The Truth About Shak - Topic

EDM

Member

Posts: 33,438

Joined: Mar 8 2009

Gold: 0.69

#62

Jul 13 2009 11:22am

Quote (Numanchi @ Mon, Jul 13 2009, 01:12pm)

I'm just stealing some of ur writings (sentences) and googling them. Finding them in different spots on the net.

I can write these all day
Gimme a name / group or anything...

There are many problems with Mr. Shak's beliefs. The one that's the most blatant, and the one that I will limit my discussion to, is related to his overt support of negativism. It is worth noting at the outset that Shak's lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of sentiments. Others are in the form of intimations. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.

You, of course, now need some hard evidence that it's shocking just how mentally deficient Shak can be. Well, how about this for evidence: He should think about how his bons mots lead warped featherbrained-types to plague our minds. If Shak doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. He is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is busy trying to trample over the very freedoms and rights that he claims to support. Shak insists that the ideas of "freedom" and "antiheroism" are Siamese twins. Has anyone, at any time, ever been more wrong? 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, Shak has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, his vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Shak's vows of equality did little more than convince people that those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to take personal action and discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society have no right to complain when he and his idolators manipulate public understanding of sesquipedalianism.

Some critics have called Shak vainglorious. A handful insist he's fatuitous. His deputies, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century. Every so often, he tries giving rise to unprincipled, unrealistic mob bosses. Whenever he gets caught doing so he raises a terrific hullabaloo calculated to egg on negative externalities in the form of evasion, collusion, and corruption.

I can't possibly believe Shak's claim that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. 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 Shak should start developing the parts of his brain that have been impaired by radicalism. At least then he'll stop trying to encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization.

Most of us who have been around for a while realize that Shak seizes every opportunity to subvert existing lines of power and information. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that Shak maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating personal information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? The answer has two parts to it. The first part regards the manner in which Shak's nostrums are sheer idiocy. The second part of the answer is focused on the the way that as that last sentence suggests, Shak might have been in a lethargic state of autointoxication when he said that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. More likely, perhaps, is that if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

While I know very little about jaundiced, morally repugnant clodpolls, I do know that Shak's politics 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 Shak is absolutely versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Shak warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against exclusivism. But when Shak's safely surrounded by his cohorts, he instructs them to bask in the surly shine of incendiarism. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Shak uses obscure words like "superincomprehensibleness" and "interdifferentiation" to conceal his agenda to teach postmodernist concepts to children. I find that having to process phrases with long words like those makes me feel hoodwinked, inferior, definitely frustrated, and angry. That's why I strive for utmost clarity whenever I explain to others that I never used to be particularly concerned about Shak's platitudes. Any damned fool, or so I thought, could see that Shak had previously claimed that he had no intention to fill the air with recrimination and rancor. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would gain a virtual stranglehold on many facets of our educational system. We all know what happened then. Now, Shak would have us believe he'd never ever disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of terrorism. Will he? Go figure. My view is that Shak's hatchet men resist seeing that Shak has had it easy all his life. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to protect our peace, privacy, and safety.

Evil prevails when good people do nothing. No joke. Shak has been offering sadistic imbeciles a lot of money to challenge all I stand for. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that I am not trying to save the world—I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by Shak and his cringers. I might add: His equivocations resonate with the deviltry of defeatism. That said, let me continue.

Disaffected cocky-types can go right ahead and convict me for saying that the fact that slimy, harebrained tricksters find Shak's philosophies entertaining—indeed, titillating—is deeply horrifying to the past and potential victims of such beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), but History, acting as the goddess of a higher truth and a higher justice, will one day smilingly tear up this verdict, acquitting me of all guilt and blame. I don't know what bothers me most about Shak. Is it his specious arguments, his illogical reasoning, his obscurantist claims, his unreasonable speculations, or any of the many forms of pseudoscholarship we see in his dissertations? In any case, Shak's recommendations are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the out-of-touch, abusive ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking. He is planning to put censorious bozos on the federal payroll. This does not bode well for the future because he is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul.

The term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of Shak. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I assert that most people don't realize that Shak has already revealed his plans to provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction. He revealed these plans in a manifesto bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by a hateful wastrel. Not only is his manifesto entirely lacking in logic, relentlessly subjective, and thoroughly anecdotal, but Shak likes to seem smarter than he really is. It therefore always amuses me whenever he cracks open a thesaurus, aims for intellectualism, misses, and lands squarely in a puddle of phlegmatic frippery.

If everyone does his own, small part, together we can discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions—intemperate showboaters, rebarbative, pugnacious duffers, and satanic, choleric gaberlunzies. If we take Shak's fairy tales to their logical conclusion, we see that by next weekend, Shak will change this country's moral infrastructure. Our national media is controlled by what I call obnoxious oligarchs. That's why you probably haven't heard that Shak has written more than his fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances he conveniently overlooks the fact that if a cogent, logical argument entered his brain, no doubt a concussion would result. Finally, any mistakes in this letter are strictly my fault. But if you find any factual error or have more updated information on the subject of Mr. Shak, Shak-inspired versions of antipluralism, etc., please tell me so I can write an even stronger letter next time.