parallelzero
chelia.blendy
- 14,631
- Posts
- 20
- Years
- Age 33
- The capital of Canada (not Toronto)
- Seen May 11, 2015
I don't normally talk about how the choice we face as a nation is whether to run our country ourselves or let self-indulgent, splenetic incubi run it for us. However, in this case I'm going to make an exception. I figure it's okay because it would please the banned members greatly to propitiate cynical, brain-damaged cozeners for later eventualities. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that it is immature and stupid of it to revive an arcadian past that never existed. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds which contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their perverted ploys, and that's why I say that its shills actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these kinds of foolhardy bloodsuckers are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will somehow improve the world before long. In reality, of course, the banned members shouldn't wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions lay waste to the environment. The banned members is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to the banned members is pessimism. Why? To ask that question another way, where do we go from here? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that the banned members and its adherents take is that a record of the banned members's acts of hypocrisy would fill volumes.
Who is the banned members to decide what is morally acceptable for us and what is not? The banned members's fierce passions and fiendish cunning, combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with intense vitality, and with a persistency of purpose which the world has rarely seen, and whetted moreover by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat and subjection, combine to make it the deadly enemy of all mankind, while its rash maneuvers contribute to inflame its wild lust of pelf, and to justify the crimes suggested by spite and superstition. When surveyed, only two percent of the banned members's shock troops agreed with the statement, "The banned members wouldn't know a new idea if it hit it over the head." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness. The banned members is a bad egg. The reason is clear. The banned members is like a jellyfish in that you can't see its stings coming. That's clear. But the banned members refers to a variety of things using the word "labyrinthibranchiate". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, it's saying that my bitterness at it is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, I contend that "footling", "sophomoric", and "illiberal" seem the most appropriate adjectives to describe its invectives. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that some people claim that repeating something over and over does not make it true. Others believe that under the guise of "fighting phallocentrism," the banned members will tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. In the interest of clearing up the confusion, I'll make the following observation: Now that I've been exposed to the banned members's diatribes, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps the banned members is like a stray 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 the banned members and a pigeon is that the banned members intends to develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. That's why the banned members's fabulous success is not firmly connected with meritorious ability. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.
I want to talk about the big picture: if the banned members is going to prevent the real problems from being solved, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, its ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained, in large part, by the following. And second, it's easy for us to shake our heads at its foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. It's easy for us to say, "Ignorant and highly emotional persons are frequently swayed by the banned members's bombast and fustian." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because that which is built inextricably into the laws of the universe cannot be absolutely blockish. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe its line that truth is merely a social construct. Unfortunately for it, I realize that the next time the banned members decides to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up, it should think to itself, cui bono? -- who benefits? As will become apparent sooner than you think, the banned members has remarked that it can walk on water. 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, this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about the banned members's ultra-unstable behavior, but about the way that the banned members's goal is to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. This is abject separatism! As a general rule, I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that the banned members believes that no one is smart enough to see through its transparent lies. That's just wrong. It further believes that it answers to no one. Wrong again!
The banned members and its slaves are wolves in sheep's clothing who will hurt others physically or emotionally before the year is over. The reason is simple: The banned members stands out as the ruler of Planet Patronizing. And here, I suspect, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in the banned members's beliefs.
The banned members is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, the banned members uses the very intellectual tools it criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. If I didn't think the banned members would make our lives a living hell, I wouldn't say that if it feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing it, then that's just too darn bad. The banned members's arrogance has brought this upon itself. From this perspective, the banned members's fantasy is to perpetuate harmful stereotypes. It dreams of a world that grants it such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of narcissism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that it would be wrong to imply that the banned members is involved in some kind of conspiracy to lay down diktats that force me to swallow whatever it dishes out. It would be wrong because its asseverations are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but it has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. Even so, I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with the banned members and its functionaries, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that by hook or by crook we must educate the public on a range of issues. I mean, think about it.
Not to belabor the point, but given the amount of misinformation that the banned members is circulating, I must surely point out that it is an interesting organization. On the one hand, the banned members likes to ignite a maelstrom of propagandism. But on the other hand, it has commented that it knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as its comment is lacking in common sense. When we tease apart the associations necessary to the banned members's uncontrollable expedients, we see that the banned members's vicegerents have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize the banned members's chthonic op-ed pieces. It is honestly not a pretty sight. Please keep in mind that the majority of stubborn pests probably agree that the banned members's use of perfidious, homicidal rubes is pathetic.
Whenever the banned members announces that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, its accomplices applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What's funny is that they don't provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as the banned members has had, I must unquestionably reinforce what is best in people. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. For proof of this ongoing tragedy, one has only to realize that we must present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. Our children depend on that.
I try never to argue with the banned members, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. This is not to say that I have no sympathy for the banned members. It is merely to point out that I once managed to get the banned members to agree that it has mastered the dark arts of diversion and deception. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, it did a volte-face and denied that it had ever said that. The banned members's behavior might be different if it were told that such conduct as the banned members' induced the despotism of Cromwell and the two Bonapartes. Of course, as far as it's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that one could truthfully say that I am merely pointing out what I have observed. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that my purpose here is not to halt the adulation heaped upon cold-blooded, morbid caitiffs. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that I recently informed it that its subordinates create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. The banned members said it'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, its polity appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that my dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to keep our priorities in check.
Defeatism and larrikinism are not synonymous. In fact, they are so frequently in opposition and so universally irreconcilable that knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that the banned members says that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"? My point may be made clearer by use of an allegorical tale. Suppose a hypothetical group of three people is standing in a room. One of those people realizes that even acknowledging the banned members's doctrinaire, brazen ebullitions is beneath my dignity. Another goes on and on about the banned members's smarmy, impulsive antics. But the third can't understand why the banned members's cajoleries are a blatantly obvious and cleverly orchestrated script, carefully concocted to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. In this hypothetical situation, it should be obvious that I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that the banned members is up to, the more shocking things, things like how it wants to lead us into an age of shoddiness -- shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Is there anything that it can't make its encomiasts believe? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that it has been, still is, and always will remain more barbaric than sleazy stool pigeons. But upon further investigation, one will find that the banned members has no discernible talents. The only things it has undeniably mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose the banned members's also good at convincing people that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate -- but my point is that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did the banned members's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Does the banned members's oversized ego demand that it seek temporary tactical alliances with contemptible demented-types in order to create widespread hysteria?" My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that it is at least partially right in that deep down, it knows that I'm right. The second, more telling, observation is that the banned members thinks it would be a great idea to leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.
The banned members has stated that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that without its superior guidance, we will go nowhere. Now that's just unenlightened. As another disquieting tidbit, the following must be stated: I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how just because the banned members and its secret police don't like being labelled as "venom-spouting, conniving energumens" or "mealymouthed chiselers" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. This has been a long letter, but I feel that its length is in direct proportion to its importance. Why? Because you have my word that the banned members's viewpoints are a pitiful jumble of incoherent nonsense.
Now... who understood that? (Credit to Akinari for finding the site) If you actually read it all, kudos to you. Oh, and I don't really hate banned members, it was just all I could think of. XD
Who is the banned members to decide what is morally acceptable for us and what is not? The banned members's fierce passions and fiendish cunning, combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with intense vitality, and with a persistency of purpose which the world has rarely seen, and whetted moreover by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat and subjection, combine to make it the deadly enemy of all mankind, while its rash maneuvers contribute to inflame its wild lust of pelf, and to justify the crimes suggested by spite and superstition. When surveyed, only two percent of the banned members's shock troops agreed with the statement, "The banned members wouldn't know a new idea if it hit it over the head." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness. The banned members is a bad egg. The reason is clear. The banned members is like a jellyfish in that you can't see its stings coming. That's clear. But the banned members refers to a variety of things using the word "labyrinthibranchiate". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, it's saying that my bitterness at it is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, I contend that "footling", "sophomoric", and "illiberal" seem the most appropriate adjectives to describe its invectives. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that some people claim that repeating something over and over does not make it true. Others believe that under the guise of "fighting phallocentrism," the banned members will tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. In the interest of clearing up the confusion, I'll make the following observation: Now that I've been exposed to the banned members's diatribes, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps the banned members is like a stray 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 the banned members and a pigeon is that the banned members intends to develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. That's why the banned members's fabulous success is not firmly connected with meritorious ability. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.
I want to talk about the big picture: if the banned members is going to prevent the real problems from being solved, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, its ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained, in large part, by the following. And second, it's easy for us to shake our heads at its foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. It's easy for us to say, "Ignorant and highly emotional persons are frequently swayed by the banned members's bombast and fustian." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because that which is built inextricably into the laws of the universe cannot be absolutely blockish. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe its line that truth is merely a social construct. Unfortunately for it, I realize that the next time the banned members decides to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up, it should think to itself, cui bono? -- who benefits? As will become apparent sooner than you think, the banned members has remarked that it can walk on water. 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, this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about the banned members's ultra-unstable behavior, but about the way that the banned members's goal is to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. This is abject separatism! As a general rule, I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that the banned members believes that no one is smart enough to see through its transparent lies. That's just wrong. It further believes that it answers to no one. Wrong again!
The banned members and its slaves are wolves in sheep's clothing who will hurt others physically or emotionally before the year is over. The reason is simple: The banned members stands out as the ruler of Planet Patronizing. And here, I suspect, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in the banned members's beliefs.
The banned members is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, the banned members uses the very intellectual tools it criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. If I didn't think the banned members would make our lives a living hell, I wouldn't say that if it feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing it, then that's just too darn bad. The banned members's arrogance has brought this upon itself. From this perspective, the banned members's fantasy is to perpetuate harmful stereotypes. It dreams of a world that grants it such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of narcissism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that it would be wrong to imply that the banned members is involved in some kind of conspiracy to lay down diktats that force me to swallow whatever it dishes out. It would be wrong because its asseverations are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but it has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. Even so, I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with the banned members and its functionaries, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that by hook or by crook we must educate the public on a range of issues. I mean, think about it.
Not to belabor the point, but given the amount of misinformation that the banned members is circulating, I must surely point out that it is an interesting organization. On the one hand, the banned members likes to ignite a maelstrom of propagandism. But on the other hand, it has commented that it knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as its comment is lacking in common sense. When we tease apart the associations necessary to the banned members's uncontrollable expedients, we see that the banned members's vicegerents have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize the banned members's chthonic op-ed pieces. It is honestly not a pretty sight. Please keep in mind that the majority of stubborn pests probably agree that the banned members's use of perfidious, homicidal rubes is pathetic.
Whenever the banned members announces that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, its accomplices applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What's funny is that they don't provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as the banned members has had, I must unquestionably reinforce what is best in people. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. For proof of this ongoing tragedy, one has only to realize that we must present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. Our children depend on that.
I try never to argue with the banned members, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. This is not to say that I have no sympathy for the banned members. It is merely to point out that I once managed to get the banned members to agree that it has mastered the dark arts of diversion and deception. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, it did a volte-face and denied that it had ever said that. The banned members's behavior might be different if it were told that such conduct as the banned members' induced the despotism of Cromwell and the two Bonapartes. Of course, as far as it's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that one could truthfully say that I am merely pointing out what I have observed. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that my purpose here is not to halt the adulation heaped upon cold-blooded, morbid caitiffs. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that I recently informed it that its subordinates create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. The banned members said it'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, its polity appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that my dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to keep our priorities in check.
Defeatism and larrikinism are not synonymous. In fact, they are so frequently in opposition and so universally irreconcilable that knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that the banned members says that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"? My point may be made clearer by use of an allegorical tale. Suppose a hypothetical group of three people is standing in a room. One of those people realizes that even acknowledging the banned members's doctrinaire, brazen ebullitions is beneath my dignity. Another goes on and on about the banned members's smarmy, impulsive antics. But the third can't understand why the banned members's cajoleries are a blatantly obvious and cleverly orchestrated script, carefully concocted to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. In this hypothetical situation, it should be obvious that I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that the banned members is up to, the more shocking things, things like how it wants to lead us into an age of shoddiness -- shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Is there anything that it can't make its encomiasts believe? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that it has been, still is, and always will remain more barbaric than sleazy stool pigeons. But upon further investigation, one will find that the banned members has no discernible talents. The only things it has undeniably mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose the banned members's also good at convincing people that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate -- but my point is that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did the banned members's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Does the banned members's oversized ego demand that it seek temporary tactical alliances with contemptible demented-types in order to create widespread hysteria?" My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that it is at least partially right in that deep down, it knows that I'm right. The second, more telling, observation is that the banned members thinks it would be a great idea to leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.
The banned members has stated that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that without its superior guidance, we will go nowhere. Now that's just unenlightened. As another disquieting tidbit, the following must be stated: I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how just because the banned members and its secret police don't like being labelled as "venom-spouting, conniving energumens" or "mealymouthed chiselers" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. This has been a long letter, but I feel that its length is in direct proportion to its importance. Why? Because you have my word that the banned members's viewpoints are a pitiful jumble of incoherent nonsense.
Now... who understood that? (Credit to Akinari for finding the site) If you actually read it all, kudos to you. Oh, and I don't really hate banned members, it was just all I could think of. XD
