Saturday, April 26, 2003
Monday, April 21, 2003
Good article on the Left's unsurprisingly way-off predictions about the war. Included are some details of Saddam's training methods. These included a Young Pioneer-like institution called "Saddam's Lion Cubs". (Like commies and fascists he saw the benefits of getting 'em while they were young.) One of the tests of strength included making the wannabe torturers (who were true whippersnappers) to eviscerate dogs with their bare hands.
Charming.
Maybe if the lefties had heard about this earlier, they would have supported the war on the grounds of the regime's cruelty to animals?
Charming.
Maybe if the lefties had heard about this earlier, they would have supported the war on the grounds of the regime's cruelty to animals?
Sunday, April 20, 2003
Professor Bunyip and ABC Watch have been getting stuck into Guy Rundle over his clearly stated desire for more bloodshed in the Middle East. Bunyip uses the term "moral void" to describe the core of Rundle's psyche.
Void. Spot on. That's the term that so often comes to my mind when watching the fluffs. It's not that they're evil. They're just vacuous. Examine their ideology, peel back the layers and what have you got at the end of it all? A big fat lump of nothin'.
And nothin' placed next to somethin' creates a vacuum. Fluffs suck, big time.
They can only ever express themselves with negatives and condemnation. No war, no greenhouse gas emissions, no capitalism, no billboards of spunky nude chicks, no marriage, no inappropriate suffixes, etc. No to this; no to that.
I remember listening to a tape of the bong-suckling barbarian Abbie Hoffman yelling "Just say no!" to a crowd of sixties' fluffs. I thought the guy was a complete tosser. But the fluff I was with at the time found the speech incredibly inspiring. I subsequently discovered why: there was a void at the core of her heart. Just as there was a void at the core of Hoffman's, and pretty well all lefties' for that matter.
They live to negate, to deny, to accuse. But what do they ever say yes to? Another big fat lump of nothin'.
(Sure, they occasionally claim that they're for things -- "peace" for instance. But the "peace" they endorse usually means tyranny. And when they say they believe in freedom, that's freedom from responsibility, not freedom with responsibility. Big difference.)
Fluffs are like fillum critics. The screenwriter and director can create art without the critic. But the critic needs a fillum to eviscerate to have an identity. Similarly, fluffs are nothing without a successful, humane and principled civilization to bitch and moan about.
This is the essence of fluffy wuffism. It's the nasty, nihilistic desire to tear down what better, braver, kinder people have created.
Void. Spot on. That's the term that so often comes to my mind when watching the fluffs. It's not that they're evil. They're just vacuous. Examine their ideology, peel back the layers and what have you got at the end of it all? A big fat lump of nothin'.
And nothin' placed next to somethin' creates a vacuum. Fluffs suck, big time.
They can only ever express themselves with negatives and condemnation. No war, no greenhouse gas emissions, no capitalism, no billboards of spunky nude chicks, no marriage, no inappropriate suffixes, etc. No to this; no to that.
I remember listening to a tape of the bong-suckling barbarian Abbie Hoffman yelling "Just say no!" to a crowd of sixties' fluffs. I thought the guy was a complete tosser. But the fluff I was with at the time found the speech incredibly inspiring. I subsequently discovered why: there was a void at the core of her heart. Just as there was a void at the core of Hoffman's, and pretty well all lefties' for that matter.
They live to negate, to deny, to accuse. But what do they ever say yes to? Another big fat lump of nothin'.
(Sure, they occasionally claim that they're for things -- "peace" for instance. But the "peace" they endorse usually means tyranny. And when they say they believe in freedom, that's freedom from responsibility, not freedom with responsibility. Big difference.)
Fluffs are like fillum critics. The screenwriter and director can create art without the critic. But the critic needs a fillum to eviscerate to have an identity. Similarly, fluffs are nothing without a successful, humane and principled civilization to bitch and moan about.
This is the essence of fluffy wuffism. It's the nasty, nihilistic desire to tear down what better, braver, kinder people have created.
The feisty feminist sheilas obviously like this fillum. But isn't the title a tad, er, sexist? I mean, if real women have curves, then doesn't it imply that skinny chicks are fake?
Does this mean that waif-like feminist icon Susan Faludi will no longer be revered by the sisterhood? Gawd, we could be in for a PC paradigm shift!
For what it's worth my opinion on the whole cellulite caper is: all chicks are real (or should I say, unreal). Fat ones, skinny ones, all them in-betwinny ones. Doesn't matter to me. I'm an equal opportunity voyeur.
Does this mean that waif-like feminist icon Susan Faludi will no longer be revered by the sisterhood? Gawd, we could be in for a PC paradigm shift!
For what it's worth my opinion on the whole cellulite caper is: all chicks are real (or should I say, unreal). Fat ones, skinny ones, all them in-betwinny ones. Doesn't matter to me. I'm an equal opportunity voyeur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)