My blog is currently undergoing a second full frontal assault from Singapore, but this time bringing in the reinforcements and generally sapping my motivation to do anything but wait it out and watch all these “hits” wipe-out the undermanned defensive line, which hightailed out of Dodge at the first sight of them.
Throwing up the white flag, I thought I should talk about a few items of interest to me. Yesterday on the front page of the Seattle Times there was a story by Lauren Girgis about fentanyl, which naturally downplayed the role of China, portrayed users as ignorant “victims” and highlighted people with Spanish names as the evil-doers.
In Europe fentanyl is not as big a problem, but that is only because people there have “upgraded” to even more powerful opioids, like nitazene and benzimidazole; they can’t blame the “Mexicans” for that, and of course the principle source of these opioids is China. Think China doesn’t have a “master plan” to destabilize the West? Or is the government just incompetent? China stayed silent as Covid spread all over the world and killed millions—and they still refuse to admit they did anything "wrong."
But
who cares about who is responsible for millions dying around the world or Trump promising to imprison his political "enemies" if he is elected when you
have the “kiss seen around the world”? "Fury" over the infamous
“kiss” by the president of Spain’s soccer federation, Luis Rubiales, after
Spain won the women’s world cup, is of course being fueled by English-speaking
countries’ hypocritical puritanism and by radical activists and their
shills in the media. I mean, I wouldn't have done it, but who knows in a Latin culture known for its "emotion" if people "think" before they do something in the joy of the moment.
The “victim” laughed it off at first, but naturally she felt pressured to conform to the new puritanism whose principle aim is turn anything sexual into a crime and destroying men who don’t treat women as they would other men (i.e. not kissing them, unless of course you are another man—unless of course you are a "powerful" man like Kevin Spacey).
You think this is an "exaggeration"? When I was in college I happened to stumble into an auditorium with a gender activist/academic guest speaker named Catherine MacKinnon (not to be confused with the former SNL comedian), where I happened to be one of only two males present. Among other things, the lesbian MacKinnon "suggested" that all heterosexual sex was "rape"; this wasn't a "new" idea, since a previous misandrist guest speaker, Andrea Dworkin, made the same assertion. MacKinnon only seemed "concerned" about her proclamations escaping the room when during a question-and-answer segment she discovered the other male in the audience was a reporter for the local newspaper.
I admit the kiss appeared to be unexpected by the “victim” and probably was not the smartest thing to do in a poisonous environment. This is especially true now, when in order to expunge all trace of hypocrisy such as supporting proven liars and domestic abusers like Amber Heard, radicalized activists and people with an inflated sense of self-importance in the media come off like all these “Karens” you find on YouTube, a few of whom are lucky they are not black, because they might have been deemed “dangerous” and shot dead for violently resisting arrest; many are racists, but others show you what kind of people one suspects comprises a great many of those “MeToo” self-made “victims”:
I admit that the human race is drowning in examples of men for which the world would be better off if they were doing something else (Hitler wanted to be an “artist,” and blamed Jewish art dealers for his failure). But do we need more women in powerful positions without accountability, like Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, who no longer leads a far-right majority that turned a once “progressive” state into a hillbilly backwoods, and like a petulant dictator is now engaging in partisan whimpering in the press and unilaterally attempting to change the rules of orderly process on the court?
And what about Florida judge Aileen Cannon, whose only qualification for her position is that she is a MAGA fanatic who for the second time has been assigned to the Trump classified documents case. It has been noted that Cannon has little understanding of jury trial procedure, and the right-wing majority on the 11th Circuit Court felt it had no choice but to save its own credibility by offering a stinging rebuke of Cannon’s “opinions” in the first go-round of the documents case. Most observers were “surprised” that a judge with her lack of experience or competence was given the Trump case; one suspects there is a method to this “madness” to benefit Trump.
Meanwhile, over at House Inhabit, hosted by Jessica Reed Kraus who previously told us about Heard’s wild sex parties with billionaires and her frozen embryos with contributions from Elon Musk’s “donated” sperm, there is a new “blockbuster” posting about how Heard’s web of lies has ensnared many people who once they were caught, are apparently unable or unwilling to free themselves of her spell, almost wholly based on their need for Heard to be representative of their hypocritical radicalism; Kraus provides this graphic which seems a bit convoluted, but that’s probably the point:
Kraus' main point here concerns how corrupted the UK judicial process was in the Depp libel case, and that Judge Nicol had many “interested party” connections that made a fair hearing of Depp’s case all but impossible. We saw him allow Heard in what appeared to be violations of court rules to insinuate her false allegations into the trial (instead of forcing The Sun and Dan Wootton to prove their "innocence" based on the "facts" they had in hand), and allowed Heard to “update” her accusations to cover-up another lie exposed, while Depp’s evidence was ignored for being “biased.”
Reports like those from House Inhabit simply don’t get enough attention, and although I agree with Colonel Kurtz that it would be nice to move on from Depp-Heard, that means ignoring what Kraus warns us about that has obvious implications for similar cases that the shill media claims “damages” victim culture:
If you’ve been paying attention, perhaps you’ve noticed how the media is working strategically to frazzle our perception of a trial we witnessed between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard last year. Mainstream outlets are unfolding a calculated campaign to repair and reclaim Heard’s reputation by painting her as an unrequited victim of abuse and him as an abuser who “got away with it.” The Netflix documentary is the latest example; It offered nothing new or compelling — in fact it was decidedly boring — but showed exactly where the narrative is headed, to shift public opinion by planting doubt through big media productions and news conglomerates that are all influenced by the billionaires Heard is still conveniently tied to.
While
on twitter—or what is it now, “X”?—there is “Johnny Depp Love” where some fan
has posted nearly 10,000 video clips and photos of Depp in his various
successful enterprises, while Heard’s “fans” have to be content with her
“goddess” looks (when she is wearing makeup and just had her latest Botox
injection) since she isn’t doing much except living off Musk’s "child
support" payments (tell me I’m wrong)--so finding “work” really isn’t a “problem”
for her at the moment--and that constant pity-party whining by Eve Barlow and Kat Tenbarge and the like. How boring, but some people get off on that "feeling good about feeling bad" stuff.
Yeah, people like Lucy Morgan in Glamour think that “public opinion” is “finally turning” in Heard’s “favor,” although Morgan purposely glosses over the fact that “documentaries” like the Netflix debacle are only representative of the “public opinion” of a few self-proclaimed "fence-sitters" who are in fact Heard supporters in sheep's clothing; in reality hardly anyone watches them, and outside the pro-Heard shills who feel these documentaries "justified" their ignorance of the facts, most of those who watched them only saw their own suspicions of the mainstream media justified.
No, people in the know still have the voice of the demented, demon-possessed Heard tormenting Depp like his mother used to do ringing in their heads. While Depp shows genuine compassion here with someone the narcissistic Heard wouldn’t be caught dead being seen with…
…we remember her distressing the doctor and nurse of an infant just out of surgery in a hospital in Mexico after grabbing it from the arms of the nurse and holding it awkwardly, the doctor and nurse obviously wondering who the hell is this insane gringo speaking bad Spanish looking for a self-serving PR stunt photo-op and acting like she has anything to do with anything:
The reason why Heard is so “important” to the shill media and her supporters is because she lost in a high profile case, and something has to be done to "fix" that. `While I hate to break it to those people, the fact is that the vast majority in this world either don’t know, are vaguely aware or don’t really care, but the one problem for Heard supporters in and out of the mainstream media is that the only thing “newsworthy” about the case is that Depp won the U.S. trial, and all the rest is just white noise.
Thus they need people to "listen" to them; whether people will listen or not is another matter. After all, a jury found unanimously in Depp’s favor, so these Heard shills must have missed something, and the jury wasn't buying as “evidence” the “believe all women” mantra.
But as Kraus points out, that isn’t stopping Heard supporters from being persistently annoying. Perhaps this is in the hope that people will just say “whatever you say” and hope they will just shut-up and go away. However, they may still remember the few clips that the MSM deigned to show them, and wonder what was more “genuine”: Heard’s eye-rolling “tears” and hopelessly convoluted reimagining of the past told in contradictory tenses that only a pathological liar can create...
...or her sneering smugness not only during the trial when she called everyone else a "liar," but during her 2016 deposition, when Heard appeared to be anything but a PTSD "survivor":
Rather than willingly retell her "story," Heard reportedly had to be dragged in kicking and screaming in an effort to avoid having her lies exposed. The fact that Heard's version of events were short on "detail" when they should have been still fresh in her memory then only undercut her credibility later.
Meanwhile, we find in the UK people like musician Lily Allen who are wishing that Wootton overcomes his present troubles and finds “a place of happiness, peace and truth.” Oh god, what hypocrisy. Allen is another one of those feminist types who is dripping with self-importance and feels that what she calls “harassment” over her views is the reason she hasn’t been able to write “new” songs in a long time; her problem is more likely she can’t think of any more ways to repeat the same tired lines, although that isn’t a problem yet for Taylor Swift and her fans.
Allen also adds herself to a list of names of people she falsely claims were “abused” and “bullied”: Peaches Geldof died of a drug overdose that had nothing to do with anything save her own “issues” with drug abuse. Amy Winehouse was also a drug addict whose problems were self-created. Caroline Flack was the woman who couldn’t handle the truth that she was a domestic abuser, and apparently thought that committing suicide would “save” her "reputation" rather than be seen as an admission of guilt (you know, like Jeffrey Epstein).
By the way, it also "amazes" me that a gay man like Wootton, a black man like Clarence Thomas, and a Jewish man like Stephen Miller all see the far-right as their personal "salvation" and turned themselves into corrupt bigots. Or maybe it doesn't amaze me all that much, because some people with victim complexes have this need to "prove" to their haters that they can hate even "better."
It is frustrating we live in a world like this where only the people who yell, scream and kick the loudest are the ones with the best chance of being “heard.” Even if it is just one person in the crowd who actually “believes,” the effect of gaslighting is just too powerful, and generally silences the rest who doubt what they are told. Anyone who dares to speak the truth can expect the usual list of pejoratives meant to shame them into submission or cancellation. It won’t end until we are all “equally” boring and stupid on someone else’s terms, meaning the end of thinking for one's self.
Or we could follow the lead of the Japanese, who current statistics show that more than half of couples live in "sexless" marriages, 25 percent of young people today will likely never marry or have sex, and for those who have the "urge" for real sex and not masturbation, it is available from legal prostitutes operating out of what appear from the outside to be "coffee shops" for "walk-in service" at relatively inexpensive prices.
No comments:
Post a Comment