The Truth About Shak - Topic

To those people who are outraged at Mr. Shak's mudslinging personal attacks, this letter will be of interest. People who are well-meaning yet misinformed might also profit by proceeding. For the remainder who are indifferent, faint of heart, or content to let Shak scar little children's self-image, I regret that there is little reason to read further. Before I launch into my main topic, I want to make a few matters crystal-clear: (1) His mottos, though creative, are a yawning abyss of animalism, and (2) as a result of that, it is morally unjustifiable for him to send children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling to die for himself. Now that you know where I stand on those issues, I can safely say that his zingers are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk"—an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well—because before he initiated an autism flap to help promote his imprudent histrionics, people everywhere were expected to brush away the cobwebs of racism. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that if you want to hide something from him, you just have to put it in a book.

Shak asserts that he can scare us by using big words like "macracanthrorhynchiasis". That assertion is not only untrue but a conscious lie. There are certainly signs that he is becoming increasingly dictatorial. Let's be sure that I've made myself absolutely clear: Shak keeps telling us that the worst classes of perverted adulterers there are should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. Are we also supposed to believe that goofy hoodwinkers and unstable protestors should rule this country? I didn't think so.

I sympathize with those who have lost loved ones at the hands of Shak. I know because I have experienced that personally. I'm not normally one to criticize, but he occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being nugatory exponents of radicalism. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which he habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that he is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when he's confronted with inconvenient facts. In a matter of days, however, Shak is likely to switch to some sort of "justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of Shak's heart" approach to draw our attention away from such facts.

Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and clearly influences legislators and policy makers, Shak has hatched all sorts of obstreperous, featherbrained plans. Remember his attempt to blend together clericalism and poststructuralism in a train wreck of monumental proportions? No? That's because Shak's so good at concealing his confused activities.

Idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Shak spends his leisure time devising ever more postmodernist ways to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate state and private activity. Everyone knows of the lust and driving passion that has caused this problem. Let me express that same thought in slightly different terms: If Shak wanted to, he could sacrifice children on the twin altars of racialism and greed. He could rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity. And he could uproot our very heritage and pave the way for his own vindictive value system. We must undoubtedly not allow Shak to do any of these.

I'm sorry if I've gotten a little off track here, but Shak will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "brain-damaged" or "vengeful". That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise. I can't follow his pretzel logic. I do, however, know that Shak wants to paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures, even though, for most people, this desire is neither necessary nor instinctive. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly.

If you can go more than a minute without hearing Shak talk about particularism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. It is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did his reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Is he hoping that the readers of this letter won't see the weakness of his argument relative to mine?" I've never gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Shak. But what is clear is that his "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is overweening because it leaves no room for compromise.

Shak's cock-and-bull stories are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. If we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of Shak's bookish modes of thought rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because if Shak wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "nondenominationalism", for example, and expect us to be scared. He has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, Shak's vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, his vows of equality did little more than convince people that when one examines the ramifications of letting him prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that I have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Shak weaken our mental and moral fiber.

Shak hates you—yes, you, because you, like me, want to navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Shak's rash tactics and the Charybdis of diabolism. Under these conditions, he likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of exhibitionism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, Shak invariably instructs his disciples to insist that our society be infested with factionalism, vandalism, extremism, and an impressive swarm of other "isms". Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Shak's saturnine utterances.

Almost without exception, Shak's most steadfast claim is that he should promote promiscuity and obscene language because "it's the right thing to do". If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, biased, harebrained quidnuncs serve as the priests in Shak's cult of mendacious sesquipedalianism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Shak's reflected glory, pausing only when Shak instructs them to topple society. What could be more thrasonical? Although I haven't yet been able to concoct an acceptable answer to that question, I can suggest a tentative hypothesis. My hypothesis is that his exploitative machinations confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. Shak has an utter disregard for human life. More than that, Shak's language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don't mind, though, I'll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, he labels anyone he doesn't like as "drugged-out". That might well be a better description of Shak. The only way out of Mr. Shak's rat maze is to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time. It's that simple.

Numanchi

Member

Posts: 32,988

Joined: Aug 6 2003

Gold: Locked

Trader: Scammer

#54

Jul 13 2009 11:06am

This letter is not intended to assuage your worst fears about Miss Rin but will, in most cases, confirm them. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current situation is. If I had to choose the most snivelling specimen from her welter of disreputable gabble, it would have to be her claim that censorship could benefit us. Although she thrives on the victimization of others, if Rin wants to complain, she should have an argument. She shouldn't just throw out the word "nondenominationalism", for example, and expect us to be scared.

While Rin's semi-literate ramblings might be of some interest to specialists in child communication, she says that she needs a little more time to clean up her act. As far as I'm concerned, her time has run out. I won't pull any punches here: Rin hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to halt the adulation heaped upon vindictive creeps. All right, enough of that. Now let's talk about something else. Let's talk about how if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that if Rin kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick her toes and beg for another kick. In fact, that's exactly what Rin does as part of her quest to take us all back to the Stone Age.

Rin's statements cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Rin is omnipotent. Perhaps if she thought about it, she'd realize that the basal lie that underlies all of her loquacious hijinks is that every word that leaves her mouth is teeming with useful information. Translation: Rin acts in the name of equality and social justice. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views but you should nevertheless be aware that I have reason to believe that Rin is about to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships that exist throughout our entire society. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that Rin once tried convincing me that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. Does she think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that if Rin thinks that once she has approved of something it can't possibly be grotty then maybe she should lay off the wacky tobacky.

If you want to clear up these muddied waters with some reality, then tell everyone you know the truth, that Rin has been trying for some time to convince people that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. Don't believe her hype! Rin has just been offering that line as a means to compose paeans to pauperism. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: This makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of her stolid doctrines. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) There are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of Rin. I wish such people would wake up and realize that Rin has convinced a lot of people that her précis provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.

Rin's positions will come back to bite us in the behind quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "protobasidiomycetous". However true that is, if there's an untold story here, it's that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still allege that unlike Rin, I stand for progression, not regression, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Rin is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to acknowledge that in a matter of days, Rin's lies will be exposed and the truth can be spread. We have an obligation to give peace a chance. And we have an obligation to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. When I hear her myrmidons parrot the party line -- that she has been robbed of all she does not possess -- I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how now that I've been exposed to Rin's teachings I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps no one has a higher opinion of Rin than I, and I think Rin's a quasi-wrongheaded, logorrheic beatnik. The moral of the story: Miss Rin's counter-productive analects were forged in the crucible of clericalism.

Post #6 on this page....
http://heroesofthenet.com/topic/7004575/1/

feinfuehl

Member

Posts: 16,231

Joined: Jun 26 2008

Gold: 0.01

#55

Jul 13 2009 11:07am

tl;dr?

Dc_ShoEs

Member

Posts: 15,838

Joined: Apr 7 2008