Archive for the ‘Current Affairs’ Category

#Intersectionalism #IntersectionalAuditing #Fluff #PoeRatio

On the Importance of Intersectional Auditing.

In the ideal world of ideas, all our Privilege Points would be entirely negated by our Oppression Points creating a level playing field where the truth value, or otherwise, of differing ideas can be weighed and measured. Reality, however, is a land far from ideal.

In debate, the best we can hope for is a situation where your opponent has a roughly similar Privilege/Oppression Equivalence Ratio (POE Ratio) to yourself allowing the skill of the protagonists to come to the fore.

Watching the production of a well-timed – and well-placed – ‘I’m an Armed Forces Veteran’ card, or, even better, the ‘My Mom was a Single-Parent on Crack’ card, that has been kept up a sleeve, is a joy to behold and can make the difference between an audience seeing your facts as true, or otherwise.

Intesectional Tree - I Think

Darwin’s Famous Intersectional Tattoo he had done as a young sailor in Hong Kong whilst serving aboard the British warship HMS Bounty with Anthony Hopkins & Mel Gibson.

Producing the ‘I’m really Working Class’ card won me a ‘Battle of Ideas’ debate in a pub the other day after a two-hour gruelling argument on the nature of Dualism had more or less stalled.

Of course, this works both ways and I would advise extra precaution when the inability to see one’s opponent is a factor, as is the case in online chat-rooms and forums: A fortnight ago, my argument for the existence of Gravitational Waves, as predicted by General Relativity, was roundly trounced when I was blindsided by the classic ‘Black Vagina’ card.

This shows the importance of preparation prior to debate. Completing a full Intersectional Audit on one’s opponent is obviously crucial, and, as in the example above, may well have saved the day had I known she held the ‘Black Vagina’ card in her hand, but… (and this really is a big but) many people forget that the difference between victory and defeat may well be a lack of an in depth intersectional audit, not of one’s opponent, but of oneself.

Why suffer the ignominy of defeat when the price of a small amount of research could have shown you to be related to someone who died during the Irish Potato Famine, or, more importantly, retain your white cis heteronormative taxonomy – white penis and all – whilst identifying with, and therefore partially negating, holders of the ‘Black Vagina’ card itself.

I hope this brief but in-depth article has contributed to the understanding of how ‘Intersectionality’ & ‘Intersectional Auditing’ can help in the ongoing transformation of opinion as fact.

Anvil Springstien.


#ConfessTheBand #Blasphemy #Islamism

Iranian Metal Band ‘Confess’ Arrested for Blasphemy.

confess iranian metalband

Being a bit of a Paul Simon, Gilbert O’Sullivan, Clive Dunn sort of a chap, I’ve often joked about how purveyors of Heavy Metal, Thrash Metal, Punk Thrash Metal, Goat Metal – and the many other divisions of the genre – should be arrested, tortured and put to death. I don’t really mean it. It’s a joke. A little harsh perhaps, but a joke.

My many friends who listen to and play this kind of


crap – in bedrooms and in bands – like to think of themselves as subversive. It’s something I’ve always chuckled at as an extension – possibly life-long – of teenage rebellion. Okay, you’ve got a job, kids and a mortgage now, so the Goth/Metal look just had to go, but hey, you’ve still got that air-guitar, right!

Now imagine living in a society where my harsh joke actually happens – arrest, torture, murder – at the hands of the state for simply expressing oneself through shit music. For writing bad lyrics – simple words – that seemingly threaten the powers that be.

How can this be?

Totalitarian states will always seek to control both free speech and freedom of association. It is in their nature to attack these twin pillars of liberty. Yet it is never sufficient to silence and isolate the intellectuals, the pamphleteers, the political opponents: to impose the will of the state it has to control popular culture, too, for it is freedom of expression through popular culture that will transform and encapsulate a complaint, a message, an ideology or even a revolution into a word, an image, a phrase, a lyric – a meme.

Strange Fruit, Solidarity, Che, Free Nelson Mandela, Pride, ‘V’, Nic Ut’s shot of Kim Phuc, naked and burning with napalm, Grandad by Clive Dunn.

Controlling the extremities of popular culture is essential to controlling the middle ground. With Lemmy in a prison cell, it forces Adele to be at least cautious with lyrics the state may deem offensive, off-message, or taboo. It was part and parcel of the targeting in the Sunni Islamist attacks on Parisians in January and November of 2015 – free speech, freedom of association, popular culture.

Here we see it expressed in the Shia Islamism of Iran with the arrest of two members of the metal band ‘Confess‘ [link to full story below]. It reminds us that the extremities of popular culture are a litmus test as to the condition of liberty in any given state. It needs to be cherished and protected – even if the music is shite.

My many friends who listen to and play this kind of shit – in bedrooms and in bands – like to think of themselves as subversive – it’s because they are.

Anvil Springstien.

Source: Article/Track/Interview @ Loudwire Magazine.

Note: Big thanks to the many emails pointing to the misspelling of the word ‘Shiite‘ in the title of this piece. In the UK, Shite is a form of shit (pronounced shyte).


#ToryTown #RoyalFamily #AusterityForSome

NewsGrab™ ©

This Just In…

[Click to Enlarge]

BBC Street Party

Original Source:

Loosely Related:

NewsGrab™ ©

Mother Theresa Pics to Replace NHS!

Old Man on The Moon Advert ‘Faked’!

Foodbanks to get Child Snatchers!

Lord’s Rebellion.

Tory Turkey’s to have ‘Own Union’.

Austerity Deterrence.

NewsGrab Collected Werks

Anvil Springstien.

#DawkinsTweet @RichardDawkins #FeministsLoveIslamists

Shit-Storm Richard

A brief look back at the devastation caused by the last few days inclement weather.

Here we have a satirical cartoon. If you haven’t seen it, stop reading and watch it now.


Good, you’re back. Welcome.

As a piece of satire, it is, quite naturally, offensive to some – especially the people, organisations, or ideas portrayed in the satire. Still, in a free society, there is little they can do beyond commenting on the offence taken, or defending their actions as portrayed in the satire.

Specifically, in this case, initially at least (it was published on a popular YouTube channel on the 8th January) they chose to do neither.

That is until public figure, renowned atheist and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, condoned the said satire through re-publishing it via his Twitter feed two days ago. One presumes he watched it, chuckled, then re-tweeted it.


Isn’t that what we all do?

Said public figure, Richard Dawkins – not the satire contained in the cartoon – is then attacked. Not physically, of course, but let’s just say there were sparks flying off more than a few keyboards. Fingers scorched. Nails undoubtedly chipped and broken. I truly dread the day Google perfects voice-to-text. We won’t be able to hear ourselves read – let alone be ripped off by tax-avoiding Multinationals.

Anyways, back to the weather. Dawkins tweets brief statements in response to the attack, as one does, mainly regarding the need to ridicule small elements of feminism that have supported Islamism (the satirical point of the cartoon). He then suddenly deletes his tweet after being informed that one of the protagonists portrayed in the cartoon (the feminist, Thingy Binx – sorry, I can never remember her first name?) had in the past been trolled and threatened online.

Following the deletion, Dawkins then tweets (paraphrased here) that ‘no one should be subject to such threats and intimidation’, appealing to all and sundry ‘never to engage in such activity’.

Brilliant. Perfect play.

Considering he’s a history with Twitter, this looked like a professional team had been brought in.

Nevertheless, anyone who plays Call of Duty can tell you that no Battle-Plan, however good, will survive contact with the enemy.

‘Nice doggie… now, put the rabbit down’.’ ‘Grrrrrrrr.’

chanty binxFollowing this laudable appeal, his statements are pulled apart, dissected, rearranged and re-tweeted. Dawkins is then accused (without proof) of setting his ‘followers’ to harass and threaten the aforementioned individual. Supporters of Dawkins (don’t worry about him, he has loads) point out, to no avail, that the trolling of Ms Binx (Chanty! Yes, that’s it ‘Chanty Binx’!) occurred three years ago following a number of her online videos where she is seen to be loud, aggressive and obnoxious.

Yeah? So? What if she gets harassed online, again, eh, Mistah Big Noise Dawkins?

The attack on Dawkins continues unabated.

Crowds gather. Torches are lit. There are demands that he be reprimanded – or at least flailed publicly. Dawkins is almost instantaneously punished by the withdrawal of his invitation as keynote speaker at an upcoming north American conference, the ‘North East Conference on Science & Skepticism’.

Without contacting Dawkins, the NCSS released this statement (my emphasis):

The Northeast Conference on Science & Skepticism has withdrawn its invitation to Richard Dawkins to participate at NECSS 2016. We have taken this action in response to Dr. Dawkins’ approving re-tweet of a highly offensive video.

We believe strongly in freedom of speech and freedom to express unpopular, and even offensive, views. However, unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive, and even hateful speech runs contrary to our mission and the environment we wish to foster at NECSS. The sentiments expressed in the video do not represent the values of NECSS or its sponsoring organizations (sic).

We will issue a full refund to any NECSS attendee who wishes to cancel their registration due to this announcement.

The NECSS Team

‘What’s this all about, a cartoon?’ ‘Yes, a cartoon.’ ‘Hmmm, that sounds familiar?’

Okay, let us for a moment turn away from the uncomfortable fact that the people who are accusing Dawkins and his followers of online harassment are busy harassing Dawkins online. Let’s instead look at what everybody else seems to be avoiding: let’s look at the cartoon:

The cartoon states implicitly (Dawkins says this explicitly in his re-tweet) ‘This is what a minority of feminists think‘. It does this in order to take a satirical stab at events that have unfolded over the past few weeks. Specifically, in Europe, and culminating in the mass sex attacks in Cologne on New Years Eve. It is a response to multiple situations where purportedly we have seen feminists and people on the left (my supposed natural allies) defending the indefensible (at times pro-actively and at others through a deafening silence) rather than be seen as racist, islamophobic, or ‘punching down’ on a minority.

This in itself is worthy of the greatest ridicule and mockery. It is both regressive and damaging.

Okay, first things first: Facts. Did these events happen?


There was a deafening silence (and much confusion) regarding the handling of recent events in Europe. Following Cologne, a female German Mayor suggested western women could help themselves by ‘staying at arms length’ from people (Muslim men) who were patently organising sexual assaults.

Women were accused of dressing provocatively and encouraging sexual assault and rape.

Elsewhere, feminist Societies at British Universities, silent on Cologne, busied themselves opposing free speech and no-platforming feminist ex-Muslims whilst supporting the misogyny of Islamists – including gender segregation – and the banning of ‘offensive’ depictions of the naked body such as, would you believe, Michelangelo’s ‘Creation of Adam‘.

Police forces across Europe played down the extent of what had – and was – happening.

All of this allowed right wing nationalists and neo-fascists in Europe to take the lead and to denigrate minorities, immigrants and refugees, pushing for regressive policies such as mass deportations, whilst many on the left and feminism sat on their fat arses, scared shitless by their inability to respond appropriately and progressively to a mass influx of single, unaccompanied, unemployed young men from a war zone and hailing from a culture that holds a normalcy to the denigration, oppression and covering of women. A culture built upon a religion that replaces good and bad, moral and immoral (even virtue and sin) with Honour and Shame. A culture that quite openly sees the women who were attacked as shameful, and the men who attacked them as honourable.

The condemnation from feminism and the left that was so quick to materialise at the rapes and sexual attacks in Tahrir Square, for example, throughout the Arab Spring and after, was nowhere to be seen.

A bizarre mix of identity-politics, intersectionality, fear, confusion, dogma and yes, a desire to do good, led to a cultural relativism which in turn led to inaction, to paralysis. To an inability to produce, demand or even identify policy that would be both effective and progressive – whether on the streets of Europe or in its Universities.

Yes, yes, but… what about the cartoon itself?

Well, this brings us back to the initial ‘issue at hand’: did Dawkins re-tweet an abominable slight on women using rape as a joke that encourages death threats against an individual, or did he re-tweet a piece of satire.

Many supporters of Ms Binx, and those satirised, thought the former. I, and many others – feminists and people on the progressive left – do not.

For me, this has nothing to do with Dawkins per se – the actual issue at hand is the satirical content of a political cartoon coupled with the freedom to offend. What many saw as ‘stupid’, ‘offensive’, and ‘hate-speech’ that needed to be silenced, I saw as an excellent satire with a stunningly good tag. Let’s look at what they have done: The producers have conflated what are normally seen as polar opposites to show how a particular behaviour of one – either proactively or through inaction – can support, enhance, highlight or encourage the other.

This format typically leads to good satire.

That they did this using two ‘known’ characters in a ‘jolly duet’ is a ploy that is often used in satire and, indeed, was regularly used by Charlie Hebdo, specifically on some of their better covers:

635562506950226435-Charlie-Hebdo-L-Amour hebdo-exec untouchables

Satire is one of the greatest and most powerful weapons we have. Without the ability to ridicule, to mock, to offend, there is no such thing as free speech. Offence is the very basis of that free speech – and free speech is the foundation of the liberal state.

Political satire is literally a tool to offend. It is accessible, too. It just has to hold enough elements of truth to get its message across. It’s a satirical sketch, not some magnum opus. These people (Binx & Co) have never really met. They have never really sang a duet together. They merely ‘represent’ aspects of Feminism and Islamism in order to tell a story, to make a point.

The point behind this cartoon is valid. I got it. We may disagree as to its value regarding humour – you may not care for it, I do – the question is: was it wrong for Dawkins to retweet it? My answer to that is a definite ‘No’. Would I have retweeted it? Yes. It has satirical value. It has worth. But more than that, it contains within it the basis of liberalism – offensive free speech.

Questions, questions, questions.

The question is raised then, if Dawkins New Model Army were not busy piling faggots around the feet of Chanty Binx, and if the events that the cartoon attempts (well, in my opinion) to satirise had occurred, why would Dawkins be attacked (and punished) for re-tweeting it as an unnecessarily divisive, counterproductive piece of hatespeech?

Further, Why Dawkins? Why wasn’t the actual cartoon attacked?

Again ignoring the fact that Dawkins is now being harassed online for the unproven crime of harassing someone online, more and more this appears to be an attempt to silence both Dawkins and, via him, the cartoon itself. It parallels the regressive attacks by the authoritarian left on Charlie Hebdo.

Then, as now, it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of free speech and its intrinsic relation to offence – for without the ability to give offence, freedom of speech is worthless.

This misunderstanding has a real effect on policy decisions made by real people holding real power. In the past it brought killers closer to their victims whilst ceding power to the right. Now it is again empowering the right creating policies or calls for policies, here in the UK, Europe and the US, that will harm desperate refugees. People are being and will be physically hurt. Some of them lethally so.

This is not an online game of butt-hurt top trumps. It’s real life.

Yet regressive feminism, like its counterparts on the left, mirror religious dogma in that they seek to silence criticism. Rather than critically analyse, change and learn from its errors, all dogmas are forced to defend themselves, regardless of the truth elements contained in arguments against them. Hence the need and desire to openly punish a public figure like Dawkins: ‘maybe he’ll learn from this‘, was one response I read. Yes, maybe he’ll understand in future that his condoning a piece of satire that mocks and ridicules ideas that people hold dear will have consequences. How ironic then that these dogmas – from the left and 3rd wave feminism – will see people forced into the arms of the right, the segregationists, the nationalists, the isolationists and the fascists.

Once more, this is, in effect no different from The Hebdo affair – even the language from the left is similar: stupid, offensive, disgusting, juvenile, filthy, misogynistic, racist, islamophobic. All words, remember, that apologists for the Charlie Hebdo slaughter repeated ad nauseum. They victimised their targets, didn’t they. They crossed the line, didn’t they. Still, they were held accountable, weren’t they. Some people put them in their place. What did they expect? It was bound to happen. We expected nothing less. They went too far.

Even the fucking Pope, acting as an unrepentant apologist for Islamist murderers, reminded us that if you insult his mother you can expect to be punched in the face.

Yes, they deserved it really, didn’t they.

No. These were the anti-racists, the anti-sexists, the anti-Islamists, the anti-homophobes. Saying things that needed to be said in the only way they knew how to say it. Still, would they have deserved it had they been racists, sexists and homophobes? Of course not, for on their freedom lies yours.

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

H. L. Mencken

Strangely, the Islamists who slaughtered these wonderful people, these cartoonists, were French Islamists – they understood satire. It’s what the French do.

They killed them anyway.

Kind of ironic to imagine that the murderers who killed those cartoonists in Paris understood satire better than Dawkin’s current attackers – from their point of view they killed them for all the right reasons. They knew what they were saying. They killed them not because they didn’t get it. They got it, alright. They understood the satire. They killed them, anyway. They killed them because the humour of these cartoonists brought them shame by exposing truth. By killing them, these imbeciles thought they regained honour.

I’ve referenced the similarities to Hebdo throughout this piece. I need to do it once more in order to reiterate that every time we agreed with those who demanded the right to silence people, who demanded the right to no-platform people, who demanded the right to not be offended, who demanded the right to safe spaces, who demanded the right to not be micro-aggressed or triggered, who demanded the right to curtail freedom of speech… we brought their killers closer to them.

Anvil Springstien.

Wanna’ know more?: Further Reading/Watching/Stuff:

Kenan Malik on Free Speech and Offence:

The wonderful Sarah Haider on the Necessity of a Liberal Critique of Islam:

National Secular Society. Anne Marie Waters (2012) Sharia Law & Middle Class Feminism:

Muhammed Syed & Sarah Haider. The Humanist – Charlie Hebdo & the Erosion of the Liberal Left:

National Secular Society – The Islamophobia Delusion:

John Cleese on Political Correctness:

Michael Nugent on Satire:

Carol Hunt writing for the Irish Independent:

You Tube ‘Science & (fairly) Anti-Feminist Vlogger, Thunderf00t’s take:

Maryam Nawazi & Goldsmiths Student Union:

Clementine Ford on the attacks in European cities – a response to critics of feminist silence:

Nick Cohen writes in The Spectator – Charlie Hebdo – The Literary Indulgence of Murder:

Cathy Young – The Totalitarian Doctrine of ‘Social Justice Warriors’ [02/02/2015]:

The debate on the issue @ Patheos’ ‘Friendly Atheist:

Last but not least – if you only read one. read this: The Shame and the Disgrace of the Pro-Islamist Left, written by Jamie Palmer


#SafeSpaces #Offended #Triggered

reprinted with kind permission of

Newspaper Banner Whitley Bay Courant

From Our Northern Correspondent

Sticks and Stones…

Images of The Flying Spaghetti Monster – a fictitious deity created originally by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to highlight the stupidity of teaching stupidity in Kansas schools – have been banned by the South Bank University Students Union as ‘likely to cause offence to persons of a religious sensibility’ following its use by radical hate-filled secular students group, the so-called South Bank Atheist Society (SBAS).

FactSLAP: South Bank University is in London, England, a country near Europe.

FactSLAP: Kansas is a country in America famous for its monkey’s and yellow painted roads.

The offending photoshopped image – Michelangelo’s ‘Creation of Adam’ (where the bearded Christian god is replaced by the equally fictitious Pastafarian god – sbuh*) was initially banned due, it was said, to the offence caused by Adam’s visible genitalia.


Trigger Warning: Possible Hate Imagery

creation of adam

Trigger Warning: Possible Hate Imagery

However, following an interjection by the South Bank University Arts Department who pointed to the fact that the ‘Creation of Adam’ fresco from the Sistine Chapel – a church brought to prominence by Dan Brown’s novel, The DaVinci Code – was possibly the most famous example of religious art in the entirety of human history, this was then quickly changed to “possibly causing offence due to the religious nature of the art.

FactSLAP: Dan Brown: discoverer of the Bible in 1998. Now lives in Hollywood, California with his Wife and two dogs.

FactSLAP: Michelangelo. An artist similar to Banksy. Formerly known as Charlton Heston.

A spokesperson for South Bank University Psychology Department added that Adam’s genitalia is also famous for being the least offensive genitalia ever and has helped generations of Catholic men by promoting a relatively positive image of their own bodies whilst simultaneously lowering the expectations of the majority of Catholic women.

Julia Henderson from the student Christian Society (GodBothSoc) professed offence at the implied phallic imagery of the FSM’s noodly appendages and expressed sadness at “the racism of low expectations of Catholic women” adding she was also offended by gay sex as the very idea of a large cock up the arse often made her feel faint.

Waiting for a redefined re-redefinition from the student body of the actual offence caused, a representative from the University’s Biology Department chipped in with, “Oh, and there was never an original human called Adam, either!

Following this statement, pandemonium broke out and Security and Police had to be called to restore order.

The so-called student Islamic Society (SCISOC) responded by stating that they were offended by the Arts Department, the Psychology Department, the Biology Department, Julia Henderson from the Christian Society, including the photoshopped image and the original fresco, adding that both images were idolatrous and should be destroyed.

The female cohort of the Islamic Society (SCFISOC), seated in the next room, were heard to mumble through the wall, ‘Yeah, whatever, innit.’

The Students Union eventually re-re-re-banned the image, now stating that it ‘may cause offence to all and any religious persons known or unknown including those who haven’t quite thought things through yet’, they said.

Then, in association with the unions Feminist Society (FemSoc), they called for the destruction of the original fresco in ‘solidarity with their fellow students of colour and of no colour at all‘.

David Cameron, speaking on the issue said, ‘This healthy debate suggests British Universities are amongst the best in the world’.

FactSLAP: David Cameron is the King of England, Ireland & Wales, but not Scotland.

FactSLAP: Scotland recently fell to the powerful Munchkin Queen.

A Mr Thingy, titular head of the Student Union, today released a press statement calling for calm whilst assuring the growing number of triggered people that all offensive things (including micro-aggressions – those little things which really piss people off) would now be banned at London’s South Bank University as from next Monday. “Phew“, said Julia Henderson before having to go and lie down after feeling a little faint.

Ken Pratt.

Northern Correspondent.

Whitley Bay Courant.

[*sbuh: We have no idea what this means?]

(Anvil Springstien is away having an interview at the Dole).

PS: It’s been a few days since I posted the above. Yesterday (24/01/2016) The Guardian posted an interesting and related piece that is well worth a read:


charlie hebdo banner2

A Hard Lesson to Learn

‘One year on and they still haven’t learned their lesson.’ This is the message being sent by religious leaders to the survivors of the Charlie Hebdo attacks of last year.

Henry Samuel, writing in the Telegraph informs us that:Charlie Anniversary Edition

Anouar Kbibech, head of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, CFCM, said he was “hurt” by the [anniversary] issue while Abdallah Zekri of the Watchdog against Islamophobia group said it was “very violent and insulting towards religions”. Catholic leaders also expressed shock. Abbot Pierre Amar of Versailles said: “Among the dead were believers who were buried in churches. Victims’ families will be insulted when they see this caricature. I don’t understand, I’m speechless.

Hurt? Violent? Insulting? Speechless? Hardly. This lack of understanding regarding freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the freedom to mock ideas that others see as both harmful and beyond reason (or not) is merely an echo of last year’s papal forthcomings which informed the survivors of the cowardly attack that one should expect to be hurt if you go around insulting religion. Any religion.

Must Try Harder

Of course, for the fundamentalist the ability to take offence doesn’t stop at ink. Is that hair you are showing? Did you just smile? What was that you just thought? Come November’s other grim Paris anniversary will they be saying ‘Look, there they are, still laughing and drinking and joking and singing and playing music and prostituting themselves on the filthy streets of Paris. One year on and they still haven’t learned their lesson.’

Just how much more insulting to religion could these disgusting Parisians have been?

Oddly enough there doesn’t yet appear to be people dying in the streets following Charlie Hebdo’s portrayal of God as a killer, still at large. Perhaps attacking all Abrahamic religions in one go was a wise decision by the satirical publication, perhaps not – either way I need not wonder what would be happening this week had they portrayed the prophet Mohammed in such a way?


Interesting, then, isn’t it, that an image of Allah doesn’t stoke the ire in quite the same way that an image of a mere prophet does. Surely, in Islam, this behaviour would be classed as idolatry or shirk – an unforgivable sin in Islam if it remains unpardoned before death.

Still, idolatry, like all forms of blasphemy, are victimless crimes, aren’t they? Oh, wait…

Thus endeth today’s lesson.

Vive Charlie Hebdo! Vive la liberté

Anvil Springstien.

Share the fear – it dilutes it… No, really, it does [above images are facebook banner size]. Oh, and below, one of the best bits of satire you’re ever likely to see: “The Idiots Killed Me…” [by Dilem. Algerian Cartoonist. Credit: @DilemAli] Share this image at your leisure – no,  no, wait, sorry, no, don’t wait… share it now, make it viral. It’ll take ten seconds to put it on your facebook page or place it in a blog post. Do it. Let’s make people bored shitless by this image! “The Idiots Killed Me“:

The Idiots Killed Me