Reader Andy5759 wrote:

At one end of the spectrum is JRM, at t’other there is SYL, aka TR. Neither is tolerated or comprehended by the lumpen metropolitan mass in the middle. I must be odd for being able to identify with both.

Same here. Both have their moments, both get it in the neck, both are lied to, as those of our persuasion have all been.

Same thing is going on over there right now with the Establishment versus Trump, same people, same agenda:

You can find that on Twitter, I don’t know where else it is. [H/T @KayaJones]

10 comments for “Panodrama

  1. February 27, 2019 at 5:17 pm

    Being what I consider “moderate”, I too identify with both. Being a working class lad that has worked in various jobs, including IT projects at the likes of Goldman Sachs and Commerzbank, I understand both ends of the spectrum around the moderate middle.

    What I don’t understand is the rabid, vehement far-left, who somehow have serious clout and hooks into the mainstream media, backed up by far-left propagandic reports produced by co-opted NGOs.

    I don’t understand where they come from politically and where the pressure comes from electorally. Nobody in my fairly wide circle of friends from the left or the right are pushing for their agenda. It seems the pressure is coming from above, outside of the electorate.

    I don’t know anyone that would vote for deplatforming or censorship. Everyone deserves a fair crack and if they have a valid point to make, then they should be able to make it and I should be able to decide on my own what my policy on things is.

    Denying people from the left, right and centre skews discourse and denies the population the ability to form a true consensus.

    It its not up to people outside the political sphere to decide who I can and can’t listen to.

    Social media providers nor NGOs, should be involved in the decision on who does and doesn’t get to speak. It is the remit of the people we vote into office to form a policy we can form a consensus around, vote on and move forward with in the form of legislation.

    Side-stepping the democratic process with private-public censorship is in it’s nature anti-democratic and fascistic.

    • February 27, 2019 at 6:15 pm

      There’s a push, Mark, an agenda, this vid is one small example among many. This agenda will not be stymied. To see a world under that agenda, look at what Dem-rats are pushing, e.g. killing new-born babies, that’s part of it. It involves war.

      Trump knows it and is trying to stymie it, the networks won’t even show it.

      Where from? UN officially, in reality from the shadow men who run the UN. I just call them Them.

      • February 27, 2019 at 7:00 pm

        I agree. When you talk to people and discuss it rationally, it moves from tinfoil-hattery to “I never thought of it like that, but you’re right”.

        As you say, the push is from outside democracy, outside the people, outside government.

        It has to be brought out into the light and resisted.

        Any sane person would resist full-term terminations. Only the insane would support it.

        Insanity accurately describes the “progressive” agenda.

    • mona
      February 28, 2019 at 7:43 am

      An Agenda?? You obviously haven’t read “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

      • February 28, 2019 at 10:56 am

        I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I deal in literal interpretations. The way I see it, everything is done for a reason, there is no grey area.

        Even when inexplicable things are done, I think they are done to facilitate something elsewhere in society.

        Raising the age of termination to full-term now opens the door to terminations after birth (which is already being talked about) and then to state-sponsored murder at any age. Starting with a child who has yet to become a person opens the door or facilitates more nudges in the direction until direct population control is in the hands of the state. Especially now that the “un-personing” of live people is under way as well. There is a risk that the two will meet up and anyone with “wrong-think” can be un-personed and eventually incarcerated or terminated by state sanction.

        Just like with the named persons issue regarding children in Scotland, that provided a nudge to say that your children are actually owned by the state and not yourself. The first serious nudge on that road was with the removal of the ability for parents to discipline their child. But the facilitator for intervention of the state in affairs between parents and children started the day that government paid child allowance, bringing government into the family circle.

        Just the same as with state-enforced vaccinations. I happen to agree with vaccination and had all my kids vaccinated, but I oppose the incarceration of parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids. I do think that there are risks around current vaccines and that more should be done by health authorities to understand the risk factors and triggers for things like autism rather than repeat the big pharma line that they are totally safe.
        But parental choice is paramount, especially if they feel the risk is too great. I don’t see why separate vaccines can’t be made available to parents who fear the all-in-one group vaccines. Maybe at a cost to the parent, but still available as an option.

        The only way that the people providing the pressure for these things to be exposed is to have complete political change. Then those people pushing have to re-negotiate with a new group, exposing them. Or alternatively like you have in the USA, where they refuse to negotiate and use the media and opposition political groups to put relentless negative spin on everything the new group in power does. But the relentless anti-Trump message in the US does much to prove the theory that there are extra-governmental forces at large pushing an agenda.

        • Bill
          March 2, 2019 at 2:38 pm

          If only people would stop registering their offspring the state would have no claim on them.

  2. Pcar
    February 28, 2019 at 11:46 pm


    Jordan delivers fiery opening statement at Cohen hearing

    Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, testified about the president before a U.S. House committee on February 27, 2019. Here are his responses to questions by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

    • Pcar
      February 28, 2019 at 11:52 pm

      Ohio Republican Rep. Jordan on his takeaways from Michael Cohen’s testimony in front of the House Oversight Committee.

      Gowdy: The one thing Cohen has been consistent on is the lack of collusion

    • Pcar
      March 1, 2019 at 11:05 pm

      Michael ‘Sammy the Bullsh*tter’ Cohen is a lying, sniveling, self-serving rat who STILL can’t tell the truth

      During a panel debate about Cohen’s testimony, CNN’s top political correspondent Dana Bash said: ‘The one potential problem that I thought Michael Cohen has is when he was asked if he wanted a job in the White House and he said no. Our reporting….all of us have been told by people in and around the process at the time he very much wanted a job at the White House.’

      ‘Very much,’ agreed CNN anchor Jake Tapper.

      Tapper then played the clip of Cohen’s claim ‘because a lot of us raised our eyebrows because we knew it to not to be true.’

      Afterwards, he added: ‘The issue is that one sentence ‘I did not want to go to the White House. All of our reporting suggests that’s not true.’

      Later in his testimony, Cohen doubled down and again said ‘I did not want to go to the White House’ and insisted he had told President Trump he wanted to continue working for him as an outside personal attorney.

      Yet CNN reported Cohen wanted a job at the White House but was edged out by Trump’s family, and was named personal attorney to mollify him.

      CNN said he had been particularly keen to be Chief of Staff and was ‘crushed’ when the job went to Reince Preibus instead.

      I think it’s safe to assume CNN, that despises Trump as much as he despises them, would not be reporting all this as a favour to the President.

      They reported it because it’s true.

      And we know it’s true because Cohen himself admitted as much in a CNN interview with Chris Cuomo in 2016.

      ‘Crazy, Dumb, Paranoid, Liar’ – these things have been said about my boss…NONE of it is true!’ Inside Michael Cohen’s ‘$750,000’ book deal and how he pitched the proposal praising Trump just weeks before the FBI raided his office

      He started his proposal with a list of unflattering barbs that have been thrown at Trump since he became Commander-in-Chief. ‘Crazy’; ‘Dumb’; ‘Paranoid’; ‘In Over His Head’; ‘Liar’; ‘Addicted to TV’; ‘Hates the Media’.

      ‘All of these things have been said about my longtime boss, Donald J. Trump,’ Cohen added. ‘None of it is true. Except maybe that last one – about the media. Trump does believe that reporters are out to get him, and for a very good reason. Many of them are.

      ‘That doesn’t make him paranoid,’ wrote Cohen. ‘That makes him a realist.’

  3. Pcar
    March 1, 2019 at 11:08 pm


    Bin duties

Comments are closed.