Updated November 13, 2016. A shorter version of this article was published as a ‘rapid response’ to a politically polarized, dangerously provocative article that American lobbyist Raynard Jackson published on November 8 and then promoted via Twitter, as protests against Donald Trump’s election victory were escalating.
This lengthier version links the UK-based Telegraph Jackson article more clearly with the preceding 8th instalment in this Mouth Of the Beast series.
In part 8 I addressed what I call Corbott, a conspiratorial pact or spiritual, hurricane winds approximating phenomenon generated by Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott.
The chilling Maox assassination (Jo Cox killed by Thomas Mair), issues raised by Welsh MP Johnny Mercer’s risky denunciation of the Iraq Historical Abuse Team (IHAT) as a “witch hunt” and wider life and death, ‘spiritual warfare’ were also addressed.
Jackson’s opportunistic character assassination of Obama should therefore be interpreted against this backdrop.
“Woe to them that call darkness light and light darkness.” (Isaiah 5:20)
Contrasting sharply with the tone of reconciliation and mutual respect being adopted by president elect Donald Trump and Obama during their recent White House meeting, Jackson’s promotion via Twitter of this deeply divisive document suggests that he is blissfully unaware of how precariously his country is poised on the brink of widespread racial and broader socipolitically motivated bloodletting.
Even as nationwide protests against Trump’s election victory were gathering momentum in the US, Jackson, the founder and chairman of a super PAC called Black Americans For A Better Future, was pushing his historically defective partisan political narrative, denouncing Obama’s presidency as a “massive disappointment” for Black Americans.
First published the day Americans were voting, the Republican Jackson’s patently opportunistic, partisan political punditry now runs the risk of fomenting racial and economic division and discontent at a time when they could do the worst possible damage to his country.
Your country is smoldering, Mr Jackson: why are you fanning such flames?
From my vantage point, the article represents the worst of minority ethnic identity politicking and does a disservice not only to the Black Americans that Jackson claims to be championing, but to Black people everywhere.
And readers should note the role being played by the Telegraph in this respect.
Indeed, if we adopt the humanistic, universalist frame of reference that the pacifist human rights icon Dr Martin Luther King advocated (see the final paragraph here) it becomes apparent that Jackson and his British Telegraph allies have put their interests above those of all human beings, irrespective of nationality, class, colour or creed.
Among other things, Jackson’s strategically published election day article and his subsequent post-election promotion of it on Twitter portrays him as a mawkish manipulator of sociopolitical and, especially, religious sentiment.
And Jackson’s accommodators at the Telegraph stink with the stench of his political calculation and cynicism.
Reminiscent of the volatile, typically blame-shifting rhetoric that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan spouts habitually, Jackson’s analysis of Obama’s eight years in office marks a serious departure from more balanced analysis: analysis that had once prompted me to consider working with him.
His reckless behaviour at this crucial juncture in America’s history is first and foremost a tragic testament to his and other Black American leaders’ personal-responsibility-ducking.
What were he and other Black leaders doing during the eight years of Obama’s tenure?
Were they working with or against him, as the spectacularly self-righteous, deeply cynical Dr Ben Carson has been doing, for example?
Moreover, Jackson’s simplistic denunciation of what Obama and other Democrats and Republicans have achieved through hard won concessions not only ignores the incredible odds against which his country’s first Black president was working – including the pessimism and hostility of Blacks like Carson, journalist Herbert Dyer and others whose grasp of their own fallibility seems deeply suppressed.
It also reinforces the very Corbottic (as I call it), political rape and personal-responsibilty-ducking that Jackson has previously, rightly, castigated.
Yes WE can!
If I recall correctly, Mr Obama’s signature campaining slogan was Yes We Can.
It was not “Yes I can”, as Jackson’s analysis suggests.
As Commander-In-Chief, America’s first Black president certainly has to bear final responsibility for much that has gone wrong under his tenure in office.
But it is neither logical nor constructive for Jackson to assign Obama full or sole responsibility for the shortfalls of his leadership.
That is the kind of rationally and morally anaemic, suspiciously selective reasoning I would expect from the militancy maximising, sensationalist Farrakhan, his legalism-blinded, Barbadian-history blurring lieutenant professor Sir Hilary Beckles and his British partisan political ‘playmate’ Nigel Farage of UKIP (the United Kingdom Independence Party).
Like the machismo fond Farrakhage, as I now dub the Farrakhan-Farage controversy courting, gender, race and religion racketeering couplet, Jackson seems to have taken a page out of the book of Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, notorious for his indifference to the violence that his hate-filled rhetoric characteristically incited.
And the bigoted beast Farrage’s physical, wide-mouthed resemblance to Goebbels is not lost on me, incidentally (see Farage-Goebbels photo collage below).
Nor are both men’s pre-political career links to the financial industry, possibly predicting their nefarious number games machinations.
Like the pre-presidential, carnivourously campaigning, ‘bigly banking’ Trump, Goebbels is known for his amoral, megalomaniac publicity seeking, typically risking or openly courting violence to secure the widest possible media reporting of his hate-filled, populace poisoning pedagogy.
As Wikipedia, citing the book “Dr Goebbels: His Life and Death”, by Roger Manvell and Fraenkel Heinrich notes, as a youthful campaigner, hand-picked by Adolf Hitler, Goebbels focused mainnly on the political capital of publicity, not caring whether the publicity was positive or negative.
Accordingly, Goebbels deliberately provoked beer-hall battles and street brawls, including violent attacks on the the Nazi Party’s communist rivals, say his biographers.
Similarly, Jackson appears to be setting aside the nuances of real life political leadership, with which he doubtless has some acquaintance, through his links to America’s political establishment.
His admission that even as a Republican he voted for Obama in 2008 is itself evidence of his familiarity with those nuances.
Yet he would now put the blame for “an uptick in murders” in US cities at the feet of the man who inspired Americans to cultivate the audacity of hope.
“Meanwhile the 30 US cities with the highest murder rate strongly correlate with those with near-to-majority black populations, run by liberal Democratic mayors in Obama’s mould,” Jackson writes.
His Telegraph article continues “This is in the context of an uptick in murders last year, the biggest single-year percentage jump since 1971, concentrated in just ten big cities. Obama’s liberal policies have only exacerbated the problems these areas face.”
But strategically published the day Americans voted in last Wednesday’s portentious poll, this selective context building was clearly done for the sole purpose of demolishing any goodwill that Obama, and by extension, his prospective presidential successor Hillary Clinton may have built up.
It is in the service of such character assassination and political stigmatization that Jackson continues: “In his home town of Chicago, the most racially segregated city in America, the number of shootings until the end of September this year was already 10 per cent higher than for the whole of 2015, following a 13 per cent increase in shooting incidents and a 12.5 per cent increase in the number of murders in 2015 on the previous year.”
By what rational process has Jackson come to the conclusion that president Obama is to be blamed for the increased crime he identifies?
Might not the incindiary rhetoric of the volatile Minister Farrakhan, for whom Chicago is a spiritual, political and economic stronghold, be at least as significant a contributor to violence in that troubled city?
Might not the hatred harbouring historical analysis of Farrakhan ally Beckles be having the same violence inciting effect on Chicago residents as it clearly had on Farrakhan when, following a speech by the hatred and hope confusing Barbadian, he called for violent action in pursuit of reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery.
As I have previously reported, inspired by the Goebbels-recalling, thinly disguised, racist scholarship of the perversely proud Barbadian professor Beckles, with whom he shared a Chicago State University platform in 2014, Farrakhan virtually called for the use of violence against Obama and other Blacks he labelled ‘Uncle Toms’, and who, according to the militant Muslim leader, are betraying his and Beckles’ beloved reparations ambitions.
What about the megalomaniac mouthings of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and other religious, political, economic and related “principalities and powers” that preside over Chicago?
What about the socio-political and economic inputs of Chicago’s Judeo-Christian power brokers, in the mould of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association?
I have it on good sources that it is the machinations of such “spiritual wickedness in high places” that conspired to derail an educational business initiative that I was developing in conjunction with the University of Illinois.
The University of Illinois Press has published a multi-page extract of my book The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled, in its Encyclopedia of Caribbean Religions.
But efforts to build a broader long-term relationship with that venerable institution appear to have been sabotaged by my academic opponents.
I believe the same US, Britain and Barbados-based opposers are behind the impasse that has developed between Jackson and I.
But I remain confident of the triumph of good over evil.
I remain persuaded that notwithstanding Jackson’s, the Telegraph’s or anyone else’s erring, with Obama-like caring and sharing of each other’s burdens, we shall all overcome.
And the example of president elect Trump, abandoning his former divisive, demagogic campaigning personality and embracing the unifying, Commander-In-Chief role also reinforces my sense of hope.
While president-elect Trump’s links to the Black community are limited, as Jackson points out, they are by no means insignificant.
What Trump has lacked is respect for Black people, just as he lacks respect for women, the disabled, Latinos and other minorities.
What Trump has lacked, fundamentally, is the kind of self-respect and conscientious regard for others that his presidential predecessor Mr Obama, rather than his would-be political advisor Jackson, seems eminently qualified to teach him.
It is the admittedly flawed Obama, a clearly committed disciple of the teachings of Joshua of Nazareth and a saintly soldier, tested by political battle, after battle, rather than the mouthy, “prattle without practice” (Othello) spouting Jackson that Trump would do best to lend an ear.
It is in and through Obama that the delicate balance of a responsive, sensitive conscience and spirituality with manly uprightness and courage extolled by the World War I soldier-poet Lieutenant William Noel Hodgson are manifested.
In his famous poem “Before Action”, written shortly before he paid the ultimate price for his patriotism during the Battle of the Somme, Hodgson wrote: “By beauty lavishly outpoured/And blessings carelessly received/By all the days that I have lived/Lord make me a soldier.”
At just 23, Hodgson apparently had a greater appreciation than Welsh MP Johnny Mercer of the “total war” between good and evil and light and darkness that rages every day in human affairs, not just on military battlefields.
Details of my critique of the rogue-soldier encouragement and consequent British civilian endangerment that Mercer risks by denouncing the Iraq Historical Abuse Inquiry Team (IHAT) as a “witchhunt” are avaliable in the preceding article in this series.
I expect that Jackson is a fan of the late Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
I leave with him and his friends at the Telegraph, presumably including my “old friend” reporter Tom Calver, some words of King that I believe informed Obama’s vison and will define his legacy no less than the dreams he inherited from his father.
Recognizing the reality of human interdependence (soldier-civilian, male-female, Black-White, Christian-Muslim, theist-atheist and so on) that makes any faultfinding or blame shifting pointless, King said,
“In a real sense all life is inter-related. All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be… This is the inter-related structure of reality.”
“The blinkered ‘eye’ of this hurricane, exemplified by Corbyn’s coupling or ‘partnership’ with the consciously or unconsciously race-racketeering Labour MP Diane Abbott, consists in a dualistic, ambivalent British manners matrix that can only ever assure a fragile peace.
A certain, ‘too polite’ Norwich-based, lifelong Labour Party supporter working in the education field may know exactly what I mean.
She and others, possibly including persons who are abandoning the troubled, stormy-sea-of-sentimentality-beset Labour ship for the emergent, blunt-knife-tipped, supposedly frank, tank-tough-truth-to-power-speaking Nigel Farage and his Trump-like-hip, real politic preaching UKIP, may understand why from my standpoint, Prescott’s anger at Blair, however long defered was destined to be manifested almost inevitably.”
(From “Tony Blair, John Prescott and other ‘flags of convenience’ – Mouth Of the Beast #7”)
Little lies and big blangs
What if every time we told a lie, we shortened our lives a bit?
Or, put positively, what if the secret to maintaining youthful health and vigour for as long as possible is the courageous, radical honesty with oneself and others that keeps one’s conscience clear?
I believe that the secret to my own relatively youthful appearance is precisely such primarily self-facing, complementarily other-embracing, courageous honesty and a healthy conscience.
I believe the pursuit of such honesty and consequent clear conscience, or as Barbadian historian Trevor Marshall might call it, “pursuit of the quintessence of spirituality”, has distinct, scientifically measurable, mathematically verifiable psychosomatic health benefits.
Marshall is one of two prominent Barbadians who wrote a Foreword to my book The Bible: Beauty and Terror Reconciled, my most simultaneously sweeping or panoramic and deeply probing prose study of the human psyche to-date.
The other foreword writer, Reverend Andrew Hatch, a high-ranking Anglican priest and broadcast media personality is now deceased.
I am indebted to those and other men, as I am to Esther Phillips, Viola Davis, Margaret Gill, Eudene Barriteau and other Barbadian women, for lessons in life that exceed the capacity of any secular or religious creed or teaching.
But their lives, their truth and ‘lies’, darkness and light are not “the history that touches and teaches me most”, as I write in the poetic tribute on TBBTR’s dedication page.
That role was and is still held by my father Geoffrey, my mother Lucille, my twin brother Wayne and sisters Cheryl, Yvette, Suzan and Ava: the members of the nuclear family into which I was born and which shaped my innermost infant and early childhood identity.
And the genetic and environmental deposits that I received through interaction with these first closest, earliest character forming relatives, continued to bear interest throughout my adolescent years, even after I was “born again”, as the saying goes, in usually keenly stressed, Bible-based evangelical Christian terminology.
The vigorous, jet stream adjustments and justifications of their love and understanding, or misunderstanding, as the case sometimes is in all familial eco systems, not only shaped my basic understanding of ‘right and wrong’ but carved the crucially character-shaping biological contours of my sexual self understanding simultaneously.
Those early, distinctly domestic interactions shaped my deeply ingrained, affective orientation toward heterosexual relations, marriage and fatherhood, co-productive journeys I looked forward to as a young adult with an enthusiasm that is in some ways baffling to me today.
That home-based history imparted a self image and understanding, or operational conscience, that continues to regulate my amorous appetites and wider social ambitions, moulding my moral compass and enabling me to navigate not only Barbados’ but Britain’s and the world’s fraught, perenially frothing ethical waterways with Sidney Poitier-like composure, and dignity.
It has catalysed a “personal truth to social power” principle of self-other communication that I believe is essentially what the biblical author of 1Timothy 1:19 is pointing to when he advises his intended audience, preseumed in the first instance to be a youthful apostolic apprentice named Timothy to “Cling to your faith in Christ, and keep your conscience clear,” as the New Living Translation puts it, providentially.
The providence I am referring to here has to do with the NLT translators’ choosing of the verb ‘cling.’
As I read this word for the umpteenth time today (Friday, November 4, 2016), it gently rang with revelatory relevance and resonance as it had been echoed in the surname of African American author, activist and educator James Clingman.
Clingman had come to my attention for the first time only minutes before, at approximately 7:00 am, as I read his latest article, published on his own Blackonomics blog (www.blackonomics.com) and the website www.blackpress.com co-productively.
That article, entitled “What you need to know about the NAACP’s war on charter schools” confirms the perennial crisis of conscience in the global labour movement that has currently come to the fore most spectacularly in the ongoing atomization or disintegration of the British Labour Party.
This workers’ ‘lights and rights’ crisis is a tributary of the core, family-focused gender dynamic that I have been tracking in these articles using tropical storm imagery.
It sprouts from the seed of male-female identity and role confusion that has been humanity’s lot from time immemorial.
In the previous article I focused on the stormy relationship between Tony Blair and John Prescott.
Here it is the arguably steamy, ferociously fecund, passionately political pact between one-time lovers Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott that concerns me primarily.
I explore that race, gender and ideology transcending pact, which I have dubbed Corbott (like Brangelina, for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie) as a trans-generational trade unionism contrived, capitalism co-opting, democracy disembowelling gambit that may well come to be viewed as a catalyst of the Thomas Mair-Jo Cox or Maox murder-suicide tragedy.
And I use the term ‘suicide’ here poetically, pointing to the environmentally sensitive, husbandman Mair’s self-destructive, Mitt Romney-like Talibank thinking: the fatal flip-flopping of those who take what they read about ‘communism’, ‘capitalism’, ‘feminism’, ‘atheism’, ‘Christianity’, ‘Islam’, ‘Hinduism’, ‘Buddhism’ and other secular and religious thought systems or ideologies too literally.
And news reports about the murderer Mair have made it clear that he read voraciously.
But are British educators, legislators, publishers and others who trade in intellectual property ever likely to take this hazard of reading seriously?
Nothing I have seeen so far in the UK, including during the ongoing British Broadcasting Corporation’s ‘Love To Read’ campaign or a recently concluded study of reading as a form of rest (R.I.P?) suggests that the lethalness of the letter is being internalized and bearing fruit anywhere as urgently as it needs to be.
Yet it is clear to me that the capacity of reading to foster simplistic, divisive analysis is costing Western society phenomenally.
For example, the same conscience eroding, opportunistic, selective superficial uniformity enforcing literalism conceals the catastrophic co-dependence of Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, or Clump, as I call these long-time, ambition conjoined twin-like personalities.
I do believe that Clinton and Trump are united, or unionised, at a profound, perversely productive level as surely as some of my Unite the Union colleagues and the Tories they denounce, by their respective childhood tragedies.
Has either Clinton or Trump really come to terms with their parents’ follies?
Has Hillary fully forgiven her father?
Has ‘the Donald’ been radically reconciled to his mummy’s reality?
Trump’s apparent contempt for women and Clinton’s much commented on impassivity suggest otherwise.
Americans voting today may therefore legitimately ask what Bettina Aptheker recalling, long-suppressed, unresolved familial conflicts might explain the eventual winner of the US presidential election’s domestic and foreign policies.
As I indicated to those who attended the inaugural Walk On Water talk, at the United Reformed Church on Princes Street in Norwich, here in Norfolk, on October 30, I view hurricane Clump as a contemporary consumation and manifestation of the age old battle of the sexes.
In a ‘deliberately’ tangential, thought trek through Martin Luther King Jr’s paternal inheritances, sexual interests and political legacies, I told tango teacher Laura Campeo and other creative Intelek associates of Clump’s incarnation of anxieties and antagonisms around male-female copulation and co-production that date back at least to Valentinus’ (c. 100 – c. 160 AD) and other first century Christian gnostics’ cosmic theories.
These are the same tensions that the trade unionism breathing Lord Prescott admits in his 2009 biography Docks To Downing Street.
And one of my main tasks here is to show how marriage and parenting fare as poorly under atheistic fundamentalist labour influences as they do under the context ignoring, conscience corroding influence of fundamentalist Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and other religious and secular thought systems.
Clingman’s article is crucial in this respect.
The highly esteemed educator writes “The call for a moratorium on charter schools by the NAACP is a case of ‘Throwing the baby out with the bath water.'”
Implying a degree of subversive strategizing Clingman continues “While most Black folks are concentrating on Hillary and Donald, the largest and oldest ‘Colored’ organization approved an internal resolution calling for a halt to the ‘expansion of charter schools’ until those schools meet criteria set forth by the NAACP.”
“The NAACP lacks the power to enforce its resolution, but their call for this draconian measure does come with the familiar stench of other positions they have taken—and not taken—because of political and, of course, economic reasons, the latter of which seems to be the driving force behind this latest move,” he continues.
And in a reference that brought to mind the blanging (blagging and banging) National Union of Teachers and that “certain, ‘too polite’ Norwich-based, lifelong Labor Party supporter working in the education field” mentioned in the quotation at the start of this article, Clingman quotes Dr. Steve Perry, a prominent American educator who has operated charter schools for years and who had this to say: ‘The NAACP national headquarters has received a significant amount of money from the teachers’ union. The only organizations to call for a moratorium on charter schools in particular, because they are non-union, are the teachers’ unions.’
That was conclusive proof for me that I had been led to Clingman’s article by divine providence.
The potential interpretaion of the Christian Clingman’s surname as a variant of the word “husband”, a man who clings or cleaves to his wife, as the Bible instructs, is just a collateral blessing, from that standpoint.
Life and death on the frontlines of gender struggle
Through an email notification I received on November 3, I am aware that Time Magazine has taken up the gender gyrations theme, in an article entitled ‘How the 2016 election became a battle of the sexes’.
Having read my Fundamentalist Feminism article, England-based men’s advocate Dave Pickering might understand why from my labels-penetrating linguist’s perspective, all conflicts can be viewed as off-shoots of the big bang, and subsequent clinging and clanging that is rooted in what I call fight-like-fraught, male-female complementarity or interdependence.
University of East Anglia students Juliet Donaghy and Francesca Gilbert, ‘feminist’ and ‘womanist’ activists respectively, might also appreciate why I and other heterosexual males continue to reel from the electric shock of Western media Jihadi Joans’ conscious or unconscious, Keith Vaz-like, dark, down-low homosexual hostility.
Clive Lewis, my local MP and other directly or indirectly aggressive, conscious or unconscious allies of professor Sir Hilary Beckles, his ‘understudies’ David Comissiong and Dr Aaron Kamuguishe, Barbados Labour Party leader Mia Mottley, poets Gill and Phillips (mentioned above) and other Barbadian academic, trade union and political elites might understand why I continue to protest and appeal, unapologetically, for a global gender war armistice.
I certainly hope that these and other current opposers but potential allies in my long-running campaign to expose global capital’s and labour’s flags of convenience are more open to collaborative, inclusive interpretations of contemporary gender conflicts than the ‘missing-in-action’ Martin Tod, CEO of the UK-based Men’s Health Forum and the possibly too-battle-hardened soldier Sean Jones, of the Princess of Wales’ Royal Regiment seem to be.
After supposedly reading my FF article, Tod, a Liberal Democrat councilor for Hampshire apparently has difficulty seeing how his and my understanding of feminism are compatible.
Tod says that’s why he won’t sign a petition I have created calling on the British Parliament to have possible correlations between fundamentalist feminism and increasing rates of suicide among men investigated scientifically.
He has refused to make a pact with me and others committed to explore that possibly fatal, Corbott exploiting, Maox murderously marrying, negative male-female synergy.
And Jones, who like ex-soldier and current MP Johnny Mercer is a possible unintentional defender or ‘rationalizer’ of rogue soldier threats to UK civilians’ safety, seems to think that my emphasis on spiritual discipline is incompatible with the doctrine of mental toughness that the Armored Tigers with which he is associated teach.
Like Abbott and Militant or Momentum operatives, surging to support Corbyn with potentially admirable but also alarming militaristic “Labour discipline”, the apparent Tory soldier Jones inserted himself into a Twitter conversation I had initiated with Mercer, after I had discovered a Tweet by the Plymouth Moor View MP denouncing the Iraq Historical Allegations Team (IHAT) as a witch hunt.
Concerned that Mercer might not be aware of the full implications of his denunciation I tweeted “Hi @JohnnyMercerMP. Are u not worried #RogueSoldiers may see yr views as licence to abuse UK civilians? #Impunity.”
Mercer, who apparently subscribes to a deeply problematic doctrine of military “exceptionalism” and has been featured on BBC Radio Four arguing that human rights law should not be applied on the battlefield responded “No. absolutely not.”
That is the only response I have had from him so far.
I responded “Why? Because you’re fallible human beings and with the best intentions, mistakes happen.”
Jones apparently accepted this explanation but also sought, consciously or unconsciously, to minimise the scale and intensity of the consequences arising from armed forces personnel fallibility, saying that he “can only think of a few individuals who have been convicted of wrong doings”.
And apparently committed to the problematic, American military and politics recalling idea of “exceptionalism” that Mercer and others (including former British Army commander in Afghanistan Colonel Richard Kemp) embrace, Jones eventually started making what I believe is an unhealthy ideologically inflexible, literalistic, Corbottic coroded-conscience distinction between British civilians’ and soldiers’ fallibility and suffering.
For example, after I went to some length to explain that life is a battle for all of us, Jihadi Jones tweeted, “i see what your saying but I know people that fight life battles daily the average joe doesn’t have much to complain about”.
He would eventually go on to imply contempt for the suffering of Kate Goldsmith who lost her daughter Aimee and three other relatives who were killed in the notorious Tomas Krozer, mobile-phone-minding-lorry-driver tragedy that was receiving prominent news coverage at the time of our twitter exchange.
When Jones continued to show signs of sociopathic Corbottic, ideologically fixated desensitization and evasion, after I shared a video of Ms Goldsmith speaking after her daughter’s killer Krozer was sentenced, I suspended communication with him indefinitely.
Yet I have considerable sympathy for rogue soldiers defending Jihadi Jones.
From my perspective, he should not be made to bear sole responsibility for getting caught in the cross-fire of the deeply entrenched, historically bequeathed indiscipline and excessive self-indulgence of British religious and secular ideologues, brain-hardened, conscience calloused careerists who like Corbot (and Mercer, possibly?) play divisive gender, race and religious racketeering games in pursuit of short-sighted personal and political victories.
Indeed, if we take former soldier, Conservative politician Ian Duncan Smith’s shockingly candid comments about the use of secretive, subversive psych op tactics (at 16:06 on the linked recording) by himself and other pro-Brexit campaigners in the EU Referendum debate seriously, we might conclude that infantryman Jone’s defence of Mercer’s reckless, rogue-soldier-sense-of-impunity risking denunciation of IHAT as a witchhunt is evidence of psychological warfare fatigue.
That is, we might conclude that Jones’ deeply insensitive and disrespectful dismissal of the battles that the bereaved parents Doug Houghton and Goldsmith face on the frontlines of unrelenting human conflict and tragedy is evidence that he is a victim of subversive psych op brainwashing and deceit.
We might conclude that Jones and indeed all UK residents, civilian, military and paramilitary, have become so desensitized to matters of life and death, through the psych ops of manipulative, monopolized media-political campaigns primarily, that like Corbott and Clump, we have lost our capacity to humanely engage with and process the murder of the Parliamentary “infant” Cox and other events in the unrelenting saga of human misery.