NAZISM AND UNHINGED RIOT LIKE PROTESTS DON'T GARNER SUPPORT. Ask anybody how many Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and the number will be at their fingertips. It now stands at more than 50,000; they heard as much on the BBC. Ask them how many of those sorry souls happened to be fighting Israel at the time, however, and you’ll find that they soon draw a blank. See Anything Up Close in HD Detail, from Miles Away Top20GadgetDeals See Anything Up Close in HD Detail, from Miles Away Ad Three weeks after October 7, 2023, I wrote a column in this paper under the headline “The gullible West is falling for Hamas’s fictitious death figures”. It is a theme to which I and others have returned on many occasions. A year ago, for instance, I wrote about “the devastating proof that Hamas is faking its death figures,” when the American data scientist Professor Abraham Wyner became the first of several analysts to comprehensively debunk them. “By rights,” I argued, “if the central pillar of the anti-Israel edifice has been discredited, the whole structure should come tumbling down.” Fat lot of good that did. This week, it emerged that Hamas had quietly dropped 3,400 fully “identified” deaths from its casualty figures, including 1,080 children. “These ‘deaths’ never happened,” wrote Salo Aizenberg, a board member at Honest Reporting, the NGO which made the discovery. “The numbers were falsified. Again.” But not before they had been verified by the United Nations and parroted by a gullible — or ideologically blinkered — media. Shop Estee Lauder at Macy’s Macy's Shop Estee Lauder at Macy’s Ad Further analysis of the data showed that among those old enough to be fighting for Hamas, 72 per cent of the dead were male, a testament to the care and precision of the IDF on a battlefield often crowded with human shields. By contrast, in the most tragic statistic of all, the balance of child casualties was 50-50 between boys and girls. This builds up a picture of the way Israel is fighting this war, confirming that they are targeting belligerents, the very opposite of a “genocide”. Moreover, Honest Reporting found that Hamas had unscrupulously included natural deaths in the list of supposed victims of the IDF, including infant mortality rates of around 780 each year. This amounted to about 8,300 fatalities that any reporter acting in good faith would remove from the total. But the media has shown a singular lack of curiosity about that. Payoff Your Debt in 48 Months - $10K-$100K Debt Consolidation top10debtconsolidation.com Payoff Your Debt in 48 Months - $10K-$100K Debt Consolidation Ad If we take into account Israel’s figures, which state that about 20,000 of the dead were combatants, that means that about one civilian is killed for every fighter. This is a humanitarian feat that has never been equalled by any other army, in spite of the fact that Hamas herds its own people into the firing line to produce the footage we see on the BBC. That is the true story of this war. But according to research by the Henry Jackson Society, extenuating Israeli data is cited in just 5 per cent of news reports (which is why most people are unaware of it), whereas 98 per cent repeat numbers provided by Hamas. Soberingly, while thousands of despairing Palestinians are rising up against their jihadi overlords in Gaza, the West continues to do all it can to foist their propaganda agenda upon the public. Every human life is sacred and it is macabre to talk in such terms about the grim arithmetic of death. But those on my side of the argument have no choice but to respond in such terms to the obsession with casualty numbers that has characterised coverage of this war since the start. Put it this way: do you have any idea how many civilians were killed when we destroyed Islamic State, or waged war in Afghanistan and Iraq? No? That tells you something.
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment