ROBIN WATT🌞

musician (🎷🎸) bike nonce and dog botherer

[ROBIN WATT🌞 @borintwat]

@dap1955 And it’s a follow from me 👍

[ROBIN WATT🌞 @borintwat]

@israelititan 100%

[Captain Allen @CptAllenHistory]

On This Day — June 7, 2002

As billions in international aid — including your taxpayer dollars — continued pouring into the Palestinian Authority, a Kuwaiti newspaper dropped a bombshell.

On this day in 2002, Al-Watan reported that Yasser Arafat had siphoned $5.1 million in Arab donor money, explicitly earmarked for the Palestinian people, and deposited it directly into his personal bank account.

This was Arafat’s standard operating procedure:

- Arafat’s personal fortune was estimated between $1 billion and $3 billion (some intelligence assessments reached $6.5 billion), stashed in secret accounts in Switzerland, France, and offshore havens.

- A leaked 1997 Palestinian Legislative Council investigation found that 40% of the entire annual budget — $326 million that year alone — had disappeared into corruption and mismanagement. Arafat suppressed the report.

- His economic advisor Mohammed Rashid took stolen funds and invested them in the Jordan Cement Company to personally profit from the reconstruction boom caused by the Intifada.

- Arafat and his inner circle ran monopolies on cement, fuel, cigarettes, flour, gravel, and cars — squeezing huge profits from ordinary goods.

While his wife Suha Arafat (pictured below) lived lavishly in Paris (spending over $100,000 per month on designer clothes, shoes, and luxury living), Arafat treated EU, US, Arab, and UNRWA aid as his personal ATM.

Billions flowed in after Oslo. Very little went to building real institutions or prosperity.

Arafat died one of the richest men in the world — having turned a "national liberation movement" into a criminal empire.

The man who posed as the humble revolutionary in a keffiyeh was, in reality, one of the most successful kleptocrats of the modern era.

This was betrayal on an industrial scale; theft to a degree that would make Daniel Ocean blush.

[Mor Edge Insight @MorEdge_Insight]

Even Arab leaders admit it.

Everyone is sharing the Bill Clinton clip where he describes how Yasser Arafat rejected a generous peace offer at Camp David that would have given the Palestinians a state on 96 percent of the West Bank, land swaps, and a capital in East Jerusalem. Clinton says Arafat lied to him and that the Palestinian leadership never actually wanted a two-state solution. They wanted to destroy Israel. It’s a video often shared by people like @VividProwess, and it’s an important one for people to see.

Of course, critics immediately dismiss it. They claim Clinton is biased or he’s pro-Israel. They’ll tell you that you cannot trust the American perspective.

Ok, so let us set that aside.

Now watch this.

In this powerful interview, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab leader who was directly involved in negotiations, says exactly the same thing from the Arab side. He talks about the Mena House Conference in Cairo as well as the Camp David negotiations of 1978. All failed because of the Palestinians repeatedly rejecting any offer. The Oslo accords were signed but because Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad were not involved, they derailed the accords and any chance for peace by initiating 4 years of terrorist suicide attacks in Israel. Then came the second Camp David negotiations in 2000 which Arafat agreed to, then rejected and instead initiated the Second Intifada.

Mubarak explains how the Palestinians refused to even participate in the Mena House conference of 1977. He describes repeated opportunities they were given, including a detailed document that called for Israeli withdrawal from the Samaria, Judea and Gaza, security arrangements during a transitional period, and other major concessions. The Israelis were willing to negotiate on difficult issues like who would control security. The Palestinians, according to Mubarak, kept saying no and wasting chance after chance.

He speaks with clear frustration about how for decades the Palestinian side has rejected peace initiatives and realistic compromises.

The video further shows footage from the PLO representative in 1977, as well as old footage of Egyptian president Sadat who was involved in the Mena House and first Camp David negotiations of 1978.

This perhaps is far more impactful than Clinton’s account because it is not a Western or Israeli voice. It is prominent Arab leaders who lived the negotiations, who represented the broader Arab world, and who had zero incentive to defend Israel.

When leaders from both sides of the table describe the same pattern of Palestinian rejectionism and violence, it becomes much harder to dismiss as bias.

The pattern is clear across decades and across different voices… generous offers, repeated refusals, and continued demands for everything while giving nothing in return.

This is not ancient history. It is the core reason the conflict continues today.

If you value the truth, please share.

[BOURNYBOY @BOURNYBOY76]

Ofcom have a list of 186 words you cannot say

Enjoy 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Julie Burchill @BoozeAndFagz]

'I don't think you have, mate.' MATE. The world of contemptuous DEI-fuelled smugness in that word. The whole ruling regime is rotten - the #BeKind police force, who treat a dying young man like a lying nuisance in the name of being anti-racist, perhaps worst of all.

[Jennifer 🟥🔴🧙‍♀️🦉🐈‍⬛ 🦖 @babybeginner]

The always brilliant Zoe Nope @ZoeNope made this wonderful video! Gosh Zoe is talented! This is a creator!

[David Collier @mishtal]

Last week I was sent an image of a pro-Palestine stall at Cambridge Market Square.

Not angry students. Not masked radicals. Rather elderly white women encouraging strangers to boycott Israel.

So yesterday I went to Cambridge to hear what they were selling.

Thread ⬇️⬇️

[ROBIN WATT🌞 @borintwat]

@ClipNasa I’m just wondering what that flying saucer’s got under the bonnet and judging by those exhaust fumes I’d
guess some kind of marine diesel, maybe a Perkins or a Lister

[Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen]

After decades of pushing the man-made climate change is going to destroy the planet the top UN science committee admits finally they got it wrong. Don’t worry about the generations of young people guilt tripped to the point where they don’t want to have children to ‘save the planet’.
Why doesn’t someone put a claim for damages against them ?
Alarm and distress ??

https://t.co/XvRAG13KXB

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Aujourd'hui je déconstruis la déconstruction.

La déconstruction est le virus mental le plus efficace jamais conçu contre une civilisation. Il a été fabriqué en France entre 1966 et 1980 par trois hommes : Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Il a été exporté aux États-Unis, hybridé avec le puritanisme racial américain, et il est revenu trente ans plus tard sous le nom de wokisme paralyser l'Occident entier. Voici comment il fonctionne, et pourquoi il faut le détruire.

La thèse est simple. Toute vérité n'est qu'un rapport de pouvoir déguisé. Tout texte sacré, toute loi, toute science, toute norme, toute hiérarchie, toute identité, toute institution cache en réalité une domination. Déconstruire, c'est montrer le rapport de force sous le vernis du vrai. C'est arracher le masque. C'est "démasquer".

Formulé comme ça, ça paraît inoffensif. Voire utile. Qui n'aime pas un peu d'esprit critique ? Le piège est là. La déconstruction se présente comme une méthode. Elle est en réalité une ontologie. Elle ne dit pas seulement "interrogeons les normes", elle dit "il n'y a *que* des rapports de pouvoir". La différence est civilisationnelle.

Une société qui interroge ses normes reste debout. Une société qui croit que ses normes ne sont *rien d'autre* que de la domination s'effondre. Parce qu'elle ne peut plus rien défendre. Plus une frontière, plus une loi, plus une science, plus une langue, plus une histoire, plus une biologie, plus une famille. Tout devient suspect. Tout devient négociable. Tout devient "construit donc déconstructible".

C'est la première raison pour laquelle c'est un virus. Il s'auto-réplique. Une fois inoculé, il transforme tout ce qu'il touche en cible. La science est patriarcale, donc déconstruisons-la. Le langage est colonial, donc réinventons-le. La méritocratie est raciste, donc abolissons-la. Le sexe est une construction, donc choisissons-le. Il n'y a plus de roc. Tout est sable.

Deuxième raison. Le virus est *non-falsifiable*. Si vous défendez une norme, c'est que vous êtes l'oppresseur. Si vous niez être oppresseur, c'est la preuve de votre privilège inconscient. Si vous citez des faits, vos faits sont contaminés par le pouvoir qui les a produits. Si vous citez la raison, la raison elle-même est blanche, masculine, occidentale. Il n'y a aucune sortie possible. Le système est conçu pour rendre toute objection irrecevable par définition.

C'est exactement la structure d'une secte. Et c'est exactement ce qui s'est installé dans les universités, les RH, les médias, les administrations, les conseils d'administration depuis vingt ans.

Troisième raison. Le virus s'auto-réfute mais ne s'auto-détruit pas. Si toute vérité est pouvoir, alors la phrase "toute vérité est pouvoir" est elle-même du pouvoir, donc sans valeur. Logiquement, la déconstruction se mord la queue dès la première phrase. Mais elle s'en moque. Parce qu'elle n'a jamais cherché la cohérence. Elle cherche l'efficacité politique. Et son efficacité politique est immense. Elle désarme ses ennemis et arme ses militants. Elle paralyse le défenseur et libère l'attaquant. C'est une arme asymétrique parfaite.

Quatrième raison. Le virus produit des humains diminués. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Elle sait soupçonner, jamais admirer. Elle voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part. Elle peut produire mille pages sur le caractère opprimant de Shakespeare et zéro ligne qui vaille la peine d'être lue dans cent ans. Elle a confondu l'intelligence critique avec la pose critique. Elle est stérile par construction. Un esprit nourri à la déconstruction est un esprit qui ne sait plus rien édifier.

Cinquième raison, la plus grave. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers. La croyance qu'une vérité est accessible à la raison. La croyance qu'un bien se distingue d'un mal. La croyance qu'un héritage mérite d'être transmis. La déconstruction a méthodiquement dynamité les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui avait nourri ses prophètes. Mais le résultat est là. Une civilisation qui ne croit plus en sa vérité, ni en son bien, ni en son héritage ne se défend pas. Elle s'excuse en attendant la fin.

Voilà ce qu'on a fait. Voilà ce qu'il faut nommer.

La bonne nouvelle, c'est qu'un virus mental ne survit que tant qu'on lui cède l'autorité du discours. Il meurt dès qu'on cesse de jouer son jeu. Dès qu'on réaffirme tranquillement qu'il existe une vérité, un beau, un bien, un héritage. Dès qu'on cesse de demander la permission aux déconstructeurs pour bâtir. Dès qu'on refait. Dès qu'on transmet. Dès qu'on crée.

Les bâtisseurs ont toujours le dernier mot sur les commentateurs. Toujours. Parce qu'à la fin il reste ce qui est construit, et rien de ce qui a été déconstruit.

Alors aujourd'hui je déconstruis la déconstruction. Et demain je construis.

[Captain Allen @CptAllenHistory]

The word “Nakba” (catastrophe) wasn’t invented by Palestinians to describe Jewish “ethnic cleansing.”

It was coined in 1948 by a Syrian Arab historian, Constantin Zureiq, in his book The Meaning of the Disaster.

He used it to describe the humiliating failure of the Arab world — their leaders’ arrogance, their lies to their own people, their military incompetence, and their refusal to accept a Jewish state.

Zureiq wrote that the Arabs had “imaginary victories” and put their public “to sleep” with boasts — until the real disaster hit: they couldn’t wipe out the Jews.

The original Nakba wasn’t about refugees. That a rebrand from several decades later.

It was about the Arab leaders’ catastrophic decision to launch a war of extermination ... and lose.

They’ve spent 77 years rebranding their own failure as Jewish guilt.

That’s the only real "Nakba" they can’t forgive.

[Róisín Michaux @RoisinMichaux]

EU staff told they cannot criticize the EU, even in their free time, and anon accounts will be investigated

“EU and national investigations capabilities exist”, staff at the European Commission were told last week in relation to anonymous/pseudonymous social media accounts

From my newsletter this week:

EU staff were invited to a training session, hosted by one of the staff unions and the head of DEI, on what they can and cannot say in their private life.

The webinar title singled out “UKRAINE-GAZA-IRAN-VACCINES-POLITICS”, as touchy subjects, but they didn’t dare mention gender, even though it is by far the most toxic topic inside the EU bureaucracy.

Here’s some proof: at the exact same moment that the webinar was ongoing, there was a street protest by EU staff against Commission’s policy towards Gaza and Israel, on Place du Luxembourg in Brussels. I happened to walk past it, and I approached the protestors to ask if they knew they were probably breaking some rules. They said that they hadn’t heard that there was any interdiction on their very loud, very critical, very regular, and very EU-branded protests (and bake sales, and marathon participation, and so on…)

The Commission tried to ban all internal talk of gender a couple of years ago, and eventually fired me a few weeks ago for it. There is nothing in this world more sensitive among the elites than the sex-erasure issue. Not even Israel-Gaza.

[Kathryn Porter @KathrynPorter26]

No, he isn't. He's presided over one of the most corrupt governments we've ever hsd

He's either corrupt or extremely stupid

Under @Keir_Starmer

Two people with close links to pedophiles were promoted to high office

His ex deputy is in hot water with HMRC

One minister resigned because she turned out to be a literal criminal

His anti corruption minister has been convicted overseas of corruption

A homelessness minister had to resign over evicting tenants

A heath minister resigned after hoping a constituent would die

Another Labour MP resigned after punching a constituent in the face 6x

A Labour MP was suspended after being arrested for sex offences

The Business Secretary thought he was a solicitor when he wasn't

His Chancellor seems extremely confused about her work history. She also failed to get a licence to rent her property

Multiple ministers including the PM accepted gifts including clothes from donors despite earning more than double what most people earn

The Attorney General has failed to act on conflicts of interest and supported baseless lawfare against British soldiers

The Labour Welsh First Minister was forced to resign over so many allegations of corruption it's hard to know where to start typing them

On top of all that there's the cronyism, firing officials without due process, and the Chinese spying case

[ROBIN WATT🌞 @borintwat]

@thesundaysport @BradfemlyWalsh Lately I’ve been wondering if ‘chicken kiev’ could be crowbarred into a headline regarding the court case involving our esteemed leader’s possible bum chums.
Too niche maybe?

[Maxi @AllForProgress_]

For those of you who haven't been reading the news, or haven't recently taken that Walk of Kings between St. Paul's and the World's End (try it on a spring-sunshine-dappled afternoon this bank-holiday weekend), there's a new Banksy up at Waterloo Place.

It depicts a suited man walking off a plinth, his face (and his sight) obscured by a flag. The dutiful reading, as has been helpfully supplied by the papers, is that the work is a swipe at blind patriotism. The flag-waver as our era's quintessential fool. Sited carefully outside the Athenaeum, an institution that has clubbed together bishops, judges, and former cabinet ministers since 1824.

It's a disappointment from Banksy. Make no mistake, though graffiti is his medium, he is and always has been an establishment artist. The one time he threatened to make himself something else was last September, when he printed an image of a judge bringing a gavel down on a prone member of Joe Public across the front of Royal Courts of Justice.

It was the first time he'd been subversive in his career, the first time he'd dared contradict Metropolitan class consensus, and at such a vital time, to comment on the grinding lawfare being waged by the British establishment upon the private lives of the country's citizens. The image just got even more livid when they tried to wash it off. It was more powerful as a mere silhouette.

Of course, he couldn't be allowed to get away with that. A little while later, and not I suspect coincidentally, he got doxxed by Reuters.

Having been stung once he's gotten straight back to the studio, and back to acting as a well-behaved regime mouthpiece, with a work that, if it is indeed mocking anything, appears to be mocking the idea of believing in anything at all. "Silly little patriots, with their beliefs for which they are willing to risk their comforts," it seems to say without really having the gall to say it outright, so as to leave itself an out, as work shy of conviction often does.

Assembled with the clear blessing and assistance of Westminster council, by the way. The press can go ahead and faux-marvel "How did he get that up there without anyone noticing?" as they are commonly inclined to with Banks' and his guerilla unveilings, but mounting and possibly assembling a statue weighing several tons in the most surveilled place in London, inevitably via the use of a crane and probably a few heavy goods vehicles, is not the same thing as spraying a tag.

It is done with help and with permission. And given the message is so utterly aligned to establishment mores and Metropolitan class feeling, it's no wonder it was granted.

It will have restored his esteem in Hampstead, after he briefly worried them with a flash of nerve.

That's one of the worst things about the phase of Britain whose time is up and whose reign at the reins is about to come to a close: all of its rebellions were always for sale.

I don't believe in them.

[Shiri_Sabra @sabra_the]

Did you know?

Adrian Reland (1676-1718) a Dutch scholar, geographer, cartographer and well know philosopher. He spoke perfect Hebrew, Arabic, and Ancient Greek, as well as European languages.
He wrote the book
"Palestina, ex Monumentis Veteribus Illustrata" that was written in Latin, after he was sent in 1695 on a sightseeing tour to Israel (then, South Syria, under the Ottoman occupation).

In his travels Reland mapped the land and surveyed approximately 2,500 places were people lived at the time of the Mishnah and Talmud, along with the original source of names of those places. He also arranged a population survey and census of each community.
His conclusions:
Not even one settlement in the land of Israel has a name that is Arabic origin, and the Arabic names of the places, were changed from their original Hebrew, Greek, or Roman name.
Most of the land was empty, desolate.
The habitants few in numbers lived in Jerusalem, Acco (Acre), Tzefat, Jaffa, Tiberius and Gaza. Most were Jews and the rest Christians, there were very few Muslims, mostly nomad Beduins who arrived in the area as construction and agriculture labor reinforcement, seasonal workers.

In Jerusalem lived about 5,000 people, mostly Jews, the rest Christians. In Gaza lived about 550 people, 50% Jews and the rest Christians. The Jews made their income from agriculture, especially growing grapes for wine, and the Christians were merchants.
The book strengthen the connection, relevance, pertinence, kinship of the land belonging to the Jews, and shows that the Arabs robbed away the Latin name Palestine and took it as their own.

Spain was under Arabic occupation for a few hundreds years and one can see the Arabic influence in cultural heritage: literature, monumental creations, engineering, medicine, etc. but in Israel, nothing like that. No names of original Arabic towns, on Arabic culture, no art, no history, no evidence on Arabic rule, only huge robbery, pillaging and looting, stealing away the Jews' holiest places robbing the Jews of their Promised Land, and lately, also hijacking and robbing away the Jewish history to cut off the connections of the Jews to their land.
For more information about the book visit:

https://t.co/KxDaOuggey

A copy of the book is also available at the Haifa University in Israel.

[Maxi @AllForProgress_]

Yesterday's edition of the Financial Times carried a lengthy interview with Lord Hermer KC, the present Attorney General of the United Kingdom.

If you haven't seen it: oh, boy.

The interview was part of the FT's fluffy "Lunch With" feature, a sympathetic profile format whose previous subjects have included most of the 'grown ups in the room' of the British establishment over the last 40 years. The Hermer instalment was, by the FT's own pitch, an opportunity for the Attorney General to "open up about the Keir Starmer people don't see," and to explain the merits of the Chagos deal.

The piece appeared. The comments section opened. And in those comments, you could see a country on the precipice of major change.

The Financial Times's readership is not, to put it as politely as the situation will allow, known for its raucous lower-class anger. It is the readership of senior partners at City firms, central bankers, retired civil servants, retired ambassadors, and the broader metropolitan managerial caste of Britain at the fatter end. It is, on almost every available political question, the most reliably establishment-tarian readership of any newspaper in the United Kingdom.

The comments, before they were closed, were so brutal that readers were openly asking for the article to be withdrawn and threatening to cancel their subscriptions in numbers the FT had not seen before. When the FT readership turns on a Labour Attorney General, the Labour Attorney General has a problem.

If you were wondering what caused such an outbreak of fury from the terribly polite class, here's a summary of the last three decades of Lord Hermer's career.

Lord Hermer, before he became Attorney General, made his name and his living as a human-rights barrister whose principal practice, for a meaningful slice of the relevant period, was the prosecution of civil claims against the British state.

Suing his own country. He got particular mileage out of pursuing claims against the British armed forces, on behalf of foreign nationals alleging mistreatment by British servicemen and women in the field.

The most notorious of these matters is the Al-Sweady litigation. Lord Hermer was lead counsel for eight Iraqi claimants who alleged that British soldiers had murdered, mutilated, and tortured Iraqi prisoners after the Battle of Danny Boy in May 2004. The claims occupied the Ministry of Defence, the Royal Military Police, and a public inquiry for the better part of a decade. The inquiry, at its conclusion, found the claims to be "wholly without foundation," and the result of "deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility."

On 22 April this year, the Daily Telegraph published more than 25,000 pages of contemporaneous emails and legal documents from Lord Hermer's chambers' handling of the Al-Sweady litigation. Among the documents was an internal communication in his own writing, advising on how to "get the big story out there" and noting the need for "wriggle room if the killings did not in fact happen."

Today's edition of the same paper carries further documents from the same info dump showing Hermer privately criticising serving British soldiers, in correspondence with his legal team, while praising publicly the Iraqi lawyers whose own clients the inquiry had found to be lying.

Hermer has, rightfully, been formally referred Lord Hermer to the Bar Standards Board for serious professional misconduct. Lord Glasman, a Labour peer who knows him personally, has called him "an arrogant...fool." Boris Johnson, the former Prime Minister, has said directly that Hermer "aided false war crimes claims against British troops."

(Fancy losing a moral high-ground to Boris Johnson...)

This is the Attorney General. He is the chief legal officer of the Crown. The man whose entire constitutional function is to ensure that the legal interests of the British state are properly defended in the highest forums is a man who, before assuming the post, made his career attacking the British state on behalf of liars, liars whose lies were specifically calibrated to destroy the reputations of British servicemen and women.

There is a word for this kind of legal practice when it is done at scale and in a particular direction. The word is "lawfare." The deployment of judicial mechanisms as a substitute for politics by other means.

The systematic use of human-rights frameworks, judicial review, and aggressive litigation to constrain the actions of one's own state, to attack one's own armed forces, and to advance a worldview that the elected institutions of one's country have repeatedly declined to advance through the ballot box.

It is, at its outer edge, a form of treason that wears a wig. And Hermer, who practices it, is an enemy of our state.

[Александр Елесев | Доброум TV @dobroum]

Моя любимая краткая история СССР.

Как только умер Ленин, оказалось, что второй человек в партии, товарищ Троцкий - предатель. Каменев, Зиновьев, Бухарин и Сталин свергли Троцкого и изгнали из СССР.

Но через пару лет оказалось, что Каменев, Зиновьев и Бухарин тоже враги и вредители. Тогда доблестный товарищ Генрих Ягода их расстрелял.

Чуть позже Ягоду, как вражеского агента, расстрелял Ежов.

Но через пару лет оказалось, что и Ежов не товарищ, а обычный предатель и вражеский агент. И Ежова расстрелял Берия.

После смерти Сталина, все поняли, что и Берия тоже предатель. Тогда Жуков сверг и расстрелял Берию.

Но вскоре Хрущев узнал, что Жуков враг и заговорщик. И сослал Жукова на Урал.

А чуть позже вскрылось, что и Сталин-то был врагом, вредителем и предателем. А вместе с ним и большая часть политбюро. Тогда Сталина вынесли из мавзолея, а политбюро и примкнувшего к ним Шепилова разогнали честные партийцы, во главе с Хрущевым.

Прошло несколько лет и выяснилось, что Хрущев был волюнтаристом, проходимцем, авантюристом и врагом. Тогда Брежнев отправил Хрущева на пенсию.

Вскоре Брежнев умер, и выяснилось, что он был маразматиком, вредителем и причиной застоя.

Потом было еще два маразматика, который никто и запомнить не успел, потому что дохли, как мухи.

Но тут пришел к власти молодой, энергичный Горбачев. И оказалось, что вся партия была партией вредителей и врагов, но он-то сейчас все исправит...

Тут-то СССР и развалился. А Горбачев оказался врагом и предателем.