Miss Morality in ‘The Tunnels of Intolerance’- Part Two

Written by: Mark. A. Pritchard
Released on: The Rorshach Rant- 6th March 2015



As she rushed, heroically, into the cold, dark, patriarchy filled streets, the strong, empowered, beautiful and independent Miss Morality courageously blocked out the despairing wail of a crying child and moved forward, towards her duty, her destiny, her raison d’être.

No longer would the white male privilege of her society continue to victimise those she loved, no longer would she remain powerless, victimised, unable to defend herself from the tidal wave of sexism, of racism, of homophobia, of intolerance that was destroying the very planet herself. NO, she would bravely stand up, and do something about this intolerable situation. A member of the homosexual community had been raped by the system one too many times, and today was the day when she righted that wrong, and changed the world forever.

Rufus ran into the street, mobile phone in hand, frantically waving at the departing Miss Morality as she took the Number 176 Bus.

‘Miss Morality, Miss Morality…wait. I have to go to work in ten minutes and my sister is missing. Who is going to look after the baby, she’s crying. Miss Morality…..Miss Morality.’

Focus, focus was needed here, no distractions, just focus, and that’s what Miss Morality had in spades. The world was blocked out, her mission was set, the outside world faded into the background as she concentrated on her goal, the goal of liberation, the goal of emancipation, the goal of freedom.

‘Daddy, what’s the matter with that lady?’ Asked a young girl who sat one row behind our snorting, mumbling and ranting super-heroine as the number 176 Bus jerkily made it’s way through the mid-afternoon traffic.

‘Don’t look at her Sally. She’s not very well,’ her father softly and quietly replied as he shifted in his seat now shielding his daughter from an increasingly loud and agitated Miss Morality as she cleared the back of the Bus from all passengers but herself.

Meanwhile, deep beneath the city centre, in the cold, grimy, filthy, rat infested den known as the ‘Man cave of Intolerance, the devilish group known as ‘The Politically Incorrect Scoundrels’ chuckled in delight at the scene they had expertly managed to orchestrate.

‘Ha, ha, ha, ha ha, my fellow scoundrels, the plan is working to perfection,’ spoke up the leader of the group, the face of evil himself, a man known only as ‘The Dissenter.’

‘Not only has Miss Morality left a crying baby behind her, she has also caused quite a scene on public transport. Her true colours are being revealed, and the public will inevitably start to lose sympathy for her rightful cause. Now, let’s sit back, relax, and watch our Patriarch-cam monitors as she walks directly into our trap, Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.’

And as the evil, cackling laugh reverberated around the lair of the villainous scoundrels a kind hearted, trusting selfless Miss Morality walked straight into their trap.

Can of mace in hand, and with her keen senses alert to the faintest threat of danger, Miss Morality stealthily made her way up the front path towards Ruthus’s flat.

‘Oh hi Liz, nice costume you are wearing. How’s little baby Sojourner today? Does she still have her funny tummy?’ said a smiling, cheerful, middle-aged lady as Miss Morality crept stealthily down the pathway.

‘Yeah, she’s fine. Bit busy now, chat later,’ mumbled a fiercely determined and steadfast in her assignment Miss Morality. This was no time for chatting; this was a life or death situation she was dealing with here.

‘Oh, okay then. Talk later love,’ came the reply from the ever cheerful, middle aged victim of masculine, rape culture oppression.

Miss Morality had been working on her for six months now, but it just didn’t seem to be working. Patriarchy was strong, but social justice was stronger, and Miss Morality felt sure that it would just be a matter of time before this poor, deluded old lady was wakened up to the realities of our times.

However, that smiling middle class lady was not what she appeared to be. She was no innocent; she was in fact the distraction agent of the Scoundrels. It was her job to distract Miss Morality, to break her focus, to leave our brave heroine open to attack, and that is exactly what she had done. Miss Morality attempted to refocus her attention on the mission of the day, but she was off guard, and taken unawares.

What happened next was almost beyond words, beyond powers of description, of comprehension, of believability in fact. The front door of the block of flats flew open, and a smiling young man bowed respectfully before a startled Miss Morality, loudly announcing,

‘Hey lads, the stripper’s here. Barry get Dave, get Dave quick, he’s going to love this. Right love, we’re ready, that bald bloke coming down the stairs now is the husband to be, so do your worse and show him some final freedom before his big day.’

Everything in her body screamed no, struggled to rebel, to fight the situation, to fight for woman-kind, to fight against this disgusting display of brute male sexist aggression, but Miss Morality felt powerless to resist. She struggled and struggled, but the distraction agent had done her work and our brave social justice warrior felt her willpower evaporating. What happened next was terrible.  She grabbed a bottle of vodka, took a hearty gulp, and then began to slowly strip, and dance for the group of demonically cheering men.

Just half an hour later and the world was turned completely upside down. Miss Morality was dancing drunkenly upon a table, and a panicked, scared and quietly sobbing homosexual brother searched desperately for his missing sister, and somebody, anybody to help him pacify a crying baby girl. He called his sister, called his friends, called his family, but there was no reply. Something very strange was happening here, and he didn’t know what to do.

The wild, triumphant scenes of celebration coming from the bowels of the earth threatened to shake the city itself as the gang of rogues known as the Politically Incorrect Scoundrels saw their perfectly set trap coming into fruition.

‘Settle down lads, settle down,’ said the devilishly hateful Dissenter, the leader of the group of intolerant, sexist, racist and homophobic scoundrels.

‘Our plan is going just as I envisioned. Miss Morality has been drawn into our tractor beam of Patriarchy. She is powerless to resist, and her time as a thorn in our manly sides is over. It’s now time to put stage two of our plan into operation.’ 

There was no humour in his voice, not now, just cold, harsh malice as he detailed the endgame of his devious, woman hating plans.

‘Our friends in the Police and Social services are waiting, we have netted our prey. It’s time we put this wet fish out of her misery. The days of social justice for all are over. Miss Morality is finished. Make the call, and end her for good.’


END OF PART TWO

Miss Morality will return next week (Friday 13th March) in ‘The Tunnels of Intolerance’- Part 3. How can our brave heroine extricate herself from what seems like certain doom?   All will be revealed next week. DON’T MISS IT.

* If any artist would be willing to illustrate this story, then please let me know.

Conan Red Sonja- The Age of Innocence #1: Feminist liberal morality hole

Writers: Gail Simone & Jim Zub
Art: Dan Panosian
Publisher: Dark Horse Comics
Released: 14th January 2015


The two writers of this book have achieved the impossible. They have made me dislike a book that is starring Conan the Cimmerian. How did they achieve such a momentous, incredible, reality shaking, thunderous, unprecedented feat? I’ll explain.

First off, the art is excellent throughout. The panels are lovingly detailed, the colouring is gritty, dirty and atmospheric and the individual characters are full of personality and character. The only problem is the characterisation of Conan himself. He’s drawn great, but he’s drawn as a male model, as a pretty boy. He is not Conan, he is Red Sonja’s boy toy, but more of that later.

The story itself, at this early stage, has two huge fundamental flaws to it. It begins with Red Sonja doing what she always do in Gail Simone’s books, using the victim status given to her by her gender to dish out some violent ‘justice’ to animal rights abusing, sexist fat rich (right wing substitute) men.

Sonja sticks up for poor, abused animals (before completely forgetting about them later) and beats up a man who dared to find her attractive and wanted to sleep with her. Don’t worry, the man is old and fat, so that’s okay.

Anyway, so far, so normal for your typical Gail Simone book. The first problem is that this surface reason for Sonja’s violence hides her true motivations, which are thievery. Animal cruelty and sexism are the moral get-ins for the character, allowing her to steal, because the people she steals from are bad people. Just think about that for a second. This comic book is telling you that stealing is okay, just as long as you are stealing from bad people. Who gets to define whether or not a person is ‘bad?’ That would be the political left, as epitomised by the animal rights, feminist crusader Red Sonja, of course.

After the animal rights and sexism excuses are discarded Sonja teams up with (a very pretty) Conan to rob a young prince as he is laying in his bedchamber. This completely innocent, blameless young man is then brutally murdered by Conan, and what is Red Sonja’s reaction to this horrific, unjustifiable murder? Surely a truly moral person who cares so deeply about animal suffering and gender equality would find murder abhorrent? Nope, not at all, she meekly comments that the murder ‘seems excessive,’ and then completely forgets about it. She then spends the rest of the book looking at pretty boy Conan (the murderer) with puppydog eyes, completely indifferent to the fact that she has witnessed him murdering a young man, who did absolutely nothing wrong.

What happened to morality? How are these two character heroes? Sonja and Conan have been commissioned by a third party to steal somebody’s possessions, entered a young man's bedroom late at night, murdered him, and stolen his box of jewels. That, in anybody’s eyes, makes Conan and Red Sonja the villains of this story, not the heroes, doesn’t it?

After commencing their spree of murder and robbery our two heroes/villains (SPOILER ALERT) deliver their loot to the man who commissioned them to steal it. He then, inexplicably, explains his evil plans to them, rather than simply paying them and continuing on his way. Why would he do this? It makes no sense whatsoever, as he has nothing to gain by revealing the truth behind his schemes. That information would be on a need to know basis and the two mercenaries would quite simply, not need to know.

If you reveal the truth behind your scheme your paid mercenaries might not like it. They might even want to stop you from completing your evil plan, which is exactly what happens in this book. This twit of a villain has barely finished boasting about his evil plans when Conan quickly snaps his neck, and once again Red Sonja is completely indifferent to the casual murder.

What we can take from this is that Red Sonja is perfectly happy with murder, just as long as handsome young men like Conan are committing it. I guess she cares more about animal rights and sexism than anything else, as murder doesn’t appear to be much of a concern to her.

I find it very telling that animal rights and sexism have been used as a framing device within this narrative, as an entry point into a story about murder and thievery.

This deceptive technique has many parallels with western ‘democracies’ invading numerous middle-eastern countries for declared reasons based on neo-liberal definitions of human rights. When the ‘heroic’ liberators of the west actually get to those countries reality kicks in, concerns for human rights completely disappear, and it’s all about murder and stealing resources. In that way this comic is very much in keeping with the liberal values of our times. Use surface issues to justify your actions, then ignore reality as you loot, maim, murder and plunder, all the while portraying yourselves as the good guys, as the heroes of your fantasy narrative of liberal values.

I really enjoyed the art in this book, apart from Conan being drawn as a pretty boy, but I can’t continue to read it after this morally fractured first issue.

If you want to understand why the liberal mindset is so flawed, so twisted, so deluded, then you need to buy this book. Left leaning feminist types will love it, and they’ll hate what I have to say about it in this review. I’m happy with that. They live on hate and the desire to shut people up unless they agree with them, so this review is just more fuel for their fire of delusion, intolerance and politically correct mind control programming. The phoney ‘liberal’ left needs to wake up, and if I can expose their delusional mindset in some of these reviews then at least I’ve achieved something. Some people will get what I am saying here, others won’t. I put it out there, make of it what you will.

Rating: 4/10 (Apart from the depictions of Conan himself, the art was very enjoyable)

Comic book review: The Names #1- I dedicate this review to the fanboys out there

Writer: Peter Milligan
Artist; Leandro Fernandez
Publisher: Vertigo (DC)
Released: 3rd September 2014



It will be interesting to see how well this comic fares, as it’s dealing with something that a lot of the 1990’s obsessed fanboys fear more than anything else. Yes, I’m talking about the dreaded R word……

REALITY.

Yeah, I know that was a bit harsh, but it’s true on a lot of levels as well. This book is dealing with something that has hit the news recently, something that looks like a series of coincidences, but to those of a more conspiratorial mind-set looks like forming an ominous pattern, being indicative of something sinister going on, and something catastrophic that is yet to come.

That ‘something’ is the recent spate of bank assholes that have committed ‘suicide.’ Or did they really commit suicide at all? That’s where ‘The Names’ begins, with a bank tosser being forced to write a suicide note before taking a swan dive out of his office window.

There’s a great villain introduced early on in the book, and the heroine is a super hot, punch you in the face feminist. You know the kind of woman that Quentin Tarrantino creams himself over, the middle class wet blanket that he is. There’s a reason that comic book fans love Quentin and his 1970’s homage movies. The reason is that they feature strong, independent, sexy women. These sexy/manly women are substitutes for a lack of masculinity in the lives of the pathetic, suburb dwelling dweebs who adore Quentin and his N word movies. Watching his movies helps them briefly escape their emasculated realities where political correctness has bathed them in a mind bath of male guilt bullshit. They want to be men, but they feel so very bad about it, so end up being fanboys instead, with an empathise on ‘boys.’ Lacking any manhood in themselves they look to strong, fictional females to surreptitiously inject some testosterone into their veins. They cheer for the feisty, independent kick-ass women not because they want to sleep with them. No, they wouldn’t do that, because that would mean they are ‘objectifying’ them and that wouldn’t be politically correct, would it? No, they love to watch movies and read comics about these women because they want to be them.

That’s not to say I have problems with her inevitable appearance in this mainstream comic book. I understand why she’s there. She’s bait for the feminist liberal dweebs, and as this comic book business is about getting them to read your stuff I cannot criticise the decision to have her as the main protagonist. People such as myself would prefer a strong independent male protagonist, but I accept that they are rare these days outside of a Conan book, so it is what it is.

The art by the way is great. The cover-art kind of sucks, but the interior art is all dark shadows, atmosphere, angles and creativity. It’s early days, but so far I like it a lot.

If you take a chance on ‘The Names’ you are going to get a book with nice art, a contemporary plot theme, a strong independent woman protagonist and some creepy villains. It’s a good start, the script is engaging with a ‘too cool for school’ dialogue and it’s nice to see a comic book about bank bastards for a change. Oh, and as for my little mid-review rant about feminist liberal comic book fan dweebs, I just put that in there to light a fire underneath some flabby asses. If it sounds like I was talking about you in this review then take it as a big flashing neon sign above your head that says- TIME TO MAN UP, SON. Put the political correctness in the bin and start being a man, not a fanboy waiting in-line at a convention as horrified writers and artists count down the seconds before they can get the hell away from you.

Rating: 8/10

Comic book review: Ragnarok #1: Ticks all of the feminist liberal PC boxes

Writer: Walter Simonson
Artist: Walter Simonson
Colourist: Laura Martin
Publisher: IDW
Released: 23rd July 2014

There’s nothing here for me to enjoy. The main protagonist is a feminist woman who has left her drippy husband to look after their kid whilst she goes out into the world to kill people for money. She meets men along the way, and they are idiots who die because they are weaker and stupider than she is. She’s a great fighter, and that’s it.

The art is well pencilled, but let down by colouring that is too light, too washed out and lacking in palette variation.

The book might appeal to young tomboys, but as very few young girls read comics these days I see this book as being yet another in a long line of feminist liberal politically correct offerings to the false gods of our times.

The main protagonist is neither interesting, nor commendable. She is a blackwater operative working in Iraq, murdering whomever she is told to murder, for a pay packet. I’m not sure what the reader is supposed to make of her. Is she supposed to be a heroine? What makes her a heroine? I can’t see it, and I have no interest whatsoever in her further adventures.

This book has a very misleading title. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Norse mythology that it steals it’s name from. This is a feminist liberal book where a stay at home Dad plays at being a housewife whilst his masculine wife goes off into the world and does what he should be doing, thus emasculating him in the process.

It’s a book of our times, where up is down and down is up. What makes modern feminist liberal writers so arrogant to presume that the times we are living in now should be any different to the thousands of years that have come before us? They can try as hard as they want, but they’re lying not only to their readers, but to themselves as well.

When this era of politically correct feminist liberal nonsense is dead and buried the gender roles will realign themselves to their natural order. Men will still be men, and women will still be women, no matter how hard the Rockefeller indoctrinated comic book writers of today protest and try to pretend otherwise. You are fighting against nature, and nature is always going to win.
Rating: 3/10

Horror movie review: The Woman in Black- Decent movie, but it’s got Harry Potter in it

Released: February 2012
Website: http://www.hammerfilms.com/ourwork/3/the-woman-in-black

Here’s another movie that I kept bumping into in the supermarket at a bargain price, but waited to see on television because yes, I’m a cheap git when it comes to watching movies. The simple truth of the matter is that most movies these days aren’t even worth a few quid. They’re mostly stooooopid crap with special effects, re-makes and franchise money-makers that aren’t worth my time or money.

The Woman in Black is a movie that people will see for two reasons, the first (and main reason) is because Daniel ‘Harry Potter’ Radcliffe is in it. The second reason is that it’s made under the ‘Hammer Horror’ banner, and for old horror buffs people like myself that still means something.

I didn’t pay for this movie because I’m not really that enamoured with Daniel Radcliffe as an actor. I’ve seen him do a couple of things, including the child’s book, and I’ve never been that impressed. To me he is the perfect embodiment of masculinity in the UK post 2001. A wimpy, personality free blank slate of a child-man who looks like he’s waiting for a bus, has lost his iphone, and thus doesn’t know what to do with himself. He’s one of those guys who you assume is gay, because everything about him screams politically correct and soft. Is he actually gay? He’s a feminist liberal atheist Richard Dawkins fan, so frankly, he might as well be. I’m sure if he’s not fashionably gay then he feels terribly guilty about it.

Onto the actual movie then, this is supposed to be a review after all and not a rant about the sorry state of masculinity in the UK today.  It looks absolutely gorgeous, and everything about it screams old-fashioned Hammer horror. The plot is centred on a glorious gothic haunted mansion, set right in the middle of a moor. The house (which is the star of the show) is haunted by a BOO, oh no I’ve crapped my pants ghost who is making the local children kill themselves because she’s upset about the death of her son.  Radcliffe is playing a Jonathan Harker in Dracula type character, sent there on business, but soon finding himself at the centre of spooky proceedings.

There was one moment in the movie that really made me jump out of my skin and for that one reason alone I’m knocking out this review. The plot was predictable, even right up to the end with a twist that didn’t exactly surprise anybody, well except for the character that it happened to. The supporting cast was pretty decent, and far better than Radcliffe himself, the sullen and apathetic elephant in the middle of the movie, distracting from what was an atmospheric and effective old-school horror movie, that offers a couple of decent scares for particularly jumpy audiences.

Oh God, Radcliffe was bad in this one. There he stood, an awkward boy-man, completely unconvincing in his role of a recently bereaved widower worried about his now motherless young son. He carried the same expression of myopic indifference and blank faced mild discomfort throughout the entire movie. Was he drunk? Was he stoned? Perhaps he’s just not very good at portraying adult characters? He was awful in this. Combining a complete lack of physicality with an unnerving ability to make me not give a crap about anything that happened to him. He was a boy dressed up as a man, awkwardly stuck in the middle of a decent horror movie, giving absolutely nothing to it, whilst a cast of far more interesting co-stars did their best to inject some personality into proceedings.

After seeing Radcliffe in this, a couple of Harry Potter movies and some pile of junk on television about a doctor, or something, I’ll be going out of my way to avoid anything that he’s in, in the future.

Perhaps his Harry Potter wealth is enough, and he’ll retire from movie acting early and spend his time reading books about a Godless universe, and feeling guilty about the feminist liberal issues that are Rockefeller designed to turn grown men into jelly-fish? Or he could work in the theatre and learn how to act? I hear he’s doing that, so perhaps he’s aware of his shortcomings and is trying to improve himself? If so, then I applaud his efforts. I don’t hate the bloke. I’m just not a fan. That’s all. I want him to read and to learn, and to evolve. I used to think that Richard Dawkins had some wisdom as well, but I kept reading, and I changed my mind about those childish ideas. Hopefully Radcliffe will do the same. Dawkins is a trap, and lots of young people fall into it.

This was a good movie, containing one big crap my pants moment that forced me to write this review, but my initial reservations about the casting of Radcliffe as the main protagonist were pretty much spot on. The Woman in Black might be a Hammer horror movie, but its got Harry bloody Potter in it, and although not completely sinking the movie, he does very little to enhance it, other than getting some Harry Potter fans to spend their parent’s money on it. I hear they’re making this into a franchise. Let’s hope Radcliffe has no involvement in it, because he almost ruined this movie for me. With his expressionless blank face it’s amazing to me that he’s an actor at all. Then again, a lot of things are surprising to me now. In the land of the mediocre, the most mediocre of them all is King.
Rating: 6/10

Review: Star Wars #19- Feminist liberal wet fart

Writer: Brian Wood
Artist: Carlos D’Anda
Publisher: Dark Horse comics
Released: 9th July 2014


This issue is a bit of a wet fart. Let me explain why. Issue #18 of Star Wars concluded a long arc where the female leaders of the rebel alliance had fallen for an obvious Imperial trap, thus jeopardising every single life in the rebel alliance, including all of the famous names that are the main reason why anybody will be reading this book in the first place.

The funny thing about that book was seeing how feminist liberal writer Brian Wood dug himself out of the hole of his own creation. How could he make the female leaders look strong, even though they were responsible for the big mess that the rebels had found themselves in? If this was anything resembling reality the incompetent two-some of Mon Mothma and Princess Leia would have been forced to resign their positions of power for gross incompetence. That’s not going to happen in this book for two reasons. Firstly, Brian Wood is working with characters with story-arcs that mustn’t be damaged or changed because they have to correspond with the roles they played in the three very popular movies.

Secondly, they are female, and as anybody who has been paying attention to 2014 feminist liberal programming in comic books is already aware of, there must be no criticisms of female leaders in contemporary comics, and any suggestion of incompetence on their behalf is a no-go area. It’s not quite the no go area that Islam or anything to do with the Middle East is, but it’s on par with portraying a homosexual character in any kind of bad light. You just don’t do it if you want to work in comics. I loved issue #18 because Brian Wood had to perform story-telling somersaults to get himself out of the politically correct mess that he had created. And you know what? He largely succeeded. Sure it made no sense, and the story has now continued like nothing has happened, but he didn’t upset the liberal Mafia (and he is a part of that Mafia as well) and all is right in the wilfully blind world of feminist liberal comic books in 2014.

Star Wars #19 has a great front cover, and the interior art is a lot better than it usually is in this book, but the story has now officially fallen into wet fart territory. Beginning something completely new, Wood has decided to tell a not particularly interesting tale of the rescue of an agent, who will probably turn out to be somebody’s sister, or daughter. Again as is usual fare in feminist liberal books, the woman is portrayed as an all action man, leaping from danger, wise quipping and acting like men used to do before it was politically incorrect for them to do so. But she’s trapped, and she needs rescuing, although this is not her fault obviously, and she’s tough and independent, but she’s trapped and here we go again with Brian Wood getting himself in a mess, trying to portray females as strong, but getting it all wrong again. Another shovel Mr Wood?

The rest of the book is Han Solo and Luke Skywalker having their balls slowly removed as they meekly and unquestioningly follow the orders of their female superiors. Han Solo is just a love sick teenager in this book, and he in no way shape or form resembles the man that appeared in the original Star Wars movies. That man was a 1970’s man, and that man simply does not exist anymore. He’s been replaced by a liberal wet fart, and that’s what this book is, a liberal wet fart.

The character with the most personality in this book is a droid. A bad guy droid who is tracking our action heroine and saying funny little things like, ‘Humans are so stupid,’ to himself whilst doing so. I agree with him by the way. The humans in this book are stupid, very stupid, and once again Princess Leia has flown some of the most important characters in the Star Wars universe into a very likely trap. All organised and approved by Mon Mothma, the most tactically unaware leader since Hitler thought it would be a good idea to invade Russia in the winter. With leaders like this it’s amazing that the rebels actually won the war against the Empire.

The book ends with an emasculated Han Solo blindly following orders in the background as his beloved Millennium Falcon gets shot to bits, and incompetent Hillary Clinton clone Princess Leia thinks only of herself whilst enjoying a tepid hug with her now even drippier than ever brother Luke.

What a pile of shite. That’s it for me on this one. Who exactly is this book written for? I was reading because I’m a fan of the old characters, but they’ve been given such a lame liberal makeover that they are no longer recognisable as the characters I fell in love with in those old movies. Luke is a gay best friend, Han is a lovesick order following teenager, and Leia is bossing everyone around whilst making bad decision after bad decision with no consequences whatsoever. With decision making skills like that she’s the perfect embodiment of the western political elite’s and their actions since 2001. Making mistake after mistake, with nobody ever taking any blame for the consequences of their actions. And yes, I’m talking about you Tony Blair, you lying piece of satanic crap.

The only thing to look forward to in this book is the rescue mission of a girl who is so identical in every single way to Princess Leia that Wood is even forced to address it in this story. Is she a sister, half sister, cousin, auntie, whatever? She’s probably the gay lover of Mon Mothma, or something equally as daft, as you know that Brian Wood has just been dying to write a gay character into this story to show off his politically correct credentials to all of the brain washed liberal drips out there. You know what, I don’t care. That’s it for me on this book. The art has never been better, but the story has never been worse, and those bloody characters? Give me a break, what a total and utter feminist liberal wet fart.
Rating: 3/10 (for the art)

Review: Weird Love #2- The past is not as weird as today

Writers and artists: Numerous
Publisher: IDW Comics
Released: 2nd July 2014


This book is a re-print of old ‘romance’ tales from 1950’s American comics, with a targeted audience of young girls, dreaming of romance and marrying a rich, successful, popular and handsome young man. I don’t see this as something to laugh at by the way. I know that most feminised liberal twit young readers will read these books as horribly sexist, but what’s wrong with young girls dreaming about marrying a successful man who loves them? I don’t see anything wrong with that, unless of course you are a liberal idiot who doesn’t want anybody to be happy, which, come to think of it, is kind of my point really about the innate idiocy at the heart of feminist liberal ideology.

Of course a lot of the underlying assumptions and portrayals of male/female relationships are going to be dated now that the Rockefeller funded mind control of modern education has warped generations of minds, but I’ll review this book as something of it’s time, aimed at young girls, and at least trying to give them a good sense of morals, something that’s lacking in modern comics where all men and women blur into an indistinguishable mesh of sexless human beings, all competing for the same goals and all acting like they don’t know what it means to be either a man or a woman. These comics might be a little ‘weird’ but that’s only because we don’t know who we are anymore.

The front cover is very suggestive, with an overly painted young women pointing at her lips whilst looking at some sparkly jewellery. The words coming out of her lips are undeniable risqué, ‘And just what must I do to get those?’ she asks. This tone however is not reflected in the actual stories inside the book. It’s just one of those covers that comic books used to do so well, where you are teased into buying the book by a slightly deceptive cover that promises far more than the actual stories deliver. Some people might feel slightly conned by that, but if you’ve ever read any comics you can’t pretend to be surprised. You know the score with front covers. They are the honey trap, designed to ensnare the reader, and this one does that very well.

The first story is probably the most salacious of the tales, in that it is the story of a prostitute, told with her own words. This could have been pretty scandalous, and controversial, but the writer makes it very clear that the prostitute is the victim of this story, and that she’s a good person who has good morals, and is just doing the job because she’s desperate for the money to further her education and live a good, morally upstanding life as a honest tax slave like the rest of us. Plus, she just escorts the men, she doesn’t have sex with them, so she’s a good person and she always escapes the evil men at the end of the dates with her morals intact.

The story concludes with the girl marrying the perfect embodiment of corporate morality, a Policeman who had been investigating the morally dubious operation that she had been a part of. No blame is put upon the woman, even though she freely chose to be a prostitute, and the story ends up with her being safely taken back into society by one of their corporate enforcers. Modern readers will laugh at this story as the young woman is portrayed as an enfeebled victim who needs a man to protect her. They won’t like that as all women in modern comics have to be portrayed as fierce and independent, sticking up for themselves like they are men in a dress. I disliked it because the women is portrayed as a weak victim and the only thing that will safe her is a statist symbol of corporate ‘authority,’ that being the cop. Have comics changed all that much? Look at all of the statist authority figures in comic books today. Are they not all cops or special agents to the corporate state as well?

The second story is something that you certainly won’t see in contemporary comics. Again it’s from the point of view of the female protagonist (which is understandable, as that’s the best way to bring the female readers into the story, to make them empathise with the main character.) This time her problem is not financial (like the first tale), it’s her physical appearance. Is she too fat for love? Yes, I know how funny that sounds, but can you tell me that young girls today won’t be going through these same emotions? Look at their skinny role models, and look at all of the tales about anorexia and bulimia that you hear.

This tale follows a rich young girl as she finally realises that her weight isn’t as important as she thinks, and that a man will love her for more than her appearance. The only problem with the story is that it doesn’t follow through with it’s own premise, as at the end of the tale the young girl loses all of that weight as the love of her life jumps into her arms and happiness overwhelms her. If you are going to tell young girls that being fat isn’t a bad thing then it’s probably not a good idea to have the girl lose all of the weight before love finally arrives.

This tale really shoots itself in the foot, and in that sense it’s unintentionally really, really funny. But would you see any of these themes in a contemporary comic? That’s very interesting to me, as I can’t recall ANY portrayals of fat girls in my big stack of comics. That could be a real issue today, and perhaps it’s the reason why you have so few girls reading comics now? After all, why would they want to read comic books where female characters have unrealistic physiques that they cannot compete with? Come to think of it, you have the same issue with young boys as well, don’t you? Body image is something that comic books don’t deal with in 2014 and in that sense little has changed since the 1950’s.

The third story is about ‘drugs.’ Its portrayal of illegal (non-taxed) drugs as bad is very contemporary, in that this portrayal has changed very little in the mainstream over the past sixty years. All drugs are bad, well, all of the illegal ones. The legal drugs are fine, and they don’t count as ‘drugs’ because a statist authority figure (a Doctor) gave them to you. The only difference in this 1950’s portrayal of addiction is that a nice boyfriend ends up saving the young girl at the end of the tale. In modern tales that nice boyfriend wouldn’t be allowed to save her, as the girl always has to be portrayed as ‘independent.' No boyfriend is allowed to save her, because that’s ‘sexist.’

This story has a predictably happy ending where an exciting boyfriend is dumped, and she is taken back into the safe arms of corporate society by her boring and safe boyfriend, her boring and safe friends and mainstream education and ‘medicine.’ And what is the moral to the story? Watch out for excitement, it will probably lead you into becoming a drug addict. It’s best to be a corporate slave. It might be boring, but at least it’s safe there. That’s not true of course, but that’s the story you’re getting here.

Lots of readers of this book will get a lot of fun out of the next full page spread, of a young Ronald Reagan (Yes, that Ronald Reagan) as a dapper, handsome young man who is the ideal husband for all of the young readers of the book. He’s portrayed as handsome, ambitious, sporty, respected and caring for animals. It seems very naff, but if you take away his obsequence to statist authority figures I can see that he has some admirable qualities here. He’s a statist honey trap of course, bringing young girls into the control system. But is he any more ridiculous than the male celebrities that young girls are taught to admire these days? At least he’s not a wife beater, a talentless television non-entity or somebody who boasts about his wealth and power, like just about every moron celebrity worshipped by young girls today. Sure, he’s Ronald Reagan, but at least he’s not prancing around in a bejewelled facemask and calling everybody who doesn’t worship him a ‘racist.’

The next story is pretty stupid, and at its core it’s fulfilling a fantasy that is politically incorrect these days, where a man saves a woman from physical danger and they fall in love and live happily ever after. The only way you’ll see this played out today is in reverse, with a woman rescuing a pathetic man from danger, emasculating him in the process and taking all of his masculine power away. But hey, that’s okay, because that’s progressive, right? Girls love weak men you know? They can’t get enough of them. So this story about a man rescuing a girl from a bear at the zoo is ridiculous, but at least they have the gender roles in the right order, and you won’t see that these days.

The next story, about a man at work being distracted by his mini-skirt-clad secretary, is obviously very dated now. With it’s portrayal of men as being the bosses (not anymore, the women are bosses now) and with the girls wearing mini-skirts not to feel good about themselves, but to attract the men and get themselves successful boyfriends. No way would this be allowed to see the light of day in a 2014 comic. It shows just how much gender roles have changed since the 1950’s, and as you look around the world today, do you think that’s been a good thing? No longer can a man be a man, go to work and feed his family. No, that role has been taken from him. The wages have decreased and the bills have gone up, so now both men and women have to work just to live and pay those bills. This has led to increased divorce rates, and the situation where men have been taken away from their children, and those children have brought into the control system of the new daddy figure in their lives, the corporate state. Do you see how this works? How the corporations and governments have colluded to control families, by destroying them and taking control of their lives? If you think this is a progression in humanity then you’re a bloody idiot. Take men out of the home and society collapses. That is what is happening right NOW.

The last story in this book is a tale about how physical appearance is not as important as being a decent human being. Okay, it's a slightly ridiculous tale, but at least it’s attempting to tell young girls that a man should love you for more than just your appearance, and if all he’s interested in is your appearance then he’s probably not worth having anyway. Again the woman is portrayed as the less dominant partner, waiting for the man to make his decision, but, and I’m sorry to break this to all of you deluded liberals out there, this is the role that men and women are supposed to be playing. They are the roles that make us happy. They are the roles that have always made us happy, both men and women. Is there anything so bad about that?

So what did I get out of the book as a whole? I got the impression that gender roles were far less confused in the 1950’s than they are today. Men knew how to be men, and women knew how to be women. There was happiness there, not confusion, loneliness and resentment. Sure there were problems, and the portrayal of women as helpless victims, waiting to be rescued by a strong, handsome male protagonist who is little more than a fill-in for a corporate government system is deeply problematic to me. There was a soldier and a policeman, and a politician and the rest of the ‘good’ men were little more than drones to the corporate, work hard, never question, pay your taxes and die system, but at least they were recognisable as men.

When I read comic books today there is little difference between the male and female characters. Do you think this is not problematic? Look at the world you live in today. Is it a paradise? Because that is the world that has been created by people who have been indoctrinated into the erroneous belief that men and women are the same. They are not the same, and the longer we kid ourselves about this the more unhappiness is spread in our decaying western world. Broken homes, less and less jobs with both sexes competing for them, no breadwinner roles for men, increased intrusion into the family by a corrupt state, unhappy women who find comfort only in alcohol, and a generation of children who lack strong father figures and have abandonment issues.

The end result is unhappy children eager to put on the control system's uniform and serve as their minions, where they get to unleash the anger caused by abandonment issues on anybody who does not bow down to the global Police state that is being built all around us. So look at this silly, ‘politically incorrect’ comic, and ask yourself this question. Were things really so much worse in the 1950’s, where men were portrayed as men, and women portrayed as women? What is wrong with that? And, more importantly, what is wrong with the world we are all living in today?

Rating: 7.5/10

Ten warning signs that you might be a feminist liberal drip

(A feminist liberal drip is somebody stuck in the mainstream corporate control system/matrix. He/She is a slave to the New World Order who cannot think for him/herself.)

1- You think that there are no differences between men and women, and that anybody insisting that both sexes need completely different things, in both their work and family environments to live happy and contented lives are ‘sexist pigs.’

2- You regularly buy a ‘left-leaning’ mainstream newspaper and generally agree with the viewpoints spouted by that newspaper.

3- You think that ‘man made global warming’ is a slam dunk, scientifically proven fact, and that we should pay the new priest class of billionaire ‘experts’ carbon credits, much like we used to pay the Catholic church ‘Indulgences’ for our sins. If we don’t do this the planet will explode, or something, but you haven’t looked at any of the actual evidence, as that obviously will take time, and Al Gore is so trustworthy, and I’m sure he wouldn’t lie to us, would he?

4- You hated that ‘war criminal’ George Bush, and admire President Obama even though the policies and actions of Obama are almost identical to the policies and actions of Bush. The only difference being the words used to justify their actions, and the deliberate pandering of the media to their ‘liberal’ hero.

5- You laugh at the billions of people in world history who have talked about God and religion, thinking it’s just a silly tale about a spaghetti monster in the sky, whilst having great admiration for Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins, two New World Order front men who have been pushed into their positions of prominence by a Satanic cult who hates humanity and works tirelessly to enslave, dumb-down and poison both you and your family.

6- You jump all over some white guy saying something vaguely racist, but when you see and hear real racism from black celebrities you look the other way.

7- You think that anybody criticising the obvious societal problems inherent with mass immigration and porous border control, both in the US and in the EU, is a ‘racist.’

8- You think that the public should be completely disarmed, and that the only group allowed to have guns should be the government, even though governments have murdered over 260 million people in the 20th century and are on course to murder over one BILLION people in the 21st.

9-  You are very supportive of ‘gay rights’ and think it’s perfectly normal and acceptable to have two men French kissing on day-time television as your ten-year old daughter looks on in stupefied horror. 

10- You think that all talk about GMO food, Chemtrails, Vaccinations, Fractional reserve banking, MK Ultra, Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods, Operation Fast and Furious, Statism, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, Rhodes scholarships, Bank of International Settlements, Banker funded NGO’s, Banker funded think-tanks, and bloody obvious insider Mafia groups like the Bilderberg group the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations is ‘silly conspiracy stuff,’ even though you know nothing about any of these subjects, and wouldn’t look at them if your life depended on it, which it does.

Review: Red Sonja #10- Emasculated men and women in charge

Story: Gail Simone
Art: Walter Geovani
Publisher: Dynamite Comics
Released: 18th June 2014

Gail Simone has been having a bit of fun with Red Sonja recently, and in issue #10 she continues to portray the scantily clad warrior as somebody having a bit of a laugh. That’s okay, but when this current story- arc concludes I hope that the book starts to offer something more than just another feminist liberal chuckle.

This issue of Red Sonja will be remembered as the one where Sonja has a bit of fun with a dandy swordsmen who call himself ‘the untouched,’ not just because no opponent can lay a sword on him, but because (to Sonja’s dismay) he has vowed to remain chaste until somebody bests him in battle.

You can tell where the story is going from the very beginning, with Sonja clumsily duelling with the fop before getting serious at the end and showing him who’s the star (and boss) of the book.  It was fun, although the art was sometimes a little inconsistent.

Some reviewers will laud this book as being a champion of women’s rights as it portrays female characters in a strong and dominant role. This claim would have more substance if that was something unusual in contemporary comics, but that is not the case.

Gender roles are not being reversed in this book, as women get the better of feminised, emasculated men in just about every mainstream comic book on the market today. It’s the same in television shows and movies as well. Women are in charge, and men are fools, sexless metrosexuals or evil villains. In that regard this is a book of its time, where men are a bit of a joke and women are in charge.

So why am I reading what I myself would describe as feminist liberal book? After all, doesn’t this portrayal of emasculated masculinity weaken traditional gender roles, confusing not only young men but women as well?

Yes, it does, and it produces an enfeebled society where ‘useless’ men are removed from the family, replaced by the state and an ‘independent’ women who is nothing more than a slave to the centralised control system. This book undoubtedly plays it’s role in making this happen, and I’m very aware of that.

So again, why am I reading it? Because I’m still reacting as programmed by my liberal education I guess, where male guilt commands me to applaud any female portrayed in a dominant, masculine role. That’s probably the real, honest answer to my own question. I have been programmed, and I’m very aware of that. My goal now is to break the programming, but it’s bloody hard to do so.

Gail Simone is subconsciously playing into a larger agenda that she is probably unaware of. I don’t deny that she is very good at telling a joke, and as the one feminist liberal comic book on my pull list I’m still laughing at it, even though it’s starting to get a little uncomfortable for me now.

Will I still be following this book in a few months’ time? That’s the question here. If all it’s offering is a politically correct joke, why would somebody like myself who is looking to expand his critical awareness and consciousness bother to hang around? For the time being I’ll follow this story through to the end and see where the next arc is going. If it’s just more feminist liberal jokes then I’ll say goodbye to Red Sonja, but I’ve followed Gail Simone for a long time now, so I’ll give her another chance before moving on.
Rating: 7/10

Ten signs that you might be a feminist liberal drip

1- You get angry and upset if a woman is not portrayed as the powerful, independent, in-charge protagonist of the latest television show.

2- You get your ‘politics’ from television clowns Stephen Colbert, John Stewart and Bill Maher.

3- You get outraged about the latest ‘sexist,’ ‘racist’ or ‘homophobic’ scandal on the news, but couldn’t care less about what is going on in a country like Saudi Arabia, a country that really is sexist, racist and homophobic and largely pays for the news that you are watching.

4-  You are ‘anti-war,’ but somehow drone bombings, sanctions, funding foreign terrorists and Blackwater type private armies don’t count as ‘war.’

5- You get outraged when a rich white guy says something racist about black people, but when a black celebrity says something similar about white people you couldn’t care less.

6- You think it’s ‘racist’ to allow unchecked immigration into your country, even though you now have two media degrees and are working for minimum wage in a coffee shop.

7- You don’t understand why all the hot girls like football playing jerks and are not interested in a ‘nice’ and ‘sensitive’ guy like you.

8- You don’t know anything about fractional reserve banking, GMO food, chemtrails, false-flag attacks, mainstream media manipulation of ‘news,’ or anything else that has a huge impact on your life, and if somebody tries to give you information about these topics you run away shouting, ‘conspiracy theory.’

9- You have a gay best friend, drink too much and complain about how unhappy you are when you are (frequently) drunk.

10- You sign up for the latest charity event to raise money for 'cancer research’, but when somebody gives you information about how cancer cures are being suppressed and it’s all one big money making con, you are not interested.

Explaining this ‘Feminist Liberal’ thing.

Okay, I think it’s about time I put some clarity on my increasing usage of the term ‘feminist liberal,’ as without explaining it I’m leaving myself open to misunderstanding and attacks based on that misunderstanding. The following description is what I mean when I mean the term ‘feminist liberal.’

A feminist liberal is (normally) a younger person, in their twenties or early thirties, who has been through the mainstream indoctrination process that is the modern school/and or university system. The more ‘education’ this person has, the more enslaved he or she is to the feminist liberal brainwashing. This kind of person will instantly take the moral high-ground on all subjects, and tell you that you are an intolerant and hateful person if you don’t agree with their borrowed opinions. The feminist liberal is of both genders. The female version will be very entitled and feel like she is a victim of a male centred society that is oppressing her because she is a woman. She will be very angry, very intolerant, very aggressive, very violent, very egotistical and constantly trying to prove to everybody that she is ‘just as good as a man.’ She will be career orientated, and if that career doesn’t work out she will become increasingly angry and resentful to all men, who she will blame for her failure. She will be a statist (government supporter) who is pro abortion, pro gay-rights, pro religious rights and pro everything else that could loosely be termed as ‘liberal’ and talked about by mainstream heroes like John Stewart and Bill Maher. She will spend all of her time online acting as the thought Police where she will call people racist, or sexist whilst ignoring any real racism and sexism, especially if it comes from non-white people, and especially if it comes from one of the western friendly dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, a country blighted by real, state sanctioned racism, sexism and homophobia.

And what about her male counterpart, you might ask? The male version of the feminist liberal is a sad sack, emasculated shadow of a man. He feels guilty, but doesn’t know what he should feel guilty about. He’s a total doormat for all women, and is happy to be so as his liberal feminism education has made him feel utterly confused about being a male. All he knows is that being a man is a bad thing, and if you are a white man, well that's the worst thing of all. All men are violent warmongering rapists and therefore he hates them, and he also hates himself. The feminist liberal male is a mess. A pathetic victim and he’s happy to be one as well.

I hope that clears up what I mean by the term ‘feminist liberal.’ Put simply, it’s the Rockefeller funded indoctrination process that is pushed by mainstream education establishments. It’s wrecking people’s lives. Making women feel like they have to compete with men, and that they are being discriminated against when they are doing so. Feminist liberalism makes men feel like worthless pieces of crap who should immediately kill themselves because they are not women. Feminist liberalism pushes the idea that there is no difference between men and women, and that women are victimised and oppressed because of their gender. The system wants women working, and men out of the home. It wants government to be the daddy, and the real daddy to be nowhere near his own children, kicked out of the home by a career orientated woman who hates men, and wants to prove to everybody that she can live without one. This leads children vulnerable to state control and indoctrination at a very early age as mummy is not home to look after them, and daddy is long gone, banished to weekend visits by the corrupt family court system. The end goal is state control of families, and an end to family life of mummy, daddy and the children. Future families will be nothing more than centralised breeding programmes with donor sperm fathers and the children being taken from their mother’s at birth. This is the goal, and feminist liberalism is helping them to get there.

Comic book writers in 2014 are usual feminist liberal males, and all of their themes and concerns are centred on male guilt and desperately trying not to offend anybody. They are normally statists (big government supporters) and refuse to even consider the possibility that government is bad. Their comic book heroes will be an even blend of males and females that compete on the same level, and normally work as ‘special agents’ for some higher authority. These heroes will be very young, and trapped in a perpetual state of childhood, just like the readers of the comics themselves. This celebration of perpetual adolescence stops adults from growing and learning, as they should be doing if they ever want to develop as properly functioning adults. The comic book heroes will fly around the world ‘saving the civilians’ from ‘evil dictators’ without questioning what is going on back home, and who is really in control of their corrupt two party ‘democratic’ system that offers no change and no choice. Comic book writers in 2014 are largely cowards. Their readers are not children. Children do not read comics in great numbers, adults do. Feminist liberal adults, sadly. So the next time you pick up a comic book think about the underlying themes and assumptions that are being made by the writer. Is it really a free thinking comic, or is it just more Rockefeller funded feminist liberal brainwashing, designed to destroy the family, make women feel like they are being oppressed, and turning men into self hating sad sack losers? Read the comics for yourself, you’ll see.