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 taxpayer's 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 Wackintyre's wacky world.)

 
Stuart Whackintyre 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 taxpayer's 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, constructingit. (Stalinst 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 Whackintyre's wacky world.)

 
This is just a note to anyone who's lobbed here for the first time and though, "Jeez this bloke's lazy! He hasn't posted anything for months."

Well, yes, I am lazy, but not a complete slacker. I have resumed blogging, but at a different address. I changed addresses because of blogging troubles, and a vicious fight with my arch-nemesis Derek Sapphire, who's febrile thoughts can be found here, and more recently here.

My new rant-page is here.

 
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.

 
Fluffy wuffy film censors are appalled at the treatment of some chooks in a fillum. They said that a stunt-cock shouldn't be filmed with fake dynamite strapped to his leg.

Two questions: How many of the assessment board's members had eaten meat that day? And why shouldn't a feathered performer have to suffer a little for his art? Human ones do!

 
Here's an interesting story on a particularly cynical feminist scam.

 
Opponents of marriage are forever claiming that women are oppressed by it, and suffer from having to have sex with only one person. This finding will annoy them, I reckon.

 
Here's a good piece on Winona Ryder's complete lack of shame over that shoplifting saga, and her industry's willingness to forgive her unconditionally.

 
Humans: 1. Amphibians: 0.

Yippeeeee!

 
Some good points about the atmosfear created by fluffy wuffies in Seppolia.

 
The squittering fear-men-ist bimbos at NOW are spitting chips that Dubya romped home. I love the final line in this war cry: "Watch out George Bush -- here comes trouble." What, so they're going to become even more petty, irrational and mean? Gawd. Lord only knows how surreal their behaviour is going to be from now on!

 
Research shows that people who drink heaps of coffee (7 cups a day) are less likely to cop late-onset diabetes. Boffins reckon this occurs because of certain glucose metabolising trace elements in the coffee. But my theory is that all those trips to the loo to have a slash keep the diabetes-causing flab to a minimum.