Originally Posted by yarp
I'm not writing this letter so that I can change SE's mind but rather to help others with open minds understand that SE frequently plays on my emotions. Let's start with my claim that I cannot promise not to be angry at SE. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me—as it leads SE—to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow.
It is immature and stupid of SE to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to stop defending the crafty status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change, and that's why I say that his primary goal is to resolve a moral failure with an immoral solution. All of his other objectives are secondary to this one supreme purpose. That's why you must always remember that we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: SE.
I don't want to make any hard and final judgments, but SE is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, SE throws principle to the wind. That's just one side of the coin. The other side is that given a choice of having him obstruct various things or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. SE is absolutely determined to believe that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me therefore state that many people are incredulous when I tell them that SE intends to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. "How could SE be so benighted?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is doubtlessly possible, and now I'll explain exactly how SE plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that he holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City—sterile obstacles to progress who regulate pauperism.
SE's attitudes serve as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of hypersensitive fiends and parasitic loan sharks. SE insists that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. Sorry, SE, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." I alluded to this earlier, but what we have been imparting to him—or what he has been eliciting from us—is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. It is mathematically provable that SE's continual falsifications of history neatly illustrate his adherence to statism. I'm not actually familiar with the proof for that statement and wouldn't understand it even if it were shown to me, but it seems very believable based upon my experience. What's also quite believable is that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight, or is it sufficient to protect innocent, little children from violent oppressive-types like SE? Let me answer from my own personal perspective: As many of you know, I realized a long time ago that SE has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter.
It's best to ignore most of the quotes that SE so frequently cites. He takes quotes out of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, it's quite easy for SE to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: He has commented that he is entitled to smear and defame me. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. SE wants to trample over the very freedoms and rights that he claims to support. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is SE's gossamer grasp of reality.
You shouldn't let SE intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not SE. To say otherwise would be snarky. He claims that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. Well, I beg to differ.
SE has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever he thinks that means) to prove that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that sometime in the future SE will desecrate religious objects. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will surely happen if we don't give you some background information about SE.
SE is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every dangerous, uncongenial ideology finds expression in SE. He believes that it is everyone's obligation to substitute breast-beating and schwarmerei for action and honest debate. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed. Since I don't know SE that well, I'll have to be a bit presumptuous when I say that he demands that his communiqués be discussed in only the most positive light. To ensure that this demand is met, SE sends his coalition after anyone who fails to show the utmost deference when planting big, wet, sloppy kisses on SE's behind. He does not desire to benefit humanity but rather to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood.
I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I wish only that SE had the same intellectual honesty. I aver that people who work with his dupes discredit themselves. To be more pedantic about it, I recently checked out one of his recent tracts. Oh, look; SE is again saying that he's a moral exemplar. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, wherever inarticulate, mindless spoiled brats are seen skewering me over a pit barbecue, SE is there. Wherever contumelious, termagant pests are found criticizing other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle, SE is lurking nearby. Wherever untrustworthy know-it-alls are observed pulling the levers of neopaganism and oil the gears of adversarialism, SE will no doubt be in the vicinity. I defy any coincidence theorist to try to explain away those observations. Clearly, there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will indeed persist as long as SE continues to give piteous kooks far more credibility than they deserve.
Let's look at the facts. First, I am astonished by how little integrity and good judgment SE possesses. Second, within a short period of time, SE's hatred of all things pure and good will erupt like Mt. Vesuvius, scattering the ashes of oligarchism over everyone in its path. And finally, many of the distinctions between narrow-minded barmpots of one sort or another and SE's squadristi have dissolved. Now that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. Let me close by remarking that if I have succeeded, as I hope and believe I have, in presenting such a combination of facts and arguments as has demonstrated the propriety of acting honorably, I shall regard it as evidence complete that these lines have been judiciously penned.
Yarp
