Dep FM Ayalon follows Sarah Palin’s lead
By Ted Belman
Of the many detractors Sarah Palin had to deal with the MSM stands out. It distroted everything she said, impuned her reputation, labelled her in so many negative ways and hid any positive story about her to deny her reality.
Very early on she understood that she had to talk with the people unfiltered and unfettered, so she developed a Facebook following of 3 million and a Twitter following of 300,000. Perhaps someone can advise on the actual numbers.
Israel suffers from the same problem. The only story that is fit to print about Israel is a negative one. It makes no attempt to verify the facts. It doesn’t call into question what her enemies say.
Deputy FM Ayalon just announce he would be following the same path.
JPOST reported:
-
The deputy foreign minister said that Israel would increasingly make use of what he termed “E-diplomacy” to spread its message to “many millions in the world, directly and without any middle man.”
Last year, as part of his E-diplomacy campaign, Ayalon released YouTube videos entitled “The Truth About the Peace Process” and “The Truth About the West Bank” in which he attempted to present a historical narrative meant to help wage Israel’s public diplomacy battle.
“Social media in general and YouTube in particular are major battlegrounds in the clash of narratives and public diplomacy. It is vital that a strong rights-based Israeli presence is seen and heard, especially for the YouTube demographics who are more interested in easy to digest explanations,” Ayalon’s office said in a statement released last year.
Follow the leader.
@ yamit82:
The “No Banana Republic” incident was a highpoint for Begin’s career.
However, the truth concerning the relation between the G.O.I. and the US Executive Branch is that
Reagan did what he could to reverse the attitude of the State Dept. It was HE who was responsible for reversing the Carter State Dept policy on the heartland settlements being declared ‘illegal.’
Even before the election that would signal the public’s rejection of the incumbent Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office, Reagan had already seen through the illegality scenario, and found it untrue (and unworthy). In an October 1980, campaign press conference, he left no doubt about it:
And four months later, shortly after taking office as the 40th President of the United States, he firmly reiterated his opinion — a position from which no subsequent American administration, to this day, well over thirty years later, has ever presumed to waver (or even ventured to wiggle):
“As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there — I disagreed when the previous Administration referred to them as ‘illegal’ — they’re not illegal.”
But Reagan was only one man dealing with entrenched careerist bureaucracies at State & Defense. As Christopher Layne notes in the Weekly Standard article I cited above, “[a sitting president's] maneuvering room is sharply circumscribed by powerful bureaucracies and elites…”
And until those bureaucracies are shoveled out, the Executive Branch will continue to lack the free agency that Layne speaks of — and little countries like Israel, Taiwan, and others will have to rely on the far more responsive, Legislative Branch.
@ David Chase:
Did I say I objected to people voting for her?
I am not happy with any of the candidates and I consider all of them not relevant either to the main issues of America or Israel. If elected all will be disastrous for America and probably inconsequential to Israel. The leadership in Israel will be determinate for us here less so if at all any of the potential American candidates and that includes Obama. At least we pretty much know what to expect from Obama and forewarned is forearmed, except we are currently stuck with BB so I ain’t too confident on that score. Romney and Santorum are unknowns. Based on their comments re: Israel and the ME, I don’t know but when have comments by politicians running for office set in granite. Unless something dramatically happens between now and Nov. I fully expect Obama to win.
Since except for wishful fantasies of some here about Palin she ain’t on anyone’s realistic political radar and should not in my opinion even be a topic of discussion in the present context or any other, she is irrelevant except marginally until there is a nominee, then we’ll see.
I think all of the candidates, even Paul would not make a major issue of building in the territories but I blame BB for being so weak in agreeing. America can demand or threaten but we have a government and a PM and we didn’t elect Obama or any other American president. If BB had refused Obama the country would have supported him.
Is there a republican that is not in favor of energy Independence? I seem to recall a president named GWBush who did not much more than Obama and had no energy policy for 8 years and he was supported by most conservatives. My gut tells me that the oil companies would rather import and pay taxes to foreign countries and have no vested interest in seeing the supply grow thus reducing their profits due to lower prices. The Price of oil on 10/11 2001 was less than $ 20 bbl and all of the majors were facing bankruptcy. 9/11 was certainly providential for Big Oil Corporations. Add Two wars and they really began cleaning up.
She didn’t invent crony capitalism but failed to define exactly what she means by the term. Cronyism has been a fact of American economic and political life since our founding fathers. Certainly deregulation has had large contributory effect on Americas current economic implosion, especially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
How does she propose to solve the unemplyment problem> The deficit? The debt? Reagan Voodoo economic did not add to the national receivable but did increase the national debt more than all previous administrations combined before him. He increased taxes every year except one of his term in office. Made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Wages for the first time in 120 years under Reagan did not increase in real terms nor have they since. CEO’s had a 25-1 relationship to worker wages under Reagan and today it’s over 500-1. Check out what was the private and corporate tax rates in 1978 and what they were in 1988. Reagan lowered the tax rates to corporations and the rich so there was less revenue collected,resulting in massive budget deficits and borrowing to make up the difference thereby increasing the national debt by 5-6 trillion dollars over his 2 terms. By the way the nominal tax rate for corporations in the 60′s was 91% and they did pretty good then.
60% of American imports from China are produced by American companies in China. Today most American corp view foreign markets like China but not just as having the most growth potential and are focusing most of their attention and capital to overseas markets as it stands now over 50% of American corporate profits are derived from oversea operations. Most of the jobs lost in the past 3-4 years are gone forever and the highest % of the unemployed in America are under 30.
As I said neither Palin nor any of the candidates have a clue as to what the real problems are and certainly don’t know have to fix them. Massive budget cutting will add another 10-20% to the unemployed, a cut in services of all levels of government and credit card defaults, bank failure and a massive downturn is consumer spending….Add high inflation to themix a real tax and further borrowing or printing more money will devalue the dollar where the creditors of America not only will cut America off they may dump their Treasuries and cease using the dollar as the reserve currency.
The worst thing you should do is opt for austerity in the middle of a systemic recession/ Americans only last month purchase about 2 million guns and ammo. One month and there is a waiting list for certain types and brands. Some Americans are beginning to get it unlike most who comment on Israpundit.
Show me where Palin has a real understanding of what’s wrong with America and a reasonable plan for correction and I will support her.
LISTEN!!! Richard Wolff on Capitalism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtGB8rN_Mq4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL_S5h5N4bc&feature=relmfu
For those of you who say Palin isn’t smart enough to be President I disagree :exhibit A :Obama. For those of you who don’t know how much the US bends over backwards in allowing unqualified blacks and hispanics admission to top Universities and top jobs, the genius Obama refuses to make public his SAT scores for obvious reasons, unlike the “Moron” Bush who scored higher than Al Gore and has an IQ of approximately 131. It is obvious he didn’t do exceptionally well and the delusional belief he is a constitutional scholar and was on the Harvard Law Review because of knowledge of the law, scholastic ability and intelligence would be exposed as the delusion it is. In the army, a black female sgt. I was friendly with told me, because her father had been a member of the General Colin Powell’s guard , Powell wrote a letter to Harvard as she was accepted despite having not even an average HS academic record. She had the sense to turn down her admission to Harvard because she would have probably failed every course. Of course, Obama attended the best private school in Honolulu paid for by his “racist” grandmother. Was Ronald Reagan who is idolized by many republicans smarter than Palin? No and he was suffering from Alzheimer’s which was very mild at the beginning of his presidency but by the 1989, I could tell he had moderate Alzheimer’s when he announced one inning of the 1989 All Star game. I know people might say how do I what I just stated. I am a psychiatrist-neurologist and had 2 years of training in geriatric psychiatry/neurology and I have seen literally thousands of unfortunate patients who suffered from dementia mainly Alzheimer’s. So my point is Palin’s level of intelligence without doubt is high enough to be President. She attended a University certainly the equal or better than Reagan and Reagan governed while he had a terrible.progressive disease whose main symptom is the inability to learn new facts.
Of course Ayalon is correct. The Ethernet allows Israel to speak directly to people rather than the distorting prism of the media. And I hope Israel is also framing some frank messages directly to the Arab and Muslim nations in their own languages.
This is not entirely a novel strategy. Remember FDR’s fireside chats?
@ dweller:
I didn’t know the exact status of Obama’s law school professorship or teaching credentials. I just knew he “taught” law school. To many, that “seems” or “impresses” that he is bright. I didn’t say it was good but that he had the kind of academic credentials, that he “even” taught law school that seem to infer “good academic credential” Obviously, good or not, that doesn’t necessarily make for a good President or anything else. I just think that a lot of people judge his ability based on these so-called “good” credentials which, combined with a smooth oratory delivery can impress a very shallow observer. It obviously doesn’t necessarily make for a good political leader. That was what I was attempting to point out when comparing someone like Sarah Palin- who is not a lawyer but, I believe, has “good” leadership and administrative qualities as compared to Obama and his “supposed” good acadamic credentials. There’s “academic” credentials and “leadership” credentials. Reagan didn’t have academic credentials but he certainly had good leadership credentials. That was what I was trying to differentiate. One certainly can be a good President without “professorial-like” credentials and having them or not doesn’t necessarily make for a good President either.
Davidka Said:
The LAN of milk and honey!
Both of Ayalon’s video’s are excellent and I used them on my website at http://www.jerusalem3000.com. I think it’s great that he is using social media to spread the truth about Israel. The more the better! Facebook and Twitter–yes! I see young kids using “phones” to do all these things constantly. The kids in the schools here recently all got Iphones! In a wink of the eye these young people will be voting. And as for what kids learn in school, of course you know about the new elementary and high school curriculum supplied by Middle East departments at universities, which are funded by…Soros, Saudi, such like??? So we’ve got to get the truth out sideways in media the young people tune in to. Way to go, Mr. Ayalon!
@ yamit82:
I apologize Yamit. It would appear that I did actually make that remark. I didn’t notice the date on my quote you highlighted. When she first came on the scene I knew next to nothing about her. So I thought the praise of her was exaggerated. It didn’t take long for me to become a fan however.
@ Stanley:
The exception being that she supports aid to Israel and believes we ought to defend Israel and our other allies. She is not an isolationist.
Palin is sharp. Too bad for us that she won’t be our next president. I would make her secretary of defense, at least. Its time to disband our arabist state department and start over again with knowledgeable, non-prejudiced, non anti-Semitic people.
I recently was talking on the phone to someone somewhere (a customer service bureau) and made a statement supporting Palin, fearing it might bring a negative response. Turned out the woman’s brothers were all taught in grade school by Sarah’s father (and the woman herself would have been if he hadn’t retired). She said the whole Palin family was first calibre, caring and honest. That’s been my impression. GOING ROGUE should be required reading in American secondary and college classes!
Re Palin, the MSM and leftist commentators have so totally trashed her that the typical person thinks
of her as not too bright. In reality she is just the opposite, but, she could never be elected
President with the persona they have created for her. It is unfortunate, but she can do an awful lot
of good for this country in other offices. Congress for one, and a cabinet position for others.
@ dweller:
Even if it were true, it was in fact the truth that the settlements were not illegal. You are giving credit to a politician for plainly stating the facts and the truth of those facts? Reagan speaking plain truth I guess deserves some recognition, since there was so little truth coming either from the man or his administration. He should have been impeached over Iran Contra where he lied under oath to congress. Then blamed Israel to protect VP Bush who should have been jailed for his crimes.
But nobody was asking Reagan to attack antisemitism wherever it surfaced; the complaint was that antisemitism had surfaced in the office of the president!
In your lame attempts to support that piece of Garbage, you expose yourself to who and what you are: … A blind dogmatic Christian, self proclaimed Mystic.
EXTRA! EXTRA!
Sarah Palin to co-host ‘Today’ show as Katie Couric sits in on ‘GMA
Sarah Palin to co-host ‘Today Show’ (VIDEO)
@ David Chase:
Yes, I’d already gotten that from what you wrote, David, before I posted.
I dragged out the debunking of BHO’s “professor” credentials only because it’s important for those of us on this site to have that ammo in our toolbelts to shoot back with whenever the opposition tries to suggest that there is something authoritative or substantive about this twit.
@ yamit82:
Not merely for speaking the truth — though coming from a politician (ANY politician), that, of itself, is amazing.
But what he did amounted to far more than making a statement.
What he did entailed standing up to the entrenched State Dept bureaucracy and reversing its official, published position — overriding it openly. If you realized the significance of what he faced in doing that — esp. coming right out of the box that way at the very beginning of his tenure, and standing by the decision — you’d know just how ballsy an action that was.
Or else — what?
This was a toothless, weasel-word, hollow declaration, Yamit. If the Council had meant to call the annexation illegal — they’d have USED the word outright.
Yes, quite so. There was no invocation of Chapter Seven, as there was in the ’91 Gulf War and in last year’s Libyan confrontation. The resolution over the Golan annexation was obviously the best (i.e., most innocuous) deal the Administration felt it could get, given the existing atmosphere.
So?
As I recall there was no ‘reversal’ but a different vote in a different body. Again, though, no invocation of Chapter Seven. Absent that, so what? It’s international politics, Yamit. You size up the existing configuration of forces & take your best shot. Just as Israeli govts have done.
Read what Jeane Kirkpatrick had to say over it; she was UN Ambassador at the time, and it was she who went thru the various pro-forma condemnation & oppositions-to-condemnation of the raid in the first place. Kirkpatrick was a friend, Yamit. (Yes, there are such things.)
So? — that’s about his speed. What would you have expected from this dickhead?
You’re really stretching, Yamit.
No, they were implicitly asking him to cop to the charge that his office & Administration were Jew-haters; he wouldn’t take the bait.
The President’s response was anything BUT a ‘non-sequitur.’
What you and your perennially ax-grinding idol, Francisco Gil-White (whose words you offer here without attribution), what both of you fail to see is that RR’s remark about not condoning antisemitism was a gentle & courteous way of saying, ‘I’m not persuaded that what you’re seeing here IS in fact antisemitism; however, now that you’ve alerted me, I’ll be on the lookout for it.’
I have asked you in the past, on multiple occasions, Yamit, to show me explicitly where that plan (i.e., the specific phraseology) called for such a ‘state.’ So far, you’ve made only allegations.
Still waiting for Professor Gil-White to do the legwork for you? Forget it, FGW is waiting for you to do it for HIM!
Oh please. Reagan never envisioned — or desired — sovereignty for the Palys.
There is simply NO documentary support (even in the Gil-White article whose words you excerpt) for the provocative assertion that Reagan or his Administration ever endorsed anything more than non-sovereign “autonomy” — the same autonomy that Begin favored — for the Palestinian Arabs of the heartland territories.
But you still don’t get it, do you, boychik? Camp David wasn’t “Carter’s policy.”
Camp David was the State Dept’s policy — and every postwar president has had to contend with the entrenched Arabist bureaucracy at Foggy Bottom. Some presidents have struggled for wiggle room against State, while most have just coasted along for the ride — but the Executive Branch has very little capacity for free agency against it. Look at what Harry-freakin’-Truman went thru — merely over the recognition of Israeli independence — in dealing with his State Dept and his foreign policy establishment!
@ yamit82:
I already addressed this in an earlier post last summer [Thread 32: Aug 18, 2011; 3:54 am]:
Yeah, somebody who gives every man a fair hearing.
And a Jew who (unlike some I could point to) takes very seriously the injunction against bearing false witness against his neighbor.
And BTW, “that piece of Garbage” you mentioned smells like a rose compared to SOME of the rotting compost I’ve had occasion to defend against unfair defamation
— yourself, for example.
Wrong.
On all counts.
Stick to discussing troop movements, Yamit; you really look silly when you get out of your depth.
For one thing, no “blind dogmatic” ANYTHING (let alone, a “blind dogmatic Christian“) could ever be a ‘mystic.’
Conceptually the notion is oxymoronic
— which ALSO makes it just plain moronic.
For another, I’ve never proclaimed myself a “Mystic”
— it’s always been other people who’ve laid that jacket on me; I just don’t fight them over it very much, it’s not worth the effort.
Not that there’s anything ‘wrong’ with it; it’s just misleading when some people hear/read the term, because the popular culture has twisted the meaning of the word so badly that it’s downright FUBAR.
You need to use it, however, Yamit, because you can’t think outside of the box — and you desperately need a pigeonhole to put me in; but that’s your problem, not mine.
I don’t need labels to be comfortable in my own skin; I can take ‘em or leave ‘em.
No contest, The Today Show with Palin co-hosting will break all records.
@ Joe Hamilton:
If you are in fact a psychiatrist-neurologist, then you know that Alzheimer’s is not positively confirmable except by means of physical examination of the brain for telltale signs of amyloid plaques between the nerve cells and neurofibrillary tangles within the neurons — and that such an exam is possible only by way of autopsy. Yes, you can work-up a thoughtful and hopefully well-informed GUESS about Alzheimer’s on a living person, but without a forensic exam, that’s what it is — guesswork.
Reagan’s body was not autopsied (or if it was, that was never so announced).
If you have geriatric experience, then you know that other varieties of dementia may often present similar behavioral symptoms to Alzheimers, especially in the elderly.
Reagan hit his head upon taking a serious fall from the back of a horse while visiting in Mexico in 1989 — and it has never been established that his dementia was not directly, and exclusively, derivative of that specific experience.
His dementia was apparently ‘progressive,’ but while it was memory-related, was never confirmed to have been cognitive.
Whenever somebody is ‘diagnosed’ — during his lifetime — as having ‘Alzheimer’s,’ if you carefully read (or listen to) the explicit language of the ‘diagnosis,’ it’s impossible not to be struck by the obvious extreme care that seemingly ALWAYS goes into the wording of such announcements.
It’s never straightforward
— as in, ‘Mr Young has a brain aneurysm’
or, ‘Mr Swayze has pancreatic cancer’ —
but rather, ‘Mr Heston was found to be suffering symptoms which could comport with a finding of Alzheimer’s disease… etc, etc, etc…’
Yes, No, Maybe.
All irrelevant.
What, if anything, she or Reagan did in pursuit of “higher education” (if that IS, in fact, what post secondary school consists of) is quite beside the point. Brains aren’t created or developed (or revealed) by the university.
And good judgment sure-as-hell isn’t.
Harry Truman had no college. Don’t think Grover Cleveland did either. They both did ok.
Did just fine.
The media make Palin out to be a dummy
— because they NEED to believe that about her.
Most of us here, however, don’t have such a need; we should move on.
@ Ted Belman:
Insha’llah.
@ dweller:
Exactly and thank you for the ammo
@ dweller:
As usual in your attempts at defending your demigod, one of several I might add, you ignore the public factual record and eyewitness accounts by those directly involved and insert your own lame conclusions based on what you want to believe RR would have, could have or should have done, said while blaming what you can;t defend on third parties like the State Dept.
Get this straight RR, did everything any President could to hurt Israel within the political limitations of American politics. By saving Arafat and his 40k thugs and thieves he is indirectly responsible for the murder, maiming and destruction of thousands of my countrymen and some few Americans as well.
He was in bed with the Saudis and your fantasy suppositions as to why, is to essentially blame the victims for pressing too hard and not understanding the RR was not Carter. I have my negative opinions of Begin and he may have been suffering from progressive depression but in the brains dept compared to you it’s a no contest. Begin unlike you having dealt with RR on many occasions personally one on one and on the receiving end of RR’s communications and actions against Israel, I think Begin better than you understood with whom he was dealing. Begin could smell a Jew hater a mile away but then admitting this is so, would destroy another of your demigods.
Unlike you FW, footnotes all of his sources and when he does state his conclusions he does so based on the written textual record not opinion unfounded in factual evidence and thus unsupported. Where you impose your demented, biased,prejudicial, and skewered apologetic opinions not supported by the factual record .
Harry stinko Truman coined the term you and RR never learned “The Buck Stops Here”.
Do do want me to list all the ex Nazi he brought into his administration? I can!
Do you think it matters whether he was suffering from some form of dementia from a blow on the head or from Alzheimer’s? His mental faculties were during his 8 years in office steadily but perceptibly diminishing and hidden from most of the American people. Some even attest that his wife Nancy was really running the show, at least heavily influencing it.
You in your not so subtle way, imply that Hamilton doesn’t know what he is talking about. I don’t know if he does or not but if you are going to call him a liar and incompetent; I would expect you to supply textual support in your implied personal slander against Hamilton. If you claim professional expertise pls state your credential or sources upon which you base your opinion and slander of Hamilton. Is your opinion another one of your examples of thinking outside of the box? Was it some form of Mystic revelation? Maybe you got it directly from yoshka?
You supplied no attribution for your medical opinion as usual.
In one of your comments to me you claimed Mystical powers. Check your comments if you don’t believe me.
I believe you have characterized yourself at different times reflecting the above definitions.
So dweller in short I think you’re full of bilge (your term).
@ yamit82:
As usual, this is sheer projection on the part of PresentCompany — and I’ve covered it elsewhere:
For example? — put up or shut up.
He shouldn’t have, but he was given very faulty info on Lebanon as well as on Arafat. As I’ve already noted, in another part of the post cited above [Thread #18]:
But let’s be clear about something else here : EVERY president — not just Reagan, but each-&-every-US C-I-C, from Nixon right up until Arafat’s death — “saved” the little prick. Was it ill-advised, each-&-every time. Absolutely. And it was a State Dept decision each-&-every time.
Moreover, as with GW Bush’s inability to even START to see Arafat for what he was until the Karine-A incident — when Arafat was effectively caught red-handed with an Iranian munitions ship bound for the territories, after he’d sworn otherwise — it has been damned-near impossible for US Presidents (including RR) to conceive of Paly activists (of whom Arafat was no exception but, rather, a prime exemplar) as the lying, scheming, vicious, murderous slime that they are.
American presidents haven’t expected Paly leaders to be Boy Scouts, but they haven’t imagined that they’d be as flagrant and brazen as they are either. It’s just not part of the Western ethos or what Americans expect (in or out of govt) & it’s taking a while for the reality to dawn on them.
What’s more, not only did every US president look out for Arafat, but ALSO every Israeli PM — from Levi Eshcol until Arafat’s death — protected him as well.
Must be an awfully big bed — way bigger than King Size (is there a Titan Size?), since every President since FDR has reputedly also been in bed with ‘em. But I’ve told you, we’re talking about Foggy Bottom here, not the White House.
Horseshit, Yamit. Not “essentially” or otherwise to “blame the victims.” That’s a classic cheap shot — but, given the source, I can’t say I’m surprised.
Maybe so — but IF so, how would YOU know?
So can I
— what’s more, Begin didn’t regard Reagan HIMSELF as a “Jew-hater.”
I footnote one HELLUVALOT more of my sources than you do of YOURS. What’s more, unlike your OWN idol, Prof FGW, my footnotes are directly (and consistently) relevant and materially germane to any claims I make.
As I’ve already said, elsewhere:
‘Perceptibly’ diminishing? — ‘perceptible’ only to those (like PresentCompany) who were PRIMED to believe that about him before he ever ENTERED the Oval Office.
Evidence? — or are you just running out of empty insults? (Aren’t you embarrassed to be letting your obvious hatred be apparent to all & sundry?)
You bet I want you to. I’ve ASKED you on enough occasions in the past to do so, when you’ve made the allegation; so far, nothing in response. Names? Positions? Superior officers?
@ yamit82:
Short answer: Yes.
There were parts of “the show” that she always ran — from Day One, and with his blessing.
But politics was never part of it, and anybody who is ‘attesting’ knows that.
Would you have liked for me to be more subtle?
I look at it as offering him an opportunity to explain himself, if he’s so inclined.
If I am going to call anybody a liar, I won’t mince words, Yamit
— just as I didn’t mince words when I called YOU a liar.
“Textual” support? — qu’est-ce que c’est? Don’t start being cryptic in your old age (you might be accused of being a ‘mystic’).
I supplied none where none was needed. Nothing that I said in that post — and I mean NOTHING — was not common knowledge, readily accessible to the layman. Only an authoritarian personality like yourself, Yamit, would make the assumption that it must be arcane.
Not only do I not have dementia, and therefore remember what I have, & have not, said — but more importantly, I KNOW myself well enough to know what I COULD, and could NOT, possibly have said. Furthermore, boychik, if you had anything like that to throw in my face, it’s quite obvious that you would not hesitate to do just that. All-the-same, though, if YOU wanna go on a fishing expedition, be my guest. But I’m on the clock, so I’ll pass.
Nope, never have. But, as I said, if you find something that accurately bears out your claims, then bring it. OTOH, you need to learn to read more carefully. I repeat what I wrote above:
— As clearly exemplified in the definition you offerred above.
The nearest your cite comes to my understanding of what is mystical is its reference to “immediate intuition.” But all that other stuff about “ethereal,” “ecstacies,” “symbolic,” “ceremonies, “rites,” etc, etc, etc — that’s all mumbo jumbo.
What’s more, there’s nothing about that’s exclusive to the “initiate” — the intuition is accessible to anybody who finds value in trusting (and cultivating) his hunches.
Anybody.