The Truth About Shak - Topic

Member

Posts: 33,438

Joined: Mar 8 2009

Gold: 0.69

Jul 12 2009 09:53pm

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.

obisent

Member

Posts: 44,262

Joined: Jun 22 2007

Gold: 2,680.00

Jul 12 2009 09:53pm

tldr...lol

This post was edited by obisent on Jul 12 2009 09:54pm

Foloed

Member

Posts: 9,920

Joined: Apr 2 2008

Gold: 0.00

Jul 12 2009 09:53pm

inb4 rage

bonafide9

Member

Posts: 31,001

Joined: Mar 23 2008

Gold: 160,114.00

Jul 12 2009 09:54pm

holy tldr

EDM

Member

Posts: 33,438

Joined: Mar 8 2009

Gold: 0.69

Jul 12 2009 09:54pm

I'm not going to sit here and brainlessly point out Sir Shak's flaws—we all know he has them—but I am going to say a little about how Shak's drug-induced ravings are despised by everyone but lascivious demoniacs. You see, I undeniably believe that I find it most unfortunate that this letter had to be written. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that I once told Shak that incendiarism is the leitmotif of his projects. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Shak justifies his pigheaded conclusions with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don't accept Shak's claim that he can walk on water then he will set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts.

It's honestly astounding that Shak has somehow found a way to work the words "isomerizeparabolization" and "superultrafrostified" into his conjectures. However, you may find it even more astounding that I, for one, am shocked and angered by his inhumane improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. Not only does he insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people, but he then commands his surrogates, "Go, and do thou likewise." Shak has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that he plans to smear people of impeccable character and reputation. The result will be an amalgam of mindless vigilantism and feckless metagrobolism, if such a monster can be imagined.

Shak hates you—yes, you, because you, like me, want to act as a positive role model for younger people. Some critics have called him purblind. A handful insist he's antisocial. Shak's hangers-on, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century.

I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Shak's crude ethics, which spoon-feed us his pabulum. Shak's self-fulfilling prophecies are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us before long. What's the difference between Shak's shock troops and sick scaramouches? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right.

The poisonous wine of Bonapartism had been distilled long before Shak entered the scene. Shak is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. 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 last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Shak that responsibility is an alien concept to him. As I expected, Shak was completely unconvinced.

Did you know that some soporific toughies want to help Shak persecute the innocent and let the guilty go unpunished? Others just want to ride the sectarianism bandwagon. In either case, some people I know say that questions of Shak's motivation and intent are compelling. Others argue that the law of self preservation dictates that I grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that Shak once tried convincing me that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that Shak's perspective is that principles don't matter. My perspective, in contrast, is that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why whenever Shak is blamed for conspiring to break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas he deems to be saturnine, he blames his habitués. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Shak do away with intellectual honesty.

Shak may not be that pudibund but he sure is reckless. Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that the sky is falling. In fact, he maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel.

Perhaps Shak has never had to take a stand and fight for something as critical as our right to teach what I call self-satisfied social outcasts about tolerance. But it has been said that for every dollar we spend to better our communities, he'll spend a thousand more to deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. I, in turn, profess that he argues that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: If we don't remove the Shak threat now, it will bite us in our backside eventually. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Shak will flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. And to overcome these fears, we must look into the future and consider what will happen if we let Shak make nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping.

I don't suppose Shak realizes which dialectic principle he's violating by maintaining that his pusillanimous polity is a benign and charitable agency. Therefore, I shall take it upon myself to explain. It would be wrong to imply that Shak is involved in some kind of conspiracy to give rise to prolix dirtbags. It would be wrong because his positions are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Shak-hater out of you. First off, I have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Shak publish blatantly illogical rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school.

Whenever I hear someone say that Shak is a martyr for freedom and a victim of sesquipedalianism, my upper lip develops an involuntary curl. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that his premise (that might makes right) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Shak uses this disguised morality to support his press releases, thereby making his argument self-refuting. While his semi-literate ramblings might be of some interest to specialists in child communication, anyone who takes Shak's ultra-annoying shell games seriously has obviously not spent much time around conniving pip-squeaks. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. Some people are responsible and others are not. Shak falls into the category of "not". To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, I am fed up with Sir Shak's apolaustic and pretentious behavior. Second, he is calling for blind, impulsive action for the sake of action, for the sake of making himself feel good. And finally, the only morally sound solution is to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time.

alevederci

Member

Posts: 3,828

Joined: May 24 2004

Gold: 1,050.00

Jul 12 2009 09:54pm

i lold

B_R_A_D

Member

Posts: 56,747

Joined: Jun 19 2007

Gold: 228,040.85

Jul 12 2009 09:54pm

Wut?

Amarok

Member

Posts: 13,630

Joined: Jul 5 2008

Gold: 720.00

Jul 12 2009 09:54pm

Quote (bonafide9 @ Sun, 12 Jul 2009, 22:54)

holy tldr

this

EDM

Member

Posts: 33,438

Joined: Mar 8 2009

Gold: 0.69

Jul 12 2009 09:55pm

I am writing on behalf of myself and a few of my friends to state that there is not much demand for independent thinkers in Sir Shak's Praetorian Guard. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how Shak has warned us that by next weekend, cold-blooded ideologues will pander to rancorous control freaks. If you think about it, you'll realize that Shak's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that Shak claims to have data supporting his assertion that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. Naturally, he insists that he can't actually show us that data—for some unspecified reason, of course. My guess is that he's hiding something. Maybe he's hiding the fact that if you can make any sense out his inconsiderate apothegms then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did.

Looking at it on the bright side, Shak wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because there's a lot of daylight between his views and mine. Shak believes that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is while I think that I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Shak's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many self-deceiving charlatans realize that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that Shak is omnipotent.

I wish I could say this nicely but I don't have much tolerance for counter-productive, uppity yahoos: I can reword my point as follows. The fallout from Shak's surly, self-serving precepts has been an increasingly predatory environment of calculation, scheming, and pandering that will, by virtue of its omnipresence, force me to die in oppression, chaos, and despair. This is not the first time I've wanted to shield people from Shak's harebrained and deranged deceptions. But it is the first time I realized that by writing this letter, I am clearly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Shak will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to expend all of my wit and energy in trivial pursuits although another possibility is that he might violate all the rules of decorum in the blink of an eye. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome?

Some snotty, vile Shak clones are actually considering helping Shak scar little children's self-image. How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by Shak on numerous occasions. He is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how revolting Shak is. You can't do it. Not only that, but the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, you might have heard the story that Shak once agreed to help us review the basic issues at the root of the debate. No one has located the document in which Shak said that. No one has identified when or where Shak said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, all Shak really wants is to hang onto the perks he's getting from the system. That's all he really cares about.

You may be shocked to hear this, but if Shak can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. His agendas are in every respect consistent with the school of venal thought that tends to force his moral code on the rest of us. He likes to brag about how the members of his band are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, there is only one way to stop Shak from breaking down our communities. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of unprincipled, delirious converts to academicism, people who are willing to lend a helping hand. Then together we can demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Shak. Together we can show the world that the term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of him. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I assert that I want to live my life as I see fit. I can't do that while Shak still has the ability to condition the public—or, more precisely, brainwash the public—into believing that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive.

To put it crudely, Shak wants us to believe that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. How stupid does he think we are? No, don't guess; this isn't audience participation day. I'll just tell you. But before I do, you should note that I want to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about reprehensible franions. That may seem simple enough, but I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about him. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents and in these primarily as an illustration that I defy the stingy oafs who desecrate religious objects and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent.

When Shak's pharisaical utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, he appears to be saying that he knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. For me, this irritable moonshine serves only to emphasize how Shak's hatchet jobs have kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful adventure we share together—life! My opinions are the obverse of Shak's. For proof of this fact I must point out that Shak has a knack for convincing self-pitying, wicked renegades that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "superincomprehensibleness" and "transubstantiationalist" to keep his sales pitch from sounding contemptible. That's why you really have to look hard to see that Shak thinks we want him to propitiate evil storytellers for later eventualities. Excuse me, but maybe his greed will be his undoing. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that from the perspective of those inside Shak's coterie, the Earth is flat. The reality, however, is that his asseverations have merged with despotism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both cause the destruction of human ambition and joy. And both feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear.

If Shak doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. If I thought that his drug-induced ravings had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that we must give Shak a rhadamanthine warning not to disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of statism. If we fail then all of our sacrifices and all of the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been in vain. The key is to realize that perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of phlegmatic monomaniacs. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that one could truthfully say that Shak's handling of the situation has not been a comedy of errors, but a tragedy of errors. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that Shak is totally versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Shak warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against egotism. But when Shak's safely surrounded by his accomplices, he instructs them to promote a culture of dependency and failure. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Shak of planning to advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that we can and we must protect ourselves by any means necessary against the cocky bestiality of headlong impulsive-types. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true.

Anyone who takes even a cursory glance at this letter will quickly discover that Shak's arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. We should unveil the semiotic patterns that Shak utilizes to glamorize drug usage. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Some incoherent scapegraces actually contend that it's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the foolhardy hands of predatory parasites. This is the kind of muddled thinking that he is encouraging with his invectives. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as inimical moral weaklings.

I have no set opinion as to whether or not Shak is an expert at shameless name-dropping. I do, however, definitely profess that statements like, "He is almost unique among sexist fribbles in that he espouses a conscienceless view of reality and a defense of otiose sectarianism" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. Continue to appease him, and Shak will unequivocally bowdlerize all unfavorable descriptions of his values. I really hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Shak does any real damage. Or is it already too late? I've excogitated one theory that almost completely answers that question. Unfortunately, it fails to take into account that Shak wants nothing less than to recruit and encourage young people to stand in the way of progress, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his bookish cajoleries. All in all, I realize that this letter has seemed incredibly bleak. However, expecting the worst from Sir Shak means we will never be disappointed. If we're wrong and he does not try to transmogrify society's petty gripes and irrational fears into "issues" to be catered to, we'll be relieved. If we're right and he does, we'll be prepared.

rolazn

Member

Posts: 126,093

Joined: Dec 6 2007

Gold: Locked

Trader: Scammer

Warn: 30%

#10

Jul 12 2009 09:55pm

dont rage letter my bff shak imO

Go Back To Sports Coliseum Topic List