WhineOnline

A Western Fart: When Bloggers Break Wind in the West

2005-12-13T17:12:00.000-08:00

What happens when a group of disgruntle janitors, sick and tired of cleaning people’s crap, endeavour to use their combined brainpower? They end up dispensing their own crap.

Now I’m not one to disparage carpet sweepers or toilet cleaners, that’s what I do at night, but they can’t seem to rise above the cerebral level of the stuff they clean.

As research shows, the noxious fumes from the cleaning products they use muzzle the flow of clean air to their brains, obstructing the conflagration of synapses and producing a sense of paranoia. When this happens, and when a group of like-minded people congregate, they create their own a blog roll, ready for people to wipe themselves with. See their site ‘A Western Fart’.

They claim on their website that they’re united in their “belief in the manifest destiny of global democracy.” Now remember, these people are supposed to be championing for the right of the West, the might of the white; but their statement sounds like support for the UN. They don’t seem to realize that they're propagating a socialist agenda. Looks like the fumes have affected their eye sight as well.

Of course the West has produced some of the greatest things in the world, like two World Wars.

Special mention must go to the site’s intellect, James Ozark.
James describes Lebanese Gang members as his ‘Muslim friends’. James’ worldview, as he says, comes from a ‘handful of reports and articles’. He thinks a left wing conspiracy controls the media. Right, so very right. This boy has certainly seen a lot of crap come from his toilet.

There’s a lot more stuff I’ll look at, but now I have to get back to my cleaning job.

Stay tuned.

Andrew Bolt the Communist

2005-12-12T04:00:00.000-08:00

Shock horror, Andrew Bolt is now talking like one of those politically correct, multicultural, greenie, hippy, commie, do-gooder, that all true blue Aussies hate, or should hate if they want to be Aussie. Bolt said, in a reply to a comment by 'Rob Hill': "This brawl, disgusting and disgraceful as it was, did not materialise out of nothing".

Did I read that in the Right way? Is he saying there are underlying causes? Oh my pure Christian God! Bolt has now turned into one of those intellectuals, residing in one of those ivory outhouses.

For All The Right Reasons

2005-12-11T16:04:00.000-08:00

What a day of shame! What happened at Cronulla yesterday demonstrates that multiculturalism just doesn't work. No Aussie is safe anymore. As we saw yesterday, mobs of Muslims attacked innocent Aussie families who went to the beach for an innocent Aussie bar-barbecue.

As reported in today's Australian (after some editorial advice from Janet Albrechtsen):

"GANGS of... Middle Eastern... youths embarked on a series ... of attacks across Sydney's beachside suburbs last night after a day of... Middle Eastern... racial violence that saw mobs... of Middle Eastern... mobs... rampage through Cronulla, in the city's south, bashing... Aussies."

Picture
Political correctness gone mad: Police prevent Aussies from sharing their VBs with a mob of Middle Eastern mob.

A typical Aussie family was having a quiet VB when a mob of Middle Eastern mob caused trouble and refused to assimilate. One Middle Eastern mob was heard saying "I don't like VB". If Middle Eastern mobs can't drink VB like typical Aussies, shout 'oi oi oi' and speak fair dinkum aussie, they shouldn't be allowed in.

It's un-Australian. Looks like all the hard work by pro-Aussie commentators such as Andrew Bolt, Janet Albrechtsen, Piers Akerman, Tim Blair is working. We Aussies are lucky to have commentators like them, I mean us. They share the views of sensible orgainizations such as Australia First, which is protecting "Australians against the terror of multiculturalist ideology". I agree with their statement posted on their Sydney site: "This demonstration is proper and should be supported by all residents and patriotic people." I do think, however, that 'demonstration' is the wrong word. It should have been 'barbecue'.

Fallacies of a Typically Commie PhD Student

2005-12-03T19:56:00.000-08:00

We all know PhD students are communists. Below is typical of the tripe from one such student studying a PhD in, of all things, videogames! I kid you not. This commie kiddy complains that academics write crap. In my experience the only truthful writing comes from research funded by the Heritage Foundation, which is a foundation that funds research to prove that we Men have higher IQs than girlies, or we White Westerners are smarter than all other non-Westerners. As I'm sure you'll agree, if academics don't prove these things to be the Truth then they're rubbish.

Here is the blog from the video PhD commie geek Ben Hourigan. His post is pulled apart by another commie named Jess, which I have included at the end. Looks like playing video games does affect your intelligence:

Ben Hourigan wrote on his blog http://benhourigan.com/archives/2005/12/03/humanities-academics-poor-communication-skills/#comments:

Academia has its own dialect, and it is able to do so because academics aren’t, as a rule, forced to have much contact with the world outside academia. It’s incredibly destructive, because the more time academics spend with each other, reinforcing their curious use of language, the more they ensure no-one in the world at large will be interested in what they have to say.

Why did academics start using this language to begin with? Why do they tolerate speech that often verges on nonsensical? The answer, I believe, is in the emergence of literary modernism in the early 20th century. Experimental writers of prose from Ezra Pound to James Joyce attempted to reinvent literary style according to the idea that new times demanded new language, and they produced some famously unreadable pieces like Joyce’s Finnegans Wake and Gertrude Stein’s The Making of Americans.

The “make it new” idea of modernism seems to mesh rather well with the need for humanities scholars to write something “original” to get their doctorate. Rather than talking about something new, you can talk about something old using new words that you made up yourself, or by taking an old, incomprehensible study of something and making it incomprehensible in a slightly different way. The experimental techniques of the literary modernists made their way into the academy, where they slowly infected almost all of the humanities, throughout the world.

These days, to get a doctorate in the humanities, you usually have to emulate your peers’ incomprehensible style. This is called being scholarly. Sadly, the people you think are unenthusiastic on stage probably are very passionate about what they’re trying so unsuccessfully to talk about, but they’re labouring under the extraordinary effort of producing convoluted sentences.

To get a doctorate, you also have to cite “previous scholarship.” If there isn’t much in your field (as there usually isn’t in game studies), you have to choose some from another field. Which explains why you might be hearing people going on about literary hypertexts, political theory, or psychoanalysis when it seems they really ought to be telling you about a game they played. It’s also, sadly, part of what they have to do to convince other academics that studying videogames is a worthwhile activity.

It was the entrenched poverty of communication in academia that made my time as a PhD student in Melbourne, Australia, very unhappy. At DAC 2003, I put forth the same tripe that seems to have been boring you for the last day or so. But I got tired of it, I spoke against it, and I tried to stop doing it. It earned me no love, but now I’m living in Japan, thousands of kilometres away from my university, I feel much more at home in my intellectual life. I can think more clearly about my PhD thesis when I don’t have to spend time with my colleagues.

Comment by Jess:
You demonstrate little learning in relation to how PhD theses are assessed. Your assertions that ‘These days, to get a doctorate in the humanities, you usually have to emulate your peers’ incomprehensible style’ is incorrect. PhD theses have to follow specific requirements, which include making arguments and meaning clearly understandable. A PhD thesis written in incomprehensible language will receive either a 4 or 5, requiring the candidate to make major changes to the thesis before resubmission, or in the case of a 5, prohibiting the candidate from resubmitting altogether. You support your proposition with no evidence. If you do have evidence, could you supply a list the studies you’ve read that demonstrate that humanities PhD candidates have to ‘emulate’ the style of humanities academics. Also could you cite the people (and the referencing from which you obtained this information) who have called the emulation of incomprehensible style as ‘being scholarly’?

Your proposition that ‘To get a doctorate, you also have to cite “previous scholarship”’ is correct. Knowledge of previous research and results, and the ability to analyze and identify the limitations of those results, are necessary to understand and develop specific knowledges and work within specific disciplines. Requiring candidates to complete a doctorate is one (limited) method to ensure that candidates demonstrate a minimum standard of scholarship. It also prevents candidates making up their own methodology.

Your proposition that ‘Academia has its own dialect’ is incorrect. There is no such thing as an ‘academic dialect’. If your statement is metaphoric, then it lacks the skill of proficient writing. Academic writing guides recommend that writers construct sentences that contain literal and concrete words. If you are talking about jargon, then jargon is perfectly legitimate; it’s evident in all academic disciplines and many non-academic institutions. Popular news publications even support the use of jargon (see The Bulletin July 23 2002).

Your statement that ‘academics aren’t, as a rule, forced to have much contact with the world outside academia’ is nonsensical. Some problems include:
1. Your use of general and abstract notions creates logical fallacies.
2. Why should academics be ‘forced’ to do something, especially to have contact with a completely abstract notion (‘the world outside academia’).
3. Firstly, what is this so-called outside world? Much research involves fieldwork, which involves direct contact with people and situations outside academic institutions. Finally, I don’t know of any academics who actually live in academic institutions 24 hours a day seven days a week.
4. You don’t support your statement with evidence. Could you cite the academic sources that support your argument.

Your proposition that ‘It’s incredibly destructive, because the more time academics spend with each other, reinforcing their curious use of language, the more they ensure no-one in the world at large will be interested in what they have to say’ is based on invalid reasoning.
1. If your proposition were true, for argument sake, why and how is it (incredibly) destructive?
2. You demonstrate very limited knowledge of academic research in the vastly varied areas of the humanities. Academics write in very different styles from one another and the majority of published academic writing in the humanities is clear and concise.

Your proposition that this ‘curious use of language’ is the result of ‘the emergence of literary modernism in the early 20th century’ is completely absurd. Firstly, there were numerous ‘experimental writers of prose’ before the modernist, for example the eighteenth century Laurence Stern and his ‘The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy’, which several critics have described as a forrunner to postmodernism. Secondly, academics’, or intellectuals’, writing styles were difficult before modernism. The writing of the sixteenth/seventeenth Thomas Hobbs ‘often verges on nonsensical’. Thirdly, critics (both conservative and Marxist) of contemporary ‘obscure’ language in academic writing, which certain intellectuals use for specific reasons, claim that this style of writing came to prominence in the 1960s, which saw the move to so-called textuality or the advent of postmodernism.

You base your assertion that ‘The experimental techniques of the literary modernists made their way into the academy, where they slowly infected almost all of the humanities, throughout the world’ on a false cause. In addition, could you list the academic studies you’ve read that demonstrate the ‘slow infection’ of ‘almost all of the humanities’ ‘throughout the world’.

Your statement that ‘If there isn’t much in your field (as there usually isn’t in game studies), you have to choose some from another field’ is incorrect. Firstly, there are volumes of research available in game theory. Secondly, one reason why there isn’t much research in relation to videogames is that both conservatives and Marxists consider videogames unimportant to the politics of life. Videogames, especially from a conservative political perspective, are nothing more than entertainment. It’s not academics, especially in the area of cultural studies, you have to convince that studying videogames is worthwhile; rather, you have to convince people from outside the academy, especially conservatives and Marxists. You’re lucky that you’ll complete your PhD before Brendan Nelson puts a stop to what he would describe as complete nonsense.

Using the logic that underlines your arguments, one could argue that the lowering of academic standards occurs when someone is allowed to complete a PhD on videogames, which is evident in your statement that calls for pure textual relativism: ‘they really ought to be telling you about a game they played’.

In the end, your arguments and propositions demonstrate the academic standards of a primary school student.

Howard's Reforms Unfair

2005-11-18T04:05:00.000-08:00

I speak for all Australians when I say that the Howard government’s workplace reforms are nothing more than communist propaganda. Howard claims that ‘These reforms are based on principles that balance freedom and fairness’ (The Australian). No they don't! Where’s the freedom and fairness for big business? These reforms don’t go far enough. For years this government has handed out unnecessary rights to workers, especially those lazy, low paid blue-collar bludgers.
Howard let out his communist agenda when he said that he ‘trusted bosses and workers to do the right thing under the new regime’ (The Australian). How, Mr Howard, can bosses do the Right’s thing under the new regime? They can’t! They’re tied down with unnecessary rules.
It’s time for a proper change. It’s time for the market, not the government, to set workers conditions. It’s what the nation deserves. I call for the government to remove all workplace regulations. These draconian laws hold back not just business but also workers. Workers constantly whine about freedom, so lets give it to them. This government has to move to the right and start representing middle Australia by introducing fair and equitable workplace reforms, leaving behind class politics of the loony left-Liberals.