First off … 17b … item was about Timothy Mellon. Somehow, Steve connects that to Bryan Ferry … or was it to Neil Young and Like a Hurricane?
a crowded, hazy bar ♫” There’s something hauntingly beautiful about this guitar laced personification of Neil Young’s intense desire for a paramour he longed for but could never attain.
Who also wrote a song about Graham Nash and Joni Mitchell. Anyway, the song is up at UHC-HQ. Was it connected to Jorja Chalmers?
18. Quick summary
a. Saw escalation in events in London:
Seems to have been an organised reaction to a UKIP rally. Battle lines drawn, police as always on the side against the people.
b. New deputy Labour clown, Lucy M. Powell who insulted rape gang survivors. Charming. An Xer called Helen Spirited: “Only 16% of Labour Members bothered to vote. They know it’s all but over for The Labour Party. Can’t wait for Lucy Powell to brag about her “overwhelming mandate”.” Matt Vickers MP: “The same Lucy Powell who smeared those who asked questions about rape gangs as using ‘a dog whistle’.”
c. NYT says Timothy Mellon, a banking heir (is) the anonymous donor who gave $130 million to the U.S. government to help pay troops during the shutdown.
d. DON’T FORGET CLOCKS FALL BACK BETWEEN NOW AND MORNING. Night night all.
17. Steve corner
a. War Room:
Joe Allen: Working-Class Americans See Through The AI Hype. They Know It’s Not A Promise; It’s A Threat To Their Livelihoods, Their Humanity, And Their Faith
Dr Bradley Thayer: China Just Weaponized Rare Earths, Cutting Off Exports Of The Very Magnets Our Defense And Tech Industries Rely On
Captain James Fanell: Xi Holds The Leverage, And That Has To Change. China Controls Our Rare Earths, Our Pharmaceuticals, And Even Parts Of Our Food Supply
Julie Kelly On ‘Artic Frost’ Probe: This Was Run Through Lisa Monaco, This Was Her Idea
b. Anonymous donor:
BREAKING 🚨 An anonymous BILLIONAIRE just gave Donald Trump $130 Million to pay the military
“He doesn't want the recognition! But he gave us a check for $130M. It's gonna go to the military”
Below are sshots I gathered earlier and what connects them is the concept of “opposite” in that they don’t just misrepresent, don’t just lie by omission, don’t just flat out lie but they actively say or do the diametric, direct opposite. That’s real Goebbels stuff.
For example, Phillips in parliament stated that Fiona Goddard had lied … which receipts showed was a complete lie in itself. When an MP lies to parliament, that was always grounds for resignation. There was a Yes PM episode where Hacker was tricked into lying to parliament because of faulty advice. Meant nothing, the advice as factor weighed to mitigate … Hacker had inadvertently lied. Resignation stuff.
The barefaced gall today with which this lot get away with it can only be from a firm belief, a hardwired view, that there is no longer any comeback … the cabal WEF, whatever, has sent the message out that it’s a done deal, say whatever you wish now … everything’s now in the melting pot.
Whether or not it is it or can still go awry, they are 100% sure it’s over, they cannot be touched. Someone above has assured the clowns of that.
Just who is the target audience below here? What’s going on? By what means do they think that people, knowing the exact opposite to be true from seeing and hearing it … that people will reverse that which they know? 180 degrees, upside down? Maybe there’s no intention to persuade, maybe it’s just what they’ll write into history, so the next civilisation can dig it up and think it’s history?
Screenshot
Next:
Screenshot
The “opposite” there is that the orthodoxy must have reversed.
Screenshot
That one’s simply bizarre. In a national rag, this child comes out and says the diametric opposite of the truth. No comeback on her.
Screenshot
“Directly contradicted” are the key words above. Not a different nor interpretation … it’s contradiction. Openly. At a high level.
Screenshot
Speaks for itself, that one. This below is still an opposite but in action Pritzker somehow thinks is equal and opposite. He was seated at the big desk and, aping DJT, many people stood around behind the desk as he did the Big Signing of the EO, as if it counts for something. Bizarre.
Screenshot
This last one below is obviously Russian in origin, one of the watchers, the lower item of the two shows a major curiosity in the names … and from where … they obviously have something planned.
“This may be Edgar G. Ulmer’s masterpiece. RUTHLESS is a terrific noir/melodrama – sharply written (by the to-be-blacklisted Alvah Bessie and Gordon Kahn), consistently beautifully photographed (by the underrated Bert Glennon), and truly adventurous in its editing and flash forward-flash backward construction.
Zachary Scott is the “ruthless” title character, but the title is more a cheap shot than anything else; Scott’s Vendig is more an emotionally bankrupt, pathological character than a villain per se. The narrative takes pains to reveal – gradually – the series of events from childhood through adulthood which affected his perverse makeup, making for a fascinating character study.
Subtle revelations and plot twists come about every fifteen minutes, but they’re deliberately ambiguous when they hit the screen, forcing the viewer to pay close attention as the truth of the situation is revealed. This technique alone puts RUTHLESS way ahead of any other Poverty Row melodrama of the period and cements Ulmer’s reputation as a thoughtful stylist.
Louis Hayward plays a sort of Greek chorus, an often acquiescent voice of conscience/best friend/nemesis who keeps the episodic story moving along. Diana Lynn (in two roles), Martha Vickers and Lucille Bremer each give terrific performances as the various women who appear, disappear, and reappear in the lives of both men.
All are sharply drawn, a testament to the determination of Bessie, Kahn and other blacklisted writers to put strong female characters on screen in defiance of the Production Code, which seemed to encourage either submissive or predatory roles for women.
And as if all that isn’t enough, Sidney Greenstreet drops in and sets the screen on fire in every sequence he appears in. A classic coiled spring, his portrayal of a similarly greedy corporate boss is perfectly slimy, and provides a genuine shock when he suddenly grabs Lucille Bremer by the hair and jerks her backwards for a kiss.
Likewise, a later sequence where Bremer drags him in front of the mirror so she can brutally compare him to her new, younger lover is unforgettably painful.”
Been watching her music video reactions for some years … the lady with the strange eyes and laid back manner … just discovered … duh … that she wears glasses.
Anyway, some years back, quite a few American football fan types played a youtube of AFL downunder football … the AFL must have released it in the US … they were all male reactors, so this is a surprise for a girl to be doing a football reaction … this seems to be a new one the AFL has put out:
She asks at the end who’s everyone’s favourite team? Well here’s one contender:
Don’t forget to change your clocks and watches tonight.
a) Polish MP Grzegorz Braun walked into a court house to give evidence in a case. Only to find a Christmas tree with “LGBT” baubles, he grabbed the tree drags it outside and throws it in the bin.
b) If an uninsured Russian rust-bucket goes down off your coast causing massive environmental damage and loss of life, it will be easy to point the finger of blame.
c) Ban on new thermal cars in 2035: France calls for “flexibility”.
d) The euro has been a catastrophe for weaker, more exposed economies; in the case of Hungary, it would take away….
Might be best to run the film earlier at 1234, as I’ve a fairly torrid two hours coming up, phone off.
Review:
“More historical curiosity than entertaining science fiction film, “Destination Moon” is a must see for those interested in the evolution of the genre and the political climate of the early cold war years. Don’t expect any cheap thrills or exploitation elements. There are no aliens, no monsters, and no hot women. Instead it presents a detailed speculation of what they thought it would be like to go to the moon in a rocket-ship.
Despite looking like a massive version of a Von Braun rocket from WWII, the speculation about the problems faced by the engineers and crew of such a product are surprisingly accurate and must have been fascinating viewing back in 1950. Both the rocket and the moon are considerably more realistic than the old “Flash Gordon” stuff.
Like another science fiction classic “Them”, “Destination Moon” is loaded with political references conveying a not so subtle distrust of the federal government. But the two films convey the same message from polar opposite perspectives. “Them” placed the blame for its giant mutations on reckless atomic bomb testing and portrayed the federal response to the crisis as clueless until assisted by local law enforcement and an eccentric university scientist.
“Destination Moon” has a hawkish perspective, with unidentified fifth columnists sabotaging America’s early space program. Fortunately, selfless patriotic industrialists come to the rescue and finance a successful private enterprise program to claim the moon for the United States.
The deliberately low-key documentary style is relieved by the last minute addition of space novice Joe Sweeney (Dick Wesson) to the crew. With a Brooklyn accent (his first view of earth from space elicits a desire to know who is pitching for the Dodgers that day) Sweeney provides both comic relief and an excuse for the expect members of the crew to expound in layman’s terms about the details of space travel. I couldn’t help thinking of “Dark Star’s” Sgt. Pinback whenever Sweeney began to whine about not belonging on the mission.
Another concession to the unsophisticated 1950’s audience has the project leaders making their pitch for financing through a special Woody Woodpecker space training film. The skeptical fowl and his two audiences receive their indoctrination at the same time. “Destination Moon” must have infused the nation with a sense of wonder and faith in what the free enterprise system could achieve because it is actually listed as an event in NASA’s chronology of the history of space travel.
It is likely that the producers were more successful with this upbeat message than with their attempt to spread fear and promote a space race. Although considerable effort is made to sell the audience on the military value of the moon nothing very convincing is presented in that regard. Ironically, much of the actual space race a few years later would have a military purpose.
“Destination Moon” has two moments of suspense. The first is when Charles Cargraves (played by Warner Anderson) exits the ship in space and drifts away once his magnetic boots lose contact with the ship. Since Cargraves is the ship’s designer, it seems rather implausible that he should forget this but no more so than his constructing the ship out of heavy steel. The second is when they botch the landing and must lighten the ship to have enough fuel to return to earth (of course we 21st century viewers knew the thing was too heavy as soon as we learned about the magnetic boot thing).
Science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein teamed with producer George Pal to put “Destination Moon” into production. They soon learned that Kurt Neumann was working to release “Rocketship X-M” in time to benefit from their publicity campaign. For legal reasons Neumann modified his more sensational film to feature a landing on Mars rather than on the moon.
Although Neumann’s paid less attention to scientific details, it turned out to be more accurate in the use of a two-stage rocket and not the one-stage monster featured in the Heinlein/Pal version. Both films were subject to staggering naiveté about the complexity of space travel. Although the film’s version of the moon surface is hauntingly beautiful (thanks to Chesley Bonestell’s backdrop paintings) it looks more like a dried lake-bed than the actual lunar surface.
In retrospect, “Destination Moon’s” most unique sci-fi genre feature is the absolute refusal of its producers to show anything that deviated from what they believed at the time to be the truth about space travel. Although today it is a struggle to really appreciate the film, at least as it would have hit viewers in 1950, how many science fiction films have been criticized as being too real to be entertaining.”
