On this day a year ago
David Icke used to follow my Twitter account. In fact, leaving aside organizational and corporate accounts, mine was one of a very small handful that Icke followed.
I was expelled from Twitter in 2018 after a campaign by the usual whining and/or demanding Jews, connected to the so-called “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [“CAA”].
Icke was also expelled from Twitter, a couple of years later. Same situation. Same pack of Jews.
Such expulsions are the main reason why Twitter is now relatively dull in every way. I use it as a convenient way of filling gaps in my blog with news and comment but, as a real tool of influence in itself, it has been killed, and killed by “them”. It’s always “them”…
Quite a few of the vandalistic sort of “anti-Semitic” actions seen over the years in the USA, UK etc, actions such as drawing swastikas, damaging bits and pieces in Jewish cemeteries etc, have actually been found to have been perpetrated by Jews, often with the motive of Jews being then able to whine about how oppressed they are by —mainly invented— “antisemitism” etc (which then leads to money —many millions of pounds in the UK alone— being given by government to Jew-Zionist “security” (snooping and strongarm) orgs to pay for, supposedly, an increase in security at Jewish religious and educational centres; also leading to pressure for laws being passed to restrict “anti-Semitic” comment online and offline.
Far be it from me to defend a Polish Jew, but truth demands exposure. As a film director, Polanski is pretty good. It is ironic that one of his least-interesting films, arguably, is (again arguably) his best-known— Chinatown . I saw it very long ago, and found it confused. Perhaps I should see it again before being too critical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_(1974_film)
What has always struck me about the films of Polanski is the element of surprise and, indeed, shock, that they all seem to have. Most if not all have some scenes where the unexpected slaps you in the face.
As to the sex crime with which Polanski was charged in 1977, perhaps I am being too kind, but it strikes me as a bit of a storm in a teacup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski.
Yes, Polanski having a sexual encounter with a young girl (13-y-o), was a crime under Californian law. She seems to have been not unwilling, which though irrelevant legally, has at least some relevance in background terms. She has made public, as an adult, the fact that she does not want Polanski to be further penalized. Anyway, it is long ago now, 45 years in fact.
There is a kind of neo-Puritanism about, which demands that artists (even ones long-dead) must be very straitlaced, which not all are. I suppose that the fuss about Eric Gill is another fairly recent example. So must we destroy or remove from public view the works of, say, Caravaggio?
The nonsense about Polanski and others is akin to the demand of the “Black Lives Matter” idiots that statues and other memorabilia associated with persons themselves even obliquely associated with slavery be removed or destroyed. If that were carried into effect, almost all famous people from 15th to 19th centuries (in the UK and many other countries) would have to have their statues torn down. And what of the surviving statues of ancient rulers and others? Or does the present pursed-lipped disapproval apply only to black slaves?
“Foundling”, not “founding“, but no matter. What a very nice confirmation of the view expressed by C.S. Lewis (and cited in the Foreword to the beautiful book, Sold for a Farthing, by Clare Kipps) that the “tame” state (not afraid of, or hostile to, humans) is the truly natural state of being for the animal kingdom, though as yet largely unfulfilled.
Saw an episode of Midsomer Murders, the first seen by me, as far as I can recall, for two or three years. Basic format much as in the past, but “the Great Replacement” agenda has really taken over.
In the small Berkshire/Oxfordshire-type village(s) in question, in the past all-white, the white English are now scarcely a majority. The first scene, at the village green, had some English people, but also blacks, browns, and Chinese, in numbers.
The demographic change was so marked that it made me laugh. It was as if (?) some “woke” idiot had gone round with a clipboard, ticking off “types”, as in “now let me see…three Chinese, several blacks, a few Indians and Pakistanis, a few white English.…” etc. The final scene was absurd: the two (white English) detectives, the last planned (but saved) victim (Indo-Pakistani), and three perpetrators— a black woman, another Indian, and one white English. In a tiny English village in the country…
Several years ago, “activists” complained that the show was too English. It “needed” more blacks and browns, they said…
Transparent, of course, to someone of my age etc, but that kind of propaganda is aimed at those of much greener years. Normalization of a basically non-English, non-European, society.
Late tweets seen
Not sure that I entirely agree, despite “Boris” himself, repeatedly over the years, trying to present himself as a kind of am-dram Churchill.
Whatever the many flaws of Churchill, he was certainly a great historical figure, with real talents. To compare Churchill to Boris-idiot is to insult the former and flatter hugely the latter. I say that despite being implacably opposed to most of Churchill’s policies.
As I have blogged before, if comparing Churchill to “Boris” at all, the verdict must be, in the famous words of Marx, “first time— tragedy; second time— farce“… (from Marx’s 18th Brumaire, if I am not mistaken; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eighteenth_Brumaire_of_Louis_Bonaparte).