From Doctor Who to the end of western civilization

Part one of a two part post.

d3-600x331

The best suspense thrillers are those which start innocuously, from quiet, almost boring beginnings, such as Tippi Hedren being pecked by a bird crossing a lake, the incidents increase and it goes through a phase of denial by others, people calling her and her man kooks, explaining things away rationally but even the protagonists can’t latch onto what is really happening – their own preconceptions get in the way.

It takes the entry of another person with hitherto unseen data to move the plot forward.  I do believe that that is what has happened here with this post, having just woken, checked the email and received a clip from blogger Harry – it’s in part two.

This is heady stuff, so let’s start at the beginning, at the start of this post as it had been scheduled last evening:

The past few days have been Whovian for me. Something went wrong with the internal electrics and every time I went near a computer, it would start a tickle, then pain in the throat, then fits of sneezes and then retching and coughing, a bit violent actually. To watch anything, I had to put the iPad on the other side of the room against a box and strain to hear.

Then last evening it began to ebb away and I could watch with few ill effects – almost a Doctor Who episode in itself.  Watched what I think will be my last for a long while – The Family, with Martha and David Tenant.

What I didn’t like was the nastiness creeping in. Looking at the old incarnation DW, there were scary monsters all right and fair suspense but there wasn’t this real nastiness, e.g. in the Doctor himself – this is a modern device, put in there by the people at the top of the show. Perhaps gamesters don’t see it, inured as they are through the boiling frog principle, whereas I come into this cold as a newly landed returnee.

Tom Baker was asked about why he put up with humans and helped them and the message which resonated was that we were his favourite species, for all our foibles.

In the episode below though, the aliens put the traditional question again – why do you bother – but then the aliens were allowed  to expound on what scum humans were, not unlike Jack Straw explaining that the English weren’t worth saving.

And did Tennant launch into a spirited defence of humankind?

Did he hell – effete and pussylike, he just looked on, blinking, then offered some sort of weak justification.

That, my friends, is the quantum shift in both society and in Doctor Who since Tom Baker’s day.

In the Family episode, Martha is clearly besotted by him and he doesn’t give a damn about her. To say it’s because he misses Rose is a cop-out. The bit I found hard to forgive was that when he did revert near the end from human to Doctor [hope you remember the episode], he propositioned the matron he’d been carrying on with, asking her to be his new companion, completely forgetting his own Martha.

I remember many commenting at the time. When he does hug her and thank her, it’s mechanical, as if one of the bigwigs thought; “We have to humanize him a bit here, otherwise the public won’t like it.” It was an inserted line to make everything all right.

Now call this gagaland I’m in but I’ve noticed this same attitude in general life, in, for example, councils prosecuting people for having a bin a foot out of place, for allowing things on TV which should never be there and so on.

There’s an added nasty edge to the way we’re dealt with, the way we deal with each other impatiently today, almost a brutalization and I’m sensitive to it, having lived in Russia and then returned. I see it not through boiling frog eyes.

I called it at the time the Common Purpose influence but am now beginning to think it’s more like a Whovian storyline – some evil influence controlling society, placing people in key positions, those people bureaucratically robotic, greed taking over at the top, dark values, everyone up there treacherous.

And given European events of late, just how wide of the mark is that?

Reading Ecclestone more clearly

Just as with everyone else, I come into an exploration with preconceived ideas which I try to clear the mind of but it’s difficult. Two of mine are:

1.  The rise of the incompetent woman in key roles [notice Yahoo’s on the market by the way], while competent women [e.g. those associated with these blogs] do not get to influence events, nor do competent men – surely this cannot be by accident.

2.  Ideological movements such as feminism have truly blighted society, causing everything from the current rape epidemic to the breakdown of western marriage and family.

What if the truth though were not that simple, what if these two points might be right as far as they go but are just part of a much wider set of goings-on, not all which have yet become apparent. There were certainly ideas in the clip I was emailed by Harry which I hadn’t seen in that light before and it does explain much.

In reading this about Christopher Ecclestone and the real reason he quit, you might recall he initially put it down to not wishing to be typecast.  The following year, he came out with a bit more and said he was at odds with those at the top. The image we had was that he was a bit bigheaded and wanted his way, that he was into his own great acting career.

Slowly he said more and more:

“I left Doctor Who because I could not get along with the senior people. I left because of politics. I did not see eye-to-eye with them. I didn’t agree with the way things were being run. I didn’t like the culture that had grown up around the series. So I left, I felt, over a principle.

I thought to remain, which would have made me a lot of money and given me huge visibility, the price I would have had to pay was to eat a lot of shit. I’m not being funny about that. I didn’t want to do that and it comes to the art of it, in a way. I feel that if you run your career and.. we are vulnerable as actors and we are constantly humiliating ourselves auditioning. But if you allow that to go on, on a grand scale you will lose whatever it is about you and it will be present in your work.”

“If you allow your desire to be successful and visible and financially secure – if you allow that to make you throw shades on your parents, on your upbringing, then you’re knackered. You’ve got to keep something back, for yourself, because it’ll be present in your work”, he added.

He concluded, saying “My face didn’t fit and I’m sure they were glad to see the back of me. The important thing is that I succeeded. It was a great part. I loved playing him. I loved connecting with that audience. Because I’ve always acted for adults and then suddenly you’re acting for children, who are far more tasteful; they will not be bullshitted. It’s either good, or it’s bad. They don’t schmooze at after-show parties, with cocktails.”

Crikey. We should note here that nobody from the BBC has said anything along this lines with regards Eccleston’s departure. We’d imagine there is another side to the story, too, but one we’re unlikely to hear.

For the full transcript of what Eccleston seems to have said, head over to Bad Wilf, here.

Looking more closely at Christpher Ecclestone himself:

if you allow that to make you throw shades on your parents, on your upbringing, then you’re knackered

His culture:

“How come you sound like you’re from the north?” “Lots of planets have a north.”

Therefore he wouldn’t like:

“They don’t schmooze at after-show parties, with cocktails.”

… and that may well have been it, end of. Geographical differences.

But he’d experienced after show parties as an actor before, he’d seen the whole decadent biz of acting in its Hollywoodesque form, he knew about the slappers and the alpha males, about the producers’ casting couches.

Why come out in this particular instance and mention the culture?

What sprang to mind was that Doctor Who was not just ANY film, acted for, then gone. This was Doctor Who, a national institution, and a portal to youth on a continuing, sustainable basis for someone’s political ideas, someone up top.

If you were such an elite lackey, charged with building a political hegemony, which institutions would you take over?

Obviously parliaments and assemblies, through influencing preselection, obviously the high benches of the courts – hence the Scali war happening right at this moment – obviously the culture, through film, TV, gaming, music. The Taylor Swift post was about that. You must take over youth’s loyalties.

You’d also take over key roles down through society, even down to local councils, as Common Purpose has done.  A common purpose – think that one out – what common purpose? Leading beyond authority. A slow build it’s been, precisely as warned of by Woodrow Wilson through to Senator Jenner, Larry Macdonald, many others, all of whom came a cropper sooner or later.

The parallels in the Slitheen, the countless other monsters in Doctor Who or over to the other major franchise, James Bond – the idea of faked moon landing appeared in DAF, the idea of the Star Wars base in Iceland appeared in DAD, the idea of a shadowy organization controlling the economies of nations appeared in Quantum.  Bond has always had such organizations – a perfect vehicle for hiding in plain sight.

And of course you pooh-pooh that, no?  Just as all those confronted with it in those films did. Life imitates art, art imitates life? Things put into art which will mirror life later. Mad talk? Wells’s War of the Worlds – just explore Well’s political affiliations, there are enough alternative biographies out there.

Who believes Cameron is his own man?

Cameron Chatham House

There are dark people up there, nasty souls up there and they’re pushing buttons.

Back to Ecclestone. The gay kiss he was forced to do with the same man who next appeared at the Scottish Commonwealth games ceremony – interesting how people such as Barrowman, such as the Katy Perrys get about and get invitations around the world to key events – that’s just one part of it, one manifestation of this new perverse culture for us, though it’s been in Hollywood for decades, plus in Dolphin Square.

I believe that this is what Ecclestone saw and he wanted out.

He didn’t see it before because his other films were not a premium conduit for Them, for their ideas, for their spread of dark values, of despair, of fearmongering which pervades western society today. It had to come from somewhere, did it not? Someone has pushed these things. What have Cameron’s auto-tactics been? Fearmongering, yes, fear of the leap into the dark.

Just to double-check that it wasn’t just Davies or Moffat, below is a list of twelve generally accepted good Doctor Who episodes and four poor, in an attempt to see if there is any pattern – the writer is highlighted in blue, followed by producer and director:

Good

Bells of St John: Moffat, Moffat, McCarthy
Snowmen: Moffat, Moffat, Metzstein
Girl in Fireplace: Moffat, Davies, Lyn
Blink: Moffat, Davies, McDonald
Rose: Davies, Davies, Boak
Unquiet Dead: Gatiss, Davies, Lyn
Tooth and Claw: Davies, Davies, Lyn
Doomsday: Davies, Davies, Harper
Cold War: Gatiss, Moffat, McKinnon
Name of: Moffatt, Moffat, Metzstein
Angels take Manhattan: Moffat, Moffat, Hurran
Eleventh Hour: Moffat, Moffat, Smith

Poor

A couple of episodes just poorly done:

Rings of Akhaten: Cross, Moffat, Blackburn
Love and Monsters: Davies, Davies, Zef

Sodomite and lesbian episodes:

Parting of the Ways: Davies, Davies, Ahearne
Deep Breath: Moffat, Moffat, Wheatley

From all that, it’s hard to pinpoint one good or bad writer, one good or bad producer in the first decade.  Some have noted that Moffat is a better writer than producer and his are some of the classic episodes, the 3D ones. But some of the worst are his too.

Rossa provided this on what’s coming up:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-01-22/doctor-who-showrunner-steven-moffat-quits-to-be-replaced-by-broadchurch-creator-chris-chibnall

And much mention was made of this woman at the Beeb now throwing her weight about – Shillinglaw, followed by Moore – and changing accepted practice viewers have come to expect, changing the timelord arc. I know the type – put something of value in their hands and they are like children who simply have to chop it about because it’s all theirs to do as they wish and they must make their mark.

Murdoch gave Brookes a plaything to wreck – it was called News of the World. Someone’s put DW into these top people’s hands. Now they also have Top Gear to wreck – was that dinner farce anything other than a setup?

Why is someone like that in charge? I believe it is because of the age old practice of any ruler appointing unimaginative, unthreatening yes people as 2ICs, whilst the talented line-managers do the actual nuts and bolts which make things work. And the most unimaginative yes people are going to be ambitious women breaking the shackles of society and occupying “top jobs”, so they believe.

Julia Middleton, Cressida Dick, Jodi Farhat, Marissa Mayer, Patricia Dunn, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, the list goes on, the results the same.

Most people detest my writing about these things, I’ve even lost blog colleagues who just don’t wish to be associated with these notions any further.  None of which negates the notions if the evidence is there.

But I’m saying I might have been wrong … I might not have gone far enough. In part two, the clip sent to me which puts it in perspective.

……………………………….

Part one of this two parter concerned itself with ideas emerging from the Doctor Who series and in particular, why Christopher Ecclestone ran for his life.

women and civilization

Look at this screenshot from the film you’re about to see [if we can be bothered and can put aside our own preconceptions for long enough].  Notice anything interesting in it?

This is Europe today, the EU, the logical extension of PC policies consuming all. The words she is about to say – and you can check the clip for it – are that people from other lands [she’s referring to the refugees] are going to outnumber the indigenous by [some year, think it was 2040 or whatever] and, she says:

“This is good.”

Stuck over here in Britain and America, speaking only English and therefore not privy to these things being said in national assemblies on the continent, we’d be gobsmacked. The language barrier is a huge one in preventing us from seeing just howlow it’s all sunk over there.

My constant warning from this blog has been for a long time now that it is not women per se but the WRONG women, the malleable and enslavable hard leftists, who are being put in charge, the whole thing now becoming cumulative and self-perpetuating, as only such women, plus pussified males, are now being appointed.

I’m suggesting that this has now reached a critical phase, which is one of the key factors behind the EU decision to open all borders and let the hordes in.

And who is sitting above these marionettes, beyond the visible day to day?

Certain men of a certain age, the evil muvvers at Chatham House, in the Masonic temples etc., along with the grand matriarchs such as the Barbara Bushes, the banksters above the Dimons, the Cronies as we call them on our side of politics. To call them The Family suggests a level of camaraderie not there. I’ve called them Them before but it’s an easily misinterpreted word.

Preconceptions

Despite everything I’ve written about the “wrong women”, the “modern woman” and so on, I’ve failed to see widely enough, to see fully why such people are placed in charge of things. Many pundits and readers see the rise of the bureaucracy and with it, bureaucratic corruption and even the bland evil of cold decisions affecting people’s whole lives.

All true, no argument.

If I have become fixated on this notion of the wrong woman being appointed today, forever citing Julia at OoL and Rossa at N.O as women who should be in charge but you’ll never ever see them appointed – then clearly, there’s a reason the Fiorinas, Dunns, Flints, Mayers, Whitmans, Mays, Pelosis, Sotomayors, Diane Abbotts, Yellens, Clintons, Farhats, Julia Middletons, Ashtons, Brookses, Alison Saunders, Zenna Atkins, Cressida Dicks and so on and so on and so on are being appointed.

They are utterly immersed in the kool-aid about women being anything at all, they’re being employed as implementers of policy from both their own blind ideology and by the will of those who appointed them, they’re hugely ambitious and desperate to prove they’re as good as any man, despite their own incompetence and lack of imagination being precisely the core reasons they were appointed in the first place.

In earlier days, they’d appoint a Jim Hacker, now it’s one of these.

As the narrator of the vid below is at pains to point out – these “wrong women” are not consciously evil, they’re just steeped in an emotional response to everything, steam from the nostrils over the unfairness of their victimhood as women, rather than a clearthinking one – the “clearthinking” is in the standing orders that control them.

The worst aspects of the nature of what people are has been co-opted by those above, today it is these women, yesteryear it was the warmongering men – it’s all part of the same thing.

Patriacrchy, matriarchy – it’s playing on the natural predilections of people of certain types, co-opting and using those predilections to achieve “change”, which is another word for destruction of stability.

And whoever the people at Chatham House, in the Lodges, at the head of rotary, behind CFR and TLC are – these people are the truly evil muvvers.

We saw this in Rwanda when Kissinger went in, pulled triggers his masters knew would send the two sides apoplectic, just as we are now with the EU/migrant thing, to the point where slaughter followed, Kissinger having long departed and observing from afar.

This is what evil is – causing something to happen from a distance.

It was in NATO entering the Kosovo battle, it was in the UN “observing” and advising, plus funding, in Darfur. Before them, it had been nasty, now it was bestial. See how the CIA’s ISIS changed the groundrules.

This vid, therefore, can lead all of us with our own preconceptions to misinterpret it at first. But bear with it and look at the arguments. See women here not as women v men but as just a group within society who have been exploited and manipulated, just as we all have. And lied to.

I come out of that vid feeling warmer towards women as a whole than less warm. Because the poor sods are just like us poor sods, the traditional men – we’ve all had a number done on us.

The narrator asks what seems to me a legitimate question at the end. If wolves remove the shepherd from the head of the field, remove the natural protectors, if those who control society remove gallant men, white knights, if women themselves have joined in vilifying that demographic, stomping them down for their unreconstructed sexism, leaving only pussified metros who are ostensibly benign but actually stand aside whilst the new feral class attacks and rapes women of all kinds, if the govt is allowed to dismantle the defences of the realm on the promise that they’re not needed any more within the paradisical EU – then what sweeps in?

The home grown ferals take over the streets – see any dystopic film – plus govt invites in the worst ferals on the planet, hardwired by an ideology which says it’s fine to murder, mutilate, rape, pillage, destroy history – and pretends it is inviting in displaced women and children.

As the narrator says – women are aiding and abetting this very thing, along with the pussified men.

If you kill off society’s knightly class, which at one time was the majority of men, along with its old men and women, if you remove the influence on Russian society, for example, of its grandmother class and instead have only the wisdom handed down by the State, then you are living a dystopic Doctor Who episode and heaven help us all, for no one else is going to.

5 comments for “From Doctor Who to the end of western civilization

  1. Voice of Reason
    February 23, 2016 at 1:41 pm

    I have been a Playboy subscriber since 1979. I just got my issue of the ‘new’ magazine. Not only are the naked ladies gone, they have taken out the jokes, cartoons and most of the things which made it readable. Someone clearly decided on a ‘whole new direction’, and has likely killed it.

    • February 23, 2016 at 2:17 pm

      That’s part of it too.

  2. Errol
    February 23, 2016 at 8:52 pm

    What bothered me was that the PC lump hammer became the plot, whereas before it was the plot driving the idea. yet it was always the doctor who was seeing things differently. He was our educator. Instead, we had immigration rammed at us, gays thrown in our faces, Greens, big state, government control, supranationalism the works.

    Never once was this questioned by the hero of the piece. Before, with work such as Tom Baker’s The Face of Evil it was hubris, arrogance and pride, then the right to destroy a civilisation in genesis of the Daleks.

    Doctor Who is now simply another BBC propaganda vehicle that is wasting exceptional actors on the altar of statism and PC. That’s sad as media is an incredible vehicle for change if it makes the audience *think* instead of be told how to do so. Cumberbatch doesn’t seem to understand this as with all Left wing wet greens he hasn’t accepted his audience is brighter than he is and that he merely a servant, not the master. But then humility is not something the Left understand, let alone accept.

    • February 23, 2016 at 10:45 pm

      Well put, Errol.

Comments are closed.