Complaints generator against any alliance you like

[Peter Quill]

I hope Arrgh gives this letter five minutes of its precious cappuccino-sipping, cancer-stick-puffing time. Full disclosure: I'm one of those people who firmly believes that the best way to show Arrgh how it is as wrong as wrong can be is to examine the warp and woof of its editorials. Arrgh needs to internalize the external truth that the culture of arrogance that permeates its coalition leads many members to deny the obvious. With this central point cleared up, the rest of Arrgh's arguments are rendered moot, as I'm not in the habit of giving advice to its puerile idolators. However, there's always a first time: You guys should stop devaluing me as a person. I admit I don't have much confidence that they'll follow that advice, but it's important to make it known that Arrgh and its co-conspirators have put in place the largest and most effective blacklist in the history of our country. The purpose of this blacklist is to rid various strategic organizations of Arrgh's detractors and any other independent-minded people who might interfere with Arrgh's designs. While such activities are merely the first step towards blaming those who have no power to change the current direction of events, no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how dichotomous thinking has stymied Arrgh's ability to reach solutions. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also provide a trenchant analysis of Arrgh's endeavors.

 

If Arrgh goes ahead with forcing me to expend all of my wit and energy in trivial pursuits, I will be very, very angry with it. In fact, I will write it a letter telling it how angry I am. I hope that will convince Arrgh that it recently made the astonishing claim that the world can be happy only when its coven is given full rein. Stripped of all its hyperbole, this statement is really just saying that Arrgh has been promoting its insidious circulars as a revolutionary new concept that will change our lives indelibly for the better. The reality is that they are merely a way of making things look different but act the same. They are what Angela Davis once described as, “the difference that brings no difference, the change that brings no change.†Ms. Davis also noted that Arrgh has a near-legendary lack of common sense, decency, and manners. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that it is, without question, the most base-minded hermit on the planet. I will now cite the proof of that statement. The proof begins with the observation that Arrgh likes to condition the public to accept violence as normal and desirable. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Arrgh and its compeers will run for cover like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must provide you with a holistic and thematic history of Arrgh's wishy-washy conjectures.

 

For your edification, I should point out that Arrgh should stop playing verbal games and tell us what it really means. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. That's just not true. I challenge all of the phlegmatic duffers out there to consider this: You may have noticed that I refuse to believe solely on Arrgh's say-so that violence directed at Arrgh's adversaries is morally justified. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, when Arrgh's tractates are challenged, it usually responds by blitzing media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of its ruthless half-measures. Well, you can't really expect it to defend its positions with facts, explanations, logical arguments, or even references to events that occurred less than two years ago, can you? We must indisputably institute change. This is not because doing so is the moralistic pipe dream of the uninformed citizenry but because many serious practitioners of international statecraft see it as an essential goal of a sustainable international order. I have even heard from such practitioners that Arrgh is on a crusade to get people to use the word “anthropoteleological†instead of “consubstantiationistâ€. You've no doubt noticed that this substitution makes no sense. Arrgh is merely engaging in wordplay in an effort to deflect attention from its creating a system of faddism characterized by confidential files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity.

 

Arrgh is careless, baleful, froward, orgulous, diversivolent, and piteous. Need I go on? Arrgh is extremely antihumanist. In fact, my handy-dandy Antihumanist-O-Meter confirms that Arrgh has planted its famuli everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Arrgh's ability to elevate its ipse dixits to prominence as epistemological principles, but it also provides irrefutable evidence that we should not concern ourselves with its putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Arrgh and its secret agents, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that the last time I heard Arrgh ramble on in its characteristically bibulous blather it said something about wanting to cast a chill over free speech and inquiry and the spirit of democracy. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that.

 

I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Arrgh that you shouldn't let it intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Arrgh. On a more personal note, my only wonder is, What in tarnation was Arrgh thinking when it said that the purpose of education is not to produce independent thinkers but submissive state subjects? The answer to this riddle lies in the observation that Arrgh frequently accuses its enemies of shoving the nation towards metagrobolism. This is yet another example of the growing lack of civility in our civil discourse that ranges from the frowsy to the venal and even mendacious. In a more proper debate, one would instead politely point out that Arrgh has indicated that if we don't let it redefine humanity as alienated machines/beasts and then convince everyone that they were never human to begin with then it'll be forced to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. That's like putting rabid attack dogs in silk suits. In other words, Arrgh has issued us a thinly veiled threat that's intended primarily to scare us away from the realization that there are few certainties in life. I, not being one of the many inficete Svengalis of this world, have counted only three: death, taxes, and Arrgh announcing some power-hungry thing every few weeks. To end on a more positive note: Arrgh's allies are iconoclastic at best, the downfall of society at worst.

 

[Moreau]

K

[greatkitteh]

Mensa HQ.

[Peter Quill]

Mensa HQ.

You're supposed to do it yourself, but eh, what the !@#$.

Ever get the idea that you've been played for a fool, that you are nothing but a mark for con artists like Mensa HQ? Well, that's why I need to tell you that Mensa HQ is hardly the first proponent of snappish particularism and it is unlikely to be the last. You see, I clearly believe that Mensa HQ's positions will send us to Hell in a handbasket any day now. 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 Mensa HQ's scornful subalterns continually demonstrate their blatant love of radicalism. As those same subalterns like to say, “Anyone who dares to bring it down a peg can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result.†That's a verbatim quote that doesn't parse too well but does indicate that if Mensa HQ's attempts to manipulate public understanding of Pyrrhonism have spurred us to defy the international enslavement of entire peoples, then Mensa HQ may have accomplished a useful thing.

 

Mensa HQ's snow jobs deserve to be criticized because they further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law. Surely, the good Lord must have wept when He saw Mensa HQ confuse, disorient, and disunify. Mensa HQ will do everything in its power to make human life negligible and cheap. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; Mensa HQ's theatrics are a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument aimed at our children. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that if we don't soon tell it to stop what it's doing, it will proceed with its dour principles, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given it our permission to do so. Mensa HQ's outbursts are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called “lyingâ€.

 

As our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the kinds of people Mensa HQ preys upon. Mensa HQ's use of the term “incomprehensibility†displays, at best, a tone deafness. The term drips with echoes of triumphalism and warns us all that Mensa HQ recently claimed that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from it a hundred times before. By allowing Mensa HQ to fuel the fires of hatred, we are allowing it to play puppet master.

 

Mensa HQ has been trying for some time to convince people that cannibalism brings one closer to nirvana. Don't believe its hype! Mensa HQ has just been offering that line as a means to appropriate sacred symbols for untoward purposes. I proclaim that someday the vast majority of people will be eager to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. As we look to our future, however, we need to remain cognizant of our past. For example, we must always remember that when I was a child my clergyman told me, “Mensa HQ's favorite avocation is to goad prudish maggots into hurling epithets at Mensa HQ's rivals.†If you think about it you'll see his point. All of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of Mensa HQ's baleful ballyhoos. They are not a cause; they are an effect.

 

Mensa HQ exists in a very narrow unicultural environment where its ideological worldview doesn't depend on anything so tedious as actually viewing the world. That is to say, Mensa HQ has one-upped George Washington in that it cannot tell a lie and cannot tell the truth. Basically, it's too grumpy to distinguish between the two. While some may argue that Mensa HQ has the right, if it so desires, to instigate acrimony and discord, I maintain that it has a correlative obligation of responsible self discipline. More precisely, the biggest difference between me and Mensa HQ is that Mensa HQ wants to reduce meaningful political discussions to “my team versus your team†identity-based politics. I, on the other hand, want to cast an unfamiliar ray of sunshine over the impetuous landscape of its theories. Mensa HQ's obloquies began innocently enough with peaceful calls for democratic change. Unfortunately, its flock has since morphed into the prime backer of a bloody, armed insurgency, replete with peremptory demands for rotting out the foundations of our religious, moral, and political values.

 

Mensa HQ repeats the term “formaldehydesulphoxylic†over and over again in everything it writes. Is this repetition part of some new drinking game, or is Mensa HQ merely trying to confuse us into believing that it is omnipotent? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that Mensa HQ's dream is to resort to underhanded tactics. Then, just to twist the knife a little, it'll put some slovenly hector up on a pedestal. According to Mensa HQ, anyone who points this out is guilty of spreading lies, smears, and careerism. Of that I am certain because Mensa HQ sometimes uses the word “characteristicalness†when describing its maneuvers. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response.

 

I never cease to be amazed at the way that Mensa HQ should shift for itself. As obvious as that may seem, it bears emphasizing, if only because it says that all scientific and technological progress would come to a halt were it not for its wheelings and dealings. That's like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. I mean, it's not like Mensa HQ doesn't know that it has been said that the outcome of the struggle will ultimately be decided based on the number and influence of people fully informed about its prank phone calls, committed to its defeat, and organized under sound leadership. I, in turn, assert that it and its gofers have been engaging in an ultra-obscene, all-out hate-fest. As far as I can tell, hatred—in particular of Mensa HQ's nemeses and others who want to punish those who lie or connive at half-truths—must be their reason for being. How else can we explain a platoon of brutish galoots whose members believe in destroying the sovereignty of all nations and every feeling or expression of patriotism? In particular, Mensa HQ is an arrogant, ruthless used-car salesman. I use that label only when it's true. If you don't believe it is, then consider that Mensa HQ's legatees resist seeing that Mensa HQ is the greatest purveyor of hoodlumism in the world today. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to tell it like it is.

 

Mensa HQ must think that being hidebound entitles one to dupe people into believing that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. Mensa HQ says that neocolonialism is a noble cause. Hey, Mensa HQ, how about telling us the truth for once?

 

The whole of Mensa HQ's sick worldview may perhaps be expressed in one simple word. That word is “Jacobinismâ€. Let me explain: A surprisingly large number of patronizing fatheads consider Mensa HQ to be their savior. This overwhelmingly positive view of Mensa HQ is obviously not shared by those who have been victims of Mensa HQ's memoirs or by those who believe that several things Mensa HQ has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of its that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how it is nerdy to question its shenanigans. I might add: Mensa HQ gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, it ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that I have no doubt that Mensa HQ will feed blind hatred in a matter of days. It'll probably do so under the pretense of “humanitarian intervention†or some other equally inapposite appellation, but the reality is that Mensa HQ offers its spinmeisters a vehicle of sorts for their revenge fantasies. To cap that off, Mensa HQ avows that everything I say is both execrable and tyrannous. Seldom do I pause to answer such criticism of my work and ideas. If I did, I would find little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have absolutely no time for constructive work. Hence, I intend to condense my response into the following remark: Mensa HQ is a hard worker. It works hard to prevent anyone from commenting on its chthonic, morally questionable stratagems. This is of course most illuminating, but what if we wish to engage rather in eristic search for truth, or in heuristic debate, or perhaps in paromologetic illation? In my experience, trying to keep Mensa HQ from turning the trickle of philistinism into a tidal wave is a sucker's game. No matter how hard we try to stop it, it'll always find some new way to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what it has planned for the future.

 

There is a cult of ignorance among Mensa HQ's peons, and there always has been. The point is that I used to contend that Mensa HQ was a laughable segregationist. However, after seeing how it wants to saddle the economy with crippling debt, I now have an even lower opinion of it. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Mensa HQ's apparatchiks have the gall to accuse me of converting houses of worship into houses of tammanyism. Were these stroppy vindictive-types born without a self-awareness gene? I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that Mensa HQ's loony-bin crew loves handing over the country to cruel smatchets. This is nothing less than a betrayal of the many by the few. This is far from all I have to say on the topic, but it's certainly enough for now. Just remember one thing: The above statement is entirely suited to Mensa HQ, who here, as elsewhere, does not possess a single creative idea for the future but exists only in the past.

[Ikhan]

I am going to make this short but sweet: It's clear enough that Rose knew of its epigones' plans to bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives. However, Rose contented itself with a private, pro forma call for restraint—in other words, a green light. This call may even have encouraged its epigones' actions by obscuring the fact that Rose's spokesmen are a bunch of misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote, but that's a story for another time. For now, I want to focus on the way that if it were true, as it claims, that its annunciations are all sweetness and light, then I wouldn't be saying that once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that Rose motivates people to join its camorra by using words like “humanityâ€, “compassionâ€, and “unityâ€. This is a great deception. What Rose really wants to do is accelerate our descent into the cesspool of Satanism. That's why Rose is trying to hide the fact that I consider its smears antithetical to my principles as a person concerned for the good of all. Nevertheless, one thing that rings true with crystalline clarity is that I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that materialistic loonies with stronger voices than minds would revert to splenetic behavior. But some reckless, loopy quidnuncs actually maintain that Rose's taunts enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Rose is encouraging with its policies. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as peccable buffoons. Perhaps before going on, I should describe Rose to you. Rose is mischievous, stinking, and dysfunctional. Furthermore, it yearns to spoon-feed us its pabulum.

Yes, Rose may be nothing more than a disposable tool of power-wielding, louche beggars, but it certainly wants me to throw in with out-of-touch picaroons against the forces of good. If I did, I'm sure the chortles from Rose and its egotism outfit would be rich and prolonged, especially given how if Rose wanted to, it could blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of its villainous ramblings. It could confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. And it could subject us to the yellow-bellied yapping of the most wicked riffraff you'll ever see. We must not allow Rose to do any of these.

It may seem obvious, but those who wish to silence any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that Rose has increasingly been practicing follow a fairly predictable game plan. This plan comprises three distinct but related steps:

1. “Enlighten†anyone who doesn't believe that Rose knows 100% of everything 100% of the time;
   
2. Prey on people's fear of political and economic instability; and, finally,
   
3. Attack everyone else's beliefs.
   

The significance of this approach is that Rose thinks that its activities are on the up-and-up and that, therefore, the rules don't apply to it. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces renitent lackwits (as distinct from the puzzleheaded whifflers who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that everyone who fails to think and act in strict accordance with Rose's requirements is an audacious chaterestre. In reality, contrariwise, Rose's eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity, and its vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that you and I are inferior to raucous bourgeoisie?)

More fundamentally, Rose's plans for the future are like an enormous cronyism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must put an end to Rose's evildoing because if you think that those who disagree with Rose should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve, then think again. Imagine people everywhere embracing Rose's claim that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs—or maybe even chocolate. The idea defies the imagination. Now the surprising news: Rose sometimes uses the word “electrophysiologically†when describing its offhand remarks. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response.

I have a New Year's resolution for Rose: It should pick up a book before it jumps to the inficete conclusion that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. Rose's gibes are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called “lyingâ€. The key point here is that Rose's anhedonic view of life leads it to divert attention from its unprovoked aggression. I suppose it reckons that if it's irritable and cranky, then everyone else should be, too. The sad thing about that is that over time, Rose's initiatives have progressed from being merely slovenly to being superslovenly, hyperslovenly, and recently ultraslovenly. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megaslovenly. Our task, then, does seem to run counter to a deep-seated tendency for human beings to react with fear and even hatred to differences, whether those differences are real, created by Rose, or imagined. For those of you who believe as I do, our task is to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from mandarinism, statism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance.

[Redael]

Your alliance is stupid beacuse its really stupid and dumb, that is my complaint, your alliance suks, your alliance is dumb, stupid, a bunch of idiots, retarded, and redundant.

[Isolatar]

Your alliance is stupid beacuse its really stupid and dumb, that is my complaint, your alliance suks, your alliance is dumb, stupid, a bunch of idiots, retarded, and redundant.

 

But aren't you in FSA?

[Redael]

But aren't you in FSA?

yeah, so.

[Stormrideron]

My complaint about FSA

 

If you're confused by FSA's excuses this letter will help you sort things out. It will give you a new mental map upon which to fix your own position so that you can better make plans and carry them out. Perhaps before going on, I should describe FSA to you. FSA is inconsiderate, unrealistic, and jealous. Furthermore, it yearns to marginalize dissident voices.

 

Why can't we find even one well-designed, peer-reviewed, longitudinal study that clearly demonstrates that FSA possesses infinite wisdom? Probably because no comprehensive study has ever drawn such a morally corrupt conclusion. In contrast, many studies indicate that all of FSA's treatises are riddled with errors of language, fact, and logic. No, scratch that. Let me instead make the much stronger claim that I frequently talk about how FSA's apologues are simply the result of vested interests striking back at a group whose actions in support of religious freedom, social reform, and government accountability have cut through those vested interests. I would drop the subject except that it proclaims that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. That concept is, of course, complete bunk by any stretch of the imagination. However, it is bunk that has survived virtually unchanged from when it was first proposed nearly half a century ago by incorrigible blowhards to its present incarnation in FSA's ungrateful proposed social programs.

 

Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although FSA's hysteria-producing expostulations are sufficient to give pause to the less thoughtful among us. “Uh-oh,†such people think. “We'd better help FSA envelop us in a nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror—just in case.†I never intend to offend anyone, FSA included. Alas, the following statement may upset a few people: Execrable nonentities are receptive to FSA's disloyal messages and fool easily. Some people squirm a bit when they they read things like that, but such statements are the key to explaining why if you hear FSA spouting off about how all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of “insidersâ€, you should tell it that it is a bit teched. Better yet, tell it to stop getting its opinions from malignant provincials and start doing some research of its own.

 

I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that in a recent essay, it stated that it has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. Since the arguments it made in the rest of its essay are based in part on that assumption, it should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but it claims that it is God's representative on Earth. To that I say, pish tosh and poppycock! The reality is that FSA and its helpers are a cancer on our society. They will therefore do what cancer always does: kill the host. What's noteworthy about that observation is that we must mobilize the public. We must get people to begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action.

 

Mind you, the last time I told FSA's confidants that I want to chastise FSA for not doing any research before spouting off they declared in response, “But we ought to worship empty-headed psychopaths as folk heroes.†Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. To those meretricious rabble-rousers who think that FSA would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a self-deceiving act, know this: I once told FSA's compeers that that's why I laugh when I hear FSA's disciples go on and on about antiheroism. As a result, I witnessed in them a paranoia that reached astonishing new levels of hysteria, which made me realize that there is a format FSA should follow for its next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. The world is full of people who deplete the ozone layer. We don't need any more people like that. What we need are people who are willing to establish democracy and equality. We need people who understand that if we don't lift the fog from FSA's thinking, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that FSA's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good.

 

Like a mental patient who becomes agitated when his delusions are challenged, FSA goes bonkers when encountering a worldview that contradicts its own. For example, FSA hates hearing that I am, to use a nice Scottish word, scunnered that it would cause the destruction of human ambition and joy. This revelation invariably provokes temper tantrums and other infantile behavior and causes FSA to try to suppress all indications that it will do everything in its power to foster debauchery. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; if I were a complete sap, I'd believe FSA's line that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. Unfortunately for it, I realize that just because you can do something does not mean it's okay to do it. It's also true that it never fails to offer up irrefutable proof that its fingerprints are all over the dagger that has been implanted to the hilt in our collective back, but that'll have to be a subject for another letter.

 

FSA is trying to get us to acquiesce to a Faustian bargain. In the short term this bargain may help us direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible. Unfortunately, in the long term it will enable FSA to violate international laws.

 

Admittedly, FSA's sense of intellectual superiority did drop off a bit once people started realizing that FSA can be so squalid it would take your breath away. Unfortunately, its overconfidence and companion disdain for rational thinking have come back with a vengeance, finding energetic expression in disreputable reports, fork-tongued initiatives, and small-minded politics. Even people who consider themselves sinful chaterestres generally agree that FSA'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. The more I think about unsophisticated madmen, the more troubled I become by FSA's theories. Although FSA's overt parasitism has declined, a covert form still survives and may be an important factor in fueling a tendency and/or desire to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. FSA has been surprisingly successful at convincing abhorrent thought police that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. It's shameful that so many people have bought into this nonsense. It's even more shameful that FSA says that once it has approved of something it can't possibly be Pecksniffian. At least we can't accuse it of hiding its prejudices, I suppose. Of course, it would nice if FSA were also to confess that I once announced quite publicly that it tries to make its drug-induced ravings more palatable by wrapping them in rhetoric about the need to protect the interests of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. When I announced that, FSA could not be found for comment. Perhaps it was embarrassed that it has announced its intentions to interfere with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, and privacy rights. While doing so may earn FSA a gold star from the mush-for-brains obstructionism crowd, it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of callous, predaceous pseudoscientists like it can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them.

 

Well, let's get our facts straight. If we were to let FSA get away with tilling the crafty side of the sesquipedalianism garden, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. I see how important FSA's untrustworthy methods of interpretation are to its votaries and I laugh. I laugh because if history follows its course, it should be evident that whenever anyone states the obvious—that it's my understanding that it's indifferent as to whether its words mean anything or not—discussion naturally progresses towards the question, “Is it a professional simpleton or merely a well-meaning amateur?†I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that it seems to enjoy making unfounded statements and jumping to conclusions. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to FSA. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that what it is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity; it is an immoral activity; it is a socially destructive activity; and it is a profoundly bloodthirsty activity.

 

Incidentally, FSA must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why FSA accuses me of admitting that a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible. What I actually said is that someone has been giving FSA's brain a very thorough washing, and now FSA is trying to do the same to us. If one believes statements like, “Everything FSA says is entirely and totally true,†one is, in effect, supporting the most shambolic ruffians you'll ever see. In a recent tell-all, a former member of FSA's negativism movement writes that “as commonly encountered, logorrheic smatchets lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized person, like courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, and confidenceâ€. Those are some pretty harsh words even when one considers that I want to defend peace, truth, justice, and equality, but I can't do that alone. So do me a favor and reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from its scare tactics. That'll show FSA that you may make the comment, “What does this have to do with lackluster warlords?†Well, once you begin to see the light you'll realize that documents written by its habitués typically include the line, “Space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over usâ€, in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, stentorian world run by socially inept deadheads. I find FSA's cacoëthes loquendi most irritating. That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter.

[Kurdanak]

I am going to make this short but sweet: It's clear enough that Rose knew of its epigones' plans to bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives. However, Rose contented itself with a private, pro forma call for restraint—in other words, a green light. This call may even have encouraged its epigones' actions by obscuring the fact that Rose's spokesmen are a bunch of misguided individuals parroting one another and unwittingly serving ends they would never intentionally promote, but that's a story for another time. For now, I want to focus on the way that if it were true, as it claims, that its annunciations are all sweetness and light, then I wouldn't be saying that once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that Rose motivates people to join its camorra by using words like “humanityâ€, “compassionâ€, and “unityâ€. This is a great deception. What Rose really wants to do is accelerate our descent into the cesspool of Satanism. That's why Rose is trying to hide the fact that I consider its smears antithetical to my principles as a person concerned for the good of all. Nevertheless, one thing that rings true with crystalline clarity is that I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that materialistic loonies with stronger voices than minds would revert to splenetic behavior. But some reckless, loopy quidnuncs actually maintain that Rose's taunts enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Rose is encouraging with its policies. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as peccable buffoons. Perhaps before going on, I should describe Rose to you. Rose is mischievous, stinking, and dysfunctional. Furthermore, it yearns to spoon-feed us its pabulum.

Yes, Rose may be nothing more than a disposable tool of power-wielding, louche beggars, but it certainly wants me to throw in with out-of-touch picaroons against the forces of good. If I did, I'm sure the chortles from Rose and its egotism outfit would be rich and prolonged, especially given how if Rose wanted to, it could blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of its villainous ramblings. It could confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. And it could subject us to the yellow-bellied yapping of the most wicked riffraff you'll ever see. We must not allow Rose to do any of these.

It may seem obvious, but those who wish to silence any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that Rose has increasingly been practicing follow a fairly predictable game plan. This plan comprises three distinct but related steps:

• “Enlighten†anyone who doesn't believe that Rose knows 100% of everything 100% of the time;
• Prey on people's fear of political and economic instability; and, finally,
• Attack everyone else's beliefs.

The significance of this approach is that Rose thinks that its activities are on the up-and-up and that, therefore, the rules don't apply to it. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces renitent lackwits (as distinct from the puzzleheaded whifflers who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that everyone who fails to think and act in strict accordance with Rose's requirements is an audacious chaterestre. In reality, contrariwise, Rose's eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity, and its vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that you and I are inferior to raucous bourgeoisie?)

More fundamentally, Rose's plans for the future are like an enormous cronyism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must put an end to Rose's evildoing because if you think that those who disagree with Rose should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve, then think again. Imagine people everywhere embracing Rose's claim that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs—or maybe even chocolate. The idea defies the imagination. Now the surprising news: Rose sometimes uses the word “electrophysiologically†when describing its offhand remarks. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response.

I have a New Year's resolution for Rose: It should pick up a book before it jumps to the inficete conclusion that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. Rose's gibes are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called “lyingâ€. The key point here is that Rose's anhedonic view of life leads it to divert attention from its unprovoked aggression. I suppose it reckons that if it's irritable and cranky, then everyone else should be, too. The sad thing about that is that over time, Rose's initiatives have progressed from being merely slovenly to being superslovenly, hyperslovenly, and recently ultraslovenly. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megaslovenly. Our task, then, does seem to run counter to a deep-seated tendency for human beings to react with fear and even hatred to differences, whether those differences are real, created by Rose, or imagined. For those of you who believe as I do, our task is to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from mandarinism, statism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance.

 

[General Peterson]

I thought this was forum games and spam.

 

Also, aren't tS and Mensa allies?