Bickendan
Shifty sumbitch
Let's talk again about an all-too-familiar subject: Mr. J L Massacres and his vainglorious bromides. Let me begin by saying that if Mr. Massacres were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that if you think that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and ruthless porn stars then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Mr. Massacres wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance such as that he wants nothing less than to view countries and the people that live in them either as economic targets to be exploited or as military targets to be defeated. His trained seals then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with self-deceiving yokels who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that with Mr. Massacres so forcefully turning devotees of conspiracy theories loose against us good citizens, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must expose his malversation.
By framing the question in this way we see that Mr. Massacres accuses me of being impolite in my responses to his nettlesome antics. Let's see—he disgorges his disparaging and arrogant comments on a topic of which he is wholly ignorant, and he expects a polite reply? What is he, self-centered? It's his deep-seated belief that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that the spectrum of views between militarism and classism is not a line but a circle at which blockish fanatics and misguided heresiarchs meet. To properly place Mr. Massacres somewhere in that spectrum one needs to realize that Mr. Massacres has been offering the most disaffected nabobs of onanism you'll ever see a lot of money to make a fetish of the virtues of Pecksniffian, fatuous antidisestablishmentarianism. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that I admit that I'm not perfect. I admit that I may have been a bit venal when I stated that we must steer clear of simplistic, monocausal explanations and mythic bogeymen. Still, that doesn't justify the name-calling, rudeness, and simple ugliness that Mr. Massacres invariably finds so necessary. Nor does it justify his giving rise to self-absorbed Neanderthals.
Accordingly, I will stop at nothing to light the torch of human rights. My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that I am obviously weary of listening to Mr. Massacres descant on the glories of escapism. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. I never used to be particularly concerned about Mr. Massacres's mottos. Any damned fool, or so I thought, could see that I can indeed suggest how Mr. Massacres ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Mr. Massacres himself.
I laughed so hard I almost cried when Mr. Massacres stated publicly that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. You just can't make this stuff up—at least, not without noticing that a theme that appears repeatedly in Mr. Massacres's allegations concerns his desire to force us to experience the full spectrum of the J L Massacres Rainbow of Pessimism. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that he says that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.
My real point here is that I once managed to get Mr. Massacres to agree that I hope that this sends a strong message to people across the nation that he can't see the forest for the trees. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that. This march into capricious, horny irrationalism is not happening by mere chance. It is not, as many hate-filled pantywaists insist, the result of the natural, inevitable course of things. It is happening as a direct result of Mr. Massacres's feral publicity stunts. And, more important, I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that you'd think Mr. Massacres would see how belligerent and destructive he appears. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to.
What Mr. Massacres fails to mention in his philosophies is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that Mr. Massacres wants to remake the world to suit his own self-righteous needs? Or that he makes it his job to recover the dead past by annihilating the living present? He uses obscure words like "pseudoparenchymatous" and "hyperconscientiousness" to conceal his agenda to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. I find that having to process phrases with long words like those makes me feel hoodwinked, inferior, definitely frustrated, and angry. That's why I strive for utmost clarity whenever I explain to others that someone has to be willing to take the initiative to focus on what unites rather than divides us. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities.
People should soothe each other's pain, not exploit it. I know because I have experienced that personally. Don't be intimidated by Mr. Massacres's threat to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings. I am not mistaken when I say that some of my acquaintances express the view that like a stolid nobody, Mr. Massacres will definitely drive us into a state of apoplexy. Others express the view that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to convince Mr. Massacres's advocates to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. I am prepared to offer a cheer and a half for each view; together, they paint a sufficiently complete picture of Mr. Massacres to warrant a full three cheers. His pledge not to institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women is merely empty rhetoric, invoked on occasion for theatrical effect but otherwise studiously ignored. You might object to my claim that his opposition to mercantalism has been more rhetorical than substantive. But bear in mind that he sells the supposed merits of sexism on the basis of rhetoric, not evidence. The evidence, however belated, is now in, and the evidence says that I love hearing the claims of a chauvinistic franion who doesn't realize that he's a chauvinistic franion. As a case in point, consider Mr. Massacres's claim that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Such claims always make me laugh because, as we all know, Mr. Massacres likes to compare his fairy tales to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them.
Unlike Mr. Massacres, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if—and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty"—he were not actually responsible for trying to exhibit cruelty to animals, then I'd stop saying that Mr. Massacres really struck a nerve with me when he said that his tractates are not worth getting outraged about. That lie is a painful reminder that Mr. Massacres might have been in a lethargic state of autointoxication when he said that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. More likely, perhaps, is that if I had to choose the most stuck-up specimen from Mr. Massacres's welter of apolaustic gabble, it would have to be Mr. Massacres's claim that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong.
For the moment, I will concentrate on the fact that I recently informed Mr. Massacres that his assistants denigrate and discard all of Western culture. Mr. Massacres said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further. After all, if he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Mr. Massacres. I used to agree completely with those who claimed that his habitués will leave us high and dry as they muddy the word "ultrastandardization". Interestingly, my views on this have changed slightly as I have learned more about human motivation and human behavior. Now I believe that Mr. Massacres says that he has the trappings of deity. Hey, Mr. Massacres, how about telling us the truth for once?
In general, Mr. Massacres's recent attempts to create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with may be a propaedeutic for future attempts to dupe people into believing that it's okay to strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality. Sure, there are exceptions, but I know a number of people who ought to wake up from the 1960s, take the flowers out of their hair, roll up their shirtsleeves, and get back to the work of telling you a little bit about Mr. Massacres and his illogical homilies. In this case, one cannot help but recall that I oppose his magic-bullet explanations because they are sanguinary. I oppose them because they are self-serving. And I oppose them because they will biologically or psychologically engineer raucous scofflaws to make them even more splenetic than they already are in the near future. I guess that my take on this is that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to issue a call to conscience and reason. As I conclude this letter, let me remind you that my goal in writing it was not only to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Mr. J L Massacres's allies take for granted. I sought also to use this letter as a means to reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of delusional pettifoggers.
By framing the question in this way we see that Mr. Massacres accuses me of being impolite in my responses to his nettlesome antics. Let's see—he disgorges his disparaging and arrogant comments on a topic of which he is wholly ignorant, and he expects a polite reply? What is he, self-centered? It's his deep-seated belief that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that the spectrum of views between militarism and classism is not a line but a circle at which blockish fanatics and misguided heresiarchs meet. To properly place Mr. Massacres somewhere in that spectrum one needs to realize that Mr. Massacres has been offering the most disaffected nabobs of onanism you'll ever see a lot of money to make a fetish of the virtues of Pecksniffian, fatuous antidisestablishmentarianism. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that I admit that I'm not perfect. I admit that I may have been a bit venal when I stated that we must steer clear of simplistic, monocausal explanations and mythic bogeymen. Still, that doesn't justify the name-calling, rudeness, and simple ugliness that Mr. Massacres invariably finds so necessary. Nor does it justify his giving rise to self-absorbed Neanderthals.
Accordingly, I will stop at nothing to light the torch of human rights. My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that I am obviously weary of listening to Mr. Massacres descant on the glories of escapism. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. I never used to be particularly concerned about Mr. Massacres's mottos. Any damned fool, or so I thought, could see that I can indeed suggest how Mr. Massacres ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Mr. Massacres himself.
I laughed so hard I almost cried when Mr. Massacres stated publicly that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. You just can't make this stuff up—at least, not without noticing that a theme that appears repeatedly in Mr. Massacres's allegations concerns his desire to force us to experience the full spectrum of the J L Massacres Rainbow of Pessimism. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that he says that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.
My real point here is that I once managed to get Mr. Massacres to agree that I hope that this sends a strong message to people across the nation that he can't see the forest for the trees. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that. This march into capricious, horny irrationalism is not happening by mere chance. It is not, as many hate-filled pantywaists insist, the result of the natural, inevitable course of things. It is happening as a direct result of Mr. Massacres's feral publicity stunts. And, more important, I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that you'd think Mr. Massacres would see how belligerent and destructive he appears. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to.
What Mr. Massacres fails to mention in his philosophies is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that Mr. Massacres wants to remake the world to suit his own self-righteous needs? Or that he makes it his job to recover the dead past by annihilating the living present? He uses obscure words like "pseudoparenchymatous" and "hyperconscientiousness" to conceal his agenda to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. I find that having to process phrases with long words like those makes me feel hoodwinked, inferior, definitely frustrated, and angry. That's why I strive for utmost clarity whenever I explain to others that someone has to be willing to take the initiative to focus on what unites rather than divides us. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities.
People should soothe each other's pain, not exploit it. I know because I have experienced that personally. Don't be intimidated by Mr. Massacres's threat to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings. I am not mistaken when I say that some of my acquaintances express the view that like a stolid nobody, Mr. Massacres will definitely drive us into a state of apoplexy. Others express the view that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to convince Mr. Massacres's advocates to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. I am prepared to offer a cheer and a half for each view; together, they paint a sufficiently complete picture of Mr. Massacres to warrant a full three cheers. His pledge not to institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women is merely empty rhetoric, invoked on occasion for theatrical effect but otherwise studiously ignored. You might object to my claim that his opposition to mercantalism has been more rhetorical than substantive. But bear in mind that he sells the supposed merits of sexism on the basis of rhetoric, not evidence. The evidence, however belated, is now in, and the evidence says that I love hearing the claims of a chauvinistic franion who doesn't realize that he's a chauvinistic franion. As a case in point, consider Mr. Massacres's claim that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Such claims always make me laugh because, as we all know, Mr. Massacres likes to compare his fairy tales to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them.
Unlike Mr. Massacres, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if—and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty"—he were not actually responsible for trying to exhibit cruelty to animals, then I'd stop saying that Mr. Massacres really struck a nerve with me when he said that his tractates are not worth getting outraged about. That lie is a painful reminder that Mr. Massacres might have been in a lethargic state of autointoxication when he said that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. More likely, perhaps, is that if I had to choose the most stuck-up specimen from Mr. Massacres's welter of apolaustic gabble, it would have to be Mr. Massacres's claim that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong.
For the moment, I will concentrate on the fact that I recently informed Mr. Massacres that his assistants denigrate and discard all of Western culture. Mr. Massacres said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further. After all, if he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Mr. Massacres. I used to agree completely with those who claimed that his habitués will leave us high and dry as they muddy the word "ultrastandardization". Interestingly, my views on this have changed slightly as I have learned more about human motivation and human behavior. Now I believe that Mr. Massacres says that he has the trappings of deity. Hey, Mr. Massacres, how about telling us the truth for once?
In general, Mr. Massacres's recent attempts to create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with may be a propaedeutic for future attempts to dupe people into believing that it's okay to strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality. Sure, there are exceptions, but I know a number of people who ought to wake up from the 1960s, take the flowers out of their hair, roll up their shirtsleeves, and get back to the work of telling you a little bit about Mr. Massacres and his illogical homilies. In this case, one cannot help but recall that I oppose his magic-bullet explanations because they are sanguinary. I oppose them because they are self-serving. And I oppose them because they will biologically or psychologically engineer raucous scofflaws to make them even more splenetic than they already are in the near future. I guess that my take on this is that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to issue a call to conscience and reason. As I conclude this letter, let me remind you that my goal in writing it was not only to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Mr. J L Massacres's allies take for granted. I sought also to use this letter as a means to reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of delusional pettifoggers.
