Hasphat Antabolis

@abc_es @jansorena Se emociona uno hasta que recuerda que ABC solo dice patrañas.

🔴 #ÚLTIMAHORA El Pentágono plantea la expulsión de España de la OTAN ✍️Por @jansorena abc.es/internacional/…

@Wilde28281766 Vaya manera de recibir los Picapiedra.

Ser un racista de mierda y que la tontería se te quite en cero coma...🤣🤣👇

@JulianMaciasT .o puedo parar de mirar a este man. Parece que le hubieran recortado con la herramienta lazo. Tiene cabeza de copiar-pegar.

Esta fue la foto que subió la responsable de la cuenta de la Casa Blanca en el homenaje que le hicireon al equipo campeón de tenis femenino.

@alejandroB_96 @Felipez360 Perdona, acaba de insinuar que no ha habido elecciones limpias en España.

@Felipez360 No entiendo como te haz vuelto alguien tan radical felipe, me parece loco que cada dos por tres que pasa algo en venezuela necesitas insultar a los que estan peleando porque exista una democracia nuevamente dentro del pais, y si alguien no piensa como tu solo lo insultas.

@slifante No entendieron la película: capítulo 7363627

Ah, sí, cuando la villana empieza a matar inocentes porque se ha vuelto totalmente loca y tira por tierra todo lo que había construido en un solo acto de barbarie. Y luego es apuñalada.

@eld3mocr4ta @DaniMayakovski El vídeo ya habla por si solo. Luego está esa manía de agregarle un contexto probablemente inventado.

@DaniMayakovski Hay racismos que tolero y hay otros que no. En este caso, solo porque haya una pareja que hable español en un centro comercial sea un motivo de sospecha es intolerable. Vete a saber si son turistas o ciudadanos legalizados. Veo uno que me increpe así y lo dejo dormido.

"Vamos dame, negrata". Un racista estadounidense amenazó con llamar al ICE, acosó e insultó racialmente a una pareja latinoamericana que paseaba por un centro comercial. El racista rogó que le dieran el premio... descubrió que la calle no es internet y le resetearon Windows.

@RobertoVaquero_ Judiando que es gerundio.

El buenismo del Papa León XIV choca con la realidad. Dos islamistas se inmolan durante su visita a Argelia.

@JulianMaciasT A ver, lo comparan con fumarse un paquete de ducados negros. Tan equivocados no estarán.

Junté el bulo del IVA de los libros en El Hormiguero y las disculpas de Sonsoles y Pablo Motos. Las conclusiones: 1) El contenido de la entrevista se planifica para atacar al gobierno. 2) La invitada elige los temas y preguntas. 3) Nadie verifica nada, lo importante es el ataque.

@DMe14597 @gisbert_ruben Y me parece muy bien. Pero no fue acaso colaborador de esa escombrera mediatica que ahora crítica? No formó equipo de esa purria sionista e intoxicadora?

@Hasphat @gisbert_ruben Ya no cuela eso para desprestigiarle eh, es el que más ayudó a los familiares de la Dana, y sigue ayudándoles gratuitamente en los juzgados. Casi cuela

Que basura mas abyecta medra en el generalato del ejercito español en la escombrera mediática. Este personaje es un traidor a España y es una vergüenza sin paliativos que esté justificando al enemigo declarado de España que ademas actúa ilegal e ilícitamente contra uno de sus eventuales subordinados. Ya el destacamento de la legión que mandó dos años festejó el librarse de su incompetencia y ruindad profesional. Pero que ahora sea cuña del sionismo en la sociedad española contra España y sus militares es imperdonable.

@slifante Este tampoco les vale. A ver si Dios elige bien al próximo.

Entre el Papa de Roma y el dúo Trump y Netanyahu, Vox y el PP están del lado de Trump y Netanyahu. Esto es algo que sus votantes van a tener que asumir.

@slifante Si nombre era: Albert Epstein.

HISTORIA REAL. En Dinamarca en 2012 el catedrático Björk Burgermonguer demostró que el COMUNISMO NO FUNCIONA así: dijo a sus alumnos "dividiré la nota que habéis sacado entre todos y como resultado la media será la evaluación que recibiréis". Lo que pasó después te sorprenderá 👇

@Wismichu @20m El mejor arco de redención incluso por encima de William Munny lo tiene Isma Prego

@20m Hay que ser mala persona para poner ese titular y descontextualizar completamente lo que dije realmente. Vosotros si que me dais asco.

Wismichu echa las culpas a sus seguidores por su marcha de YouTube y le llueven las críticas: "Me dabais asco como audiencia" mrf.lu/bmzk 20minutos.es/gente/wismichu…

@Bastos_Quotes Señor Bastos, no le come usted el culo al imperio yankee con sus patéticas excusas para robar y dominar? A ver si va a ser usted liberal de verdad y nos habíamos dado cuenta por andar juntándose a una con los lacayos.

Yo viví una dictadura cuando era niño, la dictadura de Franco. Bien, era dictador. Pero no sé si me habría hecho mucha gracia que vinieran, qué sé yo, los franceses a bombardear y me quemaran la casa o mataran a mi padre o a mi madre para salvarme. (1/2)

En las últimas 48h -Acusaciones de Villarejo y su digital -Reunión del CDInformativos con 5 medios en un bar para atacar a Mañaneros -Condena de FAPE sin escucharme, violando su propio reglamento -Comisión investigación PP -Acoso de Vito Quiles en mi casa ¿Coincidencia o campaña?

Vito Quiles acosándome en la puerta de mi domicilio, por egundo día consecutivo. La campaña y el acoso llega hasta mi casa. Quizás sobre esto, tenga algo que decir alguna Federación de prensa.

@MisterJagger_ Es verdad que los chinos lanzaban una lata vacía de guisantes y según el ruido al rebotar en el suelo así llamaban a los cráteres?

@NunezFeijoo Alberto, haz limpia de trumpistas en el partido y regresa a la sensatez.

En momentos delicados, necesitamos sensatez, no brutalidad. Occidente no es esto.

The Spin Doctor, the Clown, and the F-15 (Or Why Laughter Is the Only Rational Response) I have spent the last few days watching the media circus surrounding the downing of the F-15E over Iran and the subsequent rescue operations. And as I watched the analysts twist themselves into pretzels to justify the unjustifiable, I realized we were witnessing the perfect enactment of a mechanism I have been trying to describe for some time. Yes, some time ago, I wrote a thread applying systems dynamicsthe kind I learned amateurishly from Donella Meadows to the political-media circus. I called the model the Forest of Credibility. Here it is. THREAD: Systems Theory of Ideological Collapse, or Why Mercenary Intellectuals Are the Best Food for Authoritarian Clowns (the "theoretical" version). Thread applying systems dynamics (Donella Meadows) to the political-media circus. A model to understand why convoluted justifications always end up looking ridiculous in the face of the unpredictable actor's shamelessness. SYSTEM: An ecosystem where the FOREST OF CREDIBILITY grows (complex narratives, theories, legitimizations). Its key actors: the credibility producers ("think tanks," media intellectuals) and the consumers (the public). MAIN STOCK: Legitimizing Credibility Capital. The reserve of authority that allows a group to cover brutal acts of power with an acceptable narrative. It is fed by publications, citations, media appearances (inflow). INFLOW: Production of Ideological Detergent. Articles, threads, books that justify an act of power (e.g., a bloody invasion, a kidnapping) using complex frameworks (historical rights, classical political theory, ethics). This is the work of the "forest rangers." FIRST DISTURBANCE: The Brutal Act of Power arrives (military intervention in Venezuela). It is a disruptive, simple, violent event. It threatens to make the public see power in its naked form. The system activates its defenses and floods the forest with Ideological Detergent. UNINTENDED EFFECT 1: The Forest Grows Thicker. The sophisticated justification does not eliminate the brutal act; it encapsulates it in a complex narrative. The forest (public discourse) fills with intricate narratives. Credibility seems restored... temporarily. CRITICAL VARIABLE: The unpredictable actor with real power enters again. He does not follow the script. His communication is emotional, rougher than a burlap sack. For him, an invasion is "we need the oil" and "the Venezuelan opposition is useless to me right now." LEVERAGE POINT: The Unmasking Clumsiness. A single crude statement from the Clown acts as a highly potent selective herbicide. It directly attacks the connection between the Credibility Stock and reality. It drains the stock at breakneck speed. REINFORCING FEEDBACK LOOP (The Loop of Ridicule): The forest rangers react by producing MORE DETERGENT, MORE SOPHISTICATED to counteract the clumsiness. But this only makes the narrative forest thicker, more artificial, and more delusional than ever. THE CYCLE INTENSIFIES: A denser, more artificial forest is the perfect habitat for the next clumsy move by the Powerful Clown. Since there is more contrast to break, his next statement will be even cruder, even more challenging. The ridicule is exponential. SYSTEMIC DELAY: The time between the clumsiness and the justifying reaction. That uncomfortable pause, that silence, the "those are different topics." It is the system coughing, trying and failing to find an equilibrium that is now impossible. INFLECTION POINT (Critical Hilarity): The public stops consuming the narrative as a "serious debate" and starts seeing it as a "clown show." The credibility of the system collapses. The only rational response is laughter ("XD"). The stock reaches ZERO. SYSTEMIC CONCLUSION: The justifying intellectuals are trapped in a self-devouring (if not coprophagous) system. The more "intelligent" and sophisticated their arguments (the greater the inflow), the more fuel they give the Clown to generate the contrast that destroys them. MORAL: In the era of crude communication and shameless power, ideological sophistication is not a shield, but an amplifier of ridicule. The system is designed to collapse upon itself, and the smartest ones fall the hardest. The next time you see an "expert" weaving a discursive spider web to justify the unjustifiable, remember: they are not winning a debate. They are fertilizing the forest for the elephant to trample them. And we, from the outside, can laugh or cry. I choose to laugh. That was the "theoretical" version, with diagrams, technical terms and a bit of satire. But the truth is that the mechanism is better understood with a simpler image. Imagine the scene. A brutal act of power arrives. Someone invades, loots, blackmails. Then the Spin Doctor enters: a columnist, analyst, jurist, or second-rate pundit who gets to work. His job is to turn that outrage into something presentable. He pulls out Machiavelli and another classics, talks about "tyranny," the "responsibility to protect," "democratic transitions," geopolitical balances. Everything very fine, with quotes from thick books (sometimes taken out of context) and elegant euphemisms. He is the ideological detergent of foreign policy. His mission: to wash the raw reality so that the center-left or center-right public can swallow it without feeling disgust. For a few days it seems to work. The Spin Doctor has built a pretty spider web. The brutal act no longer seems so brutal. It has a veneer of legitimacy. The serious media cite the Spin Doctor, the pundits repeat his arguments, and the educated public nods: "it's complicated, you have to understand the context." Then the Clown of Power appears (the one who really gives the orders or the one who has the capacity to act). And he blurts out the truth as he sees it: four rough, tacky, direct, unfiltered phrases. "We want the oil," "those people are useless to me," "they're crazy," "we're going to do whatever we want." No theory. No euphemisms. No shame. The Spin Doctor is left naked. His sophisticated spider web crumbles in an instant. He now has two options, both bad: condemn the outrage (but he's not paid for that, and he would lose access) or try to justify it again (but the Clown's statement is so brazen that any attempt to polish it makes him look even more cynical and ridiculous). The Spin Doctor begins to dance around the embarrassing statement: "what he really meant to say is...", "you have to contextualize...", "it can't be read literally...". The more he tries, the more pathetic he looks. And here comes the deadly loop: every time the Spin Doctor constructs an elaborate justification, the Clown only needs one tacky phrase to burst it. The rough, shameful reality always wins over the pretentious narrative. In the end, the message is crystal clear: no matter how many books you cite, no matter how many theories you invoke, power is exercised with the intentions of a neighborhood thug. The Spin Doctor is not a neutral intellectual; he is an employee trying to put a tie on a gorilla. And the gorilla, every time he opens his mouth, reminds him who really calls the shots. Quick and unadorned moral: Don't fall in love with the justifying spin doctors. Their sophistication does not protect the truth; it only delays the moment when we all see the obvious. And when the Clown speaks without a filter, he is not making a mistake. He is doing his job: reminding us that the web always breaks. Now, a friend with whom I was debating this pointed out something that my threads did not make explicit but that is crucial: the linguistic double standard that protects the powerful of the "free world." Because when Trump says "we have destroyed 100% of Iranian anti-aircraft defenses" and then they shoot down an F-15E, they say that he "stretches the facts," that he "uses rhetorical hyperbole," or that he "projects strength." If an Iranian commander said something equivalent, it would be called "propaganda," "blatant lying," or "regime bravado." The euphemism is not neutrality. It is an act of power that protects the fiction that the "free" world does not lie, it only "nuances." It is the seam that hides the contradiction: we assume that the liberal-democratic-corporatist-American model is the best, we judge all others by those criteria, and since they do not meet them (because they are designed for other purposes), we conclude that they are inferior. Thus, imposing the model by force, sanctions, or cultural influence is legitimized. It is imperialism, yes, but enlightened imperialism: the one that comes with quotes from the UN Charter and articles in Foreign Affairs. Stretching facts is a nice way of referring to lying (even if in this case there is some truth). The euphemism is a concession to power. And pretending that all systems have to be like the corporatist "democratic" American one, full of litigation, adversarial, punitive, and economically liberal (albeit with regulations favoring lobbies) is a form of cultural imperialism and a begging of the question: it is assumed that Western liberalism is the best and any deviation is criticized regardless of context, culture, or the prioritization of alternative values. But let's go to the concrete facts. On April 3, 2026, a US Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle was duly shot down over southwestern Iran. Both crew members ejected. The pilot was rescued relatively quickly within hours of the shootdown. The second crew member—a colonel acting as a weapons systems officer—spent nearly two days evading Iranian forces who were actively hunting him. Iran offered a reward of approximately $66,000 for his capture. The US launched a massive rescue operation. Dozens of aircraft participated. An A-10 Warthog that was part of the operation was hit; its pilot ejected over the Persian Gulf and was rescued. Two Black Hawk helicopters were also hit by small arms fire, injuring crew members on board, though they managed to land safely. On April 5, Trump announced the successful rescue of the colonel. He called it "one of the most daring Search and Rescue Operations in U.S. History" and claimed that this demonstrated "overwhelming Air Dominance and Superiority over the Iranian skies." So far, the facts. Now, the context that the spin doctors want us to forget. In the 5-6 weeks prior to the shootdown, Trump and his team had repeatedly declared: "Their radar is 100 percent annihilated" (Trump, nationally televised speech, April 2). "They have no anti-aircraft equipment. We are unstoppable as a military force" (Trump, same speech). "We can fly with impunity over Iran" (multiple statements reported by various media). The very next day, Iran shot down the F-15E. CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper had said just the day before: "Their air and missile defense systems have largely been destroyed." The contradiction is so evident it hurts. If air dominance was "overwhelming" and Iranian defenses were "100% annihilated," how the hell did they shoot down a $100 million advanced fighter jet? The attacks on US aircraft "undercut the Trump Administration's assertions of dominance over Iranian skies and raised questions about how much of Iran's arsenal remains intact." And then, as if by magic, the spin doctors appeared. Their arguments were a manual on how NOT to defend the indefensible: "Air superiority does not mean zero losses" — True, but if you have said the defenses are "100% annihilated," a loss is exactly the proof that they were not. Retired Lieutenant General David A. Deptula said: "High-end combat against a capable, integrated air defense system is never risk-free. Air superiority does not mean zero risk." A fair point in isolation, but one that completely ignores the "100% annihilated" claim. "The important thing is that they rescued the pilots" — Of course. And it is an operational merit of the rescue forces. But that does not erase the fact that the plane was shot down in the first place. It is like celebrating that the hospital works well while ignoring that you have been shot. "Trump was speaking in general terms, not literally" — Here we reach the core of the euphemism. Because "100% annihilated" is not a "general term." It is a number. It is a factual claim. And it was a lie. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf mocked the US in a post on X: "After defeating Iran 37 times in a row, this brilliant no-strategy war they started has now been downgraded from 'regime change' to 'Hey! Can anyone find our pilots? Please?' Wow. What incredible progress. Absolute geniuses." The public, meanwhile, responded as I responded to Trump's tweet: "Lol, then why the plane was shot down in the first place?" That "lol" is not personal disrespect to the pilots. It is the critical hilarity. It is the moment when the system collapses and the only rational response is laughter. If we integrate everything into a single "model"ñ, the mechanism looks like this: Trump declares: "Iran's defenses are 100% annihilated, we have total dominance." The spin doctors justify: "It's hyperbole, he's projecting strength, you can't take it literally." Iran shoots down a US F-15E. Trump presents the rescue as a victory, without mentioning the contradiction. The spin doctors try to justify again: "Air superiority doesn't mean zero losses," "the rescue demonstrates capability," "it wasn't a significant shootdown." The public responds: "Lol, so why was it shot down if they had no defenses?" (XD). The system loses credibility. The spin doctors look ridiculous. Trump (the Clown) will make another equally crude statement in a few weeks. (RETURN TO START) The intellectual justifiers are trapped. They cannot get out. If they stay silent, they lose their reason for being (and their salary). If they justify too little, the Clown eats their lunch. If they justify too much, they fatten the forest, increase the contrast, and accelerate the moment when the public laughs at them. Conclusion: Laughter as an Antidote I have been watching this mechanism repeat itself for years. With Bush and the weapons of mass destruction. With Obama and the drones. With Trump and his shameless lies. With Biden and Afghanistan. Always the same dance: brutal act, sophisticated justification, crude statement from power, ridicule of the spin doctor, laughter from the public. The difference now is that the public has learned to laugh sooner because Trump is comically raw, boor and impudent (In a degree few could predict or expect in a POTUS). Critical hilarity arrives faster and faster. The forest of credibility is running out of trees. So my final moral is the same one I wrote in the second thread: do not fall in love with the justifying mercenary spin doctors. Their sophistication does not protect the truth; it only delays the moment when we all see the obvious. And when the Supreme Clown speaks without a filter, he is not making a mistake. He is doing his job: reminding us that the web always breaks and that imperial decadence, flowing through his "garish" persona is unstoppable. I, from the outside, choose to laugh. XD

@armesillaconde España tiene la derecha más subnormal pero subestimas a los votantes.

Pedro Sánchez gobernando hasta que se muera de viejo en La Moncloa y designando sucesor que le convierta en líder supremo inmortal. España tiene la "derecha" más subnormal del Planeta.