Is Bannon an Antisemite?

“Bannon is apparently personally offended by the suggestion he is antisemitic, and often cites his support for Israel as evidence to the contrary. He lobbied hard to relocate the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”  I chose this quote from the internet as a classical case of misidentified attitude, worse, a classical case of fake news, worse, a classical case of fascism of the left!

As a psychologist and an Israeli I am more than qualified to tell you that Bannon is loved in Israel and has done a lot for the country. His accusers are not bad people but they practice character assassination without being aware of being bad global ideologues. This is a psychological case of blind  borderline values disorder when you base baseless opinion of a person on your liberal upbringing than on facts about him 30 years later! Yes, Bannon has done for Israel 10 times more good things than he has done for American Jews, so what? That fact does not make him anti-Jewish, or antisemitic or even anti-left. He works for Israeli values of strength and nationalism (and so do I as an Israeli), not withstanding his dislike (and mine) for the political paternalist Globalist values of the 3 WH Jewish staffers, this makes him a strongly pro Israel and anti liberal but not antisemitic at all.

I hope my posting clears up for you the values about what is a human that builds vs. a confused human that destroys (inadvertently). Bannon is a fine conservative who speaks his mind because he believes in free speech at Berkeley University based on  the first amendment of the US Constitution, a fine document about freedom and liberty, not freedom to prevent right-winger from speaking at Universities. Fascism of the left is not “better” than fascism of the right. This century has just as much trouble as the last century!!!!

Why I won’t participate in debates with leftists.

I belong to a political group that meets every other Sunday. One of my friends whom I respect in the group suggested to invite a leftist activist to debate his views on antisemitism and Jewish affairs. I will not be attending. In our group we have left leaning and right leaning individuals. I am sure people will enjoy the debate because it will be lively. This issue of willingness to debate people with opposing views to yours is big. I am a teacher, not a debater. Most people, including teachers, not only not exclude themselves from debates but really look forward to debate opposing views. Sisyphus would be delighted. There is probably a minority that won’t debate right-wing individuals. There is probably even a smaller minority that won’t debate left wingers. I am one. In general, there are very smart individuals, not just psychologists, who won’t discuss hot issues with wifes, husbands, co-workers, strangers, friends or what have you. I feel important enough to say, “Let me teach you the fact rather than to say let’s debate the issue.”  Here is why I won’t debate a leftist unless…

…unless I decide to do it for fun, to poking the other person, step on their toes (which I enjoy doing), earn brawny points with my other friends or play psychological games with their mind because I don’t like them or I think they hold dangerous views to the community. I won’t debate leftists, liberals, socialists, anarchists, communists, fascists, fanatics, etc. Actually, as a teacher I like to teach people good values, how to build not destroy, and you can’t teach a leftist anything! They are so rigid in their attitude that I rather debate a wall about the color of paint it should have than a leftist about human rights! They can’t see that they are hurting human rights, equality, love, respect, the economy, democracy, and the very values they profess to cherish. Liberals epitomize the dictum, The road to hell is paved with good intentions! I won’t say that all of them have a borderline personality disorder (BPD) called delusional but some do. Why debate someone about antisemitism and get frustrated because they can’t see that they exhibit such an attitude? Wouldn’t you rather go for coffee with a friend who shares your positive views of the world? I do. I will not give people I don’t like publicity, air time, audience and all the attention they need to grow more regressive and entrenched while thinking that they are progressive. I may seem harsh to you but that is the way I feel. I don’t participate in debates with leftists. I don’t like feeling frustrated and wasting my time unless I get paid for my services as a psychologist.

Liberal versus Conservatives: Can you learn to do business with them?

I drove home from my Sunday meeting of my social group at a community center. These are my friends; lawyers, community activists, businessmen, physicians, house wives, nurses, leftists, rightists, Jews, Christians, Atheists, immigrants, Canadians, Americans, Russians, visitors on the fly. Michael questioned whether it was useful to discuss liberal, conservative, Leftist, Rightist, etc. Someone asked me, the only psychologist in the group, to clarify the popular terminology. What can we learn from using these words correctly?

This topic may not be the most exciting reading for my visitors, but it is important and would certainly be enlightening. It would improve your understanding of the political, religious, economic and cultural world around you. Look around, watch people how they make decisions, taking risks whether it involves thinking, feeling, behaving, voting, making love, waging war, investing, anything, it always show up in your life coming from the Left, the Right or the Center.

The first step in your sophistication is to identify them as individuals and learn to do business with them. Start with a family member, friend, co-worker or classmate. These are the familiar strangers in your life, easier to diagnose. For example, uncle Suzuki lives in Tokyo. He wants Japan to absorb more immigrants, become a multicultural society, free to dress Arab, African, European, any way you like to dress. He strongly believes in Socialism, multiculturalism, internationalism and loves his paternalistic attitude toward minorities. “We need an affirmative action in Japan like we have in the US for Blacks and Chicano and we need a strong welfare system like we have in Sweden, he says. I don’t like Japanese capitalism and nationalism in my country. They should accept foreigners in my country a lot more than they do. They should be like the British, bringing in everyone. I love Hilary Clinton who says, this world is a village. The Russians who live in Ukraine should settle down to being a good minority. The country will take care of them.

His friend Carl from Stockholm wants Sweden to lower taxes and be more nationalistic, close the border to illegal immigration, have a dress code requiring people to not cover their faces in public and move people from the welfare system to job training. Carl’s main complaint is that Sweden is too paternalistic and international.

Who is liberal, Suzuki or Carl?___________

Is being a liberal or a conservative a personality trait or a political orientation?_______

Overall, what’s better for your country, to have more conservative or to have more liberals?_______

This one is for Canadians!

I am an American who lives in your wonderful country. You just elected Harper as prime minister and gave him a majority mandate in parliament to govern effectively, but it is not enough. He is the best of the bunch of leaders you selected, but it is not enough. You need to continuously feed him new ideas, otherwise, the limited thoughts he has in his head is all you’ll get. Sure, he has better ideas than the liberals or the NDP guys, but it is your job as a citizen to make his improve over them and himself, and Harper is the kind of guy who listens to better ideas because he is the least ideologically incline of the 3 choices you had in last month election.

Why is this one for Canadians? Because your Gasoline price per liter is approaching $1.50. If you exchange that $1.50 CAN south of the border, you’ll get $1.59 US. You can fill your tank in the US and save close to half the cost in Canada!

Read the newspapers. Harper is arranging for oil executives to see him. He will lash out at them in his effective civilized low-key soothing voice. After a low-key argument where they will “pass the buck” to the Saudis not pumping enough oil affecting speculation, middle-men, supply and demand and market conditions, all legitimate politico-babble, the nice oil executives will promise the Canadian public that they will do their best to stop or at least slow down the rise in oil price. They will never come down to the price at the American pump, but they will never the less be appreciated by the Canadian public.

Mr. Harper, there is a better way to lower gasoline price in Canada, making almost everyone happy, including the oil executives because a healthy competition brings out the best thinking in CEOs (off course, the NDP and the Liberals will attack it as an American Intellectual invasion). Steve, the Canadian public gave you the majority in parliament: PASS AN OIL ANTI-TRUST LAW THAT OIL COMPANIES OPERATING IN CANADA, OIL TRADERS, AND GAS STATION OWNERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO FIX PRICES, THAT’S ALL! Any two oil company that sells crude at the same price will be fined. Any two middlemen that buy and then sell oil at the same price will be investigated. Any two gas stations at the same intersection that sell gas at a fix price (as it is today) will have to pay a fine. Mr. Harper, set up a committee to analyse the tax structure as it applies to oil companies, including a possible cap on earnings, fed and local taxes applied, oil quality, additives, the whole business. They WILL listen, reprimand is not enough. Good luck!

Bernanke Signals Intent to Further Spur Economy (Sewell Chan, New York Times, Friday, October 15, 2010)

Let me make sense for you of the psychology behind the article by making a contrast between Bernanke (B), the present Fed Chair and Greenspan (G), the previous one. G created the economic mess by letting smart bankers create sub-prime mortgage securities, package them, sell them to smart Americans who sold them to  stupid Chinese, each group making a marginal profit in the process at the expense of tax payers. The house of cards collapsed when millions of cheap folks defaulted on expensive house payments. G left the mess he created to live the rest of his life-giving speeches as a genius celebrity. Comes in Bernanke, the present Fed Chief, and makes vague speeches in an article, like his predecessor, not to inform but to confuse so consumers will not have a clear understanding of policy and be pacified – to buy time because the recovery will take longer than the public has patience for. Like his predecessor, he is vague taking about executing “unconventional policies,” actually meaning “Assets purchasing mortgage related securities,” meaning the Fed’s buying subprime mortgages to help banks recover!” or handle the “Contraction in the economy,” meaning, “not hiring employees or starting businesses because of fear of failure in an irresponsible bailout environment.”  You see, speaking in vague terms is a government policy, the less you understand the less you can protest with your vote in November! Then he says, “The Fed is prepared to manage the risk,” Sounds good but too obvious, meaning, “handing the fallout from G having unregulated economy to B overpopulation it by purchasing  ill products or companies instead of letting them go. You see, again, G was deregulating and B is re-regulating. This is the “stuff” of life in every group of any kind in this chaotic world!

In the final analysis, what I want you to get about the groups that you belong to, is that the Feds, like any other group, including yours, is already lined up as liberals versus conservatives, which has more to do with their personality than economics, or Leftist versus rightist, or democrats versus republicans, which clarify the last paragraph in the article about taking action. The democrats want to act now on the economy and “spend” your money to “save” the economy (B already does that) while the republicans on the Fed committee want to act later only if unemployment gets worse, the “wait and see” attitude. Who is right? Neither, neither, neither, the right action is in-between, the mid-course, let Fanny May and Freddy Mac  go, support others, but that is not a possible option in a society that wants to be “perfect” like ours! Bail out most companies, even those that can’t manage (democrats), Sell cars to all Americans (both), even those who prefer to take the bus, have “a chicken in ever pot,” even for vegetarians, or, own your own home at any price (bankers), all Americans should own a home (culture), even those who had always rented before. That’s what started it all, a dummy culture that tries to make everyone the same as everyone one else!