Infant Kiev? Schoolboy Maryland? Children for lunch!

Sometime the fringe websites I tour every day to bring you the most startling and thought provoking news items throw up some unexpected treats.

Like this story:

“Tales of Black-Eyed children have been circling the globe since the late 1990′s and they are not your ordinary loving children, they are downright terrifying.

These demon children are the result of a breading program between the Alien/Nephilim (Satan’s offspring) and human women, resulting in a hybrid which has a human body that cannot be distinguished from a true human being, other than when they choose to flash you their wicked black eyes. They have the ability to network their minds, they can read your mind, and they can read your emotions. They have also been known to shape shift and become invisible or morph their bodies into something else.”

A “breading” program for children? Kinderschitzel? That’s what I want for my lunch. But what will these crazy chefs come up with next. Infant kiev?

Breading children (this link is provided for verification only, the story is insane)

For a better link (to the works of a seriously good poet – ahem) try this: Beautiful Children (with no love in their eyes)

Swimming with sharks near Darwin

Most of the downmarket news media today run a story about a man who heroically dived into the sea to save some silly bint who had decided to go swimming with sharks.

The woman no doubt thought she was communing with nature and being incredibly cool and her good karma would ensure she did not come to any harm. We have no way of knowing what the sharks thought but it was probably something along the lines of “coo, goody, free snacks.”

Sharks seldom think of anything else.

But why, you might well ask (coz we did) are the media praising the man who rescued this insaniac? What he did was not heroic, what he did was a crime against humanity.

Some pundit on television asked “Why do people want to swim with sharks which are dangerous creatures, why can’t they just swim with nice, friendly dolphins that never eat humans and generally seem to like us.

Again we must take the contrarian line. Why should people be encouraged to think they have a right to hassle dolphins when the poor creatures are quite content to mind their own business and will happily amuse simple minded people by jumping through hoops for a snack.

As we have said so often before, snacks are the key to all interspecies communications involving humans.

And why, we must also ask, was this stupid woman not allowed to swim with sharks? She is grown up, she must be aware sharks have a reputation for eating people. It was her choice, the rescuer violated her human rights. To be fair to sharks we must point out that they do not really eat people because they don’t know what people are. To a shark we are all just potential snacks.

We must stop this stupid business of making heroes of guys who rescue morons from the consequences of their own folly. If people want to be eaten by sharks or internet cannibals or tigers or and other creatures that are always on the look out for a snack, if people want to throw themselves off builodings, if people want to die we should give them a chance.

Saving them only disrupts nature’s ability to keep the balance of fuckwits to sane people about right. We must let Darwinism do its work.

The world needs less arseholes NOW!

Drunken Elk In The Orchard
More animal related posts

Wenger Proves Football Is Getting Sillier

Those whom the Gods would destroy the first make mad. This saying is often wrongly attributed to the Ancient Greek playwright Euripades but was in fact first uttered by Wilf Eadthball the Slaghoughton Times and Observer football writer in respect of the FA’s decision to appoint Steve McLaren the manager of the England national team.

Wilf’s words were very true. For those who reach the pinnacle of their profession in football management like the people who become political leaders, insanity seems to be an occupational hazard.

The latest top Premiership manager to show symptoms of advanced looniness is Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger. Wenger has had a long standing dispute with Machester United’s Alex Ferguson, himself stark raving bonkers in the head, and has had a go at several other managers. In his latest outburst however he is obsessing about the Aston Villa team’s long balls. Arsene reckons long balls like those the Villa players favour have no place in top clas football.

Perhaps the Frenchman is worried his star players will trip over the dangling sacks and injure themselves.

After the three – one defeat by Manchester United last weekend however it is only a matter of time before Arsene vents his spleen against Wayne Rooney, probably by claiming the United strikers shrek ears had his defence helpless with laughter.

Lend An Ear While I Tell Of Van Goch.

Everybody knows the artist Vincent Van Goch cut off his own ear. Some say the amputated lug ‘ole was sent to his friend Gaugin by way of an apology after the two mentalist artists had quarrelled. Another version has it that Van Goch, who when painting would become intensely absorbed in his work, cut off his ear because he had run out of Alizarin Crimson and was so intent on his painting he could not be arsed to go to the artists materials shop.

Both of these stories agree that after cutting off his ear Van Goch, who was bleeding profusely, walked to a nearby brothel and presented the ear which he had gift wrapped in a piece of linen, to a perplexed prostitute named Rachel. “What would I want with the ear of that mad crazy pig,” Rachel told Van Goch’s relatives when they went to collect the ear for burial with the rest of him.

The lunchtime news today featured two German historians who have now come up with another version of how the ear came to be cut off. They theorise the lugectomy was actually performed by Gaugin and have a theory as to how but not why.

In the absence of eye witness reports or a statement from either artists we can only speculate about what might have happened. Boggart Blog’s resident art critic Gizmo Monet suggested this theory.

“It is a matter of record that Gaugin’s style was somewhat primitive even by the standards of the late impressionists. Photo realism was not his thing. Now at the time of a certain ear related incident at Arles, Gaugin had been working on a portrait of the rather volatile Van Goch whose bouts of psychosis were caused by chronic constipation. Therefore I think the probable cause of the quarrel was that Van Goch did not like how Gaugin had painted his ear.”

“Paul, you talentless clown,” he might have raged, “what have you done? My ears look nothing like that!” to which Gaugin might have replied “So you can see round the side of your head now? How else could you know what your ears look like?”
and Van Goch, not a man to let things lie, would have taken the bait. “You think we Dutch are so backward we have never heard of mirrors, you prick? You’ve made me look like a cross between Mr. Spock and Dumbo.”
“I can only paint what I see, big ears,” we expect Gaugin would have said as he chopped of Van Goch’s ear, “Look there’s your ear, knobhead. Take a good look. That’s the silliest looking ear I’ve ever seen.”

Unfortunately we can never know who was right because history does not record whether Rachel flushed Van Goch’s ear down the toilet or had it made into a silk purse.


Latest archive selection now online: Boggart Blog Select vol 5

and don’t forget all the other Greenteeth Multi Media pages…
Greenteeth Multi Media
Greenteeth Comedy Pages
A Tale Told By An Idiot

Guaranteed to get things moving