Had a brush with the law (of nature) yesterday. It was pretty scary. Reminded me of just how fragile this civilization caper actually is.
I was at Burwood station, and nipped into the loo for a tinkle. As I was washing my hands there was an almighty thwock-doing! on the door, followed by some Neanderthal grunts and groans. A couple more thwock-doings followed.
I assumed the gorilla outside was just desperate for a pee. But what if he wanted to release some rage with his fists as well? If he cornered me inside the cubicle, I would have been dead meat for sure.
But I knew I had to open the door no matter what. Staying inside would just make him even more pissed off.
I yelled, "Calm down. I'm coming out!"
I gave it a second, then unlocked the door and began opening it. Just then his boot hit the door again, propelling it back againgst the wall, and grazing my thumb in the process. The no-neck almost tumbled inside, and I made my escape.
He was a mean-lookin' thing that's for sure. He wasn't a skinhead, but had a malevolent, thick-browed Romper Stomper ambience about him that was seriously intimdating.
He was obviously a bit of a thug. But I wasn't going to let him get away with this. If you say nothing they never learn, right?
Voice trembling, I said, "I'm gonna report you!"
I walked over to the turnstiles and told these two guards about what had happened. They seemed reluctant to have to deal with this.
We found him in one of the walk-ups to a platform. They gave him a half-hearted dressing down. And I followed up by telling him he should learn some manners and be more patient.
He apologised, but there was no real contrition in his voice (or any emotion for that matter). He just knew he had to say this to get us off his back so he could hop on the next train and go and commit his next petty crime.
I thanked the guards and left. I felt that at least I'd made an effort to show him that this behaviour was not on. Still he'd gotten away with it pretty easily.
I knew that this guy, like so many others, was beyond hope. And that if he hadn't already caused some serious damage to someone he certainly would do so sooner or later. If he was willing to use physical force in his quest to empty his bladder, then surely he would have little hesitation in doing the same to empty other, er, nearby parts of his anatomy.
But how did he get like this? Obviously from bad, or absent parenting when he was a tacker, and then bad, or absent guidance from the state as he became an adult. He knew that he could more or less do whatever he wanted and not suffer any real consequences.
Bloody sad, really. There are heaps of people like him nowadays. This is why the "society is to blame" crowd really shits me. They think it's an excess of authority that creates criminals, when clearly it's the other way around. There's nothing noble about a savage, after all.
Things are bad enough in this country now. But imagine if these pinko plonkers really got hold of the reins where it counts?
Gawd. I don't even want to think about it.
Friday, August 01, 2003
Monday, July 28, 2003
More thoughts on "sponsorship" of arty wankers: If you go here, you'll see a site for a Freo street performer festival. You'll notice the Smoke Free WA logo in the top right hand corner. Obvious question: "Does this guy look like a non-smoker?"
On another page you see some of the other performers. There's a reminder: "Buskers do this for a living. Please remember to show your support."
Two points: Firstly, no they don't do this for a "living". They submit their dole forms, or sell drugs, or live remora-like off their girlfriends (while schtupping anything with a pulse behind their their backs)... for a "living".
Secondly, even though it's inaccurate this little exhortation is revealing. It shows that the performers are receiving no money from the sponsors for their efforts. So, in that case, why call them sponsors?
This begs the question: who is getting paid? Bureaucrats, that's who.
Smug, lazy, often incompetent bureaucrats, whose purported function is to "empower artists" and make sure that there is "equality".
How ironic is that?
Lefties quack on endlessly about low wages for immigrants in factories etc. But I'd say the exploitation in Artsville is as bad, or worse. Workers in sweatshops get paid very little. But artists in festivals get absolutely buggerall! Why aren't the fluffs complaining about that? Because they're too busy doing the exploiting, that's why.
Hey, Smoke Free WA. I hope you burn in hell! And street performers, you deserve what you get, 'cause you're just a pack of bloody clowns!
On another page you see some of the other performers. There's a reminder: "Buskers do this for a living. Please remember to show your support."
Two points: Firstly, no they don't do this for a "living". They submit their dole forms, or sell drugs, or live remora-like off their girlfriends (while schtupping anything with a pulse behind their their backs)... for a "living".
Secondly, even though it's inaccurate this little exhortation is revealing. It shows that the performers are receiving no money from the sponsors for their efforts. So, in that case, why call them sponsors?
This begs the question: who is getting paid? Bureaucrats, that's who.
Smug, lazy, often incompetent bureaucrats, whose purported function is to "empower artists" and make sure that there is "equality".
How ironic is that?
Lefties quack on endlessly about low wages for immigrants in factories etc. But I'd say the exploitation in Artsville is as bad, or worse. Workers in sweatshops get paid very little. But artists in festivals get absolutely buggerall! Why aren't the fluffs complaining about that? Because they're too busy doing the exploiting, that's why.
Hey, Smoke Free WA. I hope you burn in hell! And street performers, you deserve what you get, 'cause you're just a pack of bloody clowns!
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Couple more thought on those photos from the Hussein family album: Tim Blair makes the good point that Saddamite appeaseniks have it both ways when carping about "undignified" images from the war.
Also, why are the fluffs only complaining now, in the case of a pair of sadistic thugs? You see shots of brutally murdered, poverty-stricken people all the time in the media, and they invariably remain silent.
This can only mean one thing: That fluffs believe oppressed people have no human dignity.
Fucking barbarians.
Also, why are the fluffs only complaining now, in the case of a pair of sadistic thugs? You see shots of brutally murdered, poverty-stricken people all the time in the media, and they invariably remain silent.
This can only mean one thing: That fluffs believe oppressed people have no human dignity.
Fucking barbarians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)