UNEXPURGATED||CHESTER WHELKS Vs EVERETT TRUE (via Lana Del Rey)||

Q. Why would Everett True delete the following on his site, then ban the author?

A. Because according to him, I’m an “un-PC, chauvinist objectifying women”.

Confused? Then read on. 

King of the controversial/contrary statement The ‘Legend’ Jerry Thackray introduced Kurt to Courtney and has continued to ruin music ever since. In the last few days, I had the audacity to post several impassioned comments on his COLLAPSE-BOARD’s recent piece on the universally suspect, inherently contentious Lana Del Rey. This resulted in my being censured, and banned from the site. I’ve posted a link to the article, as well as picked-out all relevant posts by-and to-myself so you can decide for yourself whether this was warranted.

The Crux of the article is that ‘Video Games’ is a good piece of song writing, and that  the question as to whether her lips are real is irrelevant.

Article: The Question of Authenticity and Lana Del Rey

stomp

 

 

 

My girlfriend wrote a comment at the same time as I was writing the above. It was swiftly deleted by Everett True (as referred to in the final screen cap) but the text was backed up and is published below:

As the obviously long-suffering “her in doors” to the Andy Capp that is apparently Chester Whelks, I’d like to stick my kitchen ladle into this character assassination of him.

There’s no wolves dressed as Naomi here. Chet stands up for women getting the fuck on with their lives, instead of repressing themselves aesthetically (and in turn, emotionally, fiscally and occupationally) for the sake of pleasing anyone other than themselves.

The trout-pout has wafted the fiery flames within his soul. I’m sure we’re all agreed that LDR was an innately attractive woman before she decided to sell-out her own FACE to the music industry and, well, The Beauty Myth.

Her music should be taken purely on artistic merit, and if you like what LDR is saying with her lyricism, then great. She didn’t just stumble upon music, we all know she was a performer under her original name of Lizzy Grant for many years before the “make-over” that has spawned Lana Del Rey.

Why was it necessary to transform her original form into something that is obviously fake? When I question authenticity, I ask myself if the product I’m receiving is without pretension. Is the artist really trying to convey something honest to me? Maybe I’m just a big dirty hippy, but I’d like my lilies pure and sans the gilding.

Take someone like Kimya Dawson: she doesn’t give a flying fuck about her appearance in relation to what is expected of her.
She’s human, as am I (and believe it or not, Chester) so I’m taking a guess that she’s had the odd moment of self-doubt, but her outlook is that as a woman, it’s what you achieve in life that matters, not what you look like.

When yr dead your corpse ain’t gonna get any prettier.

LDR’s lips, her make-over, her name change for fuck’s sake, all smack (no pun intended) of industry and media pressure to me. It’s just a shame she couldn’t have stayed Lizzy Grant and sang about being a sex-puppet spare-wheel to her boyfriend’s past-times.

As a side note, I don’t know any men who like the ‘Video Games’ track, which is interesting. I do know a lot of women whom really enjoy it, and do you know what they say to me to convince me to enjoy it, too?

“It’s such a lovely and romantic song, though!”

I get it. The first time I heard the track I thought “Geeze, what a schmuck. Fuck putting on his favourite sun dress. Fuck this dick sitting around scratching is testicles with one hand, beer in the other watching me get undressed. And he can get the fuck off the console and let me play my video games thank you very much.”

Chester and I also enjoy me wearing make-up when the mood takes me, wearing clothes I feel beautiful and comfortable in, and as this seems to be important for some fucking reason, oral sex. What a fucking revelation.

I think some of you are not quite understanding his point.

Last thing, I can quite empathise that Zappa might not be to everyone’s tastes, but slandering a man who caused such a stir at a time when everyone was too willing to sucker up to the status quo (much like now) is just infantile. This conversation has nothing to do with Zappa.

But, like I said, each to their own as far as Zappa is concerned, but to dismiss Bill Hicks makes you either completely thick or soulless. (or contrary for the sake of making an impact, you decide).

 True deleted the above post, and thumbed his nose at us, before swiftly removing it, and my final comment depicted in the last screen cap.

I then attempted to reason with the Indie Rock despot, but I’m guessing by this point I was banned, and it was subsequently lost:

Sorry, I didn’t get the memo that it was un-P.C to champion un-customised woman.

Oh, and that deleted comment my girlfriend posted? Well, I thought it a little reminiscent of my point, but I don’t tell my ‘woman’ what to do.

You might want to re-evaluate your opinion of women & look her up.

She wrote that comment of her own volition and you’re supressing the free-speech of a woman who (it’s crazy, I know) shares a similar view on the subject as I, as well as an I.P address.

You’re completely insane Everett. How in the fuck am I objectifying women by arguing against their objectification?!  The only sexist here is you for believing that a woman might objectify to body-modification that cow-tows to the male ideal of it.

That it’s come to this, Jesus. If you’re not feeling up-to debating me Everett, because I’m fervent and unrelenting, meet me with a wall of silence, you’ve surely got better to do, but Censorship?

Irrespective of how you think I went about making my point – I know my vernacular can rub people-up the wrong way – I find it astonishing that a supposedly educated, and I’m guessing ‘liberal’ man can live with himself supressing freedom of speech which, whatever way you look at it is criticising the subjugation of women to a cosmetically-enhanced ideal that panders to men’s sexual fantasies. To say that I am a mysoginist, objectifying women is…fantasy.

12 comments:

  1. Collapse Board is full of hand wringing liberals who conveniently aren’t so liberal when an opinion that differs to the status quo is put out there. You’re writing in the comments section is much more fun to read than the elitist, pretentious bullshit that CB writers seem intent on spouting. Everett is a cunt of the highest order, he came to my university last year and the general consensus was that he was a washed up wanker trying to prolonge a career that should never have really been in the first place; I mean his last resort to everything is fucking Nirvana! Who even gives a shit these days? And his constant ‘anti-men, pro-woman’ vibe is extremely tiresome and laughable when defending some of his more ridiculous and immature writers (‘Hannah Golightly’ – what a fucking dumb pseudonym that is for starters – sticks in the memory as an extremely irritating Everett True disciple). Spot on article, I notice he’s crying on Facebook about it too – and surprise surprise, all of his hand-wringing followers have leapt to his defence.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Cobain, Zappa. Who gives a shit? Both over rated, both boring, both dead…. hang on….. has anyone seen them in the same room at the same time? I personally find Everett True amusing while absolutely hating about 90% of the bands he champions. Having just found your blog, I’ll reserve judgement and enjoy the handbags at 20 paces

    ReplyDelete

  3. The phrase ‘Cunt Of The Month’ is the intellectual property of http://www.trakMARX.com . . . could someone please point out who I need to take legal action against for this blatant infringement of copyright law?

    ReplyDelete

  4. Further to my earlier post . . . just noticed the Ucunt gag too . . . sorry, but that was us again . . . http://www.trakMARX.com . . . we registered that one too . . . in fact, Uncut themselves were so pissed at it, they punned back by using the phrase ‘track marks’ in their reviews section back in the mid-noughties . . . I’m sure we can settle out of court: name, bank account number, sort code, 3-digit pin, you know the drill!

    ReplyDelete

  5. Seeing as we’re crying about censorship, I hope this comment stays on the page. I agree with True, and I also think you’re an irritating, inarticulate cry baby. It’s obvious enough that your girlfriends comments were written by you because they’re both written in the same rambling, confused voice. Hint: shorten your sentences, it doesn’t hurt to be concise. Also, we’re all grown ups here, so there’s no need to try and impress people by peppering your language with “big words”.

    ReplyDelete

  6. Elliot Williams18 November 2011 16:00

    I assume you are the same Libby that wrote this comment on True’s Facebook thread:

    ‘Tried to comment, but apparently I have to wait for it to be approved. I’d call it irony if it wasn’t so fucking sad.’

    Ermm… have you ever tried to leave a comment on Collapse Board?

    The fact you’ve all resorted to saying that Chester and his girlfriend are the same person is laughable when it’s completely unfounded, and when you take a step back and look at it, a bunch of washed-up/wannabe journalists/critics/whatever the fuck you want to cal yourselves essentially ganging up on an Internet blogger because he stated a widely-held opinion (that Everett True is a cunt) and backed it up with screenshots (True’s last comment is truly indefensible) is the real fucking tragedy.

    ReplyDelete

  7. It’s not everyday that your very existence is questioned.
    Sorry to upset the apple cart, rain on your parade, and many other clichés you might find easier to understand, but I, Kathleen Saros, am real.

    I was a woman with an opinion about womanhood, that Everett True deemed unsuitable to his tastes, so he deleted it, and then blamed my “outrageous” statements on the over-fertile imagination of my boyfriend, Chester.

    Here is my (now) deleted post if you missed it:
    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/e853gt

    I worry less for our sanity, and more for the sanity of the marauding, Everett True sycophants whom jumped-in, head-first, unwittingly presuming, straight away, that I couldn’t possibly exist.

    Presuming that Chester has some sort of debilitating mental health problem.

    He didn’t write my prose, I did. Because I’m intelligent, and have a sense of justice that is apparently just too unbelievable for a woman to possess.

    There’s no rambling or confusion in my writing dear Libby, I know that is abundantly clear. Take your pot-shots at my apparent inability to express myself clearly, but they’re unfounded.

    If you don’t understand “big words” then don’t try to change the way we express ourselves; I type as I speak, and luckily the people I’m surrounded by on a daily basis are smart enough to decipher my allegedly archaic parlance.

    As for free-speech, I am completely dumbfounded by Everett True’s accusation that we, Chester and Kitty, don’t understand the term.

    I feel like I’m losing my mind dealing with you idiots : If my post about womanhood was deleted, and denied by Everett – where is the free-speech?

    I am not allowed to say what I think, I have had my opinion repressed.

    I allow everyone and anyone say whatever the fuck they like to me, that is clear : I censor no person.

    Everett True acted like a bitter school prefect by deleting our comments, and not allowing our side of the story to be told. The truth will out though Everett, and if you continue to be a complete wanker, you’ll wank on the wrong person one day, and you’ll lose your equally wanky and embittered fan club.

    Regards,
    Miss Kathleen Saros (in existence since 1982, Manchester, UK)

    PS Libby, if you spent any time on the internet, you’ll find that the majority of blogs ensure that comments are moderated first to avoid spambots (I’ve included a link about the subject for you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spambot)

    ReplyDelete

  8. What happened at Collapse Board wasn’t censorship in the same sense as governmental censorship. It was somebody who owns a website kicking someone off because they find them odious. It’s like kicking someone out of your party because they’re saying obnoxious shit. Anybody who runs a website has that right.

    Did he kick you off because of the points you were making Chester? I don’t think so, seeing as you weren’t making any points. At no point in the article did the writer state that Lana Del Rey was cool, or represented an ideal for womanhood. Quite the opposite. Here’s a quote:

    “… the song deserves to be heard by thousands of young women who can relate to the nihilism, the self-hatred and the struggle against darkness represented in this song. Let us hope it serves as a warning.”

    What the writer was doing was looking for the human being who wrote the song. You just saw an article about Lana Del Rey that was not a scathing put-down and decided that it must be endorsing her. It was endorsing the song ‘Video Games’, not the steps Lana Del Rey might have taken to get famous. You didn’t seem to get that. So what was your point, that young women do fucked-up things to their bodies for fame? Hold the fucking front page. If people harming their bodies bothers you so much I expect you to be slapping the cigarettes out of people’s mouths and slamming every attempt at iconic smoking imagery.

    Except it’s not about that. It’s about your own insecurities in regards to beautiful women. Do you hate Zooey Deschanel too? All those cute women, they only got famous cos they are attractive, but you see right through that don’t you? Do attractive women make you insecure? You have to show them that they don’t wield power over you, don’t you?

    To be honest I would have kicked you off for saying:

    “The attacks on that cocksucer-pucker are all about her perpetuating The Beauty Myth (Naomi Wolf, you might want to read it, though by the sounds of this article you’ve got less estrogen in your body than I have, and it’d make little-to-no sense to you.”

    Never mind that you refuse to see Lana Del Rey as a victim of the Beauty Myth, you also had to make a stupid, ugly comment about the writer of the piece, a writer who shows considerably more intelligence, humanity and empathy than you. That was pathetic. So talking about Zappa was beside the point? Fucking estrogen? Taking a pot-shot at the writers femininity? Jesus, that was low.

    Does your girlfriend wear make-up? Does that her pathetic if she does?

    It’s fine, you can call me a sycophant to make yourself feel better. Your girlfriend agrees with you so she must be a sycophant, right? Oh, and how is your sister with bulimia? Honestly, you weren’t saying a single thing. Why can’t a song be good if the writer may have had surgery to enhance their looks? It makes them inherently dishonest? Mark E. Smith was arrested for beating his girlfriend up. Assault and battery. Does that affect how you listen to the Fall? What kind of lowlife beats their girlfriend? You can separate that out can’t you.

    You can complain all you want about censorship, even though Everett True linked this piece on his Facebook page, but just admit that your extreme hatred for Lana Del Rey comes from a place beyond the need for truth and justice. It comes from some deep seated contempt for attractive women and the power they wield.

    ReplyDelete

  9. Wallace.

    What happened WAS censorship. Collapse Board isn’t a house party, it’s supposedly an arena in which to criticise music and musicians (In fact, it jokingly promotes violence in furtherance of criticism on it’s main-page ‘mission statement’. Assassinating a musician? Imagine that, Yoko!). If Collapse Board were a party, it’d be a 24 hour, open door ‘Hey dude, do whatever you want, this is a shared house anyway, the fuck I care?’ kind of party, and you only have yourself to blame if some undesirable eats all your pot pourri, pukes in the fish bowl, and passes out on your couch, pissing himself as he slumbers.

    If I was one such unwelcome ‘house’ guest, with no agenda or ‘point to make’, you’ve spent an awful lot of column inches countering it. I attacked the original article, because a woman was basically saying that Lana Del Rey’s plastic surgery was not an issue.

    If you believe that, fine. I never managed to catch Jerry’s opinion on it, because he played it safe, attacking people I used as examples. Zappa and Hicks were used to illustrate important political figures in music and comedy respectively, that was the extent of their involvement, If you can think of better examples, please feel free to get in touch. It was ridiculously childish of him to play critic for everything except the matter at hand.

    Jerry posted a link to this article on his Facebook account as an excercise in damage limitation. He knew that if he didn’t openly admit to the fact he had censured two valid counterarguments to the original argument, he was opening himself up for criticism. This was evidenced in his stalking me on Twitter to see what I was doing about it, and who I was talking to about my gaging. He admitted this on Facebook too. Go see…oh, wait, that’s right you can’t because he’s removed all reference to this debacle on there too, after he commended you doing his dirty work in the above comment.

    If my statements were all so abhorrent, and lacking any ‘point’, then surely Jerry could have left them hanging in the air like a fart, safe in the knowledge no sane person could enjoy them? No, he chose to remove them completely. What’s worse is the fact that he originally allowed my final statement, but removed it after thinking that my girlfriend’s comment were ghost written by me (even going so far as to say that I concocted her entirely). If this is accepted by you both not to be the case, the comments should be reinstated.

    I’ve allowed my critics a chance to speak. Before getting my IP banned from Collapse Board, I would never prevent anyone from voicing their misgivings about my opinion (given as I’m so secure in it’s validity), as long as they had one.

    To dislike what someone is saying doesn’t mean that it isn’t THEIR opinion.

    If we condone censorship among supposedly liberal people, how can we guard against it or complain when it does occur at the highest levels?

    I don’t hate Lana Del Rey, I hate the fact that she abandoned the person she really is in order to gain acceptance, or rather that she had to.

    “Never mind that you refuse to see Lana Del Rey as a victim of the Beauty Myth”

    THAT’s THE EXACT POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE BY BRINGING IT UP & ATTACKING HER PLASTIC SURGERY, YOU CRETIN.

    ReplyDelete

  10. I wrote a comment here because you fucking e-mailed me out of nowhere and asked me to look at this page. It’s a little disingenuous to accuse somebody of stalking when you have clearly been obsessing over this since it happened. So you truly see Lana Del Rey as a victim in all this? I’d hate to be a victim and have you on my side. Why not use violent, misogynistic language to completely debase the victim, and then for good measure have a go at the female writer of an article that attempts to view Lana Del Rey through a different light by making a low blow about their femininity. I’m assuming the judges for feminist of the year are already knocking down your door. Read back over your statements. You read like an angry, mindless bully. Can an insecure person with low self-worth write a great song? Of course they fucking can. That is the whole point of the article. What happened with her lips has nothing to do with the songwriting process and only an idiot would say otherwise.

    Do you have a sister with bulimia?

    ReplyDelete

  11. Excuse me Wallace Wylie, why don’t you question what sort of comment was made about MY femininity when Everett DENIED my comment because, TO QUOTE :
    “You’re not very good at imitating women, are you?”

    I am a fucking woman, yet, I’ve been told I don’t even qualify as a woman by Mr Riotgrrrl True.

    It was MY comment that sparked this whole fucking fiasco, my comment that was deemed not-feminine enough to be real.

    You need to start asking yourself more objective questions about this situation in my opinion.

    As for Chester, he’s the most liked and loved, sincere and honest, truthful and just person I’ve ever met. It’s a shame there aren’t more men like him around, willing to question the corrupt ideals we’re willingly spoon-fed everyday.

    I’ll repeat the main question from my now deleted comment on the board:
    “Why was it necessary to transform her original form into something that is obviously fake? …
    It’s just a shame she couldn’t have stayed Lizzy Grant and sang about being a sex-puppet spare-wheel to her boyfriend’s past-times.”

    THAT is THE question we were asking, that is the point Chester was trying to make.

    When mainstream expectations of what a woman should look like, start insidiously slipping their way into the “indie aesthetic” (which I guess doesn’t mean jack-shit anymore) what hope is there for the women on the outside of popular culture?

    Finally, we’ve not been obsessing, we, like you (I would hope) have a “IRL” to attend to – our come-back ball-out was fueled by Everett himself, doggedly flogging the Facebook comments-corpse well after we realised there was no reasoning with his mob. (until, I might add, I mentioned his bizarre tenacity on twitter… then as if by magic, the page was deleted).
    I’ve not been replied to or even proved to be real yet by Everett True, and that speaks volumes to me.

    ReplyDelete

  12. Wallace, you are welcome to comment here.

    I have more of an inclination to obsess over this, because I am outraged at what I see as valid, and well made points being ignored and stifled (I was becoming far less scurrilous by the time I was erased and muted).

    Yes I have a sister with bulimia.

    She hasn’t released a single so let’s leave her out of the public arena, eh? I will however send you an email containing details of her situation if you so desire. You can take it as you will, along with my word that – Profane and aggressive as I may come across, I have a finely-attuned ‘Justice-Button’ (at least, as I perceive it). Your fuhrer has already told his foot soldiers that my girlfriend is fake, so there’s little I can do to assuage your suspicions other than give you my word. The first comment to this post was by someone suggesting True has Hannah Golightly as a faux female alter ego, so I suppose I can relate. If I were to buy into that user’s theory, I suppose I’d have an understanding of how he leapt to the conclusion that he did.

    My ‘estrogen’ comment was crass but outrageous enough to be taken as absurd, I’d hoped. And, yes, I’d hoped it’d be challenging, and no less insulting. But I’m no Troll.

    Princess Stomper didn’t seem to take issue with that statement in particular. I wasn’t attacking her femininity, but rather what I perceived to be a seeming lack of Feminist leanings. It angered me that a woman from the ‘Indie’ community was acting as apologist for this perpetuation of ‘the Beauty Myth’ by an artist so bewilderingly linked-with (and increasingly accepted-by) the ‘Indie’ world.

    I’ll admit that when I first heard the song, and subsequently saw her, it sent me into something of a rage, based on the disparity of the lyrics and how she was so obviously subjugated by the world at large.

    Maybe when alternative ideals are pushed through to success, they can’t help but become corrupted. This whole furore has shocked me into supposing that the feminist ideal has suffered the same fate? Surely a patriarchal society’s most desirable outcome for Feminism is that it become enmeshed with the already implemented framework – women undertake all the sexually demeaning positions they previously did, but believe they’re doing it for themselves rather than anyone else?

    “MEN WIN AGAIN EVERYBODY!”

    that’s what I’m faced with – that’s what I meant when I referred to this “cognitive dissonance that passes as 21st Century feminism”. I’ve had this argument in the past about pornography, or stripping. I’m perceived as a fucking Fuddy-Duddy for believing that its demeaning for women to strip, or fuck for the delectation of men. But it’s what I believe, and when I see women defending a (albeit lesser) strain of this form of subjugation, it enrages me, and I respond violently and aggressively in order for my opinion to be noticed. I respond in a similar fashion to music I despise for it’s fakery (I know that this opinion is scoffed-at on Collapse Board, I read that authenticity is a myth over there), but I reviewed Sleigh Bells earlier this year, and was offended by a former Hardcore Guitarist & child actress miming before a volley of Marshall stacks, and passing it off as edgy.

    It’s just in my nature. Likewise my style of writing is spikey. I realise it doesn’t adhere to the concise, K.I.S.S. doctrine followed by Everett and the writers and fans of Collapse (Hi Libby!), but that’s me, and I don’t dress it up for anyone.

    ReplyDelete

One thought on “UNEXPURGATED||CHESTER WHELKS Vs EVERETT TRUE (via Lana Del Rey)||”

  1. This is… insane. Zappa horseshit? Everett True is clearly a cunt. As are his followers. Not because he doesn’t like something I like, but because he thinks it’s not ‘good’. There’s plenty of shite I don’t like, but if it’s good, then I’ll quantify my dismissal with something like, “Well, I hate Rush but they’re excellent musicians.” This guy writes about music? No wonder the industry is in the state it is in.

    Once more for good measure: Everett True is a cunt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s