Since this photo keeps turning up in my feed, and since only about 1 in 1000 of you has the IQ, let alone the desire, to read the little essay I posted on this, let me expose myself to international legal pursuits again by saying what I have to say in a simple poast.
I’m no expert on shooping or AI or whatever but it seems to me that this photo has been significantly doctored. I can’t understand, for example, how the teeth of Hollywood-starlet regularity that we see here could ever have evolved into the plot of neglected tombstones she had in her mouth in her last days.
But let’s assume she really did look like this in her 20s. This is really what raises the most intriguing and disturbing questions about her. It’s by no means just “the normal course of Nature” that one turns from this into the thing without discernible human shape that the zoomer generation knew her as in the space of just fifty years. Unless one BEGINS life as a monstrosity - and if this photo has not been shopped beyond all recognition, Ann Widdecombe clearly didn’t - turning into a monstrosity by the time one reaches one’s sixties is an event which indeed raises questions. Because one doesn’t, under such circumstances, just “turn into” a monstrosity. One TURNS ONESELF into one.
If we’re going to talk about this, we really need to cool it with all the sentimentality and hagiography and ask ourselves why Ann Widdecombe hated herself so much. That is, believe it or not, an important POLITICAL question and certainly the question that opens the door to a plausible explanation for her murder.
As I said in a post yesterday, the attempts by my fellow “online rightists” to catch the cops out in their implausible lies and to provide some such more plausible explanation are pathetic.
OBVIOUSLY arresting a mentally retarded guy in Lancashire is not actually solving or trying to solve the question of what happened here. “Some mentally retarded guy did it” is always the story the authorities offer when they want to cover something up because the only explanation that has to be offered for what mentally retarded people do is “they’re mentally retarded”.
But the corrections that our “anti-System truth-tellers” want to make to this obvious lie are so timid and low-IQ. It’s basically just:
“Everything the cops are saying is true, only the fact that he got in a car and drove 300 miles to do what he did tells us that he wasn’t retarded but antifa” (not, of course, that the two are mutually exclusive).
But this, as I say, is so weak. Yes - to repeat myself - OBVIOUSLY the Rotherham retard is a patsy. But he’s almost certainly a patsy in some much broader sense than that his IQ is about 40 points higher than we’re being told it is.
Though it looks as though it’s going to be this guy that the cops and the courts are going to go with as the one to pin this whole thing on, these chapels of the UK Cathedral could just as easily, without forfeiting any significantly greater degree of plausibility, have gone with a supposed necrophiliac from Inverness, or a gurkha from Nepal who’d carried out the killing by telekinesis.
The “screen story” here, we need to realize, is just that: a screen and NO MORE. It tells us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the nature and the circumstances of the events that it is “screening” us from.
My own instincts - which yes, I’m sure, those few of you who have the mental stamina, or the wish, to pay attention to what I am saying will condemn as the instincts of a sicko - tell me that we need to explore, in any attempt to form a plausible picture of these events, the avenue whose existence I’ve pointed to above: namely, the avenue of imagining the kind of life that was most likely being led - entirely secretly, of course - by someone who hated their own body as passionately and obsessively as Ann Widdecombe clearly did.
The events that the ridiculous threadbare “establishment” narrative of a retard driving across half of England to beat some random old lady to death with a stick is intended to cover up have, I feel sure, much more to do with THIS - with the shameful and painful sexual life of a woman whose stock in trade, for sixty years, was furiously denying that sexuality plays any significant role in human life and experience - than they do with such things as mass-immigration-induced anarcho-tyranny, Sorosian world government etc.
But here in turn, of course, there arises an even more interesting question: namely, why would “the establishment” wish to cover up THIS - the sad libidinal miseries of a popular and telegenic spokeswoman for a ‘retro’ version of zoomer-generation neo-puritanism - even more than they wish to cover up the crimes of a Soros hitman or some random Ali out to rob or molest an old lady?
To be continued....
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.