Archive for the 'vitriol' Category

16
Sep
10

[ s o u n d o f k l a x o n ]

07
May
10

c a m e r o n ü b e r a l l e s ?

the bloated toad of brown is down but not out. not yet.

and so, it would appear that the masses are, yet again, drawn inexorably to anything bright and shiny; and in politics there is nothing brighter, or shinier than the promise of change. spurious change it may be but the very word holds within it something that requires no measured weighing of the facts, no examination of policy or intent. it’s the sociopolitical version of ‘out with the old in with the new’.

change was powerful enough to get a black man elected in america, i would argue a very positive thing indeed, but it’s influence over populations is not an exclusively moral one. the tyranny of change is instead utterly blind. look at the idolatry that was laid at the feet of shit-eating-grin blair.

the allure of change lies in the concept itself and exists in a parallel world to that of logic, a world where the motto is ‘this isn’t working, try the polar opposite’; where the only thing of value is the about-face, the 180◦. the eternal promise of the utopia within the u-turn.

at the time of posting there are more tory wins than there were in the time of kinnock. the hounds are howling on the horizon and the foxes are getting nervous…

time, people, to get the blues.

20
Apr
10

s o c i e t y d o e s n ‘ t o p e r a t e

“society doesn’t operate because we love everybody. society operates through sanction, through forms of collective control, through hierarchy, through the imposition of controlled forms of mass hysteria. y’know, so the novels that persuade you in the idea that everybody is intrinsically loveable are pulling off a confidence trick, as are the moral systems that delude people, you  see it time and time again laurie and you know it’s true. people’s capacity for empathy with people who are outside their immediate social matrix is remarkably small and it doesn’t matter whether you call on this through- you validate it through evolutionary psychology, or you pull up stanley milgram’s experiments at yale or whatever it is, or the genocidal impulse that seems to exist in humanity, these are true facts. the thing is that people will hear these arguments and they’ll say ‘yes but you know, we’ve got to aim for something better than that’, but what would that world be like in which you empathised with six and a half billion people? what would the world be like if you felt the pain of the two hundred and fifty thousand people who were rubbed out in haiti a few weeks ago? what a strange place it would be.”

– will self, in conversation with laurie taylor

24
Mar
10

w o r s e r e r a n d w o r s e r e r . . .

saw tim burton‘s alice in wonderland. no i didn’t pay for my ticket. yes it was fucking rubbish.

vin·di·cate   /ˈvɪndɪˌkeɪt
–verb (used with object),-cat·ed, -cat·ing.
1. to clear, as from an accusation, imputation, suspicion, or the like: to vindicate someone’s honor.
2. to afford justification for; justify: subsequent events vindicated his policy.
3. to uphold or justify by argument or evidence: to vindicate a claim.
4. to assert, maintain, or defend (a right, cause, etc.) against opposition.

the acting was flat (even though i know the girl who plays alice is a great actress). the 3d was flat. the story was shit. virtually all of the feel of the original was ignored, none of the chaos, the moral ambiguity, unpredictability or nightmarish ambience remains. the 1951 disney version outstrips this on every level. burton’s is an utterly sterile, pointless, artless reworking.

stop this man making films  n o w .

i leave you with what promises to be a much more interesting  reimagining, trevor brown‘s alice:

 

20
May
09

” f e e l t h e w r a t h o f m y b o m b a s t ! “

mark e. smith“it says a lot about them when they start harping on about the lack of real heroes nowadays; and how fame has been cheapened by the likes of the spice girls and reality-tv contestants. what they don’t realize is that most of the people they revere– people like elton john and mick jagger and john lennon – are or were cunts.”

 

“looking back, you can see how mtv profited from these people. it was only a year later they started brainwashing kids and record companies. it all boils down to an easy fix – straitjacket your acts, get them to deliver simple sentiments, simple albums, and all of a sudden music’s no longer something you carry around in your head but just another piece of tv. i understand that it’s always been about money; that’s a given. but there’s something inhuman about the way in which it’s put into practice. and the swiftness of it all! from idealistic punks to moneyed indie chappies. i prefer to stay away from it all; attack them from the comfort of my abode with a nice cup of tea and the chuckle brothers on the box.”

excerpts from renegade: the lives and tales of mark e. smith

13
May
09

t h e r i g h t t o b a r e a r m s e t c .

Miss_Rose_Thorne-14anyone who has ever been to a burlesque event will tell you it has no more to do with what goes on at a lapdancing club than a microwave has to do with a giraffe. pseudo feminists and ring-wing moralists can bleat all they want about “exploitation” and “adult content” but such an opinion comes from little more than pure grade ‘a’ ignorance.

fine, you might say, well they don’t have to go to these events do they? leave them in their ignorance. and you’d be right, horses for course an all that, each to their own.

but of course now you have camden council landing on burlesque events like a ton of bricks, citing their lack of an s.e.e.l. (sexual encounter entertainment license), namely a license which lapdancing clubs such as stringfellows need to have.

this is a fundamental (and very possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of burlesque, of it’s history and it’s practice.

the council states that:
“camden is not preventing burlesque troops from performing in the borough. camden’s licensing policy, which was widely consulted upon and approved in 2008, states that any premises in the borough that wish to offer entertainment involving nudity, striptease or other entertainment of an adult nature will need approval from the licensing authority – burlesque falls within this criteria.”

apparently the law classifies  nudity as the “exposure of genitalia, including nipples“; something which burlesque in this country never does. nipples are always covered with pasties and knickers or g-strings remain steadfastly on. often a burlesque performer will end their act wearing more than you might see worn on a beach. which leaves only the act of undressing itself that, in the eyes of camden council, would seem to contravene the law. this amounts to a truly absurd situation in which, if a performer did her act backwards, that is coming on in g-string and pasties and then ending by getting dressed, she’d be fine and dandy with camden council. thoroughly, mind-bogglingly imbecilic.

a more fundamental difference between common-all-garden stripping and burlesque must be understood. strippers at clubs such as stringfellows exist to be the customer’s fantasy, to become what he wants (and of course at such venues it is invariably a he). the burlesque performer exists only to exhibit and express parts of her personality and appearance she wishes to, regardless of what the audience might wish to see (and the audience at burlesque events is invariably mostly female).

it’s the difference between a singer asking for requests from an audience and just singing songs they’ve written whatever the audience’s taste. if you want, and if it helps, it’s kylie versus pj harvey, madonna versus patti smith, one a plastic, commercial ham-fisted approximation of sexuality and what it means to be a woman, the other a well executed, intelligent exploration of the same. yes burlesque often plays with sexuality but if you’re afraid of sexuality you have bigger problems than a girl prancing about the stage in nipple tassels and frilly knickers. chiefly burlesque is about not bowing to expectation but instead ignoring, subverting or toying with it.

burlesque, above all things, is a bastion of self expression.

in the end, whether you like burlesque or you don’t is irrelevant. camden council’s efforts to enforce an s.e.e.l. on venues wishing to stage burlesque events is the first step on a slippery slope towards some kind of moralistic blacklist, which is itself the first step on a slippery slope towards censorship.

sign the petition against these draconian idiocies here.  do it  n o w .

and there are also other ways in which to show your support

19
Feb
09

y o u r m a s c o t i s o n f i r e , t i m e t o c h o o s e a n o t h e r

forrestgumpso, jade goody is dying.

first let’s get one thing out of the way: to her family, fiancee, children etc. this is a terrible tragedy, truly awful, undeniably the worst thing in the world.

but to the rest of us? why should we care? why are the papers so full of her imminent death? why are ‘we’ (i insist that you please note the inverted commas) so enthralled, so breast-beatingly, teeth-gnashingly fixated on the last weeks of a woman who once described herself as “the most 25th inferlential [sic] person in the world” ?

inferlential or not, jade goody is either, depending on your position,  a well meaning ordinary girl done good, or the worst possible indication of what’s thoroughly fucked about our septic isle. she is irrefutably stupid, ignorant, vulgar and even (arguably unintentionally) racist. and i don’t for one second buy the jordan argument of well she’s made a lot of money so she can’t be that stupid; utter bollocks. jade goody is a puppet and very little else, a vehicle for many other people to get rich by making her rich.

she is the living (at the time of writing) embodiment of the idea that you don’t have to be able to do anything but simply be in order to be celebrated and therefore be paid, (rather than earn) millions of pounds. money for simply being you, the ultimate affirmation, just what ‘everyone‘ dreams of.

the story of jade goody is the story of the celebration of, and aspiration towards, ignorance.

yes she’s had a hard life. yes she was born into very difficult circumstances, but so are many, many others but they don’t have the luxury of sitting back and watching the money roll in. it should be mentioned that jade doesn’t appear interested in redressing the balance of the shitty hand that life has dealt her. she’s used her money not to better herself but merely to further promote herself. why should she bother? everything is done for her.

so, is jade goody evil? no of course she’s not bloody evil (don’t get me started on the absurdity of that term). what she is is an indicator, she’s the melting ice caps, she’s the rising sea levels.

the real unforgivable loathsomeness lies in the society that so eagerly consumes the jade mythos, that swallows her as a role model and vomits it out at their children, the people that buy those magazines, read those newspapers, the people that watch her programmes.

fuck them all.

they are the cancer, jade goody is merely a profoundly unnatractive symptom.