Furore Road!! Women Enter, One Man(osphere) Leaves


When something I rather like gets compared to something that arouses my animus, it’ll grab my attention, if nowt else. Last Wednesday served as a perfect example of this, what with me coming eyeball-to screen with the most outlandish of opinions on the latest chapter in the Mad Max mythos:

Post apocalyptic feminism, lol. I won’t be seeing the new Mad Max, or at least not paying for it.

I scoffed at the statement (scribbled by one who shall remain unidentified), with its knee-jerk, ideologically-driven dismissal of a film yet unseen by its writer; at the same time, I  wondered what the fuck had inspired such an asinine reaction (not to mention the scribe’s assertion that the supposed “subordinate status” of the pudenda gender made the concept of wasteland warrior wenches – feminist or otherwise — a categorical impossibility).

My question found a likely answer later in the day when I encountered a piece by one Aaron Clarey on the manospherian (yet non-MRA) mouthpiece Return of Kings. Retitling the upcoming movie “Mad Max: Feminist Road” for the purpose of his rallying call, Clarey made much of the promotional prominence given to the character of Furiosa, played by Charlize Theron, and her apparent loquaciousness in relation to the eponymous hero.

Charlize Theron kept showing up a lot in the trailers, while Tom Hardy (Mad Max) seemed to have cameo appearances. Charlize Theron sure talked a lot during the trailers, while I don’t think I’ve heard one line from Tom Hardy. And finally, Charlize Theron’s character barked orders to Mad Max.

Nobody barks orders to Mad Max.

Now, as a firm fan of this franchise, I must admit to sharing Clarey’s concerns about the prominence given to a non-eponymous character; all the review summaries I’ve glimpsed mention the chief focus being on Furiosa at the expense of our antihero, describing the film as “female-driven” on that account. News of the ostensible star of the show being shoehorned into a support role does put something of a dampener on my anticipation, but I guess I’ll find out in a few hours how much it matters.

That said, it really doesn’t sound like Clarey’s actually watched a Mad Max flick in his life nor paid sufficient attention if he has (what with him referring to the Aussie franchise as “a piece of American culture”). It doesn’t take a diehard aficionado to grok the taciturn nature of Max, what with him fitting the (typically masculine) strong, silent mould and all; in the iconic and seminal sequel, he utters a whopping total of sixteen lines, despite being very much the central focus. As for Max being a character no one barks orders at, I suppose that holds true, provided one forgets that he starts the series as an officer of the law under the command of a leather-daddy police chief (with a distinctly girly-sounding name), pretty much goes along with the settler community patriarch’s plan in the sequel (assisted by a – *gasp* – Warrior Woman), and finds himself complying with the wishes of not one but two women across the running time of Thunderdome.

Clarey finds himself on firmer ground when he cites the involvement of feminist playwright Eve Ensler, of Vagina Monologues fame, in the film’s consultation stages. With a sunken heart, I clicked on the link to the TIME Magazine article cited in Clarey’s piece only to find…anything but an advocacy of special-pleading victimologist misandry (but wouldn’t that make for a great villain troupe in a later installment, Miller?). Sure, Ensler pushes the myth of endemic sex trafficking, sees a woman falling in love as “surrendering her power”, and pulls that obnoxious femorrhoid tactic of claiming anyone with a good word to say about double-Xers as part of her tribe; she even has the audacity to claim the sight of sisters doin’ it for themselves to be such an unprecedented and objectionable trope as to need “sneak[ing] in[to]” the narrative. Still, when it comes down to the purported “feminism” in Fury Road, Ensler’s ejaculations reveal it to be nowt more obnoxious than…fighting for freedom from actual oppression and predation — perish the thought!

As established in previous installments of the series, “rape culture” exists as everything but a cute misnomer in the Wasteland: no need or time to stretch the definition of rape when the local marauders yearn to stretch the dimensions of your slit. As such, the premise of women fighting to escape a warlord looking to use them as brood mares for his hordes fails to elicit my indignation. Far from “blur[ring] the lines between masculinity and femininity”, as Clarey claims, Fury Road sounds painfully, acutely aware of the gender divide.

In short, the film sounds closer to Savage Streets than Baise-Moi in terms of its gender relations policy: make ‘em eat lead only if they (try to) make you give head. Personally, I say “yay(-yay-yahoo)” to that!

Reading the Clarey-on call for a boycott to stave off a mushroom-cloud menocide of cinematic proportions, I think back to similarly pathetic pleas by various other special interest groups, be they white identitarians shunning Machete and Thor for supposed endorsements of cultural and racial “genocide”; black identitarians protesting an art exhibit for its purported “white colonial supremacy”; antifa agitators picketing “problematic” performers; or (most appropriately) shrews trying to moan mammaries off Page 3. Whichever way you wanna slice or special plead it, all these fucking factions exemplify the Procrustean paw of politics, clawing away at all aesthetic appreciation beyond prescribed perimeters. I suppose it adds up to their idea of a fun night out.

Still, whilst Clarey and co exhort my fellow Y-chromosome-carriers to join hands with them in sobling solidarity, I’ll be at the local cineplex, checking out this new addition to a much-loved universe. If Fury Road represents a cinematic decline, I for one intend to enjoy it.

UPDATE (Same day, hours later): After finally watching the film (which I thoroughly recommend), I must say that rumours of Furiosa’s prominence at the expense of Max have been considerably exaggerated; the latter gets more than enough screentime, focus, plot relevance, and badass moments to warrant having his name front ‘n’ centre in that title. The other characters certainly flap their gums a lot more, though I struggle to remember an instance of Furiosa “barking orders” at our protagonist. In the tradition of the Alien and Terminator series of film’s, Fury Road shows that one can put strong and capable females in prominent roles without going all feminist with it, making the gee-whiz reactions by feminists laughably baffling, and Clarey’s RoK article ever the more fucking retarded. The film also does an aesthetically pleasing job of depicting the pitfalls of male disposability – not bad at all for a “feminist” flick.

To reiterate: Get a fucking grip, or a room, gendersphere – I don’t care which.


Posted in Culture, Entertainment, Gender Issues, Moral Panic, Movies, Politics, Racial Issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

MRDArous Aphorisms: Go Fo(u)rth!

Picture 211

  • Too often, folk who exhort you to “broaden your horizons” simply wish for you to narrow them to a rut of their choosing.
  • The laugh track: a confession of insecurity, if not abject contempt for both audience and material.
  • Pride: the psychological prophylactic.
  • To the oversocialised, all else appears autistic.
  • The “edgiest” explanation isn’t necessarily the most accurate.
  • Holding Eris at bay just gives her apples full sway.
  • Regardless of form, communication amounts to arrogance.
  • “Unprecedented” is not a synonym for “impossible”.
  • Mansplaining: Feminist for “logic”.
  • If you advocate male infant circumcision on the rationale that “he won’t remember”, what logical objection could you possibly have to “newborn porn”?
  • To be apart from the world whilst being a part of it – this I call mastery!
  • The romance of “the people”, of the beleaguered “masses yearning to breathe free”, is a fine thing to believe…provided you stay the fuck away from reality!
  • One person’s inconsequential annoyance is another’s existential nightmare.
  • Too often, an appeal to “loyalty” is a veiled way of saying “Betray yourself!”
  • Sometimes, the bottle can be a bridge to honesty with the self.
  • Whenever I hear talk of a “movement” these days, I can’t help but prefix it with “bowel”.
  • “Inner”? “Philosophical”? “Long-term”? Anything but the pomp and charade of “higher” values!
  • Innuendo: description and example.
  • “Separation of church and state” is often the bureaucrat’s way of saying: “Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me!”
  • The Internet, where the polarities of intellect reside and collide.
  • Troll maxim: “Every day is April Fool’s Day”
  • Strength or weakness: which of the two is father to your compassion?
  • They’ll scold you for “running away from your problems”, but what if your problems stem from the fact that you won’t?
  • Traditionalism: A euphemism for necrocracy.
  • Limitation: the heart of identity.
  • All things are halal to me.
  • If it ain’t my problem, why do I need to be “part of the solution”?
  • Following one’s interests > following “one’s” interest group(s).
  • The outsider, exception, anomaly, suffers more for his commonalities with the general run of humanity than he does for his points of divergence.
  • Pessimism: Another prophylactic to dull the disease of disappointment .
  • At the masquerade ball, ambition often finds itself mistaken for that thing called “humility”.
  • Sometimes, I can’t help but think that “read between the lines” is coded speech for “insert bias here” or “make shit up”.
  • “You’re shameless!” = ” How dare you not have a weakness I can exploit!”
  • Borg cube audition: “I’m just saying what everyone else is thinking.”
  • The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose”… just as I cite him for my own.
  • “I did it for a higher cause!” = “Diplomatic immunity!”
  • If sin is so ugly, why are so many attracted to it?
  • Whenever someone preaches “unity” amongst bitterly fragmented parties, I always wonder who they want the “united” to beat up on, instead.
  • When you consider the canvas, the use of the phrase “line in the sand” to signal firmness sounds kinda ironic.
  • I wonder: Will the SJWs of transhumanist times bemoan their “oppression” by “the Circuitry”?
  • We live under a climate where one’s very existence stands to be weaponised, whether as bullet or bull’s-eye or both.
  • The urge to create and the urge to destroy: sometimes the two don’t stand apart.


Posted in Aphorisms, MRDArous Aphorisms, Personal, Philosophy, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Cumberbatch “Coloured” Conundrum


Oh, how the mighty fall! Turns out that after years of being lauded as both an actor by the press and a heartthrob by his adoring fangirls, Benedict Cumberbatch finally let slip his fine-shined shoes, revealing the pus-packed warts of prejudice on his feet. I of course refer to his recent Stateside appearance on the Tavis Smiley show, where the Sherlock star gave the audience, and the world, a taste of the the white supremacy burning in his blackened heart, reviving a term of address long since confined to the cobwebs of history:

“I think as far as coloured actors go, it gets really different in the UK, and a lot of my friends have had more opportunities here [in the US] than in the UK, and that’s something that needs to change,” Cumberbatch said on PBS talk show Tavis Smiley.

“Something’s gone wrong, we’re not representative enough in our culture of different races and that really does need to step up a pace.”

The Independent, 26th January 2015

What a flagrant display of bare-faced, hate-soaked bigotry on Cumberbatch’s part, harking back to the days of Antebellum slavery and Jim Crow, wanting to see blackfolk restricted to beasts of burden for the whims of the white man….

Oh, wait…that’s not it! Not even close.

Try telling that, however, to the Tavis-viewing Twitterati, many of whom signalled their epic umbrage via their social medium of choice; in their minds, Cumberbatch’s use of the term “coloured” triggered a whole host of associations unconnected with the full context of his words. It didn’t take long for the special interest machine on this side of the pond to pick up his racial faux-pas and run with it. Show Racism the Red Card, the UK’s leading anti-racism charity, appreciated the basic gist of the actor’s argument, yet saw fit to take him to task for his “[in]appropriate” and “outdated” turn of phrase.

As eyeroll-eliciting as their speech-policing proved, it paled in comparison to the fuss kicked up by certain media columnists. In the Independent’s online op-ed section, one Yemisi Adegoke made the rather histrionic claim that “calling black people ‘coloured’ removes part of their humanity”, associating the word’s use with the dark days of white supremacy:

The word “coloured” was used in the 1960s and 70s, as it was considered a polite way to address people of colour compared to alternatives. For some it serves as an uncomfortable reminder of a time when racism was commonplace.

In the US context, the word has even stronger negative connotations. It takes us back to a time of segregation where “coloureds” were allocated separate schools, drinking fountains and entrances under the premise of being “separate but equal.” While the races were separate they certainly weren’t equal. Facilities were of much lower quality for African Americans who were regarded as and treated like second-class citizens.

The word “coloured” is offensive because it removes an element of humanity from people. Ribena is coloured, walls are coloured, people may be of colour but they are not coloured. It also harks back to the racist notion that being white is the default state and everyone else is “other,” an aberration from the norm.

In so far as Adegoke singles out the use of “coloured(s)” as noun rather than adjective, I actually think she’s onto something; unwittingly or otherwise, semi-casual references to “(the) coloureds”, or, in more modern parlance, “(the) blacks”, have a certain alienating effect on my ears, overplaying the difference between the demographic and all others at the expense of the internal diversity amongst its members. I notice this choice of wording being employed by right-on, identitipolitik-endorsing progressives as well as old-fashioned racists, reactionaries, and those simply set in their ways. Surprisingly, one of the best critiques of this linguistic subsumption comes from none other than neoreactionary icon Nick Land; in his Dark Enlightenment magnum opus, he identifies a glaring (and grating) example of term discrepancy in John Derbyshire’s notorious Takimag article, ‘The Talk: Nonblack Version’:

Yet even to a reasonably sympathetic, or scrupulously obnoxious, reading, Derbyshire’s article provides grounds for criticism. For instance, and from the beginning, it is notable that the racial reciprocal of “nonblack Americans” is ‘black Americans’, not “American blacks” (the term Derbyshire selects). This reversal of word order, switching nouns and adjectives, quickly settles into a pattern. Does it matter that Derbyshire requests the extension of civility to any “individual black” (rather than to ‘black individuals’)? It certainly makes a difference. To say that someone is ‘black’ is to say something about them, but to say that someone is ‘a black’ is to say who they are. The effect is subtly, yet distinctly, menacing, and Derbyshire is too well-trained, algebraically, to be excused from noticing it. After all, ‘John Derbyshire is a white’ sounds equally off, as does any analogous formulation, submerging the individual in the genus, to be retrieved as a mere instance, or example.

That said, Cumberbatch’s unwitting foray into speechcrime hardly stoops to this “subtly, yet distinctly, menacing” level; whatever historical associations his adjectival use calls to mind, the context clearly negates any malicious or dubious intent, making the accusation of “removing [black peoples’] humanity” all the more baffling.

I also find the distinction between “coloured person” and “person of colour” to be little more than a semantic squabble; to quote another Independent Voice, that of Matthew Norman: “It all seems a bit People’s Front of Judea/ Judean People’s Front to me”.  As such, I find it disappointing to read Bim Adewunmi (previously given honourable mention here for challenging Dianne Abbot’s racial granfaloonery) defend its significance with an “argument” that amounts to one big, fat genetic fallacy.

Note the difference, please. “Coloured” is not equivalent to “people of colour”.

A few people have piped up to ask what the difference between “coloured” and “people of colour” is. Here’s one Twitter user’s eloquent and succinct explanation:

screenshot-mrda wordpress com 2015-02-20 19-05-29

Truly, this is not difficult to grasp.

Maybe Adewunmi and Brulee might wanna tell that to the NAACP: clearly, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People failed to get the memo (which might explain their adherence to the adage that the only good “nigger” is a dead “nigger”).

All that aside, doesn’t the automatic equation of “coloured” with “black” signal a certain racial solipsism on the parts of Adegoke, Adewunmi, and the Tavis tweeters? Perhaps Cumberbatch used “coloured” as a catch-all for non-white actors (and actresses) in general, rather than any particular demographic thereof. Assuming the state of play resembles a chequerboard does something of a disservice to those not named for its tones. One could well make the argument that Cumberbatch exercised more racial sensitivity than his critics, not less.

Whichever of the two one might prefer, both “coloured person” and “person of colour” strike me as retardedly redundant terms to describe nonwhite folk, what with every fucker under the sun being some shade of something; with that in mind, it would hardly break my heart to see both terms fall into disuse with the passage of time. In the meantime, I see no need for the type of knee-jerk, context-ignorant speech-policing which only serves to degrade discourse on matters relevant to the people altmodischly addressed. To quote black British actor David Oyelowo: “To attack him for a term, as opposed to what he was actually saying, I think is very disingenuous and is indicative of the age we live in where people are looking for sound bites as opposed to substance.”


Posted in America, Entertainment, News, Racial Issues, The UK, TV | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Halal & Hypocrisy XII: Vive la Dissonance!


On the 7th of January, three Islamic gunmen stormed the offices of left-wing satirical mag Charlie Hebdo, killing eleven staff members in the ensuing bullet shower. The magazine had previously made an international name for itself by printing the Mohammed cartoons of 2006, and continuing to satirise Islam on its pages after being firebombed in 2011. Prior to all that, the magazine had secured a decades-old niche as France’s answer to Private Eye.


The following Sunday, a legion of “leaders” came together in Paris to express their solidarity with those slain. Key figures from fifty of the world’s nations joined a substantial number of Parisians, taking to the streets to declare their fealty to the principle of free speech. Je suis Charlie, nous sommes le monde, and all that.

How I wish I’d been there amongst them – to spit on their fucking faces.

As things stand, I’ll settle for the next-best option: kindling the Inferno.

The public outpouring following the massacre really brought forth many of the issues discussed here under the heading ‘Halal & Hypocrisy’, illuminating the marked gulf between rhetoric and reality when it comes to civil liberties in the West. Deliciously, the narrative of these nation-state notaries standing with the French for freedom fell apart under the sustained squeeze of the press, with some all-too-revealing pics exposing the limits of their solidarity.


More damningly and beautifully, one Daniel Wickham made the news for his listing of the various ways each of the figurehead’s nations violated the liberties of those in their jurisdictions, effectively making the phenomena of free-speech hypocrisy especially salient in the public consciousness. I even had to take my hat off to Anjem Choudary, opportunistic scoundrel though he may be, for his part in perforating this mendacious establishment narrative.

Following in their stead, and the most Infernal of traditions, here’s a bit more on the ways the Western governments represented at this shitshow fuck up when it comes to the principle of free expression.

As much as those running la République talked up a grand game in the face of abdullah aggression, their record on upholding their lip-serviced liberté, has proven pretty fucking abysmal. As much as Hollande preens about presiding over “a free country”, where folk get to“defend one’s ideas” sans state molestation, his words amount to a load of old couilles; as well as the headwear bans I’ve, erm, covered in previous episodes, the French citizenry find themselves subject to sanction for a variety of speechcrimes. Take movie icon Brigitte Bardot, who repeatedly found herself in the dock and out of pocket for “inciting racial hatred” via a series of impolitic opinions on immigration, particularly of the Muslim variety; most recently, she got hit with a €15,000 fine in 2008 after receiving her fifth conviction for the offence. I guess it says something when even her prosecutors tire of the tributes she pays to the Republic (and self-appointed victim lobbies) for the safeguarding of her civil liberties.

Other celebrity casualties of the Gallic gavel include Brit fashion designer John Galliano, fined €6,000 for unleashing a racist tirade at fellow restaurant diners in 2011; and the controversial comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala, whose Hebrew-baiting earns him regular court convictions and performance bans from the Council of State. Not one to be dissuaded from delinquency, Dieudonné now finds himself in court on an “apology for terrorism” charge for signalling Facebook empathy with one of those behind the Paris kosher shop murders following the Charlie Hebdo attack.

In the grand scheme, however, Dieudonné’s but one of many subjected to trumped-up “terror” charges; in predictable fashion, the French state saw fit to slam the sobbing jackboot of suppression down on anyone expressing sympathy with the Muslim murderers. Within a week of the bloodshed, courts across the country had thrown the tome at those “condoning terrorism” a whopping 54 times, making the presence of France’s new Anti-Terror Act very much felt.

Even the publication at the heart of last month’s condolences failed to escape the French state’s schizophrenic approach to free expression. Back in 2006, the then-editor of Charlie Hebdo found himself forced to answer for his choice to publish three of the notorious Mohammed cartoons; brought before the gavel by the mewling of both the Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of French Islamic Organizations, Philippe Val faced a potential €22,500 fine and six-years imprisonment; that the judge saw fit to spare him from such penalties hardly excuses the possibility existing in Hollande’s “free country”. Val would not extend the same grace to ex-employee Maurice Sinet, fired in 2008 after refusing to apologise for an “anti-Semitic” column linking Jewishness to social success. The hapless cartoonist would find himself wrapped up in a court-case clusterfuck over the contentious column.

double standards

Since I’m back on the subject of “anti-Semitism”, the lazy conflation of Holocaust revisionism with Hebrew-hatred also ensures the former’s exclusion from the realm of la liberté d’expression. Introduced in 1990, the piece of special-pleading legalese known as the Gayssot Act makes it a crime to question key aspects of the official Holocaust narrative; yet even before that, prominent revisionist Robert Faurisson regularly lost dinner money to the French courts for going about his scholarly business. The years following 1990 would only see his (mis)fortunes continue, his most recent conviction and extortion taking place in 2006. When not putting the squeeze on Faurisson, l’Etat française validates the special-interest pigpiling of amusingly named revisionist websites, preventing them from being accessed on Gallic grounds.

All that said, singling out France for this free speech fuck-up seems a little unfair, what with the Teutonic territories all too eager to replicate the repression. As much as Merkel may condemn the attack on “freedom of opinion and of the press, (an attack on) a core element of our free and democratic culture”, German legislators seem more than happy to throw in their own jabs. Steeped in war guilt following their defeat in the last global Conflict Without Heroes, Deutschlanders have made a legalistic art form out of overcompensation; as such, no new edition of Hitler’s Mein Kampf has seen print since 1945, thanks to the Bavarian government sitting on the copyright; laws against spreading Nazi ideology plus the machinations of ministers make it unlikely that a new edition will see the light of German skies once the copyright expires later this year  – at least not without extensive state doctoring.

Of course, given all this historical guilt, the expected prohibition on revisionism stands firmer in Germanic countries than it does in France, with those who transgress given more than a fine for challenging the law and the narrative. Ask Germar Rudolf or Ernst Zündel, imprisoned in Germany for their perspectives and publications; or the Swiss-incarcerated Jurgen Graf; or, most infamously, the historian David Irving, thrown into an Austrian jail back in 2006 for his own historical heresies.

With similar prohibitions in Belgium, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Israel, and the Czech Republic — nations all represented in the photo-op fiasco — I suspect similar intrigues take place in those parts.

As regular Inferno readers know, whilst the UK offers a respite from the pervasiveness of criminalised inquiry in mainland Europe, it slides further and further into the shit when it comes to free speech in general. A land where folk get locked up and/or fined for poppy-burning, obnoxious rants on public transport, swearing at police, and internet trolling cannot be said to be governed by those who “stand squarely for free speech”, at least not by anyone possessed of a working brain cell. Little wonder, then, that those words fell from the gob of David “Cammy Boy” Cameron in his condemnation of the Paris attackers. “These people will never be able to take us off those values, ” he said, just weeks after his government outlawed the production of certain flavours of consensual pornography.

no spanky

The outrage at the Paris massacres makes for the perfect Trojan horse pretext to further erode what Cameron claims to preserve. No doubt the Home Secretary Theresa May, ever eager to slip her talons into the web, will use this as further justification for the “snooper’s charter” project she spent the last year talking up:

May confirmed her plan to tackle non-violent extremists: “I want to see new banning orders for extremist groups that fall short of the existing laws relating to terrorism. I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay within the law but still spread poisonous hatred. So both policies ‚ banning orders and extremism disruption orders ‚ will be in the next Conservative manifesto,” she said.

A Tory briefing note made clear that the banning orders, which can include denying access to the airwaves and to the net, would be targeted not just at so-called hate preachers but also those who sought to “disrupt the democratic process” and “undermine democracy”.

May said the banning orders were part of a widening of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, saying in the past preventive measures had focused only on the “hard end of the extremism spectrum. So the Home Office will soon, for the first time, assume responsibility for a new counter-extremism strategy that goes beyond terrorism.”

She said the measures would be overseen by the Home Office and would aim to eliminate all forms of extremism‚ including neo-Nazism and Islamist extremism. In particular, it would confront the “culture of bullying and intimidation” found in schools in Birmingham: “We must not sleepwalk into separation, segregation and sectarianism,” she said.

In her speech, May said Muslims in the UK were free to exercise their right to freedom of conscience, thought and religion but must realise that living in the country came with a responsibility to respect British values. She said: “You don’t just get the freedom to live how you choose to live, you have to respect other people’s right to do so too and you have to respect British values and institutions – the rule of law, democracy, equality, free speech and respect for minorities. These are the values that make our country what it is. These are our values. There is no place for extremism here.”

The Guardian, Tuesday 30 September 2014

Yeah, Cammy Boy – Mrs May “stand[s] squarely for free speech”, doesn’t she? That excerpt doesn’t read like dissonant dicksplash coughed out by a conflicted, cuntish control freak, at all.


I could go on and on with this, citing the Netherlands muzzling paedophilia advocates, Israel’s jailing of Palestinian cartoonists, general European curtailment of Islam-bashers, and the life sentencing of a Stateside rapper for “gang conspiracy” album sales (happily overturned – thanks, Obama!), but I think I’ve more than made my point about the pitiful “freedom of expression” offered by lip-servicing Western(ised) governments. As much as folk caught in the grip of vicarious existential dread tremble before “barbarians at the gate”, it strikes me that the worst barbarians have posed as the gatekeepers for far too long.


In the words of the arresting Ann Sterzinger, “if governments are going to curtail free speech, then who are politicians to weep crocodile tears when independent operators follow their example?”


Posted in Civil Liberties, Culture, Halal & Hypocrisy, History, Moral Panic, News, Politics, Religion, Slave Britannia | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Mirai no MRDA: An Infernal Futurespective

trunks glare

And so, lushes and reprobates, we arrive in the year 2015 with nary a hoverboard or flying car in sight. I’ve felt kinda cheated ever since this century/millennium began, waiting for the 21st-century space age speculated by many an 80s cartoon and Hollywood movie.

Still, there’s always broadband and blogging to dull the pain of dashed childhood expectations, and I plan to peck out many a provocative palliative over the next month or twelve. Topics up for Infernal attention over the next 364 solar culminations include:

Of course, there’ll also be the usual current-events-triggered tirades, a few more one-two jabs against democratic thought and politics, general immolations of identity politics of all stripes, and PC, and a cudgelling of conservatisms, concealed and candid.  Others may have failed to deliver on the promise of a sci-fi heaven, but I’ll definitely deliver on opening up Hell.

Till the next Infernal episode…


Posted in Egoism, Gender Issues, Racial Issues, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Season’s Skeetings


Well, lushes and reprobates, seeing as this is “the season of goodwill”, I offer you the following best wishes, straight from my Infernal heart:

Continue reading

Posted in Culture, Retinal Reprobation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cower Behind the Kids!! Arrested Development as Activism


She caught my eye just a few weeks ago, this woman, this mother. Clad in a cardy and layers of concern, she stood in front of an audience of millions and spoke her truth. With child in tow, this bluestocking Boudicca told tales of tawdry tabloids torturing her toddlers and the determination of her and her pressure group, Child Eyes UK, to counter the corrosion. Indeed, her militancy had accrued her something of a victory, convincing supermarket chains Tesco and Waitrose to accede to her demands.

Make no mistake, lushes and reprobates—Kathy McGuinness is a mum on a mission!

Kathy McGuinness 2.jpg-pwrt2

So, what exactly does McGuinness wish to achieve thru Child Eyes? A quick perusal of the group’s site helps put together something of a picture; essentially, being rather perturbed by the “commercialisation and sexualisation” of modern childhood, they desire legislation to protect the perceived innocence of the nation’s kids, lest they succumb to “desensitisation”. To that end, they teamed up with the crusaders at No to Page 3 to nag the aforementioned supermarkets into removing provocative publications from the sight of small children, reinforcing my longstanding view that feminism and conservatism make fitting fuckbuddies. Unlike the sobbing sisterhood, however, Child Eyes UK operates on a more egalitarian ethos, citing the great British institution of the women’s weekly as one of its targets.

Despite their maternalist mores, the group empathically claims to oppose censorship: a claim I find hard to swallow, considering their endorsement of Cammy boy’s pornhibition policy, and their favourable estimation of socon icon (and Infernal whipping corpse) Mary Whitehouse.

On the face of it, Child Eyes UK strike me as yet another crew of rent-seeking, meddlesome mums, fighting to crèchify the country as a substitute for personal parenting. However, McGuinness’ appropriation of a child’s eye view makes me question whether its the kids she and her squad wish to protect. Going by my own observations and experiences of childhood, I strongly suspect CEUK impose a selectively edited “innocence” onto the flesh-and-blood kids they claim to champion for the sake of salving their own sensitivities.

In other words, just as a nonce looks at a child and sees a crotch ornament to slip on for size, the Child Eyes crew look at the young ‘uns and see a meat shield to cower behind. Wittingly or otherwise, the youngsters serve as convenient depositories for elder effusions—all that unseemly internal muck needs to spooge out somewhere.

loli spunk

The birth of my homespun theory occurred last August when I read the story of aggrieved Stateside soccer mum Rebecca Seitz, who raised a big stink over an ad shown on breakfast telly whilst eating with her son. Admittedly, she didn’t go as far as CEUK in her demands and deeds, but I do remember my first response to her being: “Here’s a woman too squeamish to own her squeamishness”. Her son’s purportedly “wide-eyed” response paled in comparison to Seitz’s own media-haranguing outrage on his behalf, what with her pouting and tugging at the skirts of the broadcasters to make everything alright. Her belief in sex intrinsically being “a beautiful exquisite gift for people who are married” proved particularly telling.

Reactions like that make me wonder: How many of the activists pushing this “innocence” narrative do so as a result of unacknowledged maturation issues? Perhaps they campaign to turn the world into Planet Crèche in order to make their surroundings more conducive to their own psychology, rather than that of their kids—arrested development masquerading as activism. With their Procrusteanised concept of childhood, one could be forgiven for thinking them literally born yesterday, emerging from a laboratorial womb in  fully grown form, all the while exhibiting the most obnoxious traits shared by their pint-sized charges.


Beyond the realm of militant mums, the reaction to a mother assaulted and arrested for swearing around schoolkids struck me as another salient example. A thread on the Mail’s Facefuck page found itself dominated by a chorus of cheers for the trotter who took her into custody, many of the copsuckers applauding him for protecting the “the playground”, that sacred reserve of “the children”, from her predatory, defiling words. Again, their bratty vehemence – not to mention their naivety regarding child discourse on playgrounds – marked them out as the violated children in need of protection; toss in unquestioning reverence for designated authorities and they can’t help but exemplify the psychological nadir of the childhood they hallow. With all that, plus their endorsement of Public Order Act enforcement, those over-weaned herd animals came across to me as more disgusting than the target of their ire could ever hope to be. Of course, those same mewling babies will throw their toys out of the cot over “political correctness gone mad” should the hard hand of the law fall on their behinds.


Such mentalities being in depressing abundance, it hardly surprises me to see the Child Eyes chancers gain traction; those who know how to make their dysfunction serve a function will find rich pickings among the many, all too many, passively adherent to the same mindset. With or without the cover of children, many a so-called adult in Slave Britannia tugs at the skirt of the nanny state, begging it to save them from public smoking, video nasties, burqas, violent video games, and the burden of making sound parenting choices; and such a supine swad makes an ideal audience for any (also-enthralled) Mother McGuinness figure willing to perform the kiddy cower, taking to the act like babes to the breast.

Adult Breastfeeding Sucking Tits (44)

Say “aah”, Slave Britannians—time for bitty!


Posted in Civil Liberties, Culture, Gender Issues, Moral Panic, News, Sex, Slave Britannia, The UK | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments