Just one thing I have been wondering about. So, Q and Trump have been saying that they have it all.
But when it comes to the big names, like the Clintons - how much would really be needed for something like public arrests and really putting any of those people in jail? They have been in the public eye as movers and shakers for decades, a lot of people voted for them when it's somebody like Bill Clinton or Obama, or anybody else who needs to get their seat by voters. Now even when a lot of those votes may have come from cheating, there still probably are still some millions of voters who did vote for them and would not be willing to admit they chose badly, and because of that still see "their" president or governor or senator or whatever as the good guy, especially as "their" good guy (or gal) and somebody they would be willing to even go on barricades for.
So, how MUCH of evidence would those voters and supporters need before they'd be willing to turn against people they have considered "theirs", or at the very least just let it be if those people will end up in jail, instead of rioting or otherwise causing more unrest than Trump and others are willing to risk? The point is to heal your system, not start a civil war for the sake of revenge, right?
I am assuming that at least some of them, maybe a lot of them, may be just let go, at least apparently, even if there may be some punishments that are not obvious on the surface, and at the very least some sort of restraints that make it hard or impossible for them to keep on meddling. They will be allowed to make deals, and we will get announcements of retiring, stepping out of the public eye and concentrating on family or writing an autobiography or something, which then will maybe never get published, and maybe some news items through the following years about investigations into their crimes, and drippings of news about their shenanigans in order to diminish their influence and take away their supporters, but nothing really big, like those arrests and them actually ending in jail.
This is not after all fiction. We live in the real world, and in the real world realpolitik is unfortunately something that has to be taken seriously if you want things to keep on working. So while I am hoping to see at least some arrests, I will not be too surprised if we don't get all that many of them.
I just commented on this on an another post: we use a lot of things that do originate from the people who are part of the machine in one way or another. Redpilling, from the movie Matrix, made by the Wachowski brothers who now claim to be the Wachowski sisters, and somebody just recently commented on some post that the idea among a lot of the woke now seems to be that it means female hormones or something. The original creator of Pepe the Frog has fought his use by people like us with a lawsuit, as it seems he doesn't exactly align with us politically. A lot of the songs that fit what is happening now and are used in that sense have actually been created by people who are, and have always been, owned by the music industry and dance to the tunes of the Deep State, and those songs were at most created as sort of controlled opposition, and aimed against the actual opposition.
And so on.
But the main thing that comes to my mind from all this is the old song Yankee Doodle Dandy. Which actually originates as a mockery of Yankees, as does the word Yankee itself, but became a patriotic song after it was stolen by said Yankees for their own use.
So, let's keep doing this. Just try to be aware of the origins of whatever word, song, saying, movie or whatever you use, and use it knowingly. Taking what is your enemy's and using it against them is an old and working strategy after all.
Let's imagine everything goes well, not just on the short run, but at least for a century, or more. This period will undoubtedly become a legendary period in history if that happens, and the people involved in the changing of the tide more so.
So it is kind of fun to imagine what kind of movies, or whatever will be the preferred story format in that future, might one day be made using what will then be real historical figures. I'm not thinking of the historically accurate stories, but the pure entertainment ones inspired by the real people and what they did.
Maybe Trump will not just survive an assassination attempt in one of those, but will personally fight an assassin and subdue him. Kash Patel will perhaps be more of a John Wick type of character, as will Hegseth, just using their brains a bit more than their guns. Barron will be a young genius who really masterminded the whole election of his father, Musk another older genius who has thrilling adventures with his young DOGE group finding and capturing the criminals infesting the old institutions, maybe something like the old television series "Leverage", but on a much larger scale.
Heh. I am almost hoping those stories might start to be written already. The reality is great, but I am getting impatient to see where all of this goes. Fiction can be a bit more satisfying when you know that you are going to see the end result in about couple of hours or an hour if it is a movie or similar, no matter how nailbiting the plot may be. I can be a bit impatient sometimes, and, well, I have been waiting most of my life for something to change for the better, and it has been far too many decades. If this was a book I would be tempted to check out how it all ends by now.
So I was watching this rather boring Christmas movie, Genie, with Melissa McCarthy playing a genie a father in trouble - misses his daughter's birthday because of work, then lost his job, wife possibly thinking of at least trial separation - accidentally releases from a box she had been in for 2000 years. Turns out she can give unlimited wishes, and they start to work on getting his life back in order with a happily ever after.
Okay, it's a pretty crappy movie, and I have never found McCarthy to be a good comedian, she is boring or irritating or both way more often than funny. So nothing much to say about that.
Okay, at least it's a movie about a family getting back together, and a father who tries his best to be a good father and husband, so there's that.
However, while it's only a very short scene and the discussion only a few sentences long, the father mentions once, when they are having a cup of coffee, and talking a bit about the commercial nature of modern Christmas, that Christmas was originally celebrating Jesus's birthday. And the genie answers that she met Jesus back in the day, and is a bit surprised that he actually was the son of God, as he had told her, as well as how he became so famous. And then talks a little bit, very little, about how Jesus was very not commercially minded and so on. The general impression is that she supposedly knew him for something like maybe a few months during the time he was preaching, but well before his execution.
Now as said that is not much, and the context and what little is said is of course not exactly that good. But it has been a long time since any Christmas movie said anything about Jesus. And the characters don't sound too disrespectful.
Which is something, maybe even a sign that the cultural tide is actually finally turning, if even a Hollywood movie now seems to feel that they maybe have some obligation to get that mention in, however briefly. Especially when the story is about something supernatural because then it's usually only about Santa and flying reindeer and such.
Is an interesting question. For one, it looks like a must, you (and all of us in other countries have our own...) really need to get rid of your Pelosis and such, people who can stay in power and run things for the benefit of none but themselves and their allies for decades, well into their dementia years.
On the other hand, if you have limits to the years anyone can serve you also limit the years of those people who actually may be able to serve their country well and do good.
And then there is the question of experience. If you do play with a revolving door of people running your country, you may end up with too inexperienced ones having to play games with some old wily foxes of other countries which do not have limits to how long anybody can stay on top at times, with the end result maybe being that you will be at the losing end due to that.
On the gripping hand, what presumably draws more than enough of people who just want the power and don't really give a damn about the people or even their country except where it concerns their personal situation and profits is at least partly the fact that there are no limits, once somebody learns how to act in order to stay there and in power they can have a lifelong career for themselves. At a position where they can wield power over others and gain material profits. Something people with certain types of personality disorders can find an irresistible lure, so there presumably is a lot of them in politics, all trying to become the next Pelosi, or maybe the next president, although the president's position does have that pesky problem of term limits.
Which again makes the idea of term limits, and the fewer terms the better, sound like a good idea. Might even discourage the power seeker types at least a little.
And, well, I still like the movie, but now it seems the basic idea got a few things wrong. In the beginning it explains why that movie future got as stupid as it is by showing an educated couple who never manage to have children because they spend too much time to first get their education and then concentrating on their careers, compared to some trailer trash couple who keep on popping out child after child after child, and explain how the IQ of the nation kept dropping because of that.
Well, of course to start with, that is not exactly how inheritance of intelligence actually works (JD Vance...), it's a bit more complicated than that - and in reality also the really high IQ individuals are actually often enough dropouts because the current school system is not actually well equipped to deal with them. But then when it comes to those somewhat higher than average people who can excel in the current system, what we can now see is that it's not exactly teaching them much of value.
While among the people who keep on having kids are lots more people than just the stupid version of the trailer trash, also people who are religious, have solid old fashioned values, work in trades and not in offices...
That Idiocracy future should maybe have had an upper class of idiots who keep destroying a majority of the kids by forcing them into their schools from as young an age as possible, and then ruining their critical thinking skills that way... Well, we almost got there. The save that seems to have happened now really looks pretty much as if it was a Hail Mary pass.
Hm. Is that the movie we have been watching?
Teemu Selänne, a now retired hockey player, and well known public figure in Finland, got his American citizenship about a year ago, and voted for the first time in your presidential elections - he has been living there for 20 years, played in Anaheim Ducks, San Jose Sharks, and Colorado Avalanche.
And he has been quite open that he and his wife are for Trump. Might have helped to make at least some hockey fans who maybe had been stuck on the MSM image before there to take a closer look at Trump. Celeb endorsements or preferences of course are a lousy reason to vote for anybody on their own, but what they might be good for is to make people who are fans of the celeb to wonder why their idol thinks what he thinks, and then maybe to study the subject better.
Today's news: a family, or rather the mother, is getting a 1500 e compensation from her city because her child's school didn't tell beforehand that in an event in school where a visiting choir was introduced to the children and sang several songs the choir was a Christian one and sang songs of Jesus. And the family is atheist. Seems that "forcing" the child to listen to that without the mother's consent is against religious freedom because due to the songs the whole event can be considered a religious one.
So the feminism movement went off the rails pretty damn fast, but it did start from a good position, I think. When a woman is mostly dependent on the men in her life, that puts her in a very vulnerable position if there doesn't happen to be any good men for her to rely on. I had an aunt who was married to an alcoholic, and some of the stories she told me were pretty damn bad. He wasn't even a man who would become violent when he drank, but he used all their money on alcohol, to the point they had problems getting enough food, and they had 3 sons. The worst years for her were late 1940s, after the war, and 1950s.
And as far as I understand that was one of the early reasons why some women started to advocate for women to get an education and jobs of their own.
Now I think it would be good if we could get more mothers back home, but what if the husband turns out bad?
How would you solve this?
I've been just reading about Diddy, Kanye, and a few other performers. The general idea seems to be that it is almost impossible to do really well in those occupations - singers, songwriters, actors etc. - unless you are "in the club" in one way or another.
And that made me think again about Mark Hamill and both his career and his behavior. Mostly because he is somebody who has been in the news lately, and whose life and career are kind of giving conflicting signals when it comes to that "in that club or not?" part.
In some ways he has seemed like a decent guy, defended fans and what they would have wanted with his character around the Disney sequel movies. And he seems to have had a pretty solid marriage. But then there are his political comments and simping for the White House resident a few months ago.
I suppose there are two alternatives. He is a mediocre actor who managed to luck on with one role in movie that became an unexpected megasuccess, but then could not get much of anything else bigger because he just isn't that good, and has brain rot when it comes to politics, and maybe some other things too (and possibly even a pedo).
Or he was once a fairly decent guy, and a somewhat naive young actor who got that role maybe by luck, or maybe he got some help, but when it became that megasuccess he got an offer - or maybe a demand - he refused because he was at least sort of decent, or didn't want to give anybody that much power over his life (because I assume the price of fame probably does include doing something that would destroy you if "the club" made it public). And because of that he no longer got roles in anything bigger. Maybe he then gave in somewhat so that he could get his voice acting career.
And his latest shenanigans: he has 3 children who are all trying to make a career in that same place.
Maybe, just maybe, he is trying to protect them from getting that same offer he once maybe refused.
I suppose you might even wonder about that car accident he had right after filming for that first Star Wars movie was ending, it's not as if those people "in the club" are beyond arranging things like that. Maybe he had already gotten that offer - and refused it - then.
Who knows.
The sad thought: maybe Harrison Ford is somebody who accepted that same offer.
