In this thread, I will try to describe FFR's conjectures in such a way that my language will not offend and yet will still convey my message that in my effort to uncover FFR's hidden prejudices, I will need to identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of priggism. One of the first facts we should face is that FFR presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. It is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors pertinacious opportunists (also known as FFR's chums). And here we have the ultimate irony, because I wouldn't judge FFR's janissaries too harshly. They're just cannon fodder for FFR's plot to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. I wonder if FFR really believes the things it says. It knows they're not true, doesn't it? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: FFR has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. Then again, just because FFR is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that it has the mandate of Heaven to attack the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview. I stand by what I've written before, that FFR's unrealistic, brutal pranks transmogrify society's petty gripes and irrational fears into "issues" to be catered to. FFR then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Given that this theme is stated in one form or another in every one of Man's great religions, isn't it obvious that FFR's bald-faced lies and growing list of material falsehoods raise some new and very disturbing issues? As someone who is working hard to take advantage of a rare opportunity to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two pathological tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern revisionism, I must point out that I recently informed FFR that its trained seals cater to the basest instincts of imprudent troublemakers. FFR said it'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, if it feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing it, then that's just too darn bad. FFR's arrogance has brought this upon itself.
FFR reminds me of the thief who cries "Stop, thief!" to distract attention from his thievery. But that's not all: Its overgeneralizations are continually evolving into more and more temperamental incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how FFR's artifices are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. In the past, organizations like FFR would have been tarred and feathered for trying to repeat the mistakes of the past. Someone has to be willing to plant markers that define the limits of what is stolid and what is not. 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 a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem.
My goal is to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of clericalism. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I really do have to try. When I first heard about FFR's credos, I dismissed them as merely wily. But when I later learned that it wants me to get fired from my job, I realized that we might be able to explain away many of FFR's sententious bromides as being merely the effect of bad drugs. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that FFR's goals promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for FFR's hatchet men because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to FFR.
FFR is not known for interpreting facts rationally or objectively. But there are other strains of ribald factionalism active today, and the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize catty antagonists whose insipid fervor blinds them to historical lessons. FFR is not only nefarious, but it also lacks the self-control necessary to conform its behavior to reasonable norms. If I have characterized FFR's satraps up to now as wrongheaded and incorrigible, it is only because it is not uncommon for FFR to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole loud affair as some great benefit to humanity. Is this anything other than recalcitrant obstructionism? The answer is obvious if you happen to notice that if you can go more than a minute without hearing FFR talk about narcissism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial.
Be honest; can you in any way believe FFR's claim that its projects won't be used for political retribution? I cannot, mainly because there's an important difference between me and FFR. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. FFR, in contrast, is willing to kill for its -- or, if not to kill, at least to create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat.
While the question of who is right and who is wrong in this case is an interesting one, it is also something that I cannot and will not comment on, and not just because I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that FFR demands obeisance from its gofers. Then, once they prove their loyalty, FFR forces them to alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with its current "reality". While it is reasonable to expect that it's my understanding that I regret not writing this letter sooner, it remains that it strikes me as amusing that FFR complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! It does nothing but complain. If I want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, that should be my prerogative. I surely don't need FFR forcing me to.
FFR's minions are not, technically, worthless heretics, but rather licentious power brokers. I assert that there is a small -- yet not entirely insignificant -- difference. FFR twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. FFR unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what it claims gives it the right to attack my character. Only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in FFR's memoranda. But the first step is to acknowledge that its faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. Because of FFR's bons mots, our schools simply do not teach the basics anymore. Instead, they preach the theology of self-absorbed militarism.
I believe I have finally figured out what makes organizations like FFR contaminate clear thinking with its quasi-disaffected arguments. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. Ever since FFR decided to make things worse, its consistent, unvarying line has been that it understands the difference between civilization and savagery. FFR says that it is a martyr for freedom and a victim of jingoism. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely intemperate and effrontive lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by FFR's assistants. It is clear from what I have already written that my general thesis is that I try never to argue with FFR, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: FFR decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.
The question, therefore, must not be, "How can FFR be so pesky?", but rather, "How long shall there continue pushy, devious brutes to vend and witless yokels to gulp so low a piece of faddism as FFR's reinterpretations of historic events?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because FFR's craven, barbaric propositions are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of propagandism are blooming all around us.
FFR claims that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. I maintain that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that FFR's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only lewd answers, unconscionable resolutions to conflicts. If I were to compile a list of FFR's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that when FFR tells us that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight, it somehow fails to mention that its ignorant attempts to debunk myths often lead to the perpetuation of them. It fails to mention that some of the things it says and some of the things it stands for are so confused, it hurts to think about them. And it fails to mention that it will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And FFR truly does scare me: Its notions are scary, its agendas are scary, and most of all, if it weren't for dangerous enemies of the people, it would have no friends. FFR's worshippers portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression, but are loath to reveal that FFR truly believes that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. It is just such snippy megalomania, reprehensible, avaricious egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs FFR to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom. Stand with me, be honest with me, and help me institute change, and together we'll recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. We'll give our young people the values that will inspire them to question authority. I'm counting on you. Thanks for reading this.
Haha, I'm just playing with ya, I just felt like killing some time.
<3 FFR <3
FFR reminds me of the thief who cries "Stop, thief!" to distract attention from his thievery. But that's not all: Its overgeneralizations are continually evolving into more and more temperamental incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how FFR's artifices are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. In the past, organizations like FFR would have been tarred and feathered for trying to repeat the mistakes of the past. Someone has to be willing to plant markers that define the limits of what is stolid and what is not. 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 a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem.
My goal is to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of clericalism. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I really do have to try. When I first heard about FFR's credos, I dismissed them as merely wily. But when I later learned that it wants me to get fired from my job, I realized that we might be able to explain away many of FFR's sententious bromides as being merely the effect of bad drugs. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that FFR's goals promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for FFR's hatchet men because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to FFR.
FFR is not known for interpreting facts rationally or objectively. But there are other strains of ribald factionalism active today, and the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize catty antagonists whose insipid fervor blinds them to historical lessons. FFR is not only nefarious, but it also lacks the self-control necessary to conform its behavior to reasonable norms. If I have characterized FFR's satraps up to now as wrongheaded and incorrigible, it is only because it is not uncommon for FFR to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole loud affair as some great benefit to humanity. Is this anything other than recalcitrant obstructionism? The answer is obvious if you happen to notice that if you can go more than a minute without hearing FFR talk about narcissism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial.
Be honest; can you in any way believe FFR's claim that its projects won't be used for political retribution? I cannot, mainly because there's an important difference between me and FFR. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. FFR, in contrast, is willing to kill for its -- or, if not to kill, at least to create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat.
While the question of who is right and who is wrong in this case is an interesting one, it is also something that I cannot and will not comment on, and not just because I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that FFR demands obeisance from its gofers. Then, once they prove their loyalty, FFR forces them to alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with its current "reality". While it is reasonable to expect that it's my understanding that I regret not writing this letter sooner, it remains that it strikes me as amusing that FFR complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! It does nothing but complain. If I want to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, that should be my prerogative. I surely don't need FFR forcing me to.
FFR's minions are not, technically, worthless heretics, but rather licentious power brokers. I assert that there is a small -- yet not entirely insignificant -- difference. FFR twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. FFR unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what it claims gives it the right to attack my character. Only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in FFR's memoranda. But the first step is to acknowledge that its faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. Because of FFR's bons mots, our schools simply do not teach the basics anymore. Instead, they preach the theology of self-absorbed militarism.
I believe I have finally figured out what makes organizations like FFR contaminate clear thinking with its quasi-disaffected arguments. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. Ever since FFR decided to make things worse, its consistent, unvarying line has been that it understands the difference between civilization and savagery. FFR says that it is a martyr for freedom and a victim of jingoism. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely intemperate and effrontive lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by FFR's assistants. It is clear from what I have already written that my general thesis is that I try never to argue with FFR, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: FFR decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.
The question, therefore, must not be, "How can FFR be so pesky?", but rather, "How long shall there continue pushy, devious brutes to vend and witless yokels to gulp so low a piece of faddism as FFR's reinterpretations of historic events?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because FFR's craven, barbaric propositions are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of propagandism are blooming all around us.
FFR claims that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. I maintain that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that FFR's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only lewd answers, unconscionable resolutions to conflicts. If I were to compile a list of FFR's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that when FFR tells us that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight, it somehow fails to mention that its ignorant attempts to debunk myths often lead to the perpetuation of them. It fails to mention that some of the things it says and some of the things it stands for are so confused, it hurts to think about them. And it fails to mention that it will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And FFR truly does scare me: Its notions are scary, its agendas are scary, and most of all, if it weren't for dangerous enemies of the people, it would have no friends. FFR's worshippers portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression, but are loath to reveal that FFR truly believes that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. It is just such snippy megalomania, reprehensible, avaricious egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs FFR to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom. Stand with me, be honest with me, and help me institute change, and together we'll recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. We'll give our young people the values that will inspire them to question authority. I'm counting on you. Thanks for reading this.
Haha, I'm just playing with ya, I just felt like killing some time.
<3 FFR <3
Comment