Thursday [3 and 4]

(0630) Just woke up and got up. That’s why any comments since last night have only just been clicked through. I’m anticipating one from Ripper, maybe from night owl Andy.  Still what I call “wall crashy” here at 0632, will get it together slowly.

4.  Second part of the Crawdaddies essay

Just as part one opened by my flatly refusing to “oppose” Ripper’s more than reasonable response, so that continues … we are up against an insidious move to ruin values since WW2, it’s a war for hearts and minds and who is the battleground? Same as it’s always been … the hearts and minds of the young.  It was on us in the 50s and 60s, so it is now.

It’s insidious, diabolical, subtle, crumb by crumb. Like any poison, it’s sugarcoated and to tackle it … first of all the poor sod who stops and says, “Enough of this shite,” is going to carry absolutely no one with him, he/she is on a hiding to nothing, he/she learns to expect nothing in return except putdowns.

On the other hand, the difference between 2023 and 2006 is that so many more people have now started to see the trauma, or as Clif High says … the woo … or as the Americans say … take the red pill and thus the fog of manipulation rolls back and we start to see the devastation we’ve inadvertently been party to.  

The young are the vulnerable, also the black and white literalists, the rock of society.

What’s the difference now? Now, in 2023, more people are asking us to explain what we’re banging on about, rather than auto-calling us tinfoil hat and swivel-eyed loons.  

There are, on this issue … the film itself Ripper brought to comments, then the YT review by two young guys who still don’t get it but at least they’re prepared to to try to find out why critics are opposed to the film. Audience 96% for, critics 34%.

Then there is Toodles’s oblique YT on feminism.  Same principle about the insidious changes.

Clearly there’s a huge disconnect between the critics’ and audience respinses to the film and I’m saying the critics themselves miss the point. If the n1 objection, plus 2 and 3 are the critical ones, then the critics seem to skip over 1 to 3, about F’ed societal values … they miss those and tackle objections 4, 5 and 6, quite valid maybe but hardly the point. 

Readers, we’re talking subtleties here, a boiling frog since WW2.  The boiling frog judges the situation in terms of his own current stage of “boiledness”, his own zeitgeist.

The literalist, impatiently says get on with it, put it simply! The person who sees the diabolical subtlety of the evil though … just how is he going to put, to the literalist, an ongoing process over five generations “simply”?

All right, I’ll give it a try. Where is the paedo in the film?  As I wrote, it’s in the whole process of “demoralisation” which led up to it, which first allowed that murderess to write her book, incorporating the tranny value that if tranny is good, then any objection is validly met by killing any who disagrees.  You really must see the YT review I added last night because those boys do start to get this thing.

The “paedo” is in even putting the author’s F’ed values in the first place as “valid” and “normal”.  Someone from my era instinctively sees this whole thig is F’ed and interestingly, those two boys picked up on it with their criticism of the drawn out kisses. 

Look, unless your age and politics have seen the whole paedo normalisation process from birth to grave, then later generations (late Boomer till today, each one worse than the preceding), have no benchmark to measure that rape by, the really “off” part of the kissing of a kid.

Maybe I can put it this way … plating devil’s advocate for a moment … what on earth is wrong with a loving father kissing his daughter?  After all, Uncle Joe Biden did it with Ashleigh, John Phillips did it with Mackenzie and both girls are now twisted … shirley it’s just a loving papa’s kiss, no?  

You see, here’s the litmus test. If you look at that “dwelling on the kiss” by the feminazi author, producer, casting agent, director, everything from the 60s up to the very choice of the “20 going on 14” girl herself, just as in Lolita … unless you can see that because the frog is still not boiled, then there’s no basis for further discussion, is there?

Tuesday Weld was asked why she did not accept the role of Lolita in the film. Why would I play Lolita, she replied?  I was Lolita (in real life). She was raped by many old men in Hollywood and so many others wanted.

To further help explain this, let me mention youtuber Anne Reburn.  She had photos up somewhere long ago and one of her vlogs was precisely about the “love” she found in Spain and elsewhere. 

She spoke about the latest she’d just run from … she was categorical that it was paedo love that that man had brought to her, same as it had ever been, hence the pictures of her on the beach she posted.  She said the guy had actually admitted he was drawn by her 14 year old body, her “youngness”.  

She ran.

Is it her fault she looks like a kid at 30 something?  Is it the girl’s fault in the Crawdaddies?  The two boy reviewers knew, deep down, that something was “off” in the fixations of the whole film on the girl, they said as much but being boys themselves, they had nothing to measure their objection against.  

I do though because I taught hundreds of the type in Russia … the temptations were overwhelming for any male without natural defences.  What were mine? My own gf of course.

Shifting this whole thing about Crawdaddies to the underlying issues facing the female, Toodles sent me this:

https://youtu.be/qmkR0rH5moM

It’s another attempt to explain and talk about a hiding to nothing again.  Remember Christy O Misty and her series?  She tried too but was herself too young, many shots found their target, many missed, glanced off. This is what we’re all doing, the dissidents … we each have part of the whole F’ed process going on, the number being done on us.

This thing is planned, it has been since “turn of the century” at least (1900, not 2000), the only way to understand it is massive amounts of reading of dissident sources only and even accepting or rejecting each of those in turn. PD and I, for example, have been on about symbolism for years and years.

But it’s a minefield … for example, telling us that Ben Shapiro, Milo or Charlie Kirk, Alex Jones, are “cutting edge dissidents” does not meet with the same level of fandom from us that many of the fooled display.  Jordan Peterson too.  The latter is excoriated by Vox Day. Why?  Because Vox is Christian inside and instantly recognises the apostasy.

Just why do you think Christians are so attacked?  I don’t mean by most people finding them freaky, weird, Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Nope, I mean by the Man hisself and his thugs. Why was Marx so vehement?  Was he really referring to ALL religions?  Not in the least … just the one which is insta-red-pill.

In the end, there is zero point Ripper and I clashing and you’ll see we haven’t.  We disagree on this point but I’m going to say this … to his eternal credit, he at least gave me a hearing.

3.  MftWC too

Strikes hit rear areas on the eve of offensive

https://southfront.org/strikes-hit-rear-areas-on-the-eve-of-offensive/

Russia Speeds Bakhmut Advance, Strikes Ukraine Rear, Ukraine Shells Melitopol; Russia Weapons Output

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqGwdBjEXlY

UN fail. Macron crackdown. Elensky fears US political change. Orthodox monks attacked, evicted. U/1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXnNgLmTNAw

This is really is bad!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvKG00b_Ohg

Can Biden's team find compromise with Russia? - Judge Napolitano | Larry Johnson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DvnR3flJlw