Revital Yakin Krakovsky The Blogs Revital Yakin Krakovsky Follow The BlogsMy BlogAbout MeApply for a Blog The writing was on the wall, and it was written in blood on October 7 May 22, 2025, 3:52 PM Facebook Twitter email Print 0 Please note that the posts on The Blogs are contributed by third parties. The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them. Please contact us in case of abuse. In case of abuse, Report this post. Emergency personnel work at the site where two Israeli Embassy staff members were shot dead near the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, May 21, 2025. (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst) Emergency personnel work at the site where two Israeli Embassy staff members were shot dead near the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, DC, May 21, 2025. (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst) October 7, 2023, is the moment when Jewish blood was left abandoned in Israel and around the world. Since that terrible day, Jews across the globe have lived under a tangible and continuous threat—physical, ideological, and institutional. The horrific murder of employees at the Israeli embassy in Washington is not an isolated incident but part of a coordinated campaign to harm and murder Jews. The writing was on the wall—and it was written in blood. The wave of antisemitism that erupted since that day has spiraled out of control and become normalized. “Globalize the Intifada” is not merely an extreme slogan—it is an explicit call to murder Jews. Universities, which are supposed to be spaces for free thought and tolerance, have become breeding grounds for anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and anti-Western indoctrination. For over two decades, forces of radical Islam have infiltrated the West—not with tanks, but with fanatic ideology, funded with billions of dollars from Qatar—the nerve center of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar is not a “complex” state. It is a state that hosts, funds, and exports terror. It provides Hamas with diplomatic, logistical, and media backing—including operating Al Jazeera—but that is just the tip of the iceberg. As revealed by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), Qatar, the largest donor to academia in America, has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in leading American universities over the past three decades—massive donations that are mostly opaque to the public and that have turned institutions of higher learning into arenas of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and anti-Western ideological penetration. Jewish students are attacked, faculty members enable the attacks, university presidents tolerate them, and professors who express support for Israel are marginalized—hatred spills into the streets, synagogues, workplaces, and media. The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) recently published data showing that in 2024, 6,326 antisemitic incidents were reported—around 17 attacks against Jews every day. Of these, 40% occurred in the United States. Since October 7, Jews around the world are removing kippot, hiding Stars of David, and avoiding Jewish events—not out of caution but out of fear. Since the rise of the Nazis, there has not been such a dangerous time for Jews in the West. But this did not happen by chance. This is not an emotional wave. This is a strategy. What we are witnessing in the aftermath of October 7 is not a “wave of antisemitism”—it is a global antisemitic system with funding, messaging, alliances, and influence infrastructure. Just as terrorists were ideologically and financially empowered to murder and burn Jews in southern Israel, so too are the arms of that ideology operating in London, Paris, New York, Toronto and Washington DC. Despite the dramatic rise in antisemitism around the world, the response of the free world has been weak. Except for the Trump administration, which has begun to take initial strong steps against campus antisemitism by denying significant federal funding to universities that do not act against it, European capitals remain tolerant and silent. Education remains key. Every year, Holocaust survivors come to the March of the Living to remind the younger generation what happens when people stay silent—and what the consequences are of hatred that is ignored or tolerated. History has taught—and the present warns.
-
-
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