Tuesday Weld [part two]

The interview below is not in the least inconsistent with the rest of what's been presented, none of which is untrue - I'm not running the What's My Line because she's in the middle of the abusive years there and Carson is making a move on her.  

This interview, in 1971, is still ten years from her getting out of witchery - she's a mess, still drinking, fighting to have a 'normal life', which she admits to having no idea as to what that constitutes.  Observe the putting on of shades and the taking off, watch how, straight after the clip from the film, the interview suddenly stopped with her and turned to Milton Berle - think why.  Why also was the clip not from Pretty Poison but from a different film?  Answer is because, like a jumpcut in a Zapruder film, something’s been doctored.  This was a recording session after all, not a live-to-air.

Later, it takes up again with her [scroll along, post-MB].

Think why she would accept Dick Cavett's invitation but would misbehave for Carson, to the point he told her to get lost, she would never be on his show again.  Think about all her misbehaviour and towards which types. Think why all of it.

Tomorrow morning is someone quite different and one of those differences is that she [tomorrow] has a supportive father there for all the right reasons.  Yes, I am making a point.  No daddy issues.

Back to Tuesday - there's a case for calling her Susan Ker and a case for calling her Tuesday.  She was asked in the interview and said she would keep Tuesday but that can be put down to two things.  Tuesday is the witchery thing, she was still controlled by them, but Susan Ker was from her abused years at home. Seems to me she chose the latter because in the other, she had zero control of the situation ... as Tuesday she felt she had some control.

I'd not call her Ms Weld as that name is Boston Brahmin.  By the way, she was born on a Friday and became a witch on a Friday.  She's not one now.

Oh, and in case you’re getting tired of the female of the species, try this:

Part three

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to leave this out here now, rather than make a third post.  I wish to close this off, though it will not leave her in peace.

In that studio, there are three guests and a host, plus her.  Who dominates the room and yet doesn’t dominate everyone, the eternal victim, stoopid Tuesday as the Beatles called her?  Look at the tone of Ed’s comment the other day, look at the tone of mine too here.

Ask what a witch actually does.  Ask what the sirens in O Brother did.  Ask what they did with Ulysses and crew.  Ask how Anne Boleyn was able to keep Henry VIII on a string for six years before he folded. Ask about Messalina’s hold over Clavdivs. 

Ask why she failed to beguile the Beatles, Jagger, Zeppelin, Manson and yet dominated the LA scene, inc. them.  To get more specific - why could various men not fall and yet a huge protective instinct kicked in [see Ed’s comment again], but others could take her a most Podestarly wrong way?

In fiction, what was Samantha able to do in Bewitched?  And in real life, what did Elizabeth Montgomery continue on with all and sundry?  Throughout history, people have attributed the power of selfdetermination to witches - has anyone considered they’re actually possessed?

Fictional again - Death on the Nile and Jacqueline.  I knew a Jacqueline who might have brought me down once.  Try to reason with a sneaky alcoholic, deeply in denial.  Try to reason with any possession - you can’t, until something snaps in that person, something which ends the spell.

Consider the current bewitchment of the SJW, the Woke, try to reason with them, which we’re all trying to do, having snapped out of it.  Look at Boris, deep in thrall, looking as much a mess as Tuesday did that evening with Dick Cavett.  The ability to sway, even now after what he’s done as Carrie Johncock.  Are you beginning to see the answer to Lockdown Sceptic’s puzzlement as to why they act as they do, in that insane denial?  Is it just the money?

Not completely - there’s an element of compulsive behaviour in all this, isn’there?  Go to any church of a Sunday and hear a really holy pastor give a sermon.  

What’s that?  We can’t do that today?  Either closed down, burnt down or possessed by the other side?  Arrested?  So just as with only the priests’ word in the middle ages, only approved messages are allowed through.  

What danger, therefore, am I myself in, running this post?

Ladies and gentlemen, we really do need to open the eyes [myself included] to what is really going down. Is this to the exclusion of all our chaps and chapesses contribute?  Not a bit of it - everything they’ve sent is part of the unfolding.  And yet still so many will have none on’t.  Why not?  Why so hardwired against what’s true?  Don’t wish to know?  For what reason could that be?

Finally, is it my own fixation with Tuesday for base reasons or could it be my fixation with what she was a key to, with a view to crowbarring the game wide open?  And why would I?  Why would you for that matter?  Why DR?  What motivates us and now millions globally?  Is it not that we can now see what’s going down?  You might call it despicable what’s going down - I call it unholy.

By the way, google Milton Berle, go to the Wiki, look at the right sidebar, scroll down to his schooling.  Interesting, eh?