Quote (Tom942 @ Mon, Jul 13 2009, 01:53pm)
After reading this letter, you will never again be able to trust Sir Shak and you will see with crystal clarity the way that childish philistinism is his preferred quick-fix solution to complex cultural problems. First things first: He has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.
Because of Shak's eagerness to participate in riots, his operatives 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 Shak, who wants nothing less than to promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk. I speak from experience. The same holds true for incoherent traitors.
If you can go more than a minute without hearing Shak talk about scapegoatism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. If our goal is to carry out this matter to the full extent of the law, then we must consider various means to that end. He coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his traducements sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. If Shak truly believes that his op-ed pieces are Right with a capital R, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. Think of the lives that could be saved if we would just unmask his true face and intentions in regard to racism. He has already begun forcing me to burst into tears. I wish I were joking but I'm not. What's more, Shak and I are as different as chalk and cheese. He, for instance, wants to encourage fastidious nabobs of faddism to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort. I, on the other hand, want to deal with Shak appropriately. That's why I need to tell you that it's intolerant for him to interfere with the most important principles of democracy. Or perhaps I should say, it's self-indulgent.
If you looked up "malign" in the dictionary, you'd probably see Shak's picture. Shak's votaries portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression but are loath to reveal that Shak likes to brag about how the members of his junta are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, Shak's clumsy prophecies are in full flower and their poisonous petals of pessimism are blooming all around us. The sole point of agreement between myself and odious windbags is that he is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for Shak to cultivate the purest breed of irresponsibility. He fully intends to create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues. But that's not enough, not for him. Shak will additionally torment, harry, and persecute anyone who crosses his path, which is why I insist that his true goal is to promote the homophobic hypnopompic insights of two-faced, aberrant Shak clones. All the statements that his helpers make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence.
Shak's vicegerents resist seeing that there are other strains of solipsism active today, and the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize complacent, pea-brained nutcases whose intrusive behavior blinds them to historical lessons. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to shoo away Shak like the annoying bug that he is. For brevity, I won't comment further on that but rather on the way that his ramblings promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Shak's toadies because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Shak.
If there is one thing I have learned, it is this: Over time, Shak's hastily mounted campaigns have progressed from being merely grotty to being supergrotty, hypergrotty, and recently ultragrotty. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megagrotty. I claim that Shak wants to prohibit any discussion of her attempts to propitiate footling troublemakers for later eventualities. While it is clear why he wants that to be a taboo subject, I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to fight on the battleground of ideas for our inalienable individual rights because doing so clearly demonstrates how his counter-productive objectives leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children Shak's enemies? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that Shak's hypocrisy comes out when he denies that he surrounds himself with unconscionable, cuckoo fiends. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that Shak's faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree.
When you get right down to it, I recently informed Shak that his supporters treat people's bona fide personal devastation as bathos. Shak said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further. After all, he says he's going to caricature and stereotype people from other cultures in the near future. Good old Shak. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how termagant they sound.
Let me offer some free advice to Shak's forces: Stop stirring up trouble! Believe me, I certainly don't want to give Shak a chance to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about his expedients. If he wanted to, he could concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public's opinion of them. He could lay waste to the environment. And he could use psychological tools to trick us into doing whatever recalcitrant rubes require of us. We must not allow Shak to do any of these. While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements, he is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees.
However deep one delves into the citations and footnotes of Shak's disquisitions, and however poised and "mainstream" his collaborators appear once challenged, there is no way to forget that he somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him), distortions (one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved), and misplaced idealism (he can scare us by using big words like "dendrochronological"). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "anticonfederationist". Shak likes to cite poll results that "prove" that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt put a jackbooted, crass spin on important issues". Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of Shak's pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that the objection may still be raised that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. At first glance this sounds almost believable yet the following must be borne in mind: I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Shak's pronouncements. Videlicet, they reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases. And that's saying nothing about how when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "I find Shak's reification of plagiarism a tad disconcerting." If you think about it you'll see his point.
I am not trying to save the world—I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to raise sententious meanies out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. Shak's grand plan is to tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Shak insists that it's okay if his mottos initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. In the beginning of this letter, I promised you details, but now I'm running out of space. So here's one detail to end with: Sir Shak's perversions either go uncontested or are openly supported by voluble euphuists.
I like your vocabulary.