completely agree on PR all for Her...clocked that from the Oprah interview which was great opportunity for PWB to do a mea culpa on HIS racist and homophobic comments - when this comes out by any political opponents , he’ll be asked to take a firm back seat. He is oblivious to this .Twitter, Facebook, Instagram...the NYtimes, CNN, the legacy media would no more cover that than they did the revelations about Hunter Biden. She would be protected.
This movement wants historical figures punished for not living with the value system of today. They must be banned from libraries, statues torn down, and publicly damned and demeaned. How do you think they would view the monarchy of the colonist UK ...for being mean to this poor bi-racial girl whose only fault was marrying a prince?
The only ray of hope is that Harry sees there is no role in this for him. And sees it soon.
He is less than the ‘spare’ in this scenario. It’s all about HER.
We’ll find out in November!Part of me hopes that Edward and Sophie’s 2 take up their option for Prince/ss when they get to 18 just for the giggles.
Yes, but Trump know how to get money. As of late 19th century, president in America is elected by big business. There was a good series on some history channel about it. Maybe players changed (IT vs hard core industry) but the picture is same. Cunts don't know how to attract donors. In politics, there is always I scratch your back you scratch mine. They don't know the rules of the game and I don't think they have enough brains to learn.Well we’ve all learned from Trump, the other massive narc to have recently been in the public eye, that anything he said was true, you knew (and later had confirmed) wasn’t. All the things he accused others of turned out he’d actually done. Presumably he thought he’d throw the stone so no one could throw it back believably later. For months I’ve been operating on the same basis with the Harkles, assuming the opposite of everything they say or accuse others of.
That would drive Smeggy insane(er)Kate will celebrate her 10th wedding anniversary to Prince William tomorrow and the special occasion could pave the way for the Duchess to be made a Princess. Royal biographer Gyles Brandreth pointed this out, as he noted the Duke of Edinburgh was only given a Prince title after 10 years of marriage to the Queen.
From the Express
They would have seen her for the common whore she is and booted her straight back out the door!Maybe she should have invited Harry for tea on his own and given him "how to be a spare" lessons.
Imagine if Meghan had rocked up while the Queen Mother and Margaret had still been around!!!
Most good friends will be there for the extraction because they recognise what has been happening.What's he going to do if he leaves her? He can't go home or reach out to his friends for help because she's successfully encouraged him to shaft them all, she's all he's got.
That's why the isolating tactic is so effective.
Honestly, making her a Princess of the United Kingdom would be such a wonderful gesture. And it would definitely be such a slap to California- oh the shade. I would be all here for that.Kate will celebrate her 10th wedding anniversary to Prince William tomorrow and the special occasion could pave the way for the Duchess to be made a Princess. Royal biographer Gyles Brandreth pointed this out, as he noted the Duke of Edinburgh was only given a Prince title after 10 years of marriage to the Queen.
From the Express
I get what you mean, but without Meghan, he wouldn't have even have been there probably that night? He knows the pecking order. He only got joint top billing on engagement with William and Kate, and before his brother got married just him and his brother. When it comes to engagements with the whole Senior Royal Family, he will still have been down the pecking order. Yes, the joint top billing with his brother had done him no favours as he thinks himself equal now, but with the rest of them no way. He knows the score, he just has allowed himself to believe other wise thanks to his other half.Just a thought ......
Y'know that business about Harry and Meghan trying to look at that display table without observing the pecking order etc ?
We have attacked them with "who do they think they are" and "how dare they" and "they should know their place" etc
But shouldn't we also consider the fact that for 30 odd years before Meghan infested the Royal enclosure, Harry was included in everything with the top team?
He was never made to feel like a spare part.
His feelings were always considered and he was included.
We all know that William had higher status but Harry was never made to feel left out.
It was all William and Harry as a kind of team and Harry had got used to that as the norm.
Then when Catherine entered the picture, the little team of 2 brothers had now become 3 but Harry was still always included. For example, he was in the room with William and Catherine when the Obamas visited.
This inclusion went on for years even though he knew he held a lower status than his brother and wife (and later children.)
So if, as evidence suggests Harry is thick as pig shit, isn't it understandable that he would think it was still ok to hang around on the edge of frame as he has always done?
It could be that while he was single it was an unspoken thing to include him in the top circle so his feelings werent hurt but as soon as he was no longer alone they just automatically closed the circle without spelling it out to him that now he'd got someone to cling to he must join the people lower down the chain from now on.
If that is the case, isn't it understandable that he couldnt grasp why after years of being in the "top" group he now had to take a huge step back?
Do ya see all those faults you listed? Well nobody would really give a shit if she was still a proper Royal, with titles and patronages and living, even just part time, in palaces and on country estates in ye olde Englandshire ... and with Brenda's ear. They'd overlook her many faults as long as she deigned to notice them and spent time in their company. But she's on the outs with the Royals and everyone now knows it thanks to that interviewMeghan Markle can't even sell a kiddies backpack - they took the post down. Too much abuse, no product sales. Where is her political appeal? She doesn't have a fan base - they are all on the payroll bashing their keyboards in South Africa and Brazil. Can't speak in public. No ability to hold an audience. No bookings. No podcast. No TV presence. A terrible reputation for being thin-skinned and bad-mannered. Leaves a trail of pissed-off stakeholders behind her. And that's before you dive into the murky finances and interesting home movies.
Easy as pie for her PR team to send out pieces claiming friendships and backing all over the shop. Occasionally, she'll get a 'Ms Liza Minelli doesn't know her' response. Most of it will get ignored. The real insiders in Hollywood and the power brokers will see this as a desperate smokescreen, and the last roll of the Harkles dice.
She's such a strong woman though, enough engagement rings play the classic game "Rings on your Fingers" and a bejewelled undercarriage. So talented.especially one where you have to pay top dollar and all you get is JLo showing her arse.
As for Stone and the mosquito nets, best summation is here:"When they become very famous, I think a lot of people thought that they would be very satisfied by their career. But then they aren't satisfied and they suddenly decide they want to be public intellectuals as well. They want to be taken seriously, they want gravitas, they want people to see them as amazing in another field. They feel they're not taken seriously just for being an actress.
"Which is ridiculous to me because I take actresses very seriously. If they're good at their job, I think they're great. But the idea that you would then be standing up in Baghdad trying to solve the Iraqi refugee crisis is completely preposterous. It's a displacement of two million people and I just don't really think that you can sort that out in a job share with making $15 million a movie."
Hyde's chapter on celebrity activism is particularly good. Celebrities actors, musicians tend to react emotionally and inexpertly to complex political and economic problems, drawing attention to them, sure, but, in the process, oversimplifying them. "You know what `raising awareness' is?" Hyde footnotes sarcastically in her book. "Cheaper than `giving money'."
They can also edge out people more committed and more qualified for the job, while undermining the moral seriousness of their message by leading a hypocritically profligate lifestyle. Leonardo DiCaprio, who made an environmental documentary, flies in private jets. Bono, who sits on Ireland's Hunger Task Force which lobbies the government to devote more funds to aid, and who frequently appeals for donations from Ireland's taxpayers, is himself tax-exiled to the Netherlands.
Hyde points out that, according to the Giving USA Foundation's research, the 40-year average for charitable giving is 2.2% of a household's income after tax. This is a relatively stable figure it was 2.2% in 2005, 2.3% in 2006 and 2007. This shows that celebrity advocates don't raise more money for charities; they just raise the same sums in a different way.
Hyde contends that it's now difficult for charities to be noticed without a celebrity spokesperson and, since celebrities tend not to support unglamorous causes like skin diseases or mental illness (they prefer Aids and Africa), she writes, "it's difficult not to conclude that celebrities don't just skew the debate: they monopolise funding that in a less febrile atmosphere might have found its way to a needier cause."
For some reason, US actress Sharon Stone attended the World Economic Forum in 2005 and, after listening to the president of Tanzania talking about how insecticide-treated mosquito nets can guard against malaria, she found herself, out of the blue, eliciting pledges from the audience. "Just stand up!" she cried, "stand up and people will take your name!" Except only a quarter of the $1 million pledged was collected so Unicef had to kick in the shortfall.
And Stone hadn't done her research. In the Wall Street Journal, an economics professor revealed that some African governments distribute nets free through hospitals, which people sell on the black market so they can buy something they want more. A doctor sitting beside the economics professor at the forum had whispered that, although one million children die of malaria every year, two million die of diarrhoea, but he doubted that Sharon Stone would have found that so moving.
"Sharon Stone hails from a crazy Hollywood golden age where every time she opens her mouth something completely ridiculous pops out," Hyde says, with relish. And she's only one type of column-worthy crazy.
"In general, the ones that believe in these bizarre religions or that they are actually saving the world are quite helpful," she says, "because they tend to speak out a lot and have no sense of self-awareness and no sense of how ridiculous it is."
Giant celebrities like Madonna and Tom Cruise go in for recherche, bizarre religions like Kabbalah and Scientology because, Hyde says, they like the exclusivity. "Like having an amazing hair stylist my religion is quite niche and extraordinary.
"They're also religions of personal empowerment. Not necessarily if you're one of the rank and file believers, but if you're Madonna or Tom Cruise, it's about `you can do everything'. You're almost the godhead. Unlike other religions, which tend to emphasise your speck of dust nature in the face of the deity.
"And celebrities who are quite used to being worshipped really don't want to become worshippers. They would rather be personally inspired by a blend of hocus pocus and slightly odd pseudoscience."
So silly are some of the claims made about specially blessed Kabbalah water that it can cure Aids and cancer, that it can neutralise radioactivity from Chernobyl, that it cured Guy Ritchie's verrucas that Hyde advocates legal intervention.
"Celebrity endorsement is nothing more than advertising without regulation," she writes.
"Given that celebrities tend to come out with this stuff during interviews to promote personally enriching projects, perhaps one radical answer would be to treat such outbursts as commercials and subject them to the same censure and legal scrutiny."
There's something more sinister, potentially lethal, about Uma Thurman's praise of gem therapy or Gwyneth Paltrow's claim that "eating biological foods" can halt cancer people believe them.
Hyde points out that celebrities such as Michael J Fox or Lance Armstrong, who have actually battled illnesses, invariably refer people back to their doctors. Kylie Minogue was fastidious about correcting stories that claimed she had undergone "some fringe voodoo treatment" for her breast cancer, "because she realised, worryingly, how influential she was.
"The sad fact is that people do copy celebrities," Hyde says, "and they do also think that perhaps because celebrities are rich and have access to all the best doctors, if they are embracing some kooky treatment then it must be because it works."
Not content with damaging our health, celebrities are also assaulting our democratic rights. When Angelina Jolie-Pitt headed to Namibia to birth baby Shiloh Nouvel by scheduled caesarean, her bodyguard cordoned off roads, assaulted a restaurant owner and used pepper spray. House-to-house searches were conducted in case locals were hiding media. The Namibian government enforced a no-fly zone above the coast where Pitt and Jolie's five-star hotel was, and the Namibian embassy in Pretoria told journalists they needed permission in writing from Pitt and Jolie to get an entry visa. Journalists were deported, their equipment confiscated and one was arrested.
Jolie, one of the "goodwill ambassadors" for the UN, who has "Know your rights" tattooed on the back of her neck, had effectively seized control of Namibia's borders and airspace and, as Phil ya Nangoloh, director of Namibia's National Society for Human Rights observed, brought its democratic status into serious question.
After the birth, Jolie told CNN that Namibians, who obtained independence in 1990, have "just recently learned to govern themselves" and "we need to be there to really support them at that time, to help them to understand better how to govern".
A Namibian farmer told the New Statesman, "The restricting of local and international press, and this pseudo-royal attitude, are the exact opposite of what Namibia needs. People who, for years, tried to build a democratic society can only shake their heads at this."
"
Celebrities on charity bandwagon do more harm than good | Stuff.co.nz
The whole sector is filled with this kind of crap. Celebs who know less than fuck all about an issue or a country acting like fix it all experts. Money pledged and never collected (the 2005 tsunami was a classic for this). Celebs who know less than a normal person (shocked to learn many African leaders of desperately poor countries are billionaires ffs) , because they lack all education or interest in learning anything beyond their lines, appointing themselves leaders in a field and somehow being given podiums to drag everyone to hell with them. The road to hell being paved with good intentions, of course, but fuck your good intentions. This covid concert malarkey is just more of the same, with new celebrity players.On January 28, 2005, Sharon Stone helped raise $1-million in five minutes for mosquito nets in Tanzania, turning a panel on African poverty into an impromptu fund-raiser at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Many observers including UNICEF criticised her actions by claiming that Stone had reacted instinctively to the moving words of Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa, because she had not done her research on the causes, consequences and methods of preventing malaria; if she had done so, she would have found out that most African governments already distribute free bed nets through public hospitals.
Of the $1-million pledged, only $250,000 was actually raised. In order to fulfill the promise to send $1-million worth of bed nets to Tanzania, UNICEF contributed $750,000. This diverted funds from other UNICEF projects.
According to Xavier Sala-i-Martín, officials are largely unaware as to what happened with the bed nets. Some bed nets were delivered to the local airport. These were then reported as stolen, but later resurfaced as wedding dresses on the local black market.
Sala-i-Martín reported that later in 2005 when Stone was travelling in Africa, she was shocked to learn that a majority of African presidents are billionaires themselves.
In fact UNICEF officials traveling with her said Mr. Mkapa himself, then Tanzanian president, could have simply written that cheque if he wanted to.
No, I’m not psychic...but behold...
The May edition of Vanity Fair magazine has just come out.
Cover photo...Diana and her boys. The first paragraph of the actual artcle is all about Markle...as are the next three.
Nauseating in their extreme adoration.
Example...’The same qualities that made Meghan a superstar, that she’s outspoken and passionate about women’s rights, and as a biracial woman has a unique ability to connect with people who feel voiceless...made her uniquely qualified for modern duchess hood. They also rendered her a threat. As Prince H divulged to Oprah...his family welcomed Meghan until they saw how incredible she was at the job.”
Notice please that the qualifications are WOKE qualifications. This article is the next planned step after Oprah. This dance is choreographed. She was too qualified for those racist RF. There is a larger plan here. She fits all their qualifications....as I descr9bed to you in an earlier post.
“Tattaglia is a pimp. He never could have outfought Santino. But I didn’t know until this day that it was Barzini all along.”
– Don Vito Corleone
My reaction when I saw they were anointed as Chairs of this event and Biden was attending.
This has been a well structured political strategy by others for quite awhile.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?