It’s never just one, is it. It’s always a group of women, who pop up all at once. Now we know why.
So now Morgan Freeman is the next man of prominence in the cross hairs. In this instance, CNN – the least trusted name in news these days – went on their own little hit-job investigation, with one of their own co-authors being a principle accuser. They went to a bunch of people who worked with Freeman, and got seven more to jump on the bandwagon of accusation without proof or consequence. Good way to cap off the legacy of the now-80-year-old actor, sending him off to the gulag of femifascism.
It makes me wonder if he did something to piss of the gynostablishment© as certain other accused men have… Did his conversation with Mike Wallace so deflating of racial identity politics that they would do this to him, or was there something I missed? We know damn well what got them to share Matt Lauer’s dirty little secrets: crossing Hillary Clinton by bringing up the e-mails that the Commander-in-Chief Forum, after which (rumor says) Hillary said that she wanted Matt Lauer destroyed. That’s an easy one – almost as easy as all of the dirty details coming out about Trump at such coincidental timing…yeah, right.
Does anyone seriously ask why there are so many of these accusations that come out years or even decades later? Why would these poor, poor women sit on such accusations for so long? Do they think that we really buy the narrative that one coming out inspires others to take that courageous step as well? Please… It’s a combination of false accusations by opportunists who jump on the band wagon, and known information that media companies, government bureaucracies and even gold-digging women save back like arrows in a quiver, to be used when they want to take someone out. On the government side especially, dirt on people is used to keep them in line.
The takeaway is that not making someone’s crime against you known immediately, or at least having a pretty good explanation for the delay (no, not being “inspired by other brave women” doesn’t cut it), diminishes credibility in one of two ways: either it didn’t actually happen, or you were saving it for blackmail or revenge, both cases destroying your own case. That’s how it ought to be, anyhow. It’s like Charles Schumer saying that the intelligence community has “six ways from Sunday at getting back at you” – that means that government bureaucracies are either a). sitting on knowledge of crimes for the purpose of blackmailing or using as revenge against people, and/or b). using their credibility to make up things and frame people. Either way, Cuck Schumber affirmed the existence of the “deep state”. If anyone ever tries to tell you that they don’t exist, just point to that quote from Schumer.
You know, the female hive-mind is kind of its own deep state, isn’t it? You piss them off, and they’ve got sixty ways from Sunday to get back at you, all made possible by cuck-tastic men who believe them simply because they are women. There is a reason that women and children were not considered credible witnesses in olden times, and it’s not because they were smaller…