Post by Chance on Dec 19, 2006 1:19:24 GMT -5
Why does BiK insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people? Anger? Fear? Stupidity? Some deep uppity urging of his soul? The answer cannot easily be found, but his pals employ carefully developed psychological techniques to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that it is all too typical of the sort of contemptible boors who destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate.
I'll go over that again: Some people are responsible and others are not. BiK falls into the category of "not". Despite some perceptions to the contrary, the real question here is not, "Why doesn't BiK reveal the truth about himself?". The real question is rather, "Which of the seven deadly sins -- pride, envy, anger, sadness, avarice, gluttony, and lust -- does BiK not commit on a daily basis?" The answer is almost absolutely obvious -- this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that BiK's true goal is to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. All the statements that its secret agents make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to preserve the peace. My usual response to BiK's snow jobs is this: The reasons that BiK gives for his sermons clearly do not correspond with his real motives. However, such a response is much too glib and perhaps a little sexist, so let me be more specific. I myself don't care what others say about BiK. It's still pompous, brusque, and it intends to brandish the word "anthropomorphical" (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that violence and prejudice are funny.
I once had a nightmare in which BiK was free to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that BiK is incapable of writing a letter without using such phrases as "uncivilized, arrogant scatterbrains", "brain-damaged crumbums", "vicious, purblind lamebrains", or some combination thereof. It follows from this that it speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables it to convert lush forests into arid deserts. I don't get it: What will be the next object of attack from BiK's gang? I mean, BiK is an inspiration to pea-brained politicos everywhere. They panegyrize its crusade to shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it and, more importantly, they don't realize that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about BiK's precepts. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that when I first became aware of his covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how when one examines the ramifications of letting him waste our time and money, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that any rational argument must acknowledge this. Its indelicate reinterpretations of historic events, naturally, do not. I think that BiK will indeed stretch credulity beyond the breaking point as soon as our backs are turned. I base this confident prediction on, among other things, the fact that many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to subject human beings to indignities. "How could BiK be so hateful?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is unequivocally possible, and now I'll explain exactly how BiK plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that it is like a pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between BiK and a pigeon is that BiK intends to censor any incomplicitous campaigns. That's why BiK's lieutenants are the ignominious egotists of the modern age. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that a great many of us don't want it to manipulate everything and everybody. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his villainous hypnopompic insights.
What this underlines, I think, is that I wonder what would happen if BiK really did don the mantel of charlatanism and pull the levers of irreligionism and oil the gears of teetotalism. There's a spooky thought. Now, why all this fuss about a few raucous ruses? Simply put, it's because I would like to comment on BiK's attempt to associate deconstructionism with Comstockism. There is no association.
I used a phrase a few moments ago. I referred to BiK's chums as "unrestrained, frightful phonies." You ought to memorize that phrase, because, frankly, it remains to be seen if BiK will spew forth ignorance and prejudice faster than you can say "superincomprehensibleness". Yes, I could add that it can justify anything that brings it a profit, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that if BiK were to show a clear lack of respect not just for those brave souls who fought and died for what they believed in, but also for you, the readers of this letter, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that just because BiK and its subalterns don't like being labelled as "contumelious pothouse drunks" or "morally crippled pissants" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit.
Here are a few points to ponder:
1.A careful appraisal of BiK's roorbacks raises some thought-provoking issues.
2.BiK is sympathetic to lascivious causes of all stripes.
3.BiK is far more interested in fattening itself on the various processes of decay in our society than it is in helping us wage war on jujuism.
Those points may at first seem unrelated, but when you connect the dots, it becomes clear that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to eschew ethically bankrupt narcissism.
So let me make it clear that BiK's memoirs are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, BiK is totally versipellous. When he's among plebeians, BiK warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against voyeurism. But when BiK's safely surrounded by his apostles, he instructs them to make excessive use of foul language. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that you may be wondering why spiteful homophobic-types latch onto BiK's manuscripts. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why imperialism doesn't work. So why does BiK cling to it? I mean, it strikes me as amusing that BiK complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. We could opt to sit back and let BiK sully my reputation. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part.
If you looked up "prurient" in the dictionary, you'd probably see BiK's logo. Maybe in the immediate years ahead, BiK will use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. Bloody-minded predictions aside, this would not be an impossible scenario if its wishy-washy ultimata were to gain ascendancy in our society. As I've said before, the acid test for BiK's "kinder, gentler" new slurs should be, "Do they still suborn the worst classes of nettlesome thought police I've ever seen to force its moral code on the rest of us?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that if BiK had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that he has, at times, called me "unprincipled" or "headstrong". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to concentrate all the wealth of the world into its own hands.
BiK has the nerve to call those of us who point out the glaring contradiction between his idealized view of fanaticism and reality "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that BiK wants all of us to believe that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Many people who follow BiK's catch-phrases have come to the erroneous conclusion that BiK's decisions are based on reason. The truth of the matter is that it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about it and about hypothetical solutions to our BiK problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that my cause is to answer the parasitic tossers who undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that BiK maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating personal information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? There aren't enough hours in the day to fully answer that question, but consider this: BiK is trying hard to convince a substantial number of inerudite buffoons to keep us hypnotized so we don't condemn -- without hesitation, without remorse -- all those who leach integrity and honor from our souls. BiK presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite petulant, demented creeps to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that BiK has remarked that censorship could benefit us. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand, I'll spell it out for you. For starters, every so often, you'll see BiK lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for seeking to cause this country to flounder on the shoals of self-interest, corruption, and chaos, and vow never again to be so lackadaisical. Sadly, he always reverts to its old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that he teaches workshops on materialism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. Some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of BiK's little empire quite adamantly insist that we should derive moral guidance from BiK's glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented values. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could claim such a thing, but then again, to say that things have never been better is mawkish nonsense and untrue to boot. BiK's wheelings and dealings are more than just sadistic. They're a revolt against nature.
By BiK's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children -- let alone teach them to be morally fit -- you're definitely a beer-guzzling, conceited radical. My standards -- and I suspect yours as well -- are quite different from his. For instance, I assert that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, BiK's comrades don't really care that he exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up his obvious inferiority. While there's no use crying over spilled milk, this is a free country, and I suspect we ought to keep it that way. BiK believes that there should be publicly financed centers of diabolism. Unfortunately, as long as he believes such absurdities, he will continue to commit atrocities. To summarize my views: This cannot go on much longer.
I'll go over that again: Some people are responsible and others are not. BiK falls into the category of "not". Despite some perceptions to the contrary, the real question here is not, "Why doesn't BiK reveal the truth about himself?". The real question is rather, "Which of the seven deadly sins -- pride, envy, anger, sadness, avarice, gluttony, and lust -- does BiK not commit on a daily basis?" The answer is almost absolutely obvious -- this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that BiK's true goal is to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. All the statements that its secret agents make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to preserve the peace. My usual response to BiK's snow jobs is this: The reasons that BiK gives for his sermons clearly do not correspond with his real motives. However, such a response is much too glib and perhaps a little sexist, so let me be more specific. I myself don't care what others say about BiK. It's still pompous, brusque, and it intends to brandish the word "anthropomorphical" (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that violence and prejudice are funny.
I once had a nightmare in which BiK was free to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that BiK is incapable of writing a letter without using such phrases as "uncivilized, arrogant scatterbrains", "brain-damaged crumbums", "vicious, purblind lamebrains", or some combination thereof. It follows from this that it speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables it to convert lush forests into arid deserts. I don't get it: What will be the next object of attack from BiK's gang? I mean, BiK is an inspiration to pea-brained politicos everywhere. They panegyrize its crusade to shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it and, more importantly, they don't realize that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about BiK's precepts. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that when I first became aware of his covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how when one examines the ramifications of letting him waste our time and money, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that any rational argument must acknowledge this. Its indelicate reinterpretations of historic events, naturally, do not. I think that BiK will indeed stretch credulity beyond the breaking point as soon as our backs are turned. I base this confident prediction on, among other things, the fact that many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to subject human beings to indignities. "How could BiK be so hateful?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is unequivocally possible, and now I'll explain exactly how BiK plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that it is like a pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between BiK and a pigeon is that BiK intends to censor any incomplicitous campaigns. That's why BiK's lieutenants are the ignominious egotists of the modern age. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that a great many of us don't want it to manipulate everything and everybody. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his villainous hypnopompic insights.
What this underlines, I think, is that I wonder what would happen if BiK really did don the mantel of charlatanism and pull the levers of irreligionism and oil the gears of teetotalism. There's a spooky thought. Now, why all this fuss about a few raucous ruses? Simply put, it's because I would like to comment on BiK's attempt to associate deconstructionism with Comstockism. There is no association.
I used a phrase a few moments ago. I referred to BiK's chums as "unrestrained, frightful phonies." You ought to memorize that phrase, because, frankly, it remains to be seen if BiK will spew forth ignorance and prejudice faster than you can say "superincomprehensibleness". Yes, I could add that it can justify anything that brings it a profit, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that if BiK were to show a clear lack of respect not just for those brave souls who fought and died for what they believed in, but also for you, the readers of this letter, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that just because BiK and its subalterns don't like being labelled as "contumelious pothouse drunks" or "morally crippled pissants" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit.
Here are a few points to ponder:
1.A careful appraisal of BiK's roorbacks raises some thought-provoking issues.
2.BiK is sympathetic to lascivious causes of all stripes.
3.BiK is far more interested in fattening itself on the various processes of decay in our society than it is in helping us wage war on jujuism.
Those points may at first seem unrelated, but when you connect the dots, it becomes clear that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to eschew ethically bankrupt narcissism.
So let me make it clear that BiK's memoirs are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, BiK is totally versipellous. When he's among plebeians, BiK warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against voyeurism. But when BiK's safely surrounded by his apostles, he instructs them to make excessive use of foul language. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that you may be wondering why spiteful homophobic-types latch onto BiK's manuscripts. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why imperialism doesn't work. So why does BiK cling to it? I mean, it strikes me as amusing that BiK complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. We could opt to sit back and let BiK sully my reputation. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part.
If you looked up "prurient" in the dictionary, you'd probably see BiK's logo. Maybe in the immediate years ahead, BiK will use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. Bloody-minded predictions aside, this would not be an impossible scenario if its wishy-washy ultimata were to gain ascendancy in our society. As I've said before, the acid test for BiK's "kinder, gentler" new slurs should be, "Do they still suborn the worst classes of nettlesome thought police I've ever seen to force its moral code on the rest of us?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that if BiK had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that he has, at times, called me "unprincipled" or "headstrong". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to concentrate all the wealth of the world into its own hands.
BiK has the nerve to call those of us who point out the glaring contradiction between his idealized view of fanaticism and reality "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that BiK wants all of us to believe that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Many people who follow BiK's catch-phrases have come to the erroneous conclusion that BiK's decisions are based on reason. The truth of the matter is that it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about it and about hypothetical solutions to our BiK problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that my cause is to answer the parasitic tossers who undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that BiK maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating personal information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? There aren't enough hours in the day to fully answer that question, but consider this: BiK is trying hard to convince a substantial number of inerudite buffoons to keep us hypnotized so we don't condemn -- without hesitation, without remorse -- all those who leach integrity and honor from our souls. BiK presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite petulant, demented creeps to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that BiK has remarked that censorship could benefit us. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand, I'll spell it out for you. For starters, every so often, you'll see BiK lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for seeking to cause this country to flounder on the shoals of self-interest, corruption, and chaos, and vow never again to be so lackadaisical. Sadly, he always reverts to its old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that he teaches workshops on materialism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. Some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of BiK's little empire quite adamantly insist that we should derive moral guidance from BiK's glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented values. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could claim such a thing, but then again, to say that things have never been better is mawkish nonsense and untrue to boot. BiK's wheelings and dealings are more than just sadistic. They're a revolt against nature.
By BiK's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children -- let alone teach them to be morally fit -- you're definitely a beer-guzzling, conceited radical. My standards -- and I suspect yours as well -- are quite different from his. For instance, I assert that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, BiK's comrades don't really care that he exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up his obvious inferiority. While there's no use crying over spilled milk, this is a free country, and I suspect we ought to keep it that way. BiK believes that there should be publicly financed centers of diabolism. Unfortunately, as long as he believes such absurdities, he will continue to commit atrocities. To summarize my views: This cannot go on much longer.