're in a room looking out the window, you can estimate the strength of the wind by looking at its effect on the branches of trees. Or you can step outside the room and experience the wind directly on you.
Likewise, astronomers that
cannot directly observe a celestial body they wish to study, they study its
effect on the surrounding objects, thus learn a great deal about that which
they cannot see.
Believe it or not, these
methods of operation have their analogue in the humanities. That is, you can
study someone's behavior by observing them directly. Or you can study them by
observing their effect on others, which means you observe the way they
influence others. The important thing in this case, is to note that “others” is
in the plural. It must be so for a reason.
It is that when a human being
influences another human being, the character of both the influencer and the
influenced play a role in the final outcome. Sorting out which is which is
nearly impossible to do. But there is a way to get around this difficulty. It
is to observe several situations where the influencer might be operating. If
the same kind of influence is detected in all or most of the potential
candidates, you conclude that a single influencer is the common factor
affecting all of them.
How can this be useful when
conducting a study in the humanities? The truth is that it is put to good use
right now, except that those who use it, do not identify it as a tool helping
them determine what's happening. In fact, any teacher can tell you that when
they detect the sudden appearance of a behavior in several students at the same
time, they conclude that the phenomenon has one and the same source. It is then
easy for the teacher to determine which student––or some other source close to
the students––is the influencer.
What happens in a school
setting also happens throughout society because there too, popular culture is
changed and disseminated at the hands of influencers, sometimes positively and
sometimes negatively. And there too, the influencer is sometimes identified as
an entertainer or a politician, for example. Or he (or she or it) might remain
unidentified, thus leave society wondering what the source of the change might
be.
We have a phenomenon of this
kind here in North America, and the time has come to identify it so that all
those who might be influenced by it, would know who or what is working on them
subliminally to have them back a cause they might not approve of if they knew
what it's all about. An example displaying that phenomenon came in the form of
an article under the title: “Don't run to failure on Iran nuclear
negotiations,” written by James Phillips, and published on January 20, 2021 in
The Washington Times.
The first thing we need to
establish is what ideas and themes in this article sound like the echoes we
repeatedly heard from a variety of pundits throughout the years. Doing this,
will bring us closer to pinpointing the source that's producing them. So, here
we go with a condensed compilation of the talking points that fill the echo
chamber of pundits these days:
“To revive the flawed 2015
Iran nuclear deal would reward a hostile dictatorship. Restrictions on uranium
enrichment sunset after 10 years would let Tehran expand to an industrial
scale, and pave the way for a nuclear breakout. The deal was built on a
foundation of Iranian deception. It contained inadequate verification
provisions. Tehran is resorting to nuclear extortion, insisting on the old deal
or no deal. Iran once again will pocket billions of dollars in sanctions
relief. A new and much more restrictive arrangement is needed to dismantle and
end Iran's nuclear-weapons ambitions permanently. Iran's dictators are reeling.
What is needed now is patience and firmness to get a better nuclear deal”.
The upside-down logic of the
writer becomes apparent when you read the idea that to rehabilitate a deal that
was trashed, means to reward those with whom you negotiated the deal in good
faith. But why would that be a reward, you ask? It would be, says James
Phillips, because they are not like us. They are a dictatorship and we are not.
But were they not a dictatorship when you negotiated the deal with them in the
first place? And will they not still be a dictatorship when you renegotiate the
deal as you say must be done?
You seek answers to those
questions from the delusional character that uttered those words, and all you
get from him is silence, which you interpret to mean: “Ask me no questions and
I shall tell you neither lies nor absurdities.” But despite his inability to
answer questions raised by his assertions, James Phillips went ahead and
predicted what the Iranians will do if America returned to the deal as
suggested by Iran, and demanded by the other signatories to the deal, three of
whom are America's closest allies.
So then, what does that tell
you about the influencing source behind that screwed up logic? Well, there can
only be one answer, which is that the echoes identify the influence as being
unmistakably Jewish.
But because Jews are numerous,
and they are not a monolithic blob, we can only assert that there exists a
small group at the core of the Jewish movement, stirring up the pot.
Until it comes out and identifies itself, we shall call it Jewish Central.