Lolly D

[Lolly D @funnysmells]

Earlier this year @cbouzy and Bot Sentinel published a list of problematic @YouTube channels which were increasingly focusing on anti Meghan Markle content. YouTube profits from these channels as do the channel creators, and there are too few disincentives to stop production.

[Stan Collymore @StanCollymore]

Suicide and men.

New suicide figures have been published by @ONS: 5,738 suicides were registered for England in 2025.

75% were in men. 1 in 65 men die by suicide.

Sometimes when I'm invited to talk about mental health, I ask a question at the end. "How many of you (mixed crowd) struggle with mental health issues?".

Maybe one or two in a room of a couple of hundred. Then when everyone leaves, often 10-20 guys will come over and say "I do".

Men still have a problem opening up about their mental health, all ages, because the message society still sends is, "it's weakness".

October, for some reason is the worst month of the year for me. I go from running 20kph and flying through summer ( well, better than October) to what I can only describe is a descent into every mental health stereotype.

Anxiety
Fear
No energy ( chronic)
Hypersomnia ( 28 hours isn't uncommon)
Insomnia
Suicidal ideation

And then the voice pops up. "You could end this here and now ". It's really difficult to explain to anyone who's never had suicidal ideation what it exactly is.

Because I run and keep fit I "know" my fitness will pull me through, but many are stuck in a cycle. Maybe use food or alcohol to look for a dopamine hit ( serious mental health issues literally take away your ability to feel anything, an omnipresent numbness), maybe drugs, maybe exercise, maybe work, many even cut themselves to try to feel something.

In that context, saying" I'll end it here and now " becomes a relief. It's certainly no cry for help because you've mostly already tried everything and still the black dog comes.

Right now I'm at the gym, forced myself to push through but I know a 28 hour sleep may be incoming and that "why don't you..." voice starts to get louder.

I've put this out there over 20 years on here so thus isn't for any purpose other than to show that someone who's in the top 1% of health and fitness is as prone to this quite frightening drop off, seemingly from nowhere, so if this is you, you have that voice, then know it's an illness that strikes many, and unfortunately takes a few along the way. I'm lucky, many took the literal leap because the fear is all consuming.

There us help, lots of charities I here @MindBodySoleUK @MindCharity @CharitySANE are but a few.

But those stats at the top are sobering, and are holding steady.

If someone you know is struggling or you think they are, please reach out to them. If you are struggling, please reach out to friends and family.

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

They built an entire civilization on the idea that God is on their side.

Not a foreign God. Not an old-testament God of wrath and conquest, which would at least be honest.

A Jesus God.

A turn-the-other-cheek, blessed-are-the-meek, it’s-easier-for-a-camel-to-pass-through-the-eye-of-a-needle-than-for-a-rich-man-to-enter-heaven God.

That God.

The one who specifically, explicitly, repeatedly told his followers to care for the poor, resist the powerful, refuse violence, love their enemies.

They took that God and they put him on aircraft carriers.

They put him in the mouths of politicians voting for defense budgets.

They gave him to televangelists who told congregations that wealth was "divine favor" and that bombing Muslim countries was "spiritual warfare."

They built the most powerful military empire in history and they wrapped it in the theology of a man who died opposing one.

And then they looked at the people praying in the ruins of the cities their planes had bombed and said:

"Their God is dangerous."

[PEACE TV @TvTvpeace]

✡️ 🇮🇱 – Un écrivain juif antisioniste, Benjamin Moser, explique à Piers Morgan ce que les sionistes ont toujours recherché : la suprématie juive au Moyen-Orient et le fait que le projet sioniste plonge ses racines civilisationnelles dans le christianisme.

[Christopher Hale @ChristopherHale]

MAGA: The woke Pope Leo XIV is contradicting 2,000 years of Catholic teaching on the death penalty.

Pope Nicholas I in 866 AD:

[Joyce Carol Oates @JoyceCarolOates]

Camus seems to have believed that life is essentially "absurd"--"purposeless"-- but you must pretend as if it does have meaning & its customs & protocols are sacrosanct. so, when the protagonist speaks frankly of feeling mostly "ennui" at his own trial for murder, & not having cared greatly that his mother has died, he signs his own death warrant: the crowd, the court, the judge are appalled by him; his lawyer had wanted him to play a role but he refuses.
it is meant to be ironic that Meursault isn't punished for killing a person, in this case an Arab--(Morocco is a racist colony at this time controlled by the French, killing/exploiting Arabs is commonplace)--but rather for violating the mores of his society, not playing the role of the grieving son.

[Pope Leo XIV @Pontifex]

The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. #NoDeathPenalty

[Joyce Carol Oates @JoyceCarolOates]

As Iago explained his hatred of Cassio: “He hath a beauty in his daily life that makes me ugly.”

[Jonathan Cook @Jonathan_K_Cook]

The late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who spent decades fighting South African apartheid, famously observed: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

The Greens’ motion on Zionism has made Tutu’s point explicit in the context of modern Britain. It is time to make a choice.

Those who wish to be “neutral” in the face of genocide – or prefer to deflect by placing all the blame for Israel’s decades-long crimes exclusively on the shoulders of Benjamin Netanyahu – have many political parties that will welcome them.

Those whose conscience no longer allows them to remain neutral on possibly the biggest moral issue of our age now have, for the very first time, a party – one party – that represents their views.

A political party that declares itself to be progressive and anti-racist should seek to live up to those ideals. Its job is most assuredly not to equivocate on apartheid and genocide to make Zionists feel comfortable within the party.

And herein lies the threat for Israel’s apologists, Jews and non-Jews alike.

If one party is allowed to offer voters a meaningful voice on Israel – and against genocide – where might that lead? If the Greens’ anti-Zionism proves a vote winner, might other political parties suddenly find a moral backbone too?

It is critically important for the Zionists to snuff out any meaningful opposition to Israeli crimes. And so, entirely predictably, the usual suspects are rolling out the playbook of smears they used against Jeremy Corbyn when he became Labour leader in 2015.

Remember Corbyn was universally branded an antisemite by the British establishment for recognising Israel for what it is: an apartheid state.

Unremarked by the establishment media, of course, is the fact that he was utterly vindicated by the 2024 judgment of the world’s highest court in finding Israel guilty of the crime of apartheid.

No matter. The smears helped destroy Corbyn. So why not try the same trick on the Green Party and its Jewish leader, Zack Polanski?

After Polanski tripled the Greens’ share of the vote in a by-election held on Thursday, but lost to a Labour candidate benefiting from the inevitable honeymoon enjoyed by the party’s new prime minister, the media chorus was the same: wasn’t this proof Polanski needed to resign?

According to the Guardian, senior Labour officials have stated that, after the Zionism vote, the party will refuse to work with the Greens if the next election produces a hung parliament.

In other words, in the interests of yet another entirely confected antisemitism furore, Labour will choose to let in a far-right Conservative-Reform coalition rather than do a deal with a Jewish-led Green Party.

This is an extract from my latest article What’s shameful is that no party before the Greens called Zionism racist. Find a link to the rest in the reply post ⬇️

[Jonathan Cook @Jonathan_K_Cook]

Zack Polanski would doubtless have loved to win the Holborn by-election. He managed to triple the Greens' share of the vote, in a difficult seat for the party and in the midst of Labour's short Burnham honeymoon.

Yet the media reaction is as one: shouldn't Polanski resign? The question isn't a question at all. It's a prompt your brain is supposed to interpret as proof he's failed, he's damaging the party, he needs to be replaced.

It's intended to bypass the reality that Polanski has turned the party's fortunes around in terms of vote share and MPs, that the Greens are now a major insurgent force in UK politics, that he helped drive Starmer out of office and is driving Burnham further left than either Burnham or the Blairite Labour bureaucracy are inclined to go to win back the left.

The sanctions against Israel's illegal settlements happened because of the Polanski-led Greens, not because Labour suddenly saw the light – after three years of conspiring in a genocide.

The Green surge under Polanski is also driving the break-up of the cosy old two-party closed shop that has overseen the wrecking of Britain's industrial base and the economy's dependency on a financial sector whose only policy is ever-deepening austerity for you and me.

Those are the reasons the political and media class want Polanski gone. And they will keep trying to short-circuit your brain into thinking that that would be good for the country rather than just for them.

[G*rre @springbris]

sometimes Reddit is good

[Lolly D @funnysmells]

@coldwarsteve Oh no

[Lolly D @funnysmells]

@TerryMoran Love to see a list like this. Character summary

[Lolly D @funnysmells]

@KyleClark Cool, cool

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

They came back from Vietnam and made movies about it.

Apocalypse Now. Full Metal Jacket. Platoon. The Deer Hunter. Born on the Fourth of July.

Beautiful films. Serious films.

Films about the trauma of American soldiers, the moral complexity of American soldiers, the broken psyches of American soldiers.

How many major American films center the experience of the Vietnamese?

How many Hollywood productions have you seen where the Vietnamese are the protagonists, the full human beings with names and families and inner lives, and the Americans are the faceless army descending from the sky?

Think about that structure.

Think about what it means when a country kills three million of your people, loses the war, goes home, and then spends the next fifty years producing prestige cinema about how hard the killing was for the killers.

Vietnamese suffering as backdrop. American suffering as subject.

Vietnamese bodies as set dressing. American guilt as narrative arc.

They could not conquer Vietnam militarily.

But they tried to conquer the story.

They tried to make the war, in global cultural memory, fundamentally about them.

Their boys. Their trauma. Their national reckoning.

We are not your reckoning.

We are not your backdrop.

We won.

We exist.

We have our own story, and in our story, we are the ones who were here before you came and here after you left.

[Ali @AJ_F612]

God this is so good

[Cold War Steve @coldwarsteve]

Great British Landscapes 2027 Calendar. On presale now. Here’s Feb, Jan, June & December.
👇👇👇
https://t.co/OcEGLrLjtU

[Saganism @Saganismm]

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

— George Orwell

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

Imagine if your civilization had a name.

A real one.

Your own.

And then imagine that the people who arrived on your shores, who you received, sometimes generously, decided that your civilization's name for itself was not the relevant one.

That the name they gave it, "primitive," "savage," "undeveloped," without history, without law, without the specific forms of organization they recognized as "civilization," was the name that would be written in the books.

And the books would be written by them.

And the books would be taught in the schools.

And the schools would be the schools they built to teach your children.

And your children would learn, in those schools, that the civilization their grandparents built was not a civilization in the relevant sense.

And some of those children would believe it.

And some of those who believed it would spend their lives trying to earn recognition within the framework of the people who took the name away.

And the ones who refused, who held the old name, who kept the old language, who insisted that the arrival of the ship was not the beginning of history but an interruption of it...

They would be called "nationalists." "Radicals." "Obstacles to progress."

And the people who had taken the name would hold academic conferences on how to help the people whose names they'd taken achieve "development."

This is not a parable.

This is the operating history of colonialism on every continent it touched.

The name was the first thing taken.

For many peoples, it is still the thing they are still fighting to reclaim.

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

America dropped nuclear bombs on civilian cities.

It is the only country in history to have done this.

It then spent eighty years telling every other country they couldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Sit with the geometry of that sentence.

Sit with it until it becomes uncomfortable.

[dylan @narrenhut]

The death penalty is one of the few issues where we see true radical centrism: one side is pro-execution, the other is anti-execution, so we compromise by waiting two decades and then doing half of an execution. Somehow everybody loses