|
|
By  David Craig, on September 1st, 2013 Yesterday, the Islamophiliac BBC broadcast a long report claiming (wait for it) that Buddhist monks were responsible for a series of racist attacks against Muslims in Myanmar. Buddhist monks? Yup, they’re the ones who got slaughtered just a few years ago in a peaceful protest against Myanmar’s military rulers. But now, according to the useless overpaid cretins at the BBC, these Buddhist monks are a bunch of raving, violent, racist thugs.
So I took out my world atlas, scratched my fat head and started to notice some very strange things:
In Myanmar and Southern Thailand, those horrible Buddhists are unable to live in peace with their Muslim neighbours. In Indonesia, Egypt and Nigeria, those horrible Christians are unable to live in peace with their Muslim neighbours. In India/Pakistan, those horrible Hindus are unable to live in peace with their Muslim neighbours. In the Middle East, those horrible Jews are unable to live in peace with their Muslim neighbours. Across the world, the democratic West seems unable to live in peace with its peace-loving Muslim neighbours. And, of course, back to the Middle East, those lovely, tolerant, peace-loving Shiites are unable to live in peace with the lovely, tolerant, peace-loving Sunnis and both of them are unable to live in peace with the lovely, tolerant, peace-loving Alawites. Meanwhile, the lovely Sunnis and Shiites are also unable to live in peace with the Kurds.
Here are some lovely, tolerant, peace-loving Shiites having a good time:
And here are some lovely, tolerant, peace-loving Sunnis having a good time:
Or, those in the top picture may be Sunnis and those in the bottom picture may be Shiites. Who knows? Who cares?
Either way, they don’t look like the kind of people you’d invite to your local neighbourhood barbecue (unless you wanted to burn the whole neighbourhood down).
Maybe one day it will be acceptable to be politically-incorrect and openly admit that, judging by all the empirical evidence from countries such as Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt and many many others, the Religion of Peace many not actually be all that peaceful? Until then, the Islamophiliacs at the BBC will continue to blame everyone except the Muslims for all the troubles in which Muslims are involved.
By David Craig, on August 31st, 2013 With the May 2015 General Election just 20 months away, let’s look at the political titans and buffoons that will be fighting for our votes.
Firstly, Labour. Here is what I think is the Labour ‘dream team’, the team that could crush the Tories:
But, of course, as Len McCluskey runs the Labour Party, we’re not getting the ‘dream team’. Instead we’re getting these two idiots:
There’s Ed Miliband – a waffling, pointless, characterless nobody who never had a proper job in his life and who will grovel to his master the Portuguese Communist Barroso at every opportunity as they both eagerly create the Socialist European superstate. Oh, and it was Ed Miliband who, as Secretary of State for Energy, brought us the disastrous 2008 Climate Change Act which is forcing us to close down perfectly good coal-fired power stations, at the same time as China, India and Germany are building more of them, and which is pushing up our energy prices making our industry uncompetitive and resulting in thousands of job losses. And there’s Ed Balls. The cretin who helped the financially incontinent Gordon Brown bankrupt Britain by wasting over £1trn of our money creating a bloated public sector and a benefits-dependent underclass of several million.
So, given that Labour is being led by donkeys, who will the Tories be putting up as their top two candidates? Yup, it’s these two:
That then begs the question – who should the Right be putting in as their best hope of beating the hopeless Miliband and the useless Balls? How about these two?
How about a Tory/UKIP alliance where the two parties who should be representing Britain’s interests worked together to thrash the Europhiliac Socialist Labour/Benefits Party? The Tories under anyone but Cameron could go into an electoral pact with UKIP whereby, in return for the Tories not standing against UKIP in, say 30 seats, UKIP would support the Tories in the other 620 constituencies?
But that would require Cameron and Osborne putting their country’s interests above their own egos. Likely to happen? Sadly not.
By David Craig, on August 30th, 2013 How does the worthless, self-opinionated bag of pus David Cameron do it? A week ago, things were looking great for him. The economy seemed to be coming out of recession. OK I know this was an illusion based on the Government borrowing £120bn a year that we can never pay back and Osborne’s idiotic idea of using taxpayer money to guarantee mortgages for people who can’t afford to buy a home. But most voters are too stupid to understand that. And anyway, with Miliband Junior being a complete and utter waste of skin and exposed as Ken McCluskey’s glove puppet, Cameron was beginning to look like he could win the 2015 General Election.
But then Cameron blew it. Boy did he blow it. For some reason, this pathetic excuse for a Prime Minister thought he could increase his standing by puffing himself up with moral indignation over a bunch of crazy Arabs killing another bunch of crazy Arabs. So Cameron tried to rush Britain into yet another pointless, unwinnable war in a Muslim country.
McCluskey’s glove puppet wobbled a bit and then declared he would not support a war with Syria until the UN weapons inspectors had done their report on the incident. (It’s a pity the glove puppet didn’t express the same reservations when Blair and Campbell used their dodgy dossier to get us into war with Iraq) Cameron was, of course, desperate to get his war started before the UN inspectors had a chance to conclude their work in case they didn’t prove what he wanted.
Suddenly, Cameron was left flapping helplessly in the wind looking like a complete and utter prick and had to back down from his war. Miliband, on the other hand, shot from zero to hero, from being a total toss-pot to being a calm and reasoned leader. Unbelievable!
Cameron, you are not only a liar, you are also incompetent, lazy, intellectually-inadequate and a disaster for Britain and the Tory Party. If you had a shred of decency, you’d resign now. Just go. Get your worthless lard arse out of Downing Street. You’ve got your wife’s many millions. Go spend it. But don’t ever show your flabby, conceited face in public again. Oh, and take that worthless, loud-mouthed cretin William Hague with you.
And, in case you were wondering, here is UKIP’s stance on Cameron’s war with Syria:
“UKIP say no to any UK military intervention in Syria. We have been in Afghanistan for longer than the first and second world wars put together and the benefits to the civilians of the country are marginally increased yet the price paid in money and blood by British troops is enormous.”
“There is no clear proof it was the Assad regime who used chemical weapons. We have no idea who the rebels are – a point UKIP has been making since the start and we opposed the arming of the rebels who it has been indicated have extremist Islamic elements.”
“The MoD is already struggling with budget cuts and troops are being made redundant, many with very few opportunities of jobs on civvy street during this economic decline.”
“It, quite simply, is not our business anyway. We are not world policemen. We saw a decade ago what happens with dodgy evidence being given to Parliament and we must not repeat the mistakes of Iraq.”
Looks like Farage got it right yet again.
By David Craig, on August 29th, 2013 The good news is that after almost a week of belligerent war talk, spineless idiots Cameron and Hague started furiously back-peddling when they realised that around three quarters of the public and possibly a majority of MPs were opposed to their attempts to get Britain involved in the Syrian civil war.
Cameron and Hague had hoped to get their new war started before the end of the week. Now it looks like they’ll have to wait a few more days. We should breathe a sigh of relief that these two cretins haven’t got any backbone. Their hero Blair did at least have the courage to lie and lie and lie with his dodgy dossier to get his war with Iraq.
But we should be fearful. Cameron and Hague will be desperate not to lose face. They’ve jumped to conclusions about Assad’s complicity in a chemical weapons attack and need their war to justify their own stupidity. So, we can expect lots of fabricating evidence and lies and worse over the next few days as Cameron and Hague try to get their Middle East war.
They’ve already started by claiming that even if an attack on Syria is not strictly legal, it would be “justifiable” due to the intransigence of Russia and China on the UN Security Council. Perhaps they will look for some way to provoke the Syrian regime and then use that as an excuse for an attack. Or perhaps they will fall back on the “the world cannot stand idly by while Syria commits war crimes”. But the world is standing idly by. Out of over 200 countries, only three – Britain, France and the US (less than 1.5%) – actually want to attack Syria. Over 98.5% of countries want nothing to do with Cameron’s and Hague’s futile and potentially disastrous Middle East war.
Cameron must really envy his hero Tony Blair to be so eager to kill a few more people to bolster his own image of himself as a great international statesman:
Reading a recent report that David Cameron suffered from back pain, one newspaper reader responded “the most surprising part of this story is to learn that David Cameron has a backbone”.
Russia has described the West as acting in the Middle East like a monkey with a grenade. Brilliant and accurate. This is a picture of a monkey with a grenade:
And this is a photo of David Cameron trying to look dramatic as he rushes to start his attack on Syria:
Here’s something readers should know about (https://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-prepared-advance-901/). It’s a report that several of the videos showing the 21 August chemical weapons attack were uploaded onto YouTube on 20 August – the day before the attack. There are two possible explanations for this. Either the “attack” was faked or else carried out by the rebels to provoke the West into attacking the Syrian government. Or else this is merely due to the fact that YouTube’s servers are based in the US and are thus at least 7 hours behind Syrian time. But if the reason for the date discrepancy is that the servers are in a different time zone, the Syrian opposition were still remarkably quick in filming and uploading the alleged attack.
(Oh and before we all get wiped out in WWIII started by buffoons Cameron and Hague, it would be nice if a few people showed support for this website by buying copies of my latest book GREED UNLIMITED)
By David Craig, on August 28th, 2013 The latest news coming out of Syria from British “intelligence” is that Assad has developed a new type of pink flying pig that is capable of striking western targets within 45 minutes. Normally the US and Britain would take this to the UN, but after the last lot of 45-minute porkies they told, it is unlikely anyone will believe them.
So Britain and the US will attack Syria before the flying porker can be deployed.
By David Craig, on August 28th, 2013 Reading the main papers yesterday and today, it’s clear that the Downing Street spin machine has been in action. Article after article triumphantly tells us why we have to go war with Syria. There was even a piece in the Times yesterday from Middle East Peace Envoy Tony Blair extolling the joys of getting embroiled in another Middle East disaster. One paper – Torygraph – is even refusing to allow readers to comment on Cameron’s coming war.
So, I’ve been trawling through various websites to try to find our what people really think about our masters’ increasingly desperate attempts to get British troops involved in Syria. There seem to be 3 main themes:
1. No proof Assad even used chemical weapons
“Assad is winning. Why would he use the only thing that is sure to bring the West to his shores? Makes no sense. We should stay out of it. There’s plenty more worthy causes to fight.”
“If the Syrian Gov forces are winning this conflict then why unleash chemical weapons on innocent people when UN chemical weapons inspectors just happen to be in Damascus? This makes no sense. It makes more sense that the Rebels did this to pull the US in on their side. Always ask the question, WHO BENEFITS?”
“THIS IS MADNESS! there is no evidence at all that the Assad government was in any way responsible for the use of chemical weapons, and as Assad knows full well, to have done so would be to bring the wrath of the world down on him and his government. For the Western powers to unleash a war against Syria will involve a major escalation of hostilities in the Middle East. It could even lead to World War Three. Is that we want? Because it’s what we might well get. For God’s sake, STOP while there is still time!”
“How convenient that “unidentified” snipers prevent the inspection giving an weak excuse for bombings to take place. No proof exists that the regime carried out the attack and it’s looking increasingly likely that none will be required!!!!!”
“Wonder if these chemical weapons will turn out to be like those WMD’s that never materialised in that other famous #$%$ the yanks dragged us into? If it comes to a fight I vote that all the politicians kids who are old enough are stuck on the front line.”
2. Our leaders are liars and fools
‘”The Prime Minister and the US President say there are increasing signs an alleged gas attack was carried out by the Syrian regime”, and we should believe you both, why?’
“Alleged! Claims! Camoron and Obarmy! must be as frustrated as hell that this is not working out too well for them! and the rebels (terrorists) that they have been funding for so long!”
“Just a thought, what if this chemical attack is proved to have been carried out by the rebels, does that mean that Obama/Camoron/etc, will declare war on the rebels??”
‘”Cameron insisted that the strike did not mean that Britain was getting involved in a Middle Eastern war.” That must be the most idiotic statement made by any politician at any time, anywhere.’
“And what’s old chubby face going to do? Lick Obama’s boots, grovel and whine ‘Yes Sir, No Sir, Three Bags Full Sir!’ Stay out of it Cameron, I’m certain the MAJORITY of the British people don’t want another Iraq or Afghanistan, despite what that idiot with velopharyngeal insufficiency, Hague says. And you certainly don’t want to be stupid enough to mess with Russia and President Putin, now that would be a big mistake – huge!”
“Three questions please Mr Cameron 1/Are you certain Assad has used Chemical Weapons in the first place? 2/ Are you certain the Sniper Fire at The UN Jeep was from Assad`s Army? 3/Have you or Numbskull Hague ever been to SYRIA or even met Mr Assad ? I am fairly certain the answer to all three is NO NO NO .So can I suggest you stay with Sam Cam in Cornwall as we will all feel more at ease if you do
3. We’re just making enemies for ourselves
“Yes we have a responsibility to help the Syrian people BUT we also have a bigger responsibility to protect our own. How is starting a conflict with a country who counts Russia and Iran amongst its Allies a good idea? Russia is more than capable of dealing with the Syrian issue, let’s leave them to do that and try to avoid getting involved in something that could start WW3!!”
“So we’re off to war again unilaterally, without UN approval breaking all the rules again. America’s little attack dog without proper proof either. Trying to bring peace by blowing people up, what a bunch of warmongering idiots our leaders are. Still they won’t be dying will they, they just do the paperwork of death and despair.”
“The terrorists in Syria are religious crazy Islamists. Many are from Britain, fighting there before they come back here to terrorize us. Why are we backing the side in Syria that will return the country to the dark ages – like in Libya already, and like they’re trying to do in Egypt?”
By the way, it seems that UKIP are the only party that thinks idiots Cameron and Hague are taking us into a disaster:
This is what Nigel Farage says about our involvement in Syria “We must not engage in military attacks or send British troops to yet another foreign conflict on the whim of William Hague” he said. “We’ve lost hundreds of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan the MoD budget is being slashed, resulting in thousands of job losses. “How is it sensible to embark on another military intervention when the MoD is already struggling with substantial budget cuts and redundancies? “It is not for us to act as world policemen particularly when there is still the question of who the rebels actually are. We’ve already seen links to extremists in their ranks. “We cannot risk training soldiers and providing arms when they may be used against British troops and even civilians in the future.” Sensible UKIP, as always in tune with the British people, putting Britain first instead of warmongering Tories who ignore us.
By David Craig, on August 27th, 2013 As David “Winston” Cameron desperately tries to get his own Middle East war to make himself look like a great international statesman similar to his hero “war criminal” Blair, we should question his reasons for getting Britain involved in yet another pointless war in a predominantly Muslim country.
1. Cameron and our other great military genius Wee Willie Hague claim that they know the Syrian government is responsible for a chemical weapons attack. Interesting. Cameron probably hopes that we’ve all forgotten what happened in August 2008. A brief military conflict broke out in South Ossetia between Georgia and Russia. Cameron (then leader of the opposition) travelled to Georgia to show his support for the Georgian government against what he called “Russian aggression” and condemned Russia for carrying out “appalling atrocities”. Sounds familiar? Here’s Cameron meeting the Georgian president:
But a later international investigation led by a Swiss diplomat found that Georgia had started the war. “Open hostilities began with a large-scale Georgian military operation against the town of Tskhinvali and the surrounding areas, launched in the night of 7 to 8 August 2008”, the report concluded. I don’t remember Cameron ever apologising for getting that one hopelessly wrong. And now this Bulingdonian buffoon claims once again that he knows who is responsible. Why should we believe him this time?
2. If you look at a map of the world, you’ll see that Britain is just a tiny, bankrupt island. So why is Winston Cameron puffing himself up to be the moral conscience of the world and the world’s policeman? Could it be because he hopes that a wave of patriotism, as our courageous troops give a good bashing to the awful Assad, will distract our attention from his government’s economic incompetence? Could it be because he hopes a quick war will make him look like a great international statesman compared to the puny, puerile, pitiful Ed Miliband? Does Cameron want a few people killed in the belief that this will help him win the 2015 election?
3. Has he thought through the consequences? Once again Britain will be hated throughout the Muslim world. There will probably be attacks against British interests and even in Britain. Meanwhile Iran will learn that, unless it has nuclear weapons, it too will always be vulnerable to attack from the West under whatever spurious reason Western leaders dream up.
I’m incredulous that our leaders have learnt nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan about what happens when British troops get mired in tribal and religious conflicts that have been going on for over a thousand years and will probably carry on for another thousand years.
We don’t want your war, Mr Cameron. Syria is not our problem. We are bankrupt – the Arab League have lots of money, lots of troops and lots of weapons (that we sold them). Let them sort it out.
But I suppose the problem is that useless Cameron and warmongering cretin Hague have made so many belligerent statements, that they have to send a few British missiles to kill some Syrians otherwise Cameron and Hague will lose face. That’s not a very good reason to start a war.
By David Craig, on August 26th, 2013 The similarities between our useless, whining, self-absorbed, self-serving Prince Charles and his not so great great uncle Edward VIII (Edward the Abdicator) are astonishing.
1. Edward VIII was emotionally-retarded, immature and self-centered. Edward’s private secretary for eight years believed that “for some hereditary or physiological reason his normal mental development stopped dead when he reached adolescence”.
2. Both became Prince of Wales. Edward was officially invested as Prince of Wales in a special ceremony at Caernarvon Castle on 13 July 1911. A rather fanciful ceremony in the style of a Welsh pageant was invented for Edward and he was coached to speak a few words in Welsh. Just like Prince Charles’ overblown and utterly pointless investiture.
3. Edward could have had the pick of any number of young, attractive, eligible girls. Instead he preferred the older, charmless remarried divorcee Wallis Simpson. Useless Charles did, in fact, marry a beautiful, eligible young girl, Princess Diana. But he always preferred the older and (IMHO) charmless Camilla and left Diana for his beloved Camilla.
4. Wallis Simpson was described by someone who knew her as “austere”, “lantern-jawed” and “with a face like an old boot”. By the way, this is Camilla:
5. It was rumoured that Edward was sexually inadequate, felt threatened by younger, beautiful women and the only way he could get sexual satisfaction was because Wallis Simpson had “learnt a few tricks when in China”. For decency’s sake, let us not speculate here on Charles’ sex life with Diana and then Camilla. Though it is significant that after her divorce, Diana preferred the company of rather manly men (one of whom had the nickname “horse” for reasons I hope I don’t have to mention here) – men very unlike whining drip Charles.
6. Edward was described as being “completely obsessed” by Wallis Simpson. Charles became a national laughing stock with his “I want to be your tampon” phone call to Camilla.
7. Wallis Simpson ended up spending the rest of her life “living with a man she privately ridiculed” for being immature, boring, self-absorbed and intellectually her inferior. Camilla and Charles? Maybe. One can imagine Camilla ridiculing the hopeless Charles to her friends. Though it’s said that Camilla is no genius either.
7. Edward caused unease in government circles with actions that were interpreted as interference in political matters. Government ministers were reluctant to send confidential documents and state papers to Edward because there was a lack of confidence in his discretion in constitutional and political matters. A bit like the congenital meddler Charles.
8. Both men were emotionally and intellectually unsuited to become the kind of king anyone could have any respect for. But the main difference between these two men seems to be that Edward didn’t want to become king and probably used his relationship with Wallis Simpson as a way of getting out of any royal commitments, so he could live a life of idle luxury at taxpayers’ expense without actually doing any work. Charles, on the other hand, is desperate to become king even though this would be a disaster for the royal family and would probably lead to Australia and Canada becoming republics.
(Tomorrow, I guess I’ll have to do something on Wee Willie Hague’s upcoming war with Syria)
My regular readers might find this amusing – it’s an article about me in my local newspaper https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/features/10626112.Meet_Bournemouth_s_Mr_Angry__why_I_m_making_an_effort_to_complain/
By David Craig, on August 25th, 2013 I’ve pointed out before that there are about 180,281 charities in England and Wales with over 800,000 employees and 945,278 trustees. Of course, many of these charities are tiny and some will not even have any employees. But how many people do we need donating money to keep the bosses of the larger charities in the comfort to which they believe they are entitled?
Let’s assume that of the people running Britain’s 180,281 charities, only 2,000 executives earn over £100,000 a year (I suspect there are more than this). That gives a salary bill of an incredible £200,000,000 a year (£16,700,000 a month).
Let’s also assume there are around 20,000 charity bosses and managers in the £50,000 to £100,000 salary range. On an average salary of say £65,000 a year, that gives us another £1,300,000,000 a year (£108,000,000 a month).
Added together, this gives us a salary bill for the bosses of Britain’s larger charities of £1.5bn a year (£125,000,000 a month). That is an awful lot of money being taken from people donating and going straight into charity bosses’ bank accounts.
Now, let’s play one more game with the numbers. Many charities try to recruit us by only asking for small sums like £2 per month or £5 per month or even £10 per month. So, if we’re donating on average £5 per month, we’d need 25,000,000 people donating just to pay the salaries of charity bosses. If we’re donating on average £10 per month , then we “only” need 12,500,000 people donating to support our charity bosses (click to see cartoon clearly)
I know that many larger charities get much of their money from government and not just ordinary people’s donations. But government money is our money that we pay in taxes. Anyway, the purpose of my estimates is to try to expose the incredible number of donors that would be required just to pay the salaries and pensions of charity bosses and senior managers.
The Charity Commission (regulator for charities in England and Wales) claims that over 80% of the money we donate goes to “charitable expenditure”. But “charitable expenditure” includes the salaries of charity employees, especially bosses. Oxfam, for example spends £101.8m of the £385.5m it raises on salaries and pensions for its staff. Many charities spend around half their income on staff salaries and pensions (Centrepoint, for example).
So, there you have it. A very rough, back-of-a-fag-packet calculation, I admit. But as far as I can see, the salaries of the bosses at our larger charities would consume the monthly donations of between 12,500,000 and 25,000,000 generous (but stupid?) people.
Anybody feel like donating to Oxfam (3 bosses on over £100,000 a year and 32 more on over £60,000 a year) or Save the Children (8 bosses on over £100,000 a year and 23 more on over £60,000 a year) or even the much smaller Centrepoint Rooms for the Homeless which took a full-page ad in the latest edition of Private Eye (1 boss on over £100,000 a year and 4 more on over £60,000 a year and with an annual salary and pension cost per employee of over £35,000) now?
It seems to me that the Charity Commission should set a maximum salary for a charity boss of say £60,000. If the greedy placemen and placewomen, who seem to be appointed by their political cronies to run many of our charities, want more they can get a proper job.
(Tomorrow – time to have a go at pointless, whining, self-absorbed non-entity Prince Charles)
By David Craig, on August 24th, 2013 It’s the weekend, so I thought I’d take a break from howling impotently about the incompetence and greed of our lying rulers (Cameron, Hague, Carney. Barroso, Ashton etc etc etc). Instead, here’s something I found floating in cyberspace. It’s written by a male pornstar giving 7 reasons why his job isn’t that great. I learnt a lot reading it. In comparison to this, maybe my modest sex life isn’t so bad after all.
1 You Have To Have Sex I know it sounds kind of crazy – that’s what you’re there for – but it’s true. Think about it: Maybe you’re horny all the time (as I generally am) but that doesn’t mean you want to actually “do it” every second of the day. We guys want to fuck when we want to fuck, right? Not when it’s “time to fuck”. Say it’s two o’clock in the afternoon. There are eight people in the room – you, the director, the girl you’re “working with”, the cameraman, the lighting guy, the makeup artist and some dude you don’t even know why he’s there – and suddenly it’s time to fuck. GO! Um, okay…
2. You Can’t Get It Up Every man’s nightmare is just an ordinary problem on a porn set. Sure, there’s Viagra and Cialis galore and you can pop ‘em by the dozen. But there are side effects to taking that medication so frequently, and the biggest one (no pun intended) is tolerance. In other words, your body actually builds up a resistence to the medication if you take it too much. So, after awhile, you can swallow handfuls of those little blue pills and they have zero effect (other than headaches and the possible loss of vision).
What to do? Inject your dick (yes, with a needle) with a more intense liquid medication that works instantly – and leaves the underside of your cock filled with needle holes. God knows what else it’s doing to your body. But hey, we have to get the shot, right? And what if you have an aversion to needles (or injecting some weird goop directly into your prick)? Well, there’s always someone (usually a dude) there to help. Ouch and Yuk!
3 Male Porn Stars Make Much Less Than Female Stars The usual rate of pay for a girl in the porn business can run anywhere from $800 a scene to $2,000 per scene, depending on the number of male performers she’s “accommodating”, and what the sex act actually is (like Double Penetration, threesomes, anal, creampie, etc)
How much do we guys make? On average: $200!! True, sometimes we can earn as much as $500 for a scene (and more, of course, if you’re a “name” star, like Ron Jeremy or Vince Voyeur). The thinking goes: Hey, you’re getting to fuck a gorgeous porn star so be happy you’re getting paid at all. But male porn actors have bills like car payments and rent, too, so we often have “day jobs” (or, “night gigs”, like waiters and parking lot attendants). After the cumshot you feel great but when you leave the shoot and realize you can’t pay your mortgage and have to do another shoot, right away maybe that day just to keep the creditors off your back, it’s not as much fun.
4 You Have To Have ‘Good Aim’ When it’s time for “the Money Shot” – the cumshot – the director almost always wants you to hit the female in the face with your jism. There’s nothing worse than shooting a hot scene and then, at the very end, with the girl on her knees, mouth wide open, waiting for your sperm, to shoot a giant load across the room barely getting a drop on her face! The director yells ‘CUT!” and sometimes they want you to do it again – and if you can’t, they bring in another cock for the splooge. Talk about ego crushing.
5 You’re Not Attracted To Your On-Screen Partner Maybe you’re not into breast implants (all that bouncing around can really hurt, especially if one of those silicone pumpkins accidently whacks you in the head). Maybe you only like redheads, or blondes, and the girl you’re fucking is a brunette and reminds you of your sister. Maybe she’s a little too fat, or skinny, or tall, or – you get the idea. It doesn’t matter if you HATE her or the way she looks, or smells, or tastes – you have to fuck her otherwise you’ll be replaced.
6 You’re Expected To Have Zero Hang-ups Maybe the scene is a threesome – with another guy and one girl! Or it’s a double penetration scene where it’s guaranteed your dick will at least touch another dude. Or perhaps you just find it uncomfortable to have a cameraman lean on your shoulders while he’s trying to get that close-up of her sucking your balls. Don’t like anal? Too bad. Don’t like eating pussy? Tough. Hate it when you’re expected to fling her around like Superman (against the wall, on the sink, over a couch, on a ladder…)? They don’t want to hear it. Just do it or get lost, we’ll find someone else!
7 She Hurts Your Dick Remember, your female porn partner is also trying to give a heated, passionate performance (her career and earning potential is on the line, too). So she bites your cock, jerks it really hard and fast, sucks those balls a little too intensely, moves her hips like she’s grinding raw meat trying to turn it into a hamburger. The list goes on and on. And you won’t get any sympathy from the director, or anyone on the set.
(Tomorrow – some truly shocking figures about Britain’s overpaid, over-pensioned charity bosses)
|
|
