Boffins reckon that sex is actually good for the brain! But if that's true, then wouldn't that make this bloke the most intelligent man on earth?

Maybe he is, and he's just been hiding his light under a bushel...

Here are two great pieces on the power of tribal emotion to wash away rational thought in even quite brainy people.

Yet another thought on the Raelians: They're clearly not Christians. In fact, their whole philosophy is about as far away from that world-view as you can get. So why did they call the alleged cloned sproglet "Eve"?

Bloody unoriginal, I reckon.

Lazy cultists.

Gawd. Talk about "cutting edge"!

While I'm making predictions, here's another one: I read a letter in a recent print edition of The Oz. (Sorry, can't recall exactly which issue, so don't have a link or complete text.) Anyway, it was a pithy missive referring to the Windschuttle challenge to the "black armband" approach to Australian history. It more or less stated that "factual correctness" would -- or at least should -- challenge political correctness in the universities.

Well, I reckon this will be the start of a whole new process. Factual correctness will be abbreviated to "FC" and be invoked by non-fluffs in the same way that "PC" is currently invoked by fluffs. For example: "Er, I know I'm being really, um, FC, here. But shouldn't you be able to give me some sort of irrefutable, empirical evidence to back up your claim that all men are rapists?"

Similarly, the fluffs will claim that they are oppressed by the right-wing orthodoxy of factual correctness. Eventually we'll read headlines like: "Australian Union of Students demands an end to FC on Curtin University campus!"

Then we'll know for sure that things are improving.

Sorry, but here's yet another post on the Raelians (I know, I've got sects on the brain). This time I want to make a couple of predictions:

This report tells us that Clonaid has thousands lining up to be replicated. This number will surely grow the longer the cult is in the headlines. At 200 grand a pop, that's extremely big money. This whole cloning claim was clearly a scam to get hold of it (d'uh).

So, I reckon they'll keep taking orders, while all the time delaying inspection of the sprog like Saddam on valium.

Then what? The wannabe clonees will become extremely shat off and demand their money back. But it won't be forthcoming. With the authorities on their tails, the head Raelians will go underground. We won't hear anything of them for several months.

Then they'll hit the headlines again when their lifeless bodies are found in a basement in a secluded farmhouse somewhere in the French countryside. Yep, it'll end just as all them other wacky cults do: with a mass suicide.

You don't reckon? Just you wait and see.

Another thought on the Raelians: It seems odd that a cult that's so heavily into "free love" (i.e. mad rooting) should also be obsessed with cloning, which -- apart from being unethical -- is also hyper-clinical, antiseptic and therefore anti-sexual (sex being synonomous with all them sticky body fluids and all).

Also, Raelians say their interest in the technique is related to their desire to create physically and intellectually superior people. But cloning isn't improvement, it's just replication. So, invoking the super-race argument implies that the would-be clonee thinks he's already perfect.

That said, why do they bother with cloning at all? They just need to get all the sect members who want to be cloned to ditch their frangers and dutch caps before the next "sensual meditation" session (i.e. balls-to-the-wall clusterfuck) then harvest the resulting sprogs.

That'd save a lot of time and effort wouldn't it?

Speaking of the sad randomness of beauty, here's another example: Brigitte Boisellier, self-proclaimed human cloning mastermind. Okay, so she's not Claudia Schiffer, but she does scrub up alright. And that's pretty sad considering what she's just done (or at least, has been trying to do). Wouldn't it be easier to stomach if she was just really butt-ugly?

There are some good points in this Miranda Devine piece about how ferndamentalist zealotry has made things worse for da cute fwuffy aminals rather than better. She argues that halting small hazard reduction fires leads to an immense build-up of ground fuel that ultimately leads to massive conflagrations.

The article reminded me of some ferndies I saw begging for funds a fortnight ago in Sydney. Each wore a t-shirt with a picture of a koala on it and the words "Please help save my home" (followed by an exhortation to give to the Wilderness Society) written underneath. Having heard this ground fuel argument before, I looked at the t-shirts and had a quiet cack. I felt like saying: "Shouldn't that read, 'Please help destroy my home and me with it you arseholes!'?" But I didn't because one of the ferndies was a very scrumptious, bosomy babe and she flashed me this pearler of a smile. I just melted, I'm afraid.

(That's the really tragic thing about these young ferndie sheilas. Why do so many have to be so gorgeous? It's just too cruel!)

Please Lord, not again -- I beg you!

I love reading pieces sledging flashbulb addicts who think they can change the world. Here's another one.

Just had a thought I decided to run by you:

The destructive effect of all this moral relativism over the last thirty years has left the twitizens of Artsville (and other fluffy wuffy strongholds) in a weird situation. In their view there's no wrong or right any more -- only moral shades of grey. But why are they so certain of themselves? Because they've simply replaced wrong and right with two other concepts: "right-wing" and "left-wing" respectively. And what's a "right-wing" person? Why, someone who believes there's a difference between right and wrong, of course!

Hence, when a bunch of sexually constipated yokels slaughter thousands of innocent people, the fluffs have great difficulty in seeing why it's flat-out wrong. That is: America and her allies are run by "right-wing" (morally absolutist) governments. To be "right-wing" is wrong. Terrorism is against America, therefore it can be classified as "left-wing". To be "left-wing" is right. Hence the terrorists are right -- or at least not wrong.

So, it should be remembered that the fluffy wuffies aren't all morally wrong, they're just morally up-shit-creek-without-a-paddle.

Poor pricks.

I find this whole debate about fox hunting fascinating. Many of the fluffs campaigning against it say that it should be banned because it's cruel. But so's nature -- foxes particularly (ask any rabbit).

The blue-bloods who enjoy the ritual say they should be allowed to continue it because foxes are vermin, and the sport supplies a kind of agricultural service. But this is a tactical mistake (even though it's true) because the fluffs think of livestock domestication as oppression, so any tacit support of this receives no sympathy. I reckon that the blue-bloods should try a different tack and say that fox hunting is karmic retribution for all the cute wittle wild aminals dat da big mean foxes have killed. Then maybe the fluffs will remove the ban.

In a fascinating article in today's Age -- sorry, couldn't get link to work -- Gerard Henderson explains that many of today's Australian "conservatives" actually began their careers as lefties. It gives them greater credibility, I reckon, because it means that they've seen things from two different perspectives, and have made an informed choice about which is superior.

The same cannot be said of the lifelong lefties I've met in Artsville, many of whom started off as red-diaper babies then grew into smug, bong-suckling Stalinists without once having a questing, skeptical thought about the pre-packaged world-view that was handed to them by their parents, then reinforced by their uni tutors and peers. Odd that these people should see themselves as rebels. They're the most dutiful, unquestioning conformists you could imagine.

Some good thoughts on the fluffy wuffy denigration of Christmas are found here. (By the way, I'm not a great fan of the ritual. I reckon Santa's a dickhead, quite frankly. And elves creep me out big time. Also, I find the attendant hols bloody draining, since everything's shut for the duration. It's horrible. In Perth -- where I am now -- this is a disaster. The joint is like a morgue at the best of times, but now it's like a post-apocalyptic friggin' wasteland. Still, Chrissie does mean a helluva lot to heaps of people, and the fact that anile squittering fluffs continue with their mean-spirited campaign to ruin it really shits me.)

Have just read a great article by Roger Sandall in the Oz. He's getting stuck into the fluffy wuffy historians for arcing up about Keith Windschuttle's challenge to them. It really sums up the bankruptcy of their whole philosophy. That is, if they want diversity of opinion (as they say they do) and opinion A is just as valid as B and C, etc, then why endorse B over C or A? Also, why are they so vicious in their condemnation of those ideas they don't like? It's another sad variation on that tragic leftist syndrome, "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others". Yep, the commisar has no clothes.

Because of persistent fluffy wuffy campaigns over the last several years, Christmas is even more angst-riddent than it used to be. As well as the stress of buying all your pressies and cards etc, you have to worry about whether you've caused non-westerners some deep offense.

I have no problem with mutual respect. In my mind, when Ramadan is on, non-Muslims should try to understand this. When Christmas is on, Muslims should be sensitive to it. That is: respect should work both ways.

But in the tiny mind of the fluff, it's only ever westerners who have to do the adjusting. The implication: that only westerners are capable of it; that only westerners are sensitive, concerned, and responsible -- a truly Eurocentric, prejudiced point of view if ever there was one.

I had an experience related to this just recently. At my place of work there's this sweet Muslim woman. A few days ago we had a bit of an end of year get-together. I was about to say "Happy Christmas!" But then I pulled back, and said, "I hope you have a nice break" instead.

This clearly made her uncomfortable. Then she smiled and wished me well also. (I think she may have even wished me a happy Christmas. I was walking out the door, a tad flustered, so I can't recall exactly.) Anyway, I do remember her feeling of discomfort. In retrospect I think that she was more put out with my excessive caution than anything else. That is, I suspect that if I'd openly said, "Merry Christmas!" she would have been more comfortable. I think she thought it was more appropriate for her to defer to me, in a way, so when I turned the tables it put her out a bit.

My point: just as hate begets hate, so do shame and excessive caution.

Thanks fluffy wuffies, for putting yet another wedge between people with your patronising push for more "cultural awareness".

So to all non-fluffy wuffies reading this: Merry Christmas! To the pin-hearted, pin-headed, PC fluffs: I hope Santa shits down your chimneys!

I love the title of this piece by Janet Albrechtsen. The rest is a great read too!

It's also got one of the best summations of the true spirit of conservatism I've read: "Because at its core, conservatism values individual personal responsibility, a buck-stops-with-you, non-negotiable philosophy where government empowers people to determine their own success or failure and to assume responsibility either way."

Well put. And it's the secret to Howard's continuing success. The electorate knows that sanctimonious hand-wringing, sheltered workshop-ism and blaming "society" for all of its ills does buggerall good. Now we've just got to convince all those squittering fluffs in the media, academe, the legal professions, and the arts of this as well. (Either that or friggin' shoot 'em!)

Yet another flashbulb addict gets political! I can't get the link to work, but the New York Times tells us that Viggo Mortenson appeared on some silly talk show recently wearing a "No blood for oil!" t-shirt. He was determined to ensure that the new fantasy epic The Two Towers doesn't get used as war propaganda.

That's thoughtful of him. I'm sure that possibility has been occupying the minds of the Bush administration for yonks. "Gee, Colin, I hear tell that Tolkien film is real stirring stuff. Can you lean on the producers an' make 'em hold off the release date until just before we go in there an' whup Saddam's ass?"

Note to Viggo: Unlike your good, noble self almost all of the people who see these fillums can actually distinguish between reality and fantasy. Uh, they are actually aware that it's just a movie, okay?

Typical friggin' celeb. Thinks the sun shines out of his arse.

As I've slowly come to learn what a bunch of tossers lefties are, I keep asking myself these questions: How can they be so confident in their shoddy reasoning? Why do they continue to believe so childishly in utopias? I mean, they're adults, aren't they? Why are they so steadfast in their belief that democracy and capitalism are evil when the evidence is so clear that -- while not perfect -- they really are the best systems on offer? How can these peckerheads have it so friggin' arse-about?

Obviously the answers are manifold. But I think I've figured out one of the main ones: vanity.

See, I was walking down George Street tonight, on the way to the internet lounge within which I am typing these words. I saw this very distinguished-looking, slender, grey-haired bloke standing a little way ahead of me. He was wearing a very dapper white suit. Next to him was a scrumptious babe about half his age. He had a very definite aura of glamour about him. I couldn't see his face, because he had his back to me. I thought he was someone famous, perhaps a visiting mega-thesp making a fillum at Fox Studios. Then he turned round and I realised it was John Pilger.

I had a friggin'-epiphany: Pilger loves to be the "dissident", standing up to the big bad West because by doing so he becomes heroic; a media Lancelot, slaying dragons and making young maidens swoon. Of course he doesn't need to offer any proof of, er, dragonhood. The important thing is to play the role. Media organizations are more than willing to indulge him and the benefits accrue: fame, adulation, money, celebrity. He gets to travel all over the globe, get up in front of tens of thousands of adoring fans, quack on for hours and seem really important (kind of like that super-wanker Bono -- probably a mate of his).

Yep, vanity -- or egomania to be more precise -- that's what it's all about. This is why so many lefties act like friggin' movie stars -- and vice versa.

(I know this is entirely conjecture; I've got no footnotes to my thesis. Still reckon it's bang-on-the-money, but.)