Afternoon music
Talking point
I am not a professional psychologist or psychiatrist, but I wonder what such a scientific or medical specialist would make of a patient who persistently minimizes the suffering, physical pain, or trauma of others, particularly that caused directly by the said patient, while magnifying or even inventing any trauma, inconvenience or irritation —however slight— of his or her own?
On the large scale, that is what we often see in the reactions of the Jews and Israel. The deaths (many of which are plain murder) and injury caused to the civilians of Gaza, numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and involving the death or mutilation of children and even babies, and over 2-3 years, daily, is answered by the screech “and what about the several hundred Jews killed on one day in 2023 by Hamas operatives?” [and also by Israeli free-fire protocols].
The starvation of many people in Gaza, and the death by starvation of some, is answered by Jews who either deny that there ever was starvation, or who say that “people only went hungry because Hamas militiamen took all the food generously allowed in by the Israeli Jews“, or that —in various ways— it is or was the fault of the starving children themselves, and/or of their families.
Jews (both from Israel and from countries such as the USA and UK) on Twitter/X etc often delight in adding to such comments pictures of Jews having a good time at barbecues, or enjoying the foods that form part of their quasi-religious supremacist holiday festivals.
If a school or hospital is bombed or rocketed by Israeli forces, and a Palestinian Arab platoon or military storage unit is later found there, or nearby, that is enough, in “their” psychology, to justify the “slaughter of the innocents” (usually described as, when admitted at all, “unfortunate collateral damage”).
Jews in the UK etc often deny that those suffering because of Jewish/Israeli actions are suffering at all, or if they are, are suffering by reason of their own defaults, and/or that the Israeli war machine is being somehow “kind” in the way in which it destroys people’s whole lives (for example, by dropping leaflets “advising” their victims to leave home before said home is blasted to pieces, together with the families who lived there, and their possessions).
However, if Jews in the UK, USA etc happen to see a swastika drawn on a steamed-up train window, or chalked by a child on a wall, the heavens fall, and the world almost comes to an end. The police even have to get involved, quite often, after such trivial matters are reported by hysterical Jewish organizations or individuals as “hate crime” or even “terrorism”.
I think that, were an individual person, a patient, with such traits, to present before, say, a psychiatrist, that patient would no doubt be found to have a severe case of some or another mental illness. What to say or do, though, when a whole people seems to have such traits?
Tweets seen
https://tass.com/society/2100577
Will Trump ever understand the damage he has caused by being a total puppet of the Jewish lobby and Israel? Probably not… wilfully not, in fact.
The present crisis might even trigger worse catastrophes:
I imagine that Trump will simply, at some point, when much of Iran has been flattened, declare a form of victory, then move on. The damage that a state with the USA’s level of military-destructive capability can inflict is huge, of course, but that alone is not victory (unless Trump intends to use nuclear weapons to destroy entirely the Iranians as a people, and that is unlikely, even for Trump).
I speculated yesterday, on the blog, as to whether Israelis hacked that lady’s original Twitter/X account (a day or two ago). Maybe.
Talking point
More tweets
Our animal friends.
The only thing that really concerns Jess Phillips is how much money she is making (salaries, expenses, other income-streams). That, and getting as much personal publicity as possible. I blogged about that horrible woman years ago:
I have been, so far, unable to establish Jess Phillips’ provenance going back very far, but I notice that the Jewish/Israel lobby on Twitter/X tends to be very supportive of her.
All slaughter, or virtually all, and whether human or animal, is brutal and cruel by its very nature, but as a society we must make it less cruel, to the furthest extent we can. That means, inter alia, that both halal and kosher slaughter must be disallowed. If that, in turn, means that the ethno-religious communities involved have to leave the UK, and all Europe, then I should regard that very much as a win-win.
and the rest…
THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP IS BROKEN by
[“@freddiejh8 The New Statesman has spoken to administration officials in Washington, sources in the Middle East, London and the Democratic Party, as well as Nigel Farage. What emerges from these conversations is a picture of the “special relationship” that has long been deteriorating and has now been broken by a war that is spiralling out of control.
What Starmer and his team did not understand when they left the White House last February was that the Maga movement believes Britain is a sinking nation, one overwhelmed by “third-world” immigration and vulnerable to woke institutions. Steve Bannon told me that Britain is “not a post-Christian nation, [but] a pre-Islamic” one. When I asked about the UK government’s distinction between offensive and defensive strikes he said, “That’s diplomatic bullshit. Fuck you. You’re either an ally or you’re not. Fuck you. The special relationship is over.” Some British officials still think they only need to preserve the relationship long enough for the Trumpian era to pass. But that is to misunderstand the ambivalence, and occasional hostility, among Democrats. Matt Duss, who was Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy adviser and went to last month’s Munich Security Conference with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, gave no credit to Starmer for his supposedly independent position. “An insult to empty suits,” was how he described Starmer to me.
Parts of the British right believe in another path to fix things: put Farage in No 10. Farage has aligned himself with the president’s war in Iran. “Iran’s a genuine threat to the world,” he told me. But what about the Chinese Communist Party or Vladimir Putin? “Iran potentially poses a bigger danger than Putin poses to us,” he replied. “I do feel this is different.”
The special relationship is a seductive idea. British PMs have long seen these words as the antidote to British decline, the key to influence beyond these islands. That myth is slowly dying.”]
In the real America, beyond the (Washington D.C.) Beltway, that “special relationship” concept has no traction whatsoever. I was in the USA fairly frequently from 1989-1993 and then from 1999-2002, and I never heard or saw the phrase used once, not by American colleagues etc, not on radio or TV, not even in the Press (and I bought the New York Times several times a week).
The “Special Relationship” is a largely-meaningless phrase, and always was, really, certainly after about 1956 (my own birth year but, more significantly in this context, Suez). Something with some reality, perhaps, from about 1941 to about 1956.
The phrase is only really heard from British politicians, talking-heads, and scribblers. In any case, the US/UK relationship has become a one-way street, with the USA getting all of the benefit.
Why should the lady tweeter assume that, just because someone (in this case, Dearlove) was Chief of SIS, that he really is worth listening to in his retirement, when he is making money in the private sector? After all, even when en poste as SIS Chief, Dearlove trimmed his sails to the Blair (i.e. Israel-lobby) war party, with the so-called Iraq “dodgy dossier”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dearlove.
Dearlove is also connected, to some degree or in some way, with the pro-Israel Henry Jackson Society.
More animal friends.
Interesting.
More erudite than simply saying “a typical chimp-out situation!“
Substack
Ian Robert Millard 