Dead Pool [96]

Congratulations again to Shaun (i.e me) who has won the Deadpool again by picking the murderer web cam wanker and soapstar Leslie Grantham whoat 71 is the latest dead cunt.Grantham served 10 years in prison for shooting a taxi driver in the head but still managed to land the role of Dirty Den in Eastenders in 1985.After four years Dirty Den was killed off except he returned 14 years later with those famous lines “Hello Princess”.He was killed off again two years later after the tabloids published a story about him sucking his finger on webcam and masturbating while slagging off fellow cast members while impersonating captain hook.(Let`s hope he wanked with the right hand).He moved to Bulgaria popping up on TV screens over there but had recently filmed a movie about the Krays called Dead Man Walking which is kind of ironic.

Anyway On to Deadpool 96:

Here are the rules (pay special attention to the first one):

1. Nominate who you think is the next cunt on the way out. You can have up to five choices. List your nominations in the comments of this post. It’s the current Dead Pool. Comments not in this post (e.g. in the previous one or other posts) will be ignored!

2. You win if your Cunt dies first.
Then the slate is wiped clean and we start again. Of course, you can always be a really annoying cunt and steal someone else’s dead cunt candidate from the previous pool (like Black and White Cunt frequently does).

Any cunt who tries to cheat by nominating the World’s Oldest Man or Woman is a cunt and will be ignored. Any anonymous cunt who can’t be bothered to make up a name for themselves will also be ignored. Oh, and the usual “Our Blog Our Rules” thing applies.


My picks (Shaun)

Charles Krauthammer
Stefan Karl Stefannson
Matt Cappotelli
Begum Kulsoom Nawaz Sharif
John McCain

Liberal “Morality”

Liberal “Morality”. By this I mean the attempt by liberals, who having sought to pretend morals don’t exist, then try to write their own, with results ranging from hilarious to genocidal.

From pathetic teenage declarations of “I’ll do what I want” to possessed mobs killing anyone who disagrees with them, the results of the arrogance of liberalism are wide and varied. Generally they don’t understand how to marry their wish to fulfil their personal desires with their observations that people generally need to get along together. The reason that they don’t understand it is that they don’t want to. They don’t want to because they have chosen to believe some of the myriad of lies that say that you can indulge yourself at no cost to yourself or others. They have chosen to believe this importantly, it is an act of will, of which they are fully responsible – but of course they deny this to themselves, which leads to all sorts of problems.

As an example specifically of the kind of confusion and self-denial that arises from this simple self-deception, I will use something amusing that I saw this morning – the debate entitled “Is it ethical to take part in the World Cup”, on BBC’s hilarious “Big Questions”, a programme for people who are utterly deluded.

So the premise is this: The England football team are participating in the Football World Cup, which is taking part in Russia. The implication is that because there are human rights issues in Russia that by participating there is a condoning of these human rights issues, specifically crimes and immoral acts committed as a result of the corrupt nature of their government.

Most importantly, this “ethical” issue is pertinent partly because there has been a lot of fuss (a suspicious amount frankly given the facts) made over the poisoning of a Russian citizen on UK soil allegedly by and at the hands of members of Russian agents. This is important, this amusingly titled “ethical” discussion is only taking place because it’s in the news – this poisoning scandal has happened, and the world cup is soon. Thus the only relative importance of the misguided idea of ethics is instantly obvious.

Now to examine the basic premises behind this question. Firstly the use of the word “ethical”. They (the ridiculous BBC) can’t use the word “right” or “good”, because that implies some objective answer – so they say is it “ethical”, which doesn’t actually make sense. Like some sort of Lord of the Flies parody, our national broadcaster is unable to frame a moral question accurately, because it is afraid of being accused of framing a moral question at all. So they use the term “ethical”, which actually means relating to ethics, but by which they mean “morally right, but we can’t admit it, so let’s say something generally related to stuff being right and wrong that doesn’t actually mean anything so nobody can accuse of anything” (presumably this accusation would take place within a moral framework?!).

So right off the bat this question about morality contains within itself a bungled disclaimer that declares the question isn’t to be taken seriously. Self-aware? I think not.

For the second fish in this barrel let’s take the basic premise that there would ever be a chance that England wouldn’t compete in the World Cup on these (for the sake of argument) moral grounds. Everyone taking part in the discussion and everyone watching it (apart from the most self-deluded and arrogant imbecile) knows 100% for a fact that this won’t happen, England are taking part. So why debate it? Is it an intellectual exercise? Laughably not. What it is is a chance to pretend to have ethical or moral integrity. The pretence is that this is actually helping someone. Let’s be honest here, if you are almost every British citizen of the middle classes, and you (pretend to) base your morality in liberal pseudo-values such as distribution of wealth or carbon footprint, then you are on the wrong side of good. Globally you are in the top 1% of income and assets. Your carbon footprint will probably dwarf entire villages in most of the developing world. So you can either choose to grow up and admit that morality is about inter-personal behaviour and cultural tradition (and therefore not be a liberal), or you can bury your head in the sand and discuss “ethical issues” like you actually give a shit, which you don’t.

So second then, due to its subject and that the certain result of the debate will be hot air and virtue signalling, the question itself contains within it the fact that it only exists to inflate the egos of those participating in it.

Third and last (though this could go on for a long time), let’s address the subject seriously as if it were actually possible, just to see what the debate could potentially be about, and shed some light on just how misguided this question is.

Most important is who is asking the question. The BBC and some producer or consultant asks it because it is a current issue and it will be popular. What they want is to engage people in a discussion that they will be interested in. But these people will have certain traits – they will:

_Be stupid enough to take the debate seriously and ignore the ironies of the question

_Be arrogant to think that they know enough about the issues in order to formulate a proper judgement of the state of Russia

_Not care about football

_Almost certainly have an axe to grind

_Think that Russia is so much on the wrong side of some supposed morality enough to warrant cancelling participation in the World Cup

So you’re left with idiots or arrogant middle class liberals, who while often intelligent, are always deluded.

Russia is the remains of a despotic regime who controlled a surrounding empire, killing between 50 and 100 million people in the name of the common good. It’s exceptionally large land area seems to be continuing to cause the negative of a huge bureaucracy and its inherent corruption. Vladimir Putin is the latest in a long line of figurehead despots, a pantomime baddy if you will. The nation of Russia has suffered innumerable pain and deaths in the last 100 years because of, firstly, a deluded humanist pseudo-religion (communism), and secondly aggressive personal pursuit of wealth and personal satisfaction. At no point in this time has an effective traditional moral framework permeated Russia enough to prevent these tragedies.

Yet overwhelmingly these same twin pursuits, personal wealth and satisfaction, alongside a deluded humanist pseudo-religion, are the common motivators of the middle class idiots who will be watching and taking this debate (as) seriously (as possible). Pity the poor idiots who actually have something meaningful to say but fall for the idea that this debate actually means anything and say things assuming people hear them. For the most part this debate’s participants, both in the studio and watching on TV (and quite sadly tweeting along with inane comments), are guilty of exactly the behaviour which brought about these Russian problems in the first place. These are thick skinned people who want to believe bullshit just so they can get what they want, and denounce moral values that have not only underpinned successful civilisations for centuries, but which are responsible for the success and prosperity of their own culture. To these people, ideas such as serious interpersonal commitment and responsibility or the observation of tradition are nothing more than a joke. It doesn’t occur to them, simply because it is inconvenient, that it is these things that form a huge part of a valid moral framework. They want to do what they want now, and their whole life is an exercise in self-deception in order to achieve it and maintain some sense of coherent purpose.

So thirdly, these people have so little idea what they are talking about that its surprising they can form a sentence. In fact they rarely do, and most of what you hear on this dreadful program and others like it are rabbited cliches stolen from vapid self-serving media organisations and their acolytes.

There is no such thing as liberal morality. Liberals tend to believe what they want to such an extent that any idea of morality is a sophisticated maze of ideas and delusion enabling them to get through. They aren’t interested in serious conversation or any actual issues, there is always an ulterior motive of selfish satisfaction and denial.

Throughout the course of history there have been many occasions where liberty from traditional morals was a good thing, certainly from our perspective. But overwhelmingly what actually passes for a liberal is someone who’s ideas are rooted in the very indulgences of the second half of the 20th century that they themselves decry. Its not surprising though because its this delusion that characterises them. Morality? They know nothing about it.

Nominated by Cunting Rank Wags


I would like to cunt Lush for running a campaign saying the police are liars, words almost fail me.

Why would a shop that sells smelly soap decide to piss off every copper and their family. Don’t call 999 next time you have a violent shoplifter to deal with you utter cunts.

I’m not saying the police are perfect, but what the fuck has it got to do with a shop that sells fucking bath bombs.

Nominated by Fed up Cunt

Women in Fiat 500s

Women driving Fiat 500s are complete cunts.

We have one living next door to us – she thinks she is fucking Sterling Moss, bollocksing up our private road as fast as she can go, gravel spewing everywhere. One day she will run some poor cunt over, that’s for sure. Another cunting Doris in a Rosso Red model almost took me out today – again driving too fucking fast near a junction with very restricted ability.

What is it with these soppy tarts when they climb behind the wheel of one of these ‘cute’ little Iti jelly moulds? They think they are driving some exotic, mini Ferrari. Next one that incurs my wrath will end up with said mini Fiat shoved right up their front bottom!

Nominated by Paul Maskinback

Charities [3]

Lately there seem to be a lot of stories of charity bosses,or accountants, being caught fiddling the books. I’ve just read about some old crook in charge of the finances of a hospice who’d helped himself to £100k plus over several years.
How much money must these charities have washing about that nobody notices huge amounts of money being misappropriated? How naive must the trustees be to not notice these thefts?

Perhaps the fact that so many charities are now nothing more than businesses has something to do with it? The days of a dedicated group working for the benefit of others have been replaced,at the top,by Corporate types who run charities for the benefit of themselves and their cohorts.I wonder how many ex-bankers and financial “experts” are involved in the charities where malfeasance is routinely overlooked..probably because they’re involved in worse themselves.

Too many people seem to do very well out of charities,by legal means or not. I don’t trust charities and am very select in any donation that I make. Everyone should be fer more suspicious before handing their money over,in too many cases the money is just lining some crook’s pockets.

Nominated by Dick Fiddler