Filmmaker and actor Orson Welles referred to the film as a “masterpiece”. Screenwriter Robert Towne remarked, “It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that all contemporary escapist entertainment begins with The 39 Steps.”[Wikipedia]
It’s an unusual case, not of the film better than the book or vice-versa but of the two being quite different and equally as good, each in their own way:
Yes, I’ve already been through the thoughts – how is she even allowed to continue this on youtube, where is her first rate material coming from and so on.
While I’m firmly in the love Polly camp, our naturally suspicious minds should ask such questions all the same, even about another fave of mine from 2000 – Svali, plus Yuri Bezmenov in the 80s. Even the mild mannered interviewer in his case, G. Edward Griffin, was John Birch and Bezmenov said during the interview that they were instructed to infiltrate the right, not the left. The left were to be up against the wall.
That preamble was just to ask that anything at all is seen sceptically until corroboration or trusted sources make it seem trustworthy.
Above all, I ask that you look at the original documents afap, primary sources, which is what Iain Dale asked a LibDum to do yesterday. But even reading them, what if they’re deliberately Sir Humphrey in order to be taken several ways? These are some of the things we face as pundits and readers.
IMHO, Polly is illustrating something we know of but it hasn’t fully crystallised in the brain as yet. From the Wicker Man to the South Seas paedo island to Epstein’s island with the mystery religion chapel – what explorers found and what history showed, e.g. Egypt, e.g. the Druids, and it’s allegorised in the Old Testament, is that anywhere the monotheistic God has not reached by land and sea has tended to be perverse and that sounds more and more like Old Time Religious Missionary but look at the human behaviour – look at the Aztecs and Incas, look at the native rites on these islands.
My question is – if it took missionaries all those centuries to get to these far-flung places, something or someone obviously got there before them, those missionaries or explorers did not walk into any benign tabula rasa but into cultures of savagery. And there’s so much savagery anyway in the OT, even from the Chosen People – it does make one wonder.
One thing Polly illustrates well – and do watch it if you can find the time – is the mechanism by which evil gets in through portals. How it’s physically done:
I’ve had the notion for decades, after observing that there is this stand-off between the biblical reality and the accepted and promoted secular histories, that there need be no contradiction, although certainly there is human embellishment. If the water changes to wine, if pestilence rains down in the last days – why not? I can see quite plausible ways in which it could happen. The nuts and bolts of it – this above is an example of that.
And there are always at least quasi-religious trappings to any of these perverse societies – that’s the constant running through them.
As the authors say in the footnotes, they chose to restrict incidents to the 1950+ period in democratic Western countries in order to ensure cases remained cultural comparability. (Some people, including myself, suggested including Stalinist persecutions of IQ researchers – which, obviously, went well beyond the unpleasant but ultimately rather anodyne inconveniences they experience from “woke” students and cowardly university administrators.
3. There’s much money floating around from the Soros types to set the corrupt up for life. They don’t start as corrupt, I’m quite sure. With their poor education [today], and their love-all, do-good failure to discern right from wrong, they’re sitting ducks for the feelgood buzzwords hiding the true purpose.
Yet another example is young Laura Pillock:
Tory-hating Corbynista MP Laura Pidock buys a house, yet only weeks ago she said she couldn’t afford a home (despite her £76,000 salary, plus expenses of course) and she would love a Council house but none were available.
Sometimes, the issue is overplaying, e.g. with anything from Bono or Phil Collins. I wonder what you do if you’re Black Lace or these two and people avoid, disappear whenever you start singing? Must be dispiriting.
Then there are songs which are so contrived, so made to order – when the singing pauses, all there is is some metronome thud to keep it going. No spark, no joy.
Sometimes it’s the lyrics. The criticism of Breakfast at Tiffany’s is mainly the ideas in it.
But to me, the really bad songs are those which are excruciating, contrived to tug at the heartstrings by coiffed shallow people. Sometimes not even shallow people -it might be Richard Harris but the song is really bad, talentless, no flow.
Tony Jacks was bad, Honey by Bobby someone, that sort of thing – I reach for the paper bag. 99 air balloons is simply stupid – the only point is she’s supposed to be pretty.
I asked a mate what he saw in metal. Oh, the beat he said. Beat eh? Drumming fury and some guy having a vasectomy while trying to scream it down? Hmmmmmm.
Nearly theworst song I ever heard was called Scram, from the early 60s. Someone telling someone to go away. And radio played it?
Modern songs are nearly the worst too. This one about Chinese food is really not good. Also, were you ever picked up by a panda in a cafe when you were 11?
Some are so bad, they’re celebrated, e.g. Rick-rolling Astley.
Anything on Strictly is pretty bad, but that’s dance.
26. DemRats and RINOS [over here – the left, plus Remoaners, CINOs, BRINOs] truly are tossers of the first water, scumbaggery personified:
I thought I was doing something very good for our Country by using Trump National Doral, in Miami, for hosting the G-7 Leaders. It is big, grand, on hundreds of acres, next to MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, has tremendous ballrooms & meeting rooms, and each delegation would have its own 50 to 70 unit building. Would set up better than other alternatives. I announced that I would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at ZERO COST to the USA. But, as usual, the Hostile Media & their Democrat Partners went CRAZY!”
25. Part two of N4 – reader Dianna Deeley wrote:
Adultery is a vile thing. Foisting a child on someone is vile. He’s right to reject his ex-wife, but what the hell did the kid do to deserve rejection? Really? Where’s the honor in that?
Afraid I agree with her there. Then again, daughters have a habit of siding with mother in my experience and if she, the daughter, is going to do that, then I don’t blame the man.
Far better they go and have meal, man and daughter, at some quiet cafe restaurant and talk it all through for hours.
They might find a solution and then he has an ‘inside’ ally during the next women’s meeting.
Phew, thlot pickens:
I was thinking about the original story while I was unable to get to sleep, and it occurred to me: perhaps the man’s mother sided with his ex-wife against him because his mother’s husband was not his (biological) dad.
Some people are simply incapable of exercising prudent judgment, and their folly often inflicts heartbreaking pain on those unfortunate enough to be associated with such fools.
In a post earlier this week (“What Causes Misogyny?”), I discussed the case of a man who discovered from a DNA test that his 15-year-old daughter was not actually his daughter, but rather the result of his cheating ex-wife’s affairs.
What perhaps shocked me most in that tale was when the man told how, after discovering how he’d been deceived, he determined have nothing more to do with his ex-wife’s daughter — and yet allowed his mother to talk him into embracing the child as if she were actually his own!
Phew! Pause, sip coffee.
Right, how to approach this? I think I’m one of those fools, or was in the past. A bit susceptible to the female of the species, I seem to have attracted the less than ethical and not the ideal women of myth.
A lot of it is my fault for not being suspicious enough for a long time [ego?] and then, once learning or at least having reason to suspect, still hanging about with her. I’m sure it cuts both ways – there can be nothing as soul-destroying as a woman having his child and then finding out all the work was for nothing.
I’m really dead centre on all this. Methinks both have a duty to keep the private parts for the other. Naive? Does being a Christian help? Maybe. There’s a difference between a churchy and Christian heart, or so it seems. Also, there are how many ethically sound irreligious people out there as well?
It’s just that having another man’s child and the subterfuge of living that life … that’s a bit much to take, not unlike an abortion for less than life-threatening reasons, for PP reasons where the body parts are sold off to fund the PP boss’s lifestyle.
Yes, he was a naive fool but who hasn’t kidded himself ever?
And what of Harry Hewitt?
23. Gee whiz, they’re really taking it to heart over there. I’m not sure I’d follow someone down every alley, not being a party man but rather a people of the land man.
However, at critical times, not voting to fund the wall or aiding the DemRats in impeaching does seem something akin to treason, like Remoaners over here.
As scientists now realize, their initial rules for analyzing genomes discriminated against identifying those pint-size molecules. Now, broader criteria and better detection methods are uncovering minuscule proteins by the thousands, not just in mice, but in many other species, including humans. “For the first time, we are about to explore this universe of new proteins,” says biochemist Jonathan Weissman of the University of California, San Francisco.
Yep. Er, right on, man. It would also be wise to check how the plastics are going while we’re here:
Hmmmm, should I take my plastic straw then, instead of the metal or recycled loo roll? Decisions!
21. Just created this post at 7 a.m. Sunday in bed because I felt I needed to show sentient beings out there [you lot] signs of life here but absolutely nothing to say. Maybe that will change through the day. Time for coffee.
[Blame Chuckles and haiku for a lot of this material]
20. If Leonard Cohen sang songs to slash your wrists by, Tom Waits sang songs to cry into your beer over, then keel over and die:
Chuckles has an interesting approach – always send he same thing twice, so without any further a[ga]do[o doo doo]:
19. Well, everyone knows about it but let’s summarise – Laura K tweets:
1. Govt is sending three documents to the EU tonight – the 1st, the Benn Act extension letter, exactly as set out in law, but that PM has not personally signed; 2nd, a cover note from Sir Tim Barrow and the 3rd, a letter signed by the PM arguing that further delay is a mistake.
18. While ferreting around about whether Tulsi Gabbard is illegal or not – born in Western Samoa – along came reader Judd with this:
It can, in fact, be traced to the socio-political assumptions of the post-Thatcherite 1990s, when a new, more compassionate form of liberal-left politics took hold. The basic set-up was thus: the working classes were cast in the role of childlike victims, providing feel-good fodder for members of the educated middle class, whose social concern and support for state remedies established their moral superiority, and provided them with plentiful jobs dedicated to the care and tutelage of the helpless masses – jobs that ordained them as society’s rightful leaders, while being sufficiently free of accountability to satisfy their sense of entitlement.
17. Some music with a common theme but I’m not going to tell you what it is, so there:
16. Another of these ‘so what?’ items – Telegraph making a big deal of Jane Seymour, one of those eternal horse’s backsides. Dame Edna got it right in a show where JS was a guest: “Now Jane, you’ve been successfully married three times. Tell us … what’s your secret?”
Just checked and the tally’s now married and divorced four times – certainly racking them up.
‘So what?’ you cry out and you’ve every right, ditto concerning Gwynneth Poultry. The thing with both is their schtick in telling anyone who’ll listen just how wonderful they are as women but that’s not all of it.
Some people like Sparkle just do bad things – wilfully spread bad things around whilst being ultra-bitchy at the same time. See what she’s reduced Silly Harry to. She’s bad news. She now has the temerity to say no one ever asks how she’s feeling.
Why would we? She’s not just a nothing, she’s actually destructive, as are Pelosi, Swinson, McCain, Schiff, Romney, Corbyn and so on.
To be fair, Seymour and Poultry are more subtle. No,they don’t go out and make people’s lives a misery [except for the four husbands]. No, we can’t really claim that.
A few weeks ago, Jane Seymour’s mother died. An awful tragedy without a doubt. Since she’s a contestant on Dancing with the Stars this season, they did a little bit on the show about how tough it was for her to practice that week because she was upset and had to go to the funeral, etc.
Understandable. Nobody would expect otherwise.
Just before she went out and danced, however, she gave a little speech about how this was her mother’s favorite show and how her mother would call her every day and tell her that it’s so important to her that she does her best to win and make her proud.
This is a show, by the way, where people who seemingly have nothing else to do afterwards are allowed to vote for the person they think was best that day.
Was Jane pandering? Or was she just stating the facts for the tear-loving producers?
You don’t care. Why would you? Why should you? It’s a stupid TV show that comes on at the same time as Heroes. Let her play the game. If she wants to win the Dancing with the Stars tag team championship belts by pandering, go ahead. It’s a retarded TV show.
Later, I started to notice that Jane does something like this every week. Some tiny story that tugs at the heartstrings of the viewers. One week, she was too sick to be on the results show. Woe is her.
This week, she was dancing to a Johnny Cash song (chosen by the producers) and gave a little story about how she was best friends with Johnny and June Carter and she even wore jewellery they gave her while she was performing.
Go for the emotional jugular, Jane. America loves it.
At this point, it’s worth noting that Jane always gets lots of votes, while people who are better dancers than she is get voted off the show every week.
IMHO, the difference between the Cult of Sparkle and the Cult of Sweet Jane is that the former is quite destructive [but never self-destructive]. Sweet Jane just wants everyone to love her and think she’s the ant’s pants, the bee’s knees.
Is that bad, that form of narcissism? Well not exactly, no, not in itself. Every one of us has foibles, conceits, a nasty side deep down – I post mine on the blog. But you’re contributing something socio-politically and I’d say in real life too. Even if it’s minor, you’re still giving back. I do up to a point.
People like Seymour don’t. What is noteworthy is that all she’s doing is bringing the worst aspects of the female to the fore, just as Blair, Brown, Stalin, brought the worst aspects of the man, whilst the best aspects seem to have been suppressed and/or lie dormant.
What we have is a skewed model of womanhood there, just as we see skewed men as well. Why concentrate on the women? Because it’s now a woman’s world and it is the skewed who are getting appointed, not the good.
Real collusion: Tort Lawyers, Bloomberg, state attorney generals, and climate activists
Climate Litigation Watch posted this video today, which is well worth watching. Climate activists can’t win on the science, so they collude to do back door deals to create climate based laws.
12. Click on pics to embiggen, keep clicking until embiggened. I most humbly suggest to the learned gentleman that it very much DOES NOT give the option of ‘later’ walking away – since when has the EU EVER allowed anyone to ‘walk away’?
This shows the same very British ‘let’s have fair play here, chaps’ mentality which the other side most certainly does NOT subscribe to, no way.
It is the second worst deal in our modern history, counting Chamberlain’s as third, on the grounds that that one did not actually get off the ground.
Other than that, he makes some good points:
The EU’s whole stance is to tie things up for their own monetary aggrandisement and political control, whilst leaving things vague and open-ended when forced to under the spotlight … but even the thickest political watcher has a whole history of that mob to look to for precedent as to their tactics.
“Give Boris credit. This is not the worst deal in history. It’s the second worst deal in history”.