Archive for April 28th, 2006

Thank You, Joe Odin!

Joe Odin took a look at my Partisan Dictionary and ADDED to it.

After all, all the Partisan Dictionary was was an addition to Ambros Briece’s Devl’s Dictionary.

More generally, joe odin did what I most desire my commenters to do: He started where I left off and went ahead.

I want you to use use thsoe of my insights you consider right as a basis to go on from, not as a guiding philosophy to just stick with.

I need you to repeat my points to others, and to expand on them yourselves.

Here is Joe’s CONTRIBUTION:

May I try:

Ignorant – Thinking outside the groupthinktank.
naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews – see above
Outsourcing – customer disservice
Radicals – reactionaries
SUVs – dinosaur killers

Comment by joe odin

ENCORE!

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

1 Comment

If Your Country is Stolen, You Must Get Out — NOW

I just read another wail about the poor widdah injuns from an anti.

Antis know no history.

I don’t care WHERE you’re from, your ancestors came in and took the land from somebody else. You think slavery only existed in the American South and that only Americans ever came from somewhere else.

That’s pathetic.

If someone recieves stolen goods, he doesn’t sit around and whine about it.

If he really thinks the goods are stolen, he gives them back.

IMMEDIATELY.

NOW.

If you live in a country you think was stolen, you LEAVE.

IMMEDIATELY.

NOW.

Cut the crap and get out or shut up your whining.

If you don’t LIKE your country, you still have a right to live in it.

But if you really believe your country is STOLEN, that is entirely different. You do not have a right to keep stoen property for an instant.

And every country was stolen from the natives if America was stolen from the Indians.

So shut up or get out.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

5 Comments

Women Have Breasts — Learn to Live With It

In the Stormfront the discussion naturally got around to how owmen today are supposed to be terribly upset is some men like big breasts.

Not just if we are offenseive about it, but we are supposed to believe in our hearts that they aren’t there or we are “objectivizing women.

This led me, as usual, to a mre general point:

I am 65, and I got my sexual imprinting in the 1950s. So I like big breasts.

Women did not consider it insulting for a man to notice she had them.

In the 1940s pinups, legs were emphasized.

By the time you get my age, unless you are hypnotized by Poltiical Correctness, you get a laugh out of how Modern Opinion is a repeat a past Modern Opinion fad.

In the 1920s women tried to have the “flat look,” trying to look like boys from the waist up.

This was because until then women had worn long dresses and emphasized their upper torsos. So the Liberated Woman of hte 1920s had a short skirt and flattened breasts.

Now women wear clothes designed to make them as indistinguishable from boys as possible.

They are reacting against a reaction, which makes them just like the reaction before.

And therefore very, very Modern.

In the South of hte 1950s and before, we routinely referred to a woman we did not know was maried or not as “Miz.” Other parts of hte country considered that quaint, so they carefully used Miss and Mrs.

But Women’s Liberation, the Ultra-Modern view, insists on Miz.

I get a kick out of this nonsense.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

2 Comments