Even though I can't swing a cricket bat for shit - nor do I have any desire to - I'm glad that the other Matt Hayden scored a gazillion runs today. See, the more famous he becomes, the more I can cravenly milk the fact that we share the same name.
I assume you've heard of viral marketing. Well, I'm trying to employ a kind of "parasitic googling".
Friday, October 10, 2003
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Pithy summary of the major differences between Clinton and Ah-nuld re groping, etc.
Spot on. Once more, the feminist bimbos desperately trying to exploit this issue show their mean-spirited hypocrisy. (Remember their ambivalence about the Taliban?)
I can see why twisted sisters really like Gray Davis. Like so many of them he's a plausible puppy-white sap just oozing do-goody-goodness; very affable on the surface, but mean as shit underneath. I mean, insinuating that his foe is some kind of crim because he goosed a few spunks - who have waited until now to complain (or whose complaints have not been publicised until now - and ain't that interesting?) - is pure, distilled scum-suckery.
Saw a clip of one of his campaign ads. It ran a montage of chickybabes and included an unctuous voice-over (a male one by the way - how sexist!) saying that " if your mother's a woman; if your daughter's a woman... etc" you "just can't vote for this man".
Like Schwarzenegger is some kind of scourge upon babedom; that he's gonna attempt full-on gendercide or something! Apart from being utterly and obviously false the ad reveals an underlying disdain for women, since it accuses those chicks who do support him (and their are heaps) of misogyny by association, or idiocy at best.
Just proves for the umpteenth time that PC feminists are not remotely interested in liberating women. What they are interested in is using women as a stepping stone to gain power for themselves. It also proves that unlike your average sheila, a feminist is nothing without a man... to blame.
Spot on. Once more, the feminist bimbos desperately trying to exploit this issue show their mean-spirited hypocrisy. (Remember their ambivalence about the Taliban?)
I can see why twisted sisters really like Gray Davis. Like so many of them he's a plausible puppy-white sap just oozing do-goody-goodness; very affable on the surface, but mean as shit underneath. I mean, insinuating that his foe is some kind of crim because he goosed a few spunks - who have waited until now to complain (or whose complaints have not been publicised until now - and ain't that interesting?) - is pure, distilled scum-suckery.
Saw a clip of one of his campaign ads. It ran a montage of chickybabes and included an unctuous voice-over (a male one by the way - how sexist!) saying that " if your mother's a woman; if your daughter's a woman... etc" you "just can't vote for this man".
Like Schwarzenegger is some kind of scourge upon babedom; that he's gonna attempt full-on gendercide or something! Apart from being utterly and obviously false the ad reveals an underlying disdain for women, since it accuses those chicks who do support him (and their are heaps) of misogyny by association, or idiocy at best.
Just proves for the umpteenth time that PC feminists are not remotely interested in liberating women. What they are interested in is using women as a stepping stone to gain power for themselves. It also proves that unlike your average sheila, a feminist is nothing without a man... to blame.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
More bloody whining from the squitizens of Artsville...
Yesterday morning (on Nine, I think) saw John Howard (the evil one, not the good one) honking about how Seppolian shows erode our cultural identity or something. What identity is that, I wonder? Oh, that'd be the dull, unimaginative, bullshit-rich PC one that he and his mediocre mates think is good for us and have been ramming down our necks for the last coupla decades. You know, that one. (And, coincidentally, the one that ensures they make a very comfortable living for perpetuating at public expense.) Then he was on the box again that night, spilling the same noxious bilge to a bunch of his fellow fartistes.
In the morning interview he said something about keeping "our culture... our films and TV shows... the ones we love so much". Well if we love them so much, why the hell does nobody want to watch them? And why, when offered the choice, do Australians invariably prefer Seppolian shows? Sure, they are cheaper for the networks to buy and run, but they're also of a much higher quality and far more enjoyable to watch.
Look at any Oz show. The writing is rank; the acting anodyne; the production... er... perfunctory. They're crap, let's face it. (Re that: Saw a bit of Crashburn - which I hope becomes the fate of the shit-wits who created it - last night. It was so dreary I wanted to barf all over the screen after only a minute. About the only character in it with any complexity and naturalness was a friggin' gorilla loping about its cage.)
And anyway, why the hell is Howard whining about the negative influence of Seppolian pop culture? He himself seems to to have modelled his entire appearance on one of the more iconic characters from the Star Wars series. See what I mean?
Ironic, to say the least. (Wonder why he did so. Maybe heard on the grapevine that Lucas was gonna ditch the puppet and hire a real live thesp for the next installment?)
In any case these whining whactors and honking hacks are on their way out. And they know it.
Roll on the Free Trade Agreement. And eat shit and die, fluffs!
Yesterday morning (on Nine, I think) saw John Howard (the evil one, not the good one) honking about how Seppolian shows erode our cultural identity or something. What identity is that, I wonder? Oh, that'd be the dull, unimaginative, bullshit-rich PC one that he and his mediocre mates think is good for us and have been ramming down our necks for the last coupla decades. You know, that one. (And, coincidentally, the one that ensures they make a very comfortable living for perpetuating at public expense.) Then he was on the box again that night, spilling the same noxious bilge to a bunch of his fellow fartistes.
In the morning interview he said something about keeping "our culture... our films and TV shows... the ones we love so much". Well if we love them so much, why the hell does nobody want to watch them? And why, when offered the choice, do Australians invariably prefer Seppolian shows? Sure, they are cheaper for the networks to buy and run, but they're also of a much higher quality and far more enjoyable to watch.
Look at any Oz show. The writing is rank; the acting anodyne; the production... er... perfunctory. They're crap, let's face it. (Re that: Saw a bit of Crashburn - which I hope becomes the fate of the shit-wits who created it - last night. It was so dreary I wanted to barf all over the screen after only a minute. About the only character in it with any complexity and naturalness was a friggin' gorilla loping about its cage.)
And anyway, why the hell is Howard whining about the negative influence of Seppolian pop culture? He himself seems to to have modelled his entire appearance on one of the more iconic characters from the Star Wars series. See what I mean?
Ironic, to say the least. (Wonder why he did so. Maybe heard on the grapevine that Lucas was gonna ditch the puppet and hire a real live thesp for the next installment?)
In any case these whining whactors and honking hacks are on their way out. And they know it.
Roll on the Free Trade Agreement. And eat shit and die, fluffs!
Monday, October 06, 2003
This sheep ship controversy is really shitting me - particularly the attendant posturings of all these bloody fluffs. Here they are, squawking up a storm about the live sheep trade, which they define as a cruel and inhumane. But you can be sure that most of these squits would be equally shat off about our border protection policy (especially the detention centres) which they also define as cruel and inhumane. Which shows just how utterly lost these plonkers really are!
I'll elaborate: If live sheep exporting is cruel and inhumane, then surely live human exporting (especially in unhygeinic, ultra-packed, leaky ol' boats - which, not unlike this sheep ship also occasionally burst into flames... er, and sink, too) would be even more cruel and inhumane, wouldn't it? Well, not the fluff, obviously. But to the Government? Yes.
As I understand it, Howard's hard-arsed post-Tampa policy isn't just about border protection; it's also about putting people smugglers out of business. It doesn't take a friggin' rocket scientist to figure out that the more people smugglers profit, the more leaky boats full of people will come to our shores. The more that come to our shores, the more their human cargo will suffer and sometimes die on the way.
So, how do you stop this? Well, we in Oz can't take the fight to the people smugglers, because they are all in other countries. That would require invasion. But what we can do is create a major deterrent on our turf in the form of detention centres. Which is exactly what we've done.
Humans intending to come here (unlike friggin' sheep being exported over there - who, like lefties, will never do anything more with their lives than shuffle around bleating occasionally and following each other to their collective doom) realise that jumping the queue is not the way to go because even if they do survive the trip there will be a very long wait at the end of it. If you have no people willing to be smuggled in leaky boats you also, happily, have no starvation, disease and mass drownings.
Now, that makes some sense, as well as being at least half-way humane.
But what can you conclude about the attitude of the fluffs? It seems they are more concerned about the plight of sheep on ships than humans on leakier ones. And how fucken dumb (not to mention cruel and inhumane) is that!
I'll elaborate: If live sheep exporting is cruel and inhumane, then surely live human exporting (especially in unhygeinic, ultra-packed, leaky ol' boats - which, not unlike this sheep ship also occasionally burst into flames... er, and sink, too) would be even more cruel and inhumane, wouldn't it? Well, not the fluff, obviously. But to the Government? Yes.
As I understand it, Howard's hard-arsed post-Tampa policy isn't just about border protection; it's also about putting people smugglers out of business. It doesn't take a friggin' rocket scientist to figure out that the more people smugglers profit, the more leaky boats full of people will come to our shores. The more that come to our shores, the more their human cargo will suffer and sometimes die on the way.
So, how do you stop this? Well, we in Oz can't take the fight to the people smugglers, because they are all in other countries. That would require invasion. But what we can do is create a major deterrent on our turf in the form of detention centres. Which is exactly what we've done.
Humans intending to come here (unlike friggin' sheep being exported over there - who, like lefties, will never do anything more with their lives than shuffle around bleating occasionally and following each other to their collective doom) realise that jumping the queue is not the way to go because even if they do survive the trip there will be a very long wait at the end of it. If you have no people willing to be smuggled in leaky boats you also, happily, have no starvation, disease and mass drownings.
Now, that makes some sense, as well as being at least half-way humane.
But what can you conclude about the attitude of the fluffs? It seems they are more concerned about the plight of sheep on ships than humans on leakier ones. And how fucken dumb (not to mention cruel and inhumane) is that!
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Here's a bizarre story about some self-aggrandizing mayor in Spain who has passed a law that the blokes have to stay home on Thursday evenings to play house-hubby in the interests of "equality".
Not that unusual. These nutty "quirkies" appear from time to time. What's really interesting is the story's title (presumably written by a Sun-Herald staffer). It defines the totalitarian, ultra-sexist law as "no sexism".
It comes from the same ol' drearily predictable fluffy wuffy mind-set (and I use the term "mind" loosely) that you see all the time in the mainstream media. That is: sexism is only ever what men do to women, not ever what women do to men (or, in this case, what a man does to other men to curry favour with women - probably so that he can get into their pants).
Will these fluffs ever be capable of original, principled thoughts, instead of PC ones?
I doubt it.
Not that unusual. These nutty "quirkies" appear from time to time. What's really interesting is the story's title (presumably written by a Sun-Herald staffer). It defines the totalitarian, ultra-sexist law as "no sexism".
It comes from the same ol' drearily predictable fluffy wuffy mind-set (and I use the term "mind" loosely) that you see all the time in the mainstream media. That is: sexism is only ever what men do to women, not ever what women do to men (or, in this case, what a man does to other men to curry favour with women - probably so that he can get into their pants).
Will these fluffs ever be capable of original, principled thoughts, instead of PC ones?
I doubt it.
Friday, October 03, 2003
No blogging today (er, except this one). Coupla work-blokes in ripping out my old wafer-thin windows and replacing them with some double decker big bastards. This is welcome, as I'm right under the flight path into Sydney airport, and the noise of descending jets is shockin'.
(Although, after having lived here over a year, I'm pretty accustomed to it now. Maybe the noise reduction will be disturbing, not calming?)
(Although, after having lived here over a year, I'm pretty accustomed to it now. Maybe the noise reduction will be disturbing, not calming?)
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Jeez, you've gotta hand it to them Frogs for sheer pettiness. They've got their Stalinist skulls shoved further up their freckles than that pyromaniac pinko Robert Corr.
Look at this sad story. Because some smart babe used the rather tragic - but nonetheless piss-funny - death of some airhead-bint-celebrity called Marie Trintignant (or something) at the clammy hands of her drug-fucked, heavy metal-headed beau, the surreal celebrophilic squits are all in-a-lather (which is rare for the soap-phobic Frogs, let's face it!).
Burying children alive (like their major trading partner and anti-Seppolian ally Uncle Saddamy did) is way cool for PC Parisians, but abstractifying a high-profile carking into a mathematical equation most definitely is not. But aren't these left-wing left-bankers supposed to be really into irony and detachment and ennui, and all that eurocentric jaded shit?
Obviously fucken not.
Hey Frogs! You think you know it all. But really, you know Foucault!
(Er, I know that last line really hasn't got much to do with this particular subject. Just always really wanted to use it, that's all...)
Look at this sad story. Because some smart babe used the rather tragic - but nonetheless piss-funny - death of some airhead-bint-celebrity called Marie Trintignant (or something) at the clammy hands of her drug-fucked, heavy metal-headed beau, the surreal celebrophilic squits are all in-a-lather (which is rare for the soap-phobic Frogs, let's face it!).
Burying children alive (like their major trading partner and anti-Seppolian ally Uncle Saddamy did) is way cool for PC Parisians, but abstractifying a high-profile carking into a mathematical equation most definitely is not. But aren't these left-wing left-bankers supposed to be really into irony and detachment and ennui, and all that eurocentric jaded shit?
Obviously fucken not.
Hey Frogs! You think you know it all. But really, you know Foucault!
(Er, I know that last line really hasn't got much to do with this particular subject. Just always really wanted to use it, that's all...)
So anything that sports - or once sported - a penis is not welcome at "Lesfest". In that case here's one very famous Les who probably won't be attending.
Unfortunate for him, 'cause he's a bit of a fan of sapphic activities, apparently. And ironic, too, 'cause he's a damn sight more feminine than most of the chicks who will be there!
Unfortunate for him, 'cause he's a bit of a fan of sapphic activities, apparently. And ironic, too, 'cause he's a damn sight more feminine than most of the chicks who will be there!
Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Why do we prefer Seppolian entertainment over our own? The fluffs squeal that it's because we don't have a comparable amount of money to throw at our "talent".
Crap, I say.
Even when the Seppos make shit, they do make that shit shine. Why? Because they just take heaps more care in what they do. And the writing is way superior, even in the comedies. Shows like Friends make me want to hurl with their unremitting cuteness. But they are still very well written.
I mean, look at our sit-coms (if you can remember the names of any). They're a disgrace! (And if money is the main factor then sit-coms should the ones to even the field, 'cause they are cheap as chips to produce.)
This difference is not just about money. It's a cultural thing. America has a more vital, diverse and sophisticated society than ours. Its fillums and TV shows reflect this. Which is exactly why the viewers down here in Oz prefer them to our piss-poor home-made offerings.
Crap, I say.
Even when the Seppos make shit, they do make that shit shine. Why? Because they just take heaps more care in what they do. And the writing is way superior, even in the comedies. Shows like Friends make me want to hurl with their unremitting cuteness. But they are still very well written.
I mean, look at our sit-coms (if you can remember the names of any). They're a disgrace! (And if money is the main factor then sit-coms should the ones to even the field, 'cause they are cheap as chips to produce.)
This difference is not just about money. It's a cultural thing. America has a more vital, diverse and sophisticated society than ours. Its fillums and TV shows reflect this. Which is exactly why the viewers down here in Oz prefer them to our piss-poor home-made offerings.
Monday, September 29, 2003
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Yikes. I'm being cyber-stalked! New Age uber-fluff Derek Sapphire has racked up a whole series of posts about me. (Crikey, he might sick his animal companion Jocelyn on me again! I'm still recovering from the last attack.)
I'm getting sick of all this controversy about sheep ships bound for the Middle East. Those bloody livestock should consider themsleves lucky, I reckon. Hell, if I were given a free, all-expenses paid cruise of the Indian Ocean I wouldn't be complaining.
Come to think of it, the fact that I'd have to save for months - if not years - to pay for such a trip makes me damn angry. It's discrimination, that's what it is. Discrimination!
Come to think of it, the fact that I'd have to save for months - if not years - to pay for such a trip makes me damn angry. It's discrimination, that's what it is. Discrimination!
Just another thought on flag burning: If, as pettifogging plonkers like Robert Corr love to say, the flag is "just a piece of cloth", then why do they go out of their way to burn it? If they are simply overcome with the need to publicly immolate pieces of cloth, then why not use tea-towels? Or, even a tea-cosies? Heaps of them at a "peace" rally, found sitting atop the hollow bonces of the herd so gleefully cheering the burning of the flag.
(On second thoughts, why not burn them while they are still being worn? The squits are so perpetually hot-headed anyway, I'll bet they wouldn't notice the difference! And how can you cause further damage to minds already so stunted by dope and dogma?)
(On second thoughts, why not burn them while they are still being worn? The squits are so perpetually hot-headed anyway, I'll bet they wouldn't notice the difference! And how can you cause further damage to minds already so stunted by dope and dogma?)
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
There's an interesting post by the Yobbo (found via Slatts). It refers to Robert Corr's bizarre justification for flag-burning:
"At least the flag burners recognise the potency of the flag as a symbol of Australia's democracy and freedoms. The burning flag represents the incineration of Australia's democratic values, be it by our treatment of asylum seekers, our participation in the Iraqi war, or whatever the cause of the day might be."
Typical leftist hypocrisy. These fluffs do something they are certain will rile their enemies. Then when they get exactly the reaction they want they weasel out of taking responsibility for their act of provocation by quacking on about democracy and freedom. "Eek! We're being monstered!" they squawk. "Can't burn the flag with complete impunity. And they call this a democracy? Ha! Fascist state, more like!"
You see this tactic being used everywhere in the Fluffiverse:
Feminist bimbos say the most vicious, sexist things about men, then interpet the resulting male (and female) denials and anger as "oppression by the patriarchy" and "violence against women". The Stalinist hacks at the ABC wage a concerted campaign against the Government, then have the gall to say they're fair and balanced and that Liberal condemnation is somehow undemocratic. In the uni humanities departments fluffs dominate completely, spinning sanctimonious bullshit about our history - bullshit that is clearly meant to maintain and exacerbate racial tension - then when finally called to account by just one guy with some spine and acumen they form a pack and descend upon him, claiming he's the fucking establishment crushing their dissent!
In all their strongholds (Artsville, Halls of Quackademe, etc) they keep fighting dirty - relentlessly kicking battered shins and pressing raw nerves - while forever demanding that their enemies fight fair, and interpreting any resistance as the brutal machinations of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Provoke, wheedle, rile, claim victimhood. Provoke, wheedle, rile, claim victimhood... Etc, etc, ad nauseam.
When you investigate their "philosophy", you realize that's all there is to it. They don't have anything else.
What a pack of retarded, mean-spirited squits they are. No wonder so many of them have such shitty little lives.
"At least the flag burners recognise the potency of the flag as a symbol of Australia's democracy and freedoms. The burning flag represents the incineration of Australia's democratic values, be it by our treatment of asylum seekers, our participation in the Iraqi war, or whatever the cause of the day might be."
Typical leftist hypocrisy. These fluffs do something they are certain will rile their enemies. Then when they get exactly the reaction they want they weasel out of taking responsibility for their act of provocation by quacking on about democracy and freedom. "Eek! We're being monstered!" they squawk. "Can't burn the flag with complete impunity. And they call this a democracy? Ha! Fascist state, more like!"
You see this tactic being used everywhere in the Fluffiverse:
Feminist bimbos say the most vicious, sexist things about men, then interpet the resulting male (and female) denials and anger as "oppression by the patriarchy" and "violence against women". The Stalinist hacks at the ABC wage a concerted campaign against the Government, then have the gall to say they're fair and balanced and that Liberal condemnation is somehow undemocratic. In the uni humanities departments fluffs dominate completely, spinning sanctimonious bullshit about our history - bullshit that is clearly meant to maintain and exacerbate racial tension - then when finally called to account by just one guy with some spine and acumen they form a pack and descend upon him, claiming he's the fucking establishment crushing their dissent!
In all their strongholds (Artsville, Halls of Quackademe, etc) they keep fighting dirty - relentlessly kicking battered shins and pressing raw nerves - while forever demanding that their enemies fight fair, and interpreting any resistance as the brutal machinations of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Provoke, wheedle, rile, claim victimhood. Provoke, wheedle, rile, claim victimhood... Etc, etc, ad nauseam.
When you investigate their "philosophy", you realize that's all there is to it. They don't have anything else.
What a pack of retarded, mean-spirited squits they are. No wonder so many of them have such shitty little lives.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
You may have heard of all those poor sheep stranded at sea, and the ruckus over what to do with them. I can't help but see parallels with another pack of dumb, conformist and hopelessly lost creatures. The suggested humane solution to the "death ship" crisis could be used in their case too, I reckon.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Finished watching Mulholland Drive on video today.
David Lynch is not a genius. He's a complete tosser.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
David Lynch is not a genius. He's a complete tosser.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
On checking my previous entries for errors I noticed I did get a tad florid and alliterative in the one about the history wars and Stalinism (see last line). Hell, if I were a leftie and the academic I was referring to was one of those dreadful "neo-conservatives", I might have scored a grant from the Australia Council for it! Still, I'll leave it up there anyway for blogger posterity.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Stuart Wackintyre asks: Who plays Stalin in our history wars?
Er, you do pal. You're the one with leftist ideology. You're the one with the numbers (ratio of fluffs to RWDBs: about 20 to 1). You're the one using taxpayers' bucks to tell the story you want to impressionable whippersnappers (Windschuttle funds himself). You're the one with the theory that "everything's political", and that the truth is not universal and immutable but "constructed". And so you're trying to construct the truth that those trying to discover it, are, er, constructing it. (Stalinist is as Stalinist does, comrade.)
Which all sounds pretty damn Stalinist to me. (Harrumph!)
(But I would say that wouldn't I, because I'm not a Stalinist. Er, which means I am, in wackster-Wackintyre's wacky ol' world.)
Er, you do pal. You're the one with leftist ideology. You're the one with the numbers (ratio of fluffs to RWDBs: about 20 to 1). You're the one using taxpayers' bucks to tell the story you want to impressionable whippersnappers (Windschuttle funds himself). You're the one with the theory that "everything's political", and that the truth is not universal and immutable but "constructed". And so you're trying to construct the truth that those trying to discover it, are, er, constructing it. (Stalinist is as Stalinist does, comrade.)
Which all sounds pretty damn Stalinist to me. (Harrumph!)
(But I would say that wouldn't I, because I'm not a Stalinist. Er, which means I am, in wackster-Wackintyre's wacky ol' world.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)