Well of course there are men who have to shout it out and whilst understandable, it can be counterproductive. But the gals … well so many of the good ones (cough) make saying what’s on their mind into an art form … dear oh dear, poor Lucy, Bernie, other gals … we luv ya but …
And the stasi were waiting to get her … bstds. Juss thinkin’ … there, but for the Grace of God, go I. Still might. Dear oh dear in these days we’re in.
The PM replied that July’s General Election had been a petition (really it was more like an eviction order.) ‘The Mongoose’ missed a trick: the 4 July petitioners didn’t get what they asked for and got a lot they didn’t want.”
The fourth topic is IYE’s at 891:9 on Two-Tier Stasi’s blasphemy laws.
a. Rachel of Complaints … I’m sure you’ll find it on youtube … she was not just “of” complaints but was “head of” and along with the other two heads, colluded to give each other spare time for shopping or whatever … which in Rachel’s case meant Labour Council work.
Now … illegality, lying etc. aside, the major thing in the video was if there is a pattern of dishonesty in whatever she does … and a case can be made that there is.
b. Andy’s blackout on the Westminster bridge story. The reportage changed … originally, it was the man had been st*b**d, but now it was changed to heart attack and no MSM took it any further. Why not? Of which demographic could the culprit possibly have been?
c. Something I saw in passing … it’s like most polling … you choose your sample to give you the result you want, of course slanting the questions that way too. Predictable … older responders, when asked which country they did not like, said S-sha (USA in English) plus a handful of others, or else they liked all, esp. women were like this. Younger responders, full of western garbage culture like Swift, ideals of how it is out here etc. etc., were more inclined to say they liked the west.
My feeling is that youngsters under 25 should not have the vote and any native over 25 should first sit a standard civics test and pass it on the first attempt … such a test being loaded towards love for and respect for the country. And lil ole I will set the test.
By the way … Moscow is hardly “Russia”, just as Rachel of Complaints and Khan City are hardly Britain.
3. Steve at 892
Four: Far-Left Judge in Arizona Attorney General’s 2020 Electors Case Recuses Himself, 11 State Attorneys General, Led by Ken Paxton, Take on BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, Noted Private Jet User John Kerry Sounds Off: “We’re on The Brink of Needing to Declare a Climate Emergency, they want TikTok banned, Wills’s changing relationship with Chas, plus more.
Three: Dr Jay Bhattacharya the Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration as New NIH Director, Liberal Women Protest Trump’s Victory With a ‘Primal Scream’ on Lake Michigan (heaven protect us), Trump Team Officially Signs Transition Agreement with Biden White House to Formalize Transition, much more.
Two: Moscow Prepares Retaliatory Strike due to NATO Missile Attacks. Israel-Lebanon truce takes effect … nothing changes over there.
One: Oz covid response was insane, Ivermectin, Gorka Brit asset? Much more.
2. DAD at 892
a) 40% of Pakistanis want to leave their country: Guess where they want to go.
b) Billy Bob Thornton scene from “Landman”. Ed Millibrain does not approve.
c) Amaryllis Fox Kennedy is Robert Kennedy’s daughter in law.
d) Axios CEO suffers a meltdown over Citizen Journalism..
…..
JH: Slight smile on the lips, I feel a wave of “provocativeness” welling up … I’d love to drop in a cutting aside … but no time, let’s move on.
1. In which this really does become abstruse
There’s sometimes a genuine reason to be less understandable to readers, apart from my natural gobbledegook … and it usually means something coming up I wish to bury. One gentleman tavern patron in France (our third French expat, let’s call him) became somewhat irate at my lack of hyperlink, lack of clarity … but I assure you it was necessary.
At the same time, I feel obliged to at least provide the means, the chance to discover, given a halfway decent intelligence in the reader and the reader can then go off and ferret, given the starter first of course, the means. All right, here’s a starter:
The pundit is AnonCon, with a most unusual layout, as I do, he’s in blogrolls, which I suggest are an important adjunct or part of our unherdable chain. The item I’m referring to is within 11-27-24, about halfway down and I’m about to give hints through context. We already know the skeleton of this tale, as we didknew about once svali did her thang in 2000.
Sometimes there really is a gender difference and I’d argue that if ever an item illustrates that male-female difference, this is it. It’s long, 1:56:28, and regulars here know I really object to podcasts as a rule as jaw-jaw extensions of participants’ egos, without getting to the point … and even then, the results are marginal, are just substanceless opinion, no time for such things.
One thing which this one avoids is the garish thumbnail … that one two days ago which had the girl’s darkened visage most of the way through and then said almost nothing, except in a disguised form, opened with a highly sensationalised thumbnail as clickbait which I failed to see, that thumbnail, otherwise I’d not have bothered … garish sensationalism does the opposite in my mind … sends me running … ditto with capitals every few sentences … trying to persuade with emotion, with emphasis, like smashing the key on the keyboard too often.
Is this ramble getting somewhere? Eventually yes … the key, the whole point, is in comments under that podcast, comments which almost universally excoriate the “host”, a blunt man of the coiffed hair type who is running a sensational “show”. Just as there do exist crazy catwomen with bizarre notions and fantasies, so there are seriously obtuse men of huge ego who run “shows”, the idea being ratings, clicks, patreon subscriptions.
If the interviewed woman is even remotely to be believed … and I do agree that there are consummate actresses out there who want their whistleblowing fifteen mins in the spotlight … granted that that is so, esp. in s*t*n*st witchery … nevertheless, this one has a slight accent I was trying to place … it becomes apparent halfway along and some of those names I covered in my OoL post of a decade and a half ago, called “the missing children” … those names reappear here. Don’t forget that I saw transcripts of children’s testimony back then, before all that was snuffed out of the net by Them … early days of soc-med punditry, that was, near impossible now.
What she comes out with rings true to me and her whole purpose for doing it was for her emotional healing, stopping it happening to others, stopping the whole nightmare … she even takes him to task at one point that there’s a war even between them … he wants names, his fearless reporting team, staff, have done their homework, compiling lists of names … why? To expose … or to protect those names, I ask? See, this could easily be, to him, just damage control for his show funders … or maybe it’s his natural maleness preventing any compassion for her.
What does a woman do, if wronged? She either does what happened to Kavanaugh, via Harris … cries rape … or else she really did experience all that and is trying somehow to find closure of some kind. It’s a highly dangerous situation … believe the woman or not? All the other material for two decades now suggests to me that this one’s on the level, wanting to talk healing … whereas he’s in full-male mode, out for revenge, bringing down the monsters, ra ra ra.
If it had been your daughter, and you’re male, a father say, what’s your natural reaction? Deep anger, fury, innit, like Anakin Skywalker … off you go and slaughter a village, just like the current neocon versus Putin thing. What the male almost never does is stay, listen, comfort, support. And in a way, that’s what we do here at unherdables … we try to help right wrongs do we not? Storm off on our white chargers. In high dudgeon much of the time. Very male. There’s a place for it.
A woman is not beyond using that … if B has wronged her (A) in her mind, she engages C, a male, who instantly believes her emotional performance, charges off and slaughters B first, finds out later.
I’m not sure this lady is not genuine, I think she is genuine, as it tallies but the interviewer is a bull in a china shop … he does not believe her or at least is not interested in her as a human, just as a name giver, otherwise she’s of no use to him … precisely what she shows her abusers to be. And look at the name of the interviewer … talk about a giveaway.
All right, enough from me on that … if I’ve at least alerted you to AnonCon, then that’s a good job done this Thursday morn, Thangsgiving in America.
