In this silly article, John Birmingham tries to put a positive spin on the violence of the fluffy fucktards at Homebush. The gist is basically: disagreement is good, it's democratic, and that's what makes the West so great. Well, I agree that disagreement and democracy are great. But attacking police and trying to shut down a meeting are not democracy in action; they're just violent acts of idiocy that make no point whatsoever other than, "look at us, we're nasty and stupid!"

And if you have to nude up and cover yourself in paint to get attention then you clearly don't have anything interesting to say. My advice to the ladies in red: if you're so enthusiastic about nakedness, start a smut site. Don't try to get into politics.

There's a memorable line in the piece about the protests confirming the Western tradition of skepticism; the idea that "nothing is sacred". This is a bizarre thing to say, since the fluffs in question find many things very sacred indeed -- their own sense of virtue, for instance. If you were to state the obvious in their presence, that Naomi Kelin is a spoiled, squittering little white-arse tight-arse bimbo who doesn't give a shit about anything much except her book sales, bank balance and treasured image as the current darling of the Left, then you'll almost certainly receive a zealous defence of her sacred honour (i.e. a clubbing with baseball bats).

Lefties. They can dish it out alright, but they sure as shit can't take it. How can they possibly strengthen a tradition based on reason when they are inherently unreasonable? What kind of a contribution to debate is a moronic slogan shouted over and over again ad fucken nauseam?

More power to coppers next time round, I say. Go to it boys in blue. Thwock the bejesus out of the yammering little shit-wits! You have my blessing. I might even lob to have a gloat, and cheer you on.

 
Everyone must have seen these photos of the animal rights bimbos strutting their stuff on the cat walk by now.

Just a comment: since fluffy wuffies tend to roam in lockstep, groupthink packs, it's odds on that the PETA members would be against lookism as well as speciesism, right? So why did they choose to have only slim, attractive, dolled-up sheilas up there? Wouldn't a couple of fat, hairy nude blokes have been a more appropriate as well as confronting choice? My guess is that these sheilas just never cracked the big-time as walking clothes racks, and sublimated their pique by joining the animal rights movement.