Shoshana Bryen got creative and came up with an analogy that was supposed to demonstrate with clarity what she had in mind. The analogy did exactly that: demonstrate what she had in mind. The trouble, however, is that what she had in mind, was different from the reality that the analogy has portrayed.
You'll find what this is about
when you read the article that Shoshana Bryen wrote under the title: “Talking
Won't Solve the Iran Problem,” published on April 3, 2021 in The American
Thinker. What she had on her mind were the talks that will soon be held between
Iran and the P5+1 regarding the reactivation of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. It
worked well for a while but was then sabotaged by a madman in the White House
under the hypnotic influence of the Jewish lobby.
The analogue point that
Shoshana Bryen is making, is that two people haggling about the price of a rug
can eventually compromise on the price, and make a deal. But if one of the
hagglers is talking rug and the other is talking camel, they'll never make a
deal, she says. This being the case, she goes on to suggest, it is better not
to talk at all, thus resign to living with the status quo for an indefinite
period. Bryen wrote this in response to the directive that Jewish Central sent
out to the mob of pundits instructing them to do what they can to paralyze the
attempts now made to revive the Iran nuclear deal.
But does her analogy truly
represent the paradigm she is supposed to be describing? If Bryen wanted her
analogy to be taken seriously, she should have shown in what way the camel of
one antagonist, is different from the rug of the other antagonist, which would
have explained why there cannot be a compromise. But to just say we're talking
camel and rug therefore no compromise is possible, leaves the door open for the
creation of another analogy; one that would closely represent the reality on
the ground.
So, here is that other
analogy. It is in fact, so close to the situation on the ground, it sounds in
some parts more like a description of reality than it does an analogy. It is
that, to the Jews, the fear of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, scares them
so much, they visualize a situation that threatens the survival of Israel, and
by extension the survival of Jews everywhere.
To the Iranians, on the other
hand, this whole silly thing sounds like someone is telling them they are too
smart for their own good. This makes their country the evil genius that might
someday wipe Israel off the map. They must therefore unlearn what they learned,
and put themselves under the watchful eyes of Jewish America. It will make sure
they will not do what Adam did when he ate the forbidden apple to acquire the
knowledge he wasn't supposed to have. What this battle comes down to, is protection
for Israel against a conveniently imagined threat, pitted against Iran’s right
to be what it can be.
Reading Bryen's article, you
are gripped by a weird sense when you think of the Jews who live in a permanent
state of anxiety. You think of the way that successive generations of converts
to Judaism have conducted themselves, and the way they were treated by those
who first embraced them, and then worked to annihilate them. You understand
that existential threat being foremost on their mind, the Jews were never able
to forge long term relations with other people. And you are forced to conclude
they are doomed by the contrived character they assume at the wrong moments,
and refuse to get rid of it.
It was for that reason that
humanity took pity on them, and gave them an enclave in Palestine where it was
thought they could live like Jews and neither bother the others nor be bothered
by them. Alas, that arrangement did not work because the Jews had neighbors who
were not Jews, and that's where the incorrigible Jewish behavior came into
play. It made life miserable for them and their neighbors, thus took the Jews
right back to square one.
A distant neighbor that used
to be a friend of the Jews is Iran, now considered by them to be the number one
existential threat to Israel and the Jews everywhere. America, working together
with the permanent members of the Security Council and Germany, took those
fears into consideration and worked a deal with Iran that should have allayed
the fear the Jews say they have about Iran developing a nuclear weapon.
Unhappy about the deal that
America forged with the other powers and Iran, the Jews waited for a new
administration to come and pull out of the deal. This happened, and the Jews
were happy. But the American people were not happy with that administration,
and voted to replace it. Now that the newer administration wants to get back
into the nuclear deal, Jews like Shoshana Bryen are pressuring it to maintain
the status quo instead. What the Jews expect, is for another madman to win the
presidency and give them even more of what they want.
However, all indications are
to the effect that the part of history which saw the Jews bring on themselves
the calamities they fear –– is about to repeat itself. It is that the American
people have grown sick and tired of the Jewish lobby (working in the dark of
night and behind closed doors) always managing to prostitute the members that
the people elect to serve them. They see those members neglect their duty and
serve the Jews and Israel instead.
And because the people see no
way that they can influence things by peaceful means, they are increasingly
resorting to the use of violence in the hope that this will bring about the
change that will work for them.
And this is why the Jewish strategy by which Shoshana Bryen is operating, will fail to give the Jews what they want, and give them instead more of what they always got.