FRIDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2025
What would Jesus have done? For now, but only briefly, let's set the military strike in Nigeria off to the side.
Let's consider the highly unusual person who's able to order such strikes. Last night, in what has become his typical holiday style, he offered this Christmas message:
Truth Details
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrumpMerry Christmas to all, including the many Sleazebags who loved Jeffrey Epstein, gave him bundles of money, went to his Island, attended his parties, and thought he was the greatest guy on earth, only to “drop him like a dog” when things got too HOT, falsely claimed they had nothing to do with him, didn’t know him, said he was a disgusting person, and then blame, of course, President Donald J. Trump, who was actually the only one who did drop Epstein, and long before it became fashionable to do so. When their names get brought out in the ongoing Radical Left Witch Hunt (plus one lowlife “Republican,” Massie!), and it is revealed that they are Democrats all, there will be a lot of explaining to do, much like there was when it was made public that the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax was a fictitious story—a total Scam—and had nothing to do with “TRUMP.” The Failing New York Times, among many others, was forced to apologize for their bad and faulty Election “Reporting,” even to the point of losing many subscribers due to their highly inaccurate (FAKE!) coverage. Now the same losers are at it again, only this time so many of their friends, mostly innocent, will be badly hurt and reputationally tarnished. But sadly, that’s the way it is in the World of Corrupt Democrat Politics!!! Enjoy what may be your last Merry Christmas! President Donald J. Trump
Enjoy what may be your last Merry Christmas!
That was the holiday message sent to "the many Sleazebags" addressed in this Christmas Day post. The rest of us are left to wonder how repeated messaging of this type might sound to some (sadly) disordered person who might decide that it may be time to act on such presentations.
We've been asking, in the past week, if it might be "dangerous" to have this particular person in a position of vast unchecked power. Also, if it might be dangerous to proceed ahead without considering the possibility that some "mental illness" might be involved in such repetitive behavior, possibly driven along at the present time by some sort of cognitive decline.
Somewhere ages and ages hence, we the people will be able to discuss such possibilities in our public forums (if such forums still exist). As of today, we haven't yet evolved to the point where we're even willing to conduct such discussions, or where we would know how to do so if we decided to give it a try.
Heightening the possibility of danger is the power possessed by this person—power expressed yesterday in these military strikes:
U.S. Strikes ISIS in Nigeria After Trump Warned of Attacks on Christians
The United States launched a number of strikes against the Islamic State in northwestern Nigeria, President Trump announced on Thursday, the latest American military campaign against a nonstate adversary—in this case, Islamic jihadis who the president asserts have been slaughtering Christians.
Mr. Trump said in a post on Truth Social that “the United States launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians at levels not seen for many years, and even Centuries!”
The strike involved more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles fired off a Navy ship in the Gulf of Guinea, hitting insurgents in two ISIS camps in northwest Nigeria’s Sokoto State, according to a U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters. The operation was done in coordination with the Nigerian military, the official said.
In a statement, U.S. Africa Command said its initial assessment concluded that “multiple” ISIS terrorists were killed in the strike.
So begins the news report in the New York Times.
As a matter of basic fairness, we take note of the assertion that yesterday's operation "was done in coordination with the Nigerian military." At any rate, the president took out the scum yesterday, even as he may have seemed to be threatening the sleazebags.
There's much, much more to say about the ways newspapers like the New York Times have agreed to normalize such unusual public behavior. Forget the fact that such newspapers refuse to interview medical specialists about the possibility of some sort of (unfortunate) "mental disorder," possibly accompanied by some degree of (unfortunate) cognitive decline.
(Or not.)
Forget about that! In the days ahead, we'll try to detail the moral squalor involved in the various claims this president has made, and in the various accusations he has advanced, with respect to the Jeffrey Epstein matter.
Forget about (possible) issues of "mental illness" or "mental disorder!" Such newspapers have even refused to treat his endless promulgation of flagrantly false statements and blatantly unfounded accusations as a major news hook—as a feature of this man's bizarre behavior which should be pursued, as a front-page topic, every time it presents.
Simply put, we humans weren't built for this line of work. Something seems to be wrong with the world's most powerful man, but salaries are still quite good in other precincts, and people who still enjoy those salaries just keep averting their gaze from his bizarre public conduct.
From his ugly unfounded accusations. From his endless flaming misstatements.
Do you believe that the sitting president may be in the grip of an actual "illness?" If so, we've suggested that you "pity the child."
Are our journalists in the grip of some illness? We report the basic facts, and then we let you decide!
Don't read all about it: Regarding that warning to the sleazebags, you can read about it at Mediaite.
Will it be reported by the New York Times? We don't have the answer to that!
ReplyDeleteSleazebags, BlueAnons, Soros-bots, Democrats, same thing.
What's your problem, Bob; this is how people talk. Yes, humans, people on this here planet. Not alien reptiloids that you adore. Get used to it.
What more proof do you need to convince you the USA is a Christian nation?
ReplyDeleteLook at the violent, warring nature. Look at the sexual predation of children. Of course we are a nation of Christians.
DeleteNow, if we ethnically cleanse entire populations (like Venezuelans, for instance), you could make the argument that we're Jews. (hat tip, David in Cal).
WE didn't all do the things that reflect badly on our Christian nation. These are the actions of a minority, even if our Christianity is made hypocritical because the perpetrators of these wrongs so often appeal to their own Christianity to excuse themselves and feel better about what they do. This are evil men, not an evil religion, and the rest of us may not have done enough to restrain wrongdoing, but we are still not doing such things as a nation.
Delete"EMPATHY AND ILLNESS: Sitting president threatens the sleazebags!
ReplyDeleteMONDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2025"
Someone tell Somerby that today is FRIDAY not Monday.
Once they get you to believe there is a Republican voter who isn't a bigot, getting you to believe a Friday is a Monday is child's play.
DeleteIf Trump wanted to sleep with a 20-year-old in the '90s, why would he need Epstein's help to do so?
ReplyDeleteTrump is accused (by the victims) of raping 13 year old girls. One said she was given a wig by Maxwell in order to more closely resemble Ivanka, who Trump called "hot" and someone he would date if she weren't his daughter. Trump denied being on the plane, which makes him a proven liar given the flight logs. We all know that Trump lies about everything, but in this case, he deserves to have the accusations against him supported by facts, not just asserted.
DeleteFor the 20 year old, simply being on a plane with Trump and Epstein does not constitute consent for any kind of sex. What would her options be for refusing, once she is on a plane. Was she on the plane of her own free will? That matters. Beyond that, some of the worst abuses are described by victims as having occurred on the Island.
At the time Trump was 42-54 years old. If you were 20 years old, would you want to sleep with an old man like that? Most 20 year olds do not. That might be why he needed Epstein's help. Trump was regularly calling in to Howard Stern's show and engaging in arrogant behavior during those years, and 20 year olds would be repelled by his conduct. He was not an attractive man then, any more than now. Most healthy 20 year olds would run from him, which is why he would need Epstein's help, especially if he wanted to be with an attractive woman who would have better choices than Trump.
"Do you believe that the sitting president may be in the grip of an actual "illness?" If so, we've suggested that you "pity the child."
ReplyDeleteOf course Trump is in the grip of an actual illness. Look at his swollen ankles, the bruises on his hands after infusions, his low energy, stumbling and slurring words, his decreased involvement in doing the job. These are all symptoms of illness.
Adding mental illness to the list (at this late date in his political career) seems gratuitous. But what does Somerby mean when he says "pity the child"? If Somerby is pitying anyone, he should be referring to the many children abused by Trump and Epstein in their lengthy collaboration.
I think Somerby may be genuinely concerned about children, but facing their trauma is too much for him. Thus, he cannot express his concern for those sex trafficked victims, so he is preoccupied with Trump's illness, to the point of obsession. But Trump is not the victim in this situation -- he is the attacker of young girls and women, just as the US is attacking ISIS in Nigeria. Somerby's focus on Nigeria is a disguised symbol of his unease about the attacks on girls/women by Trump and the other men who participated in Epstein's sex ring. And Trump has used this Nigerian attack as a direct threat against his accusers. He is lashing back at them with a symbolic act, while explicitly warning ALL of his enemies that this may be our last Merry Christmas. How ghoulish is that? Pretty damned ghoulish. And dangerous.
Does anyone think Trump would go to war to protect Nigerian girls when he spent so many years making war on female children and attacking adult women? And was it necessary to make war on Christmas day? Is Trump sickened by the emphasis on generosity and kindness that is part of a traditional Christmas in the USA? Is this Trump's reaction to calls for cheer and good will toward all while he feels more and more threatened?
And why has Somerby chosen to emphasize this act of warfare today himself? It is unclear but he seems to be upset that the NY Times reported on the Nigerian attack. And he says he is upset that reporters are paid salaries (should they work for free?). And finally Somerby says he will talk about Epstein for a while -- he is way behind that story himself, but now pretends that no one else has been focused on it?
Meanwhile Trump himself threatens that this may be our last "Merry" Christmas. Shouldn't Somerby be wondering what he means by that? Trump lauds himself for standing by Epstein, when others abandoned him and distanced themselves from Epstein's scandals. Trump implies that those others were also involved in the sex scandal part but it is the lack of loyalty that bothers Trump, not the terrible things done to the victims, the young girls and women. The victims are suffering still, and confronting their attackers. But Somerby has never called for us to pity them. Perhaps he will.
It will be interesting to see which aspects of the Epstein case most bother Somerby, given that he has said so little about it up to now. In a way, the Epstein case is like a Rorschach test onto which the inner attitudes of men toward women are projected. That would be so if Trump were uninvolved but it is more true if he were an accomplice to Epstein. Trump is worried about abandonment once his acts are revealed. What will Somerby care about, as he finally writes about the scandal? Will he defend those who have not been 100% proven to have been involved, insisting upon ironclad proof? Will he call the 1000+ victims a bunch of liars and hysterical nutjobs, as Dershowitz has been doing? Or will Somerby insist that it is Trump's mental illness that matters not his actions in harming young girls? Time will tell.
Somerby has not chosen to empathize with the harsh treatmet of immigrants, why should he feel anything about the way Epstein's victims were treated?
ReplyDeleteSome of the discussions about empathy point out that we feel greater empathy toward those who we consider to be most like ourselves. Somerby's empathy is for Trump, not his victims. Does that suggest that Somerby considers himself to be most like Trump? When Somerby said "there but for fortune" in his last essay, he admits that he and Trump share similarities that might have made Somerby into a monster had he walked in Trump's shoes. In contrast, most decent people look at Trump and are repulsed, safe in the knowledge that they are nothing like him and could not every be him, even if given a few billion dollars.
Clearly Somerby finds it easier to empathize with Trump than with 14 year old girls, but what is it about Trump that he finds similar to himself and his own life? He hasn't told us yet. I doubt he will have the honesty, especially since he has now avoided the subject much longer than anyone else in our culture. Somerby seems desperate to give Trump an excuse, in this case mental illness, so he doesn't have to call him a bad man. That, in itself, is pretty pathetic.
When has Somerby every expressed any pity for the victims of Trump and Epstein? Never, that I can recall. He has never said that these acts were wrong.
ReplyDeletePedophilia is a psychiatric disorder distinct from acts of molesting children, rape or sexually motivated murder.
https://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/42/4/404.full.pdf
"Pedophilic disorder is characterized by recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with prepubescent children (generally ≤ 13 years); based on clinical criteria, it is diagnosed only when the patient is ≥ 16 years and ≥ 5 years older than the child who is the target of the fantasies or behaviors."
Note that Trump himself has described transparent fantasies about his own daughter at age 13-14. He has bragged about being able to walk in on undressed young teens at his beauty pageants. The young girls at his and Epstein's parties were often young models or girls trying to start modeling careers (age 13-14). That fits the criteria in the DSM, whether sex was involved or not. It is the men's fantasies that are diagnostic, not just molesting children.
When Somerby refers to mental illness, then posts excerpts from the DSM describing ASPD and narcissistic PD, perhaps he doesn't have the courage to list those for paraphilias, including pedophilia. This possibility of a Trump paraphilia may be the source of Somerby's pleas to pity Trump for his mental illness, not concern about his other personality problems.
One complication with this view is that men with ASPD sometimes do not respect age concerns because of their preoccupation with their own needs, lack of empathy, and lack of concern with law. They may not be explicitly attracted to young girls but simply opportunistic and not worried about consequences, driven by impulse, and unable to recognize the girls as human beings like themselves (treating them as handy objects). We do not know whether Trump is actually aroused by young girls or whether they were available to him via his connections with Epstein, and not the main focus of his desire.
There has been some discussion that Trump and Epstein were actually in a relationship with each other (maybe even homosexual) where the girls were symbolic and not the mail goal of their competition and attempts to gain each other's admiration. Without any actual assessment by a psychiatrist, it is hard to know what Trump's problems are, other than obvious armchair diagnosis like Somerby attempts. It seems like Somerby objects to classifying accused people, unless it is he, himself doing it. From Somerby's perspective, it is much safer diagnosing Trump as narcissistic than paraphilic.
A problem without a solution: When precautionary action succeeds, there's no way to know that the bad consequence would have occurred. Did Trump's action against the Islamic State in northwestern Nigeria help prevent the widening success of Islamic extremism? Or was the attack an inappropriate use of US military power in a far-off land where we're not involved? Did the attack on Saddam succeed in preventing a nuclear Iraq, or was it a wrong-headed effort. We will never know the answer to these hypothetical question.
ReplyDeleteWithin our history we saw a pointless war in Vietnam. It was a dreadful error. OTOH we saw a failure to act against Hitler before Germany fully rearmed. The failure to act was a dreadful error.
So, is Trump right to make war in Nigeria or Nicaragua? We will never know.
Hmm...I guess you missed the report that there were no WMD's or WMD research in Iraq prior to the invasion. There were also reports on the "failures" -- fabrications, more accurately -- of the initial CIA assessments. I guess we'll never know -- well, some of us will never know.
DeleteThe reports I saw showed that Saddam had an intention of building nukes. Obviously that didn't happen. Would Saddam have developed nukes if left in power? There's no way to know.
Delete
DeleteI think it's quite clear that the Iraq was was a full-fledged imperialist enterprise.
As for Germany rearming, well, while it's not a commonly held view in the West, most people in the world would probably agree that arming the Nazis and assisting them in their drang nach osten, was, in fact, a deliberate strategy of the Western powers, in hope to destroy the Soviet Union. It's just that the old Joe outplayed them somewhat in 1939 by signing the non-aggression pact.
"The reports I saw ...."
DeleteHow telling.
1:18. OK, that’s pretty comical. Iran has had a nuclear program since the 1950’s. But we had to pre-empt the possibility that Saddam Hussein might construct one in the future by waging war on Iraq. You might want to try a different narrative.
Delete@1:48 - Are you arguing that we should have attacked Iran's nuclear program earlier than we did? I agree. The Shah or Saddam with a nuclear arsenal would be a disaster for the world.
Delete"An intention of building..." -- how were such intentions discerned would never be known. Anyone, with an ounce of critical thinking abilities, would recognized bullshit here. Those are weasel words.
DeleteThere were no materials, facilities, or any plans to build anything. That was the conclusion of the war-supporting inspector. Again, some of us will never know.