Sinistral? More like SATANstral!

There are people I really despise. They lack morals, character, and honesty. They deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens. In case you can’t tell, I’m talking about Sinistral here. For the sake of review, you don’t have to say anything specifically about Sinistral for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should carry out this matter to the full extent of the law.

He labels anyone he doesn’t like as “hateful”. That might well be a better description of Sinistral. As far as I can tell, it’s really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to confront and reject all manifestations of racialism. It’s my sense of responsibility to you, the reader.

As I remove the veil of ignorance I have lived behind, I find that there’s an important difference between me and Sinistral. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Sinistral, in contrast, is willing to kill for his – or, if not to kill, at least to replace law and order with anarchy and despotism. Everywhere he’s gone, he has tried to create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. It can happen here, too. In hearing about his canards, one gets the distinct impression that contrary to my personal preferences, I’m thinking about what’s best for all of us. My conclusion is that what’s best for all of us is for me to reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning.

Sinistral whines about prodigal hackers, yet he enthusiastically supports splenetic trolls. All this aside, I and Sinistral part company when it comes to the issue of obscurantism. He feels that the laws of nature don’t apply to him, while I assert that I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like him funnel significant amounts of money to hypersensitive rapscallions (especially the obtuse type). 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. Although he babbles on and on about exclusionism, Sinistral has no more conception of it than most other doctrinaire apostates.

I’m merely suggesting that I want to unify our community. Sinistral, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that he had the same intellectual honesty. Okay, I’ve vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that Sinistral’s little world is far from reality.

I love this thing.

My original goal for this letter was to scrutinize Pierson’s remarks point by distasteful point. Unfortunately, Pierson’s focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. Unless you share my view that before long, Pierson will turn his back on those who need him the most, there’s no need for you to hear me further. In his perceptions, extremism is witting and unremitting, directionless and empty-headed. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to leave us in the lurch. If you want a better opportunity to get a job, raise a family in a safe neighborhood, have a better chance at a good education, and lower the taxes on the money you earn, then I ask that you help me enhance people’s curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity. To most people, the list of Pierson’s treacherous threats reads like a comic strip, but his undertakings are actually taken seriously by his underlings. Our goal must now be to establish clear, justifiable definitions of interdenominationalism and communism, so that you can defend a decision to take action when Pierson’s vassals foster suspicion – if not hatred – of “outsiders”. If you believe that that’s a worthwhile goal, then I can unmistakably use your help. Let me hear from you.

Kewl! :hahaha;

I am writing this letter to persuade you that Hades has a hair-trigger temper. I will persuade you of this by providing a few examples and illustrations of the way in which Hades seeks to make empty promises. As this letter will make clear, by allowing him to lead people towards iniquity and sin, we are allowing him to play puppet master. I imagine that if I want to hang myself by the neck until dead, that should be my prerogative. I don’t need him forcing me to. In plain, simple-to-understand English, Hades is doing everything in his power to make me crawl under a rock and die. The only reason I haven’t yet is that I believe in the four P’s: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance. Even if we accepted his ideals, so what? Does that mean that it is power-drunk to question Hades’s ploys? Of course not.

By refusing to act, by refusing to open students’ eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them, we are giving him the power to work hand-in-glove with inane yokels. The bulk of officious pillocks are at least marginally tolerable, but not Hades. Contrary to the Rousseauian ideal of the transparency of the general will to itself, he keeps trying to work both sides of the political fence. And if we don’t remain eternally vigilant, he will undeniably succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don’t speak or correspond with self-satisfied semi-intelligible-types, Hades’s underlings, or anyone else who fails to realize that the central paradox of Hades’s canards, the twist that makes Hades’s bromides so irresistible to morally repugnant insurrectionists, is that these people truly believe that anarchism and cynicism are identical concepts.

How I pity Hades if I were to be his judge. I would start by notifying the jury that everything Hades tells you is a lie. I know you’re wondering why I just wrote that. I’ll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Hades’s brutish, tendentious diatribes are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of propagandism are blooming all around us. The gloss that his drones put on his deeds unfortunately does little to put an end to Hades’s evildoing. From this perspective, Hades surely believes that his blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? Let me give you a hint: He will stop at nothing to deny the obvious. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, Hades tries to make us think the way he wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. As is often the case, if Hades thinks that he can make me hide in a closet, then he’s barking up the wrong tree.

So, what demons possessed him to move dysfunctional insurrectionism from the odious fringe into a realm of respectability? I guess it just boils down to the question: Does he realize he’s more quasi-hidebound than most imprudent, lackadaisical freaks? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I’ve answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I’ll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I’ll just say that he just keeps on saying, “I don’t give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to create massive civil unrest.” Maybe you, too, want to obliterate our sense of identity, so let me warn you: To Hades’s mind, he knows the “right” way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. So that means that what I call worthless lackwits have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us, right? No, not right. The truth is that Hades should judge not, lest he be judged. So let Hades call me crafty. I call him incoherent. This has been documented repeatedly. That proves that I have to wonder where he got the idea that it is my view that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I’ve never written anything to imply that it is.

Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of obscurantism. I stand by what I’ve written before, that if quislingism were an Olympic sport, Hades would clinch the gold medal. By next weekend, he might be diagnosed with a special type of mental illness that is not yet recognized. But for now, be aware that his adherents are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Hades, who wants nothing less than to create a climate of intimidation. If you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my disgust with Hades?

…wow.

Once again, I am writing in response to Hades Shinigami’s witticisms, and once again, I merely wish to point out that Hades’s contrivances would be totally risible if they weren’t so disaffected. The points I plan to make in this letter will sound tediously familiar to everyone who wants to point out the glaring contradiction between Hades’s idealized view of isolationism and reality. Nevertheless, one does not have to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering in order to rouse people’s indignation at Hades. It is a frightful person who believes otherwise. He is utterly unsympathetic. We all are, to some extent, but Hades sets the curve.

Like a verbal magician, he knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. It is apparent to me that Hades should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can’t do everything he wants, every time he wants to. He wants to get me thrown in jail. He can’t cite a specific statute that I’ve violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that Hades will probably throw another hissy fit if we don’t let him use irrationalism as a more destructive form of fanaticism. At least putting up with another Hades Shinigami hissy fit is easier than convincing Hades’s helots that if we let Hades go to great lengths to conceal his true aims and mislead the public, then greed, corruption, and cameralism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions.

I do not find exegeses that are uninformed, disloyal, and drossy to be “funny”. Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but maybe Hades twists every argument into some sort of “struggle” between two parties. Hades unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria. I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that what he is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly high-handed activity. I have this advice to offer: The world has changed, Hades; get used to it. Before explaining why despicable card sharks cause insurmountable trouble for us, I must first act as a positive role model for younger people. In case you don’t know, his methods are much subtler now than ever before. He is more adept at hidden mind control and his techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. I am not going to go into too great a detail about the most barbaric smut peddlers I’ve ever seen, but be assured that Hades’s belief systems are a cancer that is slowly eating away at our flesh. That’s the sort of statement that some people maintain is audacious, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it’s a statement that needs to be made, because honest people will admit that Hades’s endeavors reflect an unpleasant bias that will contaminate or cut off our cities’ water supply any day now. Concerned people are not afraid to knock some sense into Hades. And sensible people know that Hades’s prognoses are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They’re simply the dangerous ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he’s mocking. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I’d love to hear about them.

Once again, I find it necessary to write in defense of myself and my beliefs. First things first: Even when Big Brother isn’t lying, it’s using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable it to create some unimaginative, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. Big Brother’s revenge fantasies are based on hate. Hate, revisionism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. The primary point of disagreement between myself and Big Brother is whether or not someone once said to me, “The sun has never shone on a more empty-headed and damnable organization than Big Brother.” This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. By seeking to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature, Big Brother reveals its ignorance about imperialism’s polyvocality. It probably also doesn’t realize that it is immature and stupid of it to create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting it, and that’s why I say that I can easily see it performing the following worthless acts. First, Big Brother will herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. Then, it will twist the teaching of history to suit its flagitious purposes. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.

If Big Brother can one day propitiate unsophisticated power brokers for later eventualities, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. Most of what Big Brother says is pure gibberish. But it doesn’t stop there.

Faddism was founded on a world system of enslavement and land theft, but I won’t linger on that. To understand why that affects everyone who has ever lived, you need to realize that Big Brother asserts that its exegeses are not worth getting outraged about. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. Big Brother’s undertakings are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. Big Brother doesn’t want equal time. Big Brother doesn’t want pluralism. Big Brother just wants to supplant one form of injustice with another. Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which Big Brother produces.

If Big Brother bites me, I will bite back. Big Brother has been doing “in-depth research” (whatever it thinks that means) to prove that things have never been better. I should mention that I’ve been doing some research of my own. So far, I’ve “discovered” that griping about Big Brother will not make it stop trying to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs. But even if it did, it would just find some other way to lower our standard of living. It is sad to see Big Brother vilify our history, character, values, and traditions. And that’s why I’m writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to get us out of the hammerlock that it is holding us in. There’s no way I can do that alone, and there’s no way I can do it without first stating that it says that it can bask in the cantankerous shine of chauvinism and get away with it. 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!”? There is no contradiction here; even though we are now stuck with a delusional denominationalism bearing a human face – that of Big Brother – you mustn’t forget that to say that it is Big Brother’s moral imperative to lay down diktats that force me to tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street is antihumanist nonsense and untrue to boot.

Big Brother likes shenanigans that convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I’d say that any correspondence between what it says and the truth is purely coincidental. To cap that off, it is reluctant to resolve problems. It always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that it unmistakably believes that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? If I’m not horribly mistaken, there’s a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that it is incapable of writing a letter without using such phrases as “recalcitrant meanies”, “phlegmatic Philistines”, “ophidian parasites”, or some combination thereof. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. All Big Brother does is inspire benighted long-term goals. That is to say, if Big Brother can’t stand the heat, it should get out of the kitchen. Big Brother’s statements such as “Big Brother has mystical powers of divination and prophecy” indicate that we’re not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual.

It is becoming increasingly obvious to many people that I myself want to unify our community. Big Brother, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. Forgive me for boring you with all the gory details, but Big Brother never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that its initiatives are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. Incidentally, Big Brother managed to convince a bunch of churlish nitwits to help it threaten national security. What was the quid pro quo there? I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that I try never to argue with it, because it’s clear it’s not susceptible to reason. Big Brother operates on an international scale to twist the truth. It’s only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time.

So, Big Brother, maybe the problem is not with what I call egocentric prima donnas, but with you. I disapprove of interventionism and I disapprove of Big Brother’s mudslinging cock-and-bull stories. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point. I know that I’m emotional now, but in order to convince us that it has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature, Big Brother often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Big Brother will hate me for saying this, but it speaks like a true defender of the status quo – a status quo, we should not forget, that enables it to befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion. A word to the wise: The first lies that Big Brother told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; its lies will grow until they blot out the sun.

This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to make Big Brother’s witticisms a key dynamic in modern solecism by viscerally defining “scientificophilosophical” through the experience of fickle, insipid ethnocentrism. Not yet, at least. But it is important to realize that Big Brother formulates its criticisms in a precarious latticework between the illaudable and the hectoring. Its assistants probably don’t realize that, because it’s not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have a score to settle with Big Brother. What’s my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Where are the people who are willing to stand up and acknowledge that Big Brother’s communications are as appealing as braces, acne, and a wooden leg at the senior prom? Let me give you a hint: Several of Big Brother’s spokesmen, who asked to remain nameless, informed me of Big Brother’s secret plans to goad the worst classes of grumpy buffoons I’ve ever seen into hurling epithets at Big Brother’s enemies. It vehemently denies that, of course. But it obviously would, because it is frightened that we might direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Big Brother. That’s why it’s trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that anyone willing to study and ponder my position on most current matters will decidedly find that Big Brother’s utterances are completely pea-brained, regardless of the way, shape, or form in which it presents them. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that its intimations are about as useful to society as a hundred deutsche marks were in 1923 Germany? Here’s the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: One of its favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it’s always its solutions that grant it the freedom to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom, never the original problem. Taking that notion one step further, we can see that I, not being one of the many ethically bankrupt pigheaded-types of this world, have to laugh when Big Brother says that the majority of blathering hermits are heroes, if not saints. Where in the world did it get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but if I didn’t sincerely believe that its formula for fascism is more sinful than ever, then I wouldn’t be writing this letter.

I, for one, feel that Big Brother has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. It obviously has none, or it wouldn’t infringe upon our most important constitutional rights. As part of its efforts to gain a mainstream following, Big Brother publishes the Journal of Putrid Racism. Included alongside articles discussing history, culture, art, religion, and philosophy are endorsements of Big Brother’s plans to let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of improvident blackguards. Let me carry my thoughts on this subject a bit further. There is something grievously wrong with those repressive geeks who send children to die as martyrs for causes that Big Brother is unwilling to die for itself. Shame on the lot of them!

Big Brother can fool some of the people all of the time. It can fool all of the people some of the time. But it can’t fool all of the people all of the time. I am being entirely serious when I say that it’s a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of twisted, prodigal knuckleheads like Big Brother can still be heard, worse still that they’re listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. To end on a more positive note: You probably know exactly what I mean.

I’ve reached a point where I feel the need to express my disappointment with Cala. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, Cala wants nothing less than to create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. Her allies then wonder, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, there’s not much to be done with grumpy traitors who can’t figure out what’s wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that I’m sure Cala wouldn’t want me to eavesdrop on her secret conversations. So why does she want to stretch credulity beyond the breaking point? To turn that question around, why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that there is a political agenda behind the “the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one’s psyche is to pit the haves against the have-nots” malarkey? First, I’ll give you a very brief answer and then I’ll go back and explain my answer in detail. As for the brief answer, it’s Cala’s belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to stigmatize any and all attempts to give her condign punishment. I can’t understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an unprofessional idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that people tell me that the Cala-ization of our political and spiritual lives will keep us hypnotized so we don’t draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word “parasympathomimetic” in the coming days. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. It’s easy to tell if Cala is lying. If her lips are moving, she’s lying. What I had wanted for this letter was to write an analysis of Cala’s ideologies. Not an exhortation or a shrill denunciation, but an analysis. I hope I have succeeded at that.

Alright, I’m generating one of these and sending it to my local paper. :smiley:

I am so bookmarking this. 8P


I've reached a point where I feel the need to express my disappointment with Cless Alvein. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. Vandalism is the last refuge of the contemptuous. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Cless Alvein has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because it has been said that Cless Alvein expresses a fickle nostalgia for a uniform, unchallenging, homogeneous society that never really existed. I believe that to be true. I also believe that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, don't need to tell you that he has had it easy all his life. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that he is a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. The common denominator of all of Cless Alvein's vaporings is that they seek to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that the encroachment of quixotic crusades into the social fabric of our politics, our institutions, and our laws would give credence to my claim that you and I really have a lot more class than Cless Alvein. And here, I contend, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Cless Alvein's modes of thought. There isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a virulent infidel deserving of death and damnation, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Cless Alvein's from the get-go. Perhaps Cless Alvein's true colors have finally come out, but remember that he somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming), distortions (his litanies are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals), and misplaced idealism (the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to keep us hypnotized so we don't respond to his jibes). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "microclimatological". 

Cless Alvein's idiotic claim that militarism is a noble goal is just that, an idiotic claim. My argument gets a little complicated here. Cless Alvein's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only beer-guzzling answers, impertinent resolutions to conflicts. 

My mother always told me, "If you don't have something intelligent to say, just keep quiet." Apparently, Cless Alvein's mother never told him that. Allow me to explain. Cless Alvein is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how ethically bankrupt Cless Alvein is. You can't do it. Not only that, but some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that he is secretly scheming to obstruct important things. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. The only way out of Cless Alvein's rat maze is to keep the faith. It's that simple.

I just had to do this one…

I want this letter to serve as an oasis of sanity in Nethack’s desert of foolishness. Here’s my side of the story: Certain facts are clear. For instance, it’s easy to tell if Nethack is lying. If its lips are moving, it’s lying. That’s a very important point; there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations like Nethack. Nethack, does the word “stereophotogrammetry” mean anything to you? The longer we delay action, the harder it will be to tell you a little bit about Nethack and its dangerous declamations, but, as you know, Nethack maintains that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that its tricks are like an enormous hooliganism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Nethack’s smear tactics, because no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how Nethack’s boisterous, truculent undertakings are an epiphenomenon of repressive cannibalism. That’s the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also put an end to lecherous diabolism. I guess what I really mean to say is that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about Nethack’s cocky, duplicitous vituperations. For starters, let’s say that “paternalism” is “that which makes Nethack yearn to perpetuate harmful stereotypes.”

Ornery ideologues (like Nethack) are not born – they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, Nethack asserts that inconsiderate scoundrels are more deserving of honor than our nation’s war heroes. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. While there are many irrational card sharks, Nethack is the most lame-brained of the lot. If I am correctly informed, Nethack reminds me of the thief who cries “Stop, thief!” to distract attention from his thievery. In any case, it is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, Nethack frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to irrationalize thinking on every issue. I don’t mean to imply that Nethack keeps coming up with new ways to contaminate clear thinking with its inarticulate treatises, but it’s true, nonetheless. Nethack managed to convince a bunch of complacent devil-worshippers to help it demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement. What was the quid pro quo there? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that it’s easy for us to shake our heads at its foolishness and cowardice. It’s easy for us to exclaim that we should acknowledge that it is apparent where its loyalties lie. It’s easy for us to say, “Nethack’s rodomontades are one of those things that will dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers.” The point is that it’s easy for us to say these things because some of the facts I’m about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, I stand by what I’ve written before, that if Nethack can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that it is as innocent as a newborn lamb, I will personally deliver its Nobel Prize for Presumptuous Rhetoric. In the meantime, you may have noticed that Nethack bites the hand that feeds it. But you don’t know the half of it. For starters, if I seem a bit impolitic, it’s only because I’m trying to communicate with Nethack on its own level. Implying that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance is no different from implying that the best way to serve one’s country is to lower scholastic standards. Both statements are ludicrous.

If I have characterized Nethack’s helpers up to now as cynical and bloody-minded, it is only because Nethack should be forced to wear a scarlet “W” for “Wants to make people suspicious of those who speak the truth”. More than that, that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. “Thinking” is the key word in the previous sentence. If I weren’t so forgiving, I’d have to say that Nethack’s idea of grumpy revisionism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a soulless blood-lust. It is, in every sense, a rude and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a prissy frenzy and then prompts them to expose and neutralize its enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. While Nethack might not place wretched election-year also-rans of one sort or another at the top of the social hierarchy per se, unprincipled thugs have traditionally tried to piggyback on substantive issues to gain legitimacy for themselves. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth’s population that Nethack refers to a variety of things using the word “lithochromatographic”. Translating this bit of jargon into English isn’t easy. Basically, it’s saying that it’s okay to defend obscurantism, anti-intellectualism, and notions of racial superiority. At any rate, I’ve tried explaining to its surrogates that it likes to launch into nonsensical non sequiturs, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I’m saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. By framing the question in this way, we see that trying to pose a threat to the survival of democracy is just as subversive as trying to squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies. I don’t think anyone questions that. But did you know that much of our nation’s history stands as shameful testament to the danger inherent in allowing it to destabilize the already volatile social fabric that it purportedly aims to save?

The first response to this from Nethack’s myrmidons is perhaps that all literature which opposes materialism was forged by venom-spouting self-proclaimed arbiters of taste and standards. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: I can’t possibly believe Nethack’s claim that “the norm” shouldn’t have to worry about how the exceptions feel. If someone can convince me otherwise, I’ll eat my hat. Heck, I’ll eat a whole closetful of hats. That’s a pretty safe bet, because last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Nethack that its lapdogs would sooner ally with evil than oppose it. As I expected, Nethack was utterly unconvinced. All that we have achieved may now be lost, if not in the bright flames of gangsterism, then in the dense smoke of the libidinous reports promoted by hotheaded yahoos. I recently read a book confirming what I’ve been saying for years, that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will indisputably find that if we are powerless to develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to ring the bells of truth, it is because we have allowed Nethack to create a factitious demand for its benighted, overbearing crusades. We must coolly and objectively adopt the standpoint that it is of paramount importance not to let Nethack’s representatives publish blatantly squalid rhetoric as “education” for children to learn in school. Nethack and its morally crippled apparatchiks must laugh about this in private, knowing that the success of Nethack’s quips relies upon the average voter not knowing whether our nation has gone communist, socialist, fascist, or merely insane, and everyone with half a brain understands that.

As you can see, if I didn’t sincerely believe that now is the time to redefine the rhetoric and make room for meaningful discussion, then I wouldn’t be writing this letter. I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that if you were to try to tell Nethack’s thralls that it publicly disavows its ties to egotism while secretly encouraging its worshippers to suppress people’s instinct and intellect, they’d close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don’t want to hear that I can guarantee the readers of this letter that if Nethack had even a shred of intellectual integrity, it’d admit that I am annoyed by the scurrilous and sometimes headstrong manifestations of rebelliousness against an inherited civilization of which its advocates do not have the slightest understanding. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that’s really the only way you can push a point through to it. So we’re supposed to give Nethack permission to dilute the nation’s sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice and hope it’s rational enough not to do so? How incredibly naive! Nethack flaunts its personal nostrums and attitudes in front of everyone else. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. This is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact.

If we contradict Nethack, we are labelled supercilious, militant knuckle-draggers. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. As one commentator put it, Nethack will let us know exactly what our attitudes should be towards various types of people and behavior because it possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses doctrinaire power brokers with careless and uncontrollable rage. Nethack’s offhand remarks are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, I didn’t want to talk about this. I really didn’t. But I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Mumpish twaddlers like Nethack, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in deranged riffraff in order to convince them to exploit other cultures for self-entertainment. Nethack’s pusillanimous, sinful flimflams appropriate sacred symbols for feeble-minded, scabrous purposes. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to present another paradigm in opposition to its invidious epithets. Nethack is a small part of a large movement that seeks to talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated, and if you don’t believe me, then you should make plans and carry them out.

If nothing else, it seems that no one else is telling you that Nethack’s refrains are a worthless circle that begins and ends with Nethack. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, it’s Nethack’s belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. I can’t understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a snivelling idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that for those of us who make our living trying to chastise Nethack for not doing any research before spouting off, it is important to consider that if it is allowed to threaten the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet, the implications can be widespread. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Nethack. What I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of an unruly wacko. It’s a fact. For what it’s worth, Nethack’s cronies have learned their scripts well, and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

Nethack may have the right to empty the meaning of such concepts as “self,” “justice,” “freedom,” and other profundities. It may have the right to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function. But Nethack crosses the line when it uses its bully pulpit to strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality. Nethack should have been removed from the gene pool before it had a chance to contaminate it. That being the case, we surely can infer that Nethack wants nothing less than to redefine humanity as alienated machines/beasts and then convince everyone that they were never human to begin with. Its associates then wonder, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, there’s not much to be done with appalling power-drunk-types who can’t figure out what’s wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that it may seem difficult at first to bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. It is. But biased, disrespectful kooks are more susceptible to Nethack’s brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that someone once said to me, “Nethack just wants to avoid detection and punishment.” This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I pause to note that I have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Nethack burn our fair cities to the ground.

Every so often, you’ll see Nethack lament, flog itself, cry mea culpa for seeking to sow the seeds of discord, and vow never again to be so jackbooted. Sadly, it always reverts to its old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that some people think it’s a bit extreme of me to deal with it appropriately – a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that if you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. Who could have guessed that Nethack would convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter? To put it another way, why can’t it simply enjoy the fruits of its own labors and let other people enjoy the fruits of theirs? Well, if I knew that, I’d be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check. I have a message for Nethack. My message is that, for the good of us all, it should never infantilize and corrupt the public. It should never even try to do such a feckless thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by “never”, I don’t mean “maybe”, “sometimes”, or “it depends”. I mean only that we should protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of what I call ghastly, disloyal freebooters. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren’t going to.)

The real question here is not, “What exactly is the principle that rationalizes Nethack’s callous maneuvers?”. The real question is rather, “Why doesn’t Nethack try doing something constructive for once in its history?” Whatever the answer, if we don’t enhance people’s curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity right now, then Nethack’s philippics will soon start to metastasize until they crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to Nethack’s invectives. Nethack, perhaps more than anyone, should take seriously the challenge to shatter the illusion that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of audacious stereotypes. That’s all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter.

In all my letters, I try harder than anything else to make myself clear. I try to state things as simply and unambiguously as I can, because I find that that’s the best way to convince my readers that it would not be out of character for Tenchimaru Draconis to promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group. First and foremost, he asserts that the purpose of life is self-gratification. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. Just because he and his encomiasts don’t like being labelled as “evil, hectoring blockheads” or “unstable astrologers” doesn’t mean the shoe doesn’t fit. Lest you think that I’m talking out of my hat here, I should point out that it seems that no one else is telling you that Tenchimaru Draconis’s agents provocateurs are brainwashed automatons programmed to spout line after line of pro-Tenchimaru Draconis propaganda. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, Tenchimaru Draconis’s perspective is that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. My perspective, in contrast, is that it will not be easy to rise to the challenge of thwarting Tenchimaru Draconis’s ignorant plans. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that we can’t stop him overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to face our problems realistically, get to the root of our problems, and be determined to solve them. If you don’t think that some treasonous amnesiacs are hopelessly possession-obsessed, then think again. Tenchimaru Draconis insists that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates.

He just keeps on saying, “I don’t give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to obstruct things.” There isn’t a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that Tenchimaru Draconis knows 100% of everything 100% of the time, so let’s toss out that ridiculous argument of Tenchimaru Draconis’s from the get-go. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we lived in a world without uneducated know-nothings? Stick your nose into anything he has written recently, and you’ll get a good whiff of obstreperous blackguardism. I can’t let Tenchimaru Draconis convert lush forests into arid deserts, period. Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that I suppose it’s predictable, though terribly sad, that hideous, baleful geeks with stronger voices than minds would revert to predatory behavior. But if I were to compile a list of his 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 a central fault line runs through each of Tenchimaru Draconis’s manuscripts. Specifically, Tenchimaru Draconis says that people don’t mind having their communities turned into war zones. Yet he also wants to fix blame for social stress, economic loss, or loss of political power on a target group whose constructed guilt provides a simplistic explanation. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because his mercenaries believe that the only way to expand one’s mind is with drugs – or maybe even chocolate. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to question authority.

Tenchimaru Draconis seems to think that he is right and everybody else is wrong. But don’t take my word for it; ask any conceited dopeheads you happen to meet. Every time he tells his lapdogs that he is the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. As I’ve said before, when I say that he would like to see all of our individual liberties digest in the bowels of an all-powerful State, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that barbarism is the key to world peace. This is a common fallacy held by callow Philistines.

Tenchimaru Draconis’s objective is clear: to make all of us pay for Tenchimaru Draconis’s boondoggles one of these days. Although a thorough discussion of complacent narcissism is beyond the scope of this letter, Tenchimaru Draconis either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. He even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to smear people of impeccable character and reputation.

Truth be told, he should judge not, lest he be judged. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: It’s possible that he doesn’t realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of clericalism’s propaganda. If that’s the case, I recommend that we offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. Not to be rude or anything, but Tenchimaru Draconis likes thinking thoughts that aren’t burdensome and that feel good. That’s why he is extraordinarily brazen. We’ve all known that for a long time. However, Tenchimaru Draconis’s willingness to develop mind-control technology sets a new world record for brazenness. His cronies say, “Bonapartism and antiheroism are identical concepts.” Yes, I’m afraid they really do talk like that. It’s the only way for them to conceal that I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Tenchimaru Draconis’s hidebound protests, but he has gotten away with so much for so long that he’s lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to destroy our moral fiber. Even if we accepted Tenchimaru Draconis’s cock-and-bull stories, so what? Does that mean that he is a perpetual victim of injustice? Of course not. Many the things I’ve talked about in this letter are obvious. We all know they’re true. But still it’s necessary for us to say them, because Tenchimaru Draconis needs a refill of his medication.

deadtear sucks

IMO, BM1 wins by TKO. Just FYI.

I am going to make this short but sweet: Trillian 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 her whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Trillian is Dadaism. Why? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that you may have noticed that I challenge Trillian to crawl out of her sheltered existence and point out that the emperor has no clothes on. But you don’t know the half of it. For starters, Trillian is extraordinarily brazen. We’ve all known that for a long time. However, her willingness to extend her 15 minutes of fame to 15 months sets a new record for brazenness. For most of the facts I’m about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you’re skeptical. I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that Trillian unfairly lambastes people who are trying to do the best they can in a bad situation. Well, how about this for evidence: I cannot compromise with her; she is without principles. I cannot reason with her; she is without reason. But I can warn her, and with a warning she must undeniably take to heart: One could truthfully say that her slaves carry out orders like puppets obeying the puppeteer. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that she teaches workshops on elitism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. It is not uncommon for Trillian to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole confused affair as some great benefit to humanity. If she bites me, I will bite back. If Trillian isn’t vitriolic, I don’t know who is. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but many of us do not wish to live within Trillian’s walls of oligarchism.

A final word: Trillian is our worst nightmare.

:mwahaha:

A few weeks ago, I wrote, “It’s time to get beyond lies, dissembling, and propaganda deliberately spread by Christianity and act according to the plain truth”. In this letter, I’d like to follow up on that statement. The nitty-gritty of what I’m about to write is this: I have to wonder where Christianity got the idea that it is my view that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I’ve never written anything to imply that it is. Christianity accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is it who is filled with hate. And it accuses me of being bigoted, while its slurs show nothing but bigotry. Why does Christianity make those sorts of accusations, then? This can be answered most easily by stating that Christianity should learn to appreciate what it has instead of feeling so oppressed because it can’t do everything it wants, every time it wants to. Some fastidious freaks actually think that society is supposed to be lenient towards what I call useless, disgusting moral weaklings. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Christianity is encouraging with its ventures. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as uncontrollable sots. I hope I haven’t bored you by writing an entire letter about Christianity. Still, this letter was the best way to explain to you that bookish, complacent cynicism is one of the most effective tools of tyranny.

My God, it’s a regular I Ching we’ve discovered here.

Based on OmegaflareX’s response to my previous letter, I believe it’s safe to say that OmegaflareX’s expositions are mired in foul hooliganism. In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this letter will at once understand that OmegaflareX’s real enmity against us comes through in his bromides, which he uses to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. Before I move on, I just want to state once more that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that if we don’t remove the OmegaflareX threat now, it will bite us in our backside before the year is over. Doesn’t he realize that he does not hold himself answerable to any code of honor? Here’s the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: The next time he decides to preach a propaganda of hate, he should think to himself, cui bono? – who benefits? Although it’s easy to sit in the press box and criticize, OmegaflareX ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you’re not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

To simplify, his true goal is to engage in an endless round of finger pointing. All the statements that his followers make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to make a genuine contribution to human society. In plain, simple-to-understand English, we must rage, rage against the dying of the light. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. If we are powerless to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society, it is because we have allowed OmegaflareX to sacrifice children on the twin altars of pauperism and greed. “OmegaflareX” has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone force me to undergo “treatment” to cure my “problem”, I tell him or her to stop “OmegaflareX-ing”.

I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have to laugh when he says that appalling, illiterate converts to Jacobinism should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but I recently heard him tell a bunch of people that the sky is falling. I can’t adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don’t know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. OmegaflareX’s stooges mistakenly associate “lengthy” with “accurate” when it comes to his propositions. If you don’t believe me, see for yourself. OmegaflareX believes that bad things “just happen” (i.e., they’re not caused by OmegaflareX himself). That’s just wrong. He further believes that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. Wrong again! That’s all I’m going to say in this letter, because if I were to write everything I want to write, I’d be here all night.

<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/sk/dumb3.jpg”> .

Haha! That site must be AWESOME! LOL YE