My Complaint about Anandtech.

[urbantechie]

I've seen a number of pouty and crotchety things over the years, but Anandtech's personal attacks really take the cake. Let's review the errors in Anandtech's statements in order. First, this is a truth that Anandtech's cronies are told by Anandtech that they cannot acknowledge, lest they give aid and comfort to the rest of us. I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Anandtech. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. If there's a rule, and Anandtech keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? Even though Anandtech has aired its disapproval of being criticized, I still believe that its lackeys argue that those who disagree with it should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. These are the same solecism-prone spiteful masters of deceit who mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against its adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass. This is no coincidence; Anandtech's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, it always begins an argument with its conclusion (e.g., that hanging out with careless scrubs is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- it always arrives at that very conclusion.

If Anandtech continues to sue people at random, the result can be a tone-deafness, a cluelessness, on matters that are at the center of experience for vast segments of the population. Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Anandtech so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? If I recall correctly, if Anandtech is going to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, it's not uncommon for it to speak with authority on subjects it clearly knows nothing about. And second, some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that it would tap into the national resurgence of overt pauperism. And, as I predicted, it did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Anandtech could have made the same prediction. If Anandtech has spurred us to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum, then Anandtech may have accomplished a useful thing.

While it is essential -- and among my highest priorities -- to resolve a number of lingering problems, Anandtech's stratagems 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! While I, for one, suspect that Anandtech has every right to its drugged-out opinions, your support of my jibes is an ideal way to tell craven pathetic hedonists just what you think of their nonsense. (Actually, it broadens its appeal by seeking influence and adherents in the irrationalism movement, but that's not important now.) Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which Anandtech produces.

Does Anandtech have a point? I indeed doubt it. Although I consistently address a number of important issues, I do not countenance challenging Anandtech through breaking the law -- to do so is prolix, wayward, and indefensible. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Anandtech's exhibitionism-oriented form of it -- is. Will antihumanist conspiracy theorists ever enlighten the mind of Man and improve him as a rational, moral, and social being? Don't bet on it.

Whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I, not being one of the many stingy recidivists of this world, am willing to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society -- the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth -- all of whose lives are made miserable by Anandtech. Easy as it may seem to create a world in which colonialism, racialism, and fetishism are all but forgotten, it is far more difficult to search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically ignominious ones championed by the most insidious pinheads you'll ever see. Anandtech's smears are incompatible with the proclivities of instrumental reason, which makes it obvious to me that Anandtech's ideas are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that society is supposed to be lenient towards acrimonious whiners. And they promote the mistaken idea that it never engages in superstitious, mephitic, or inimical politics. Anandtech wants all of us to believe that everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. That's why it sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Let me leave you with one last thought: Anandtech's ideologies have been a millstone around our neck for quite some time.

LOL!!!! I can get these in 10 paragraph form!!!


http://www-csag.cs.uiuc.edu/individual/pakin/complaint

 

[chipbgt]

hmm........ I didnt see how long yours was, and for the first paragraph, I thought you were real....so I went and got this:

There is currently a lot of controversy about Urbantechie's belief systems, and I know that any letter on the subject will almost certainly cause someone to besmirch the memory of some genuine historic figures. Still, it would be a strategic blunder of epic proportions for Urbantechie to subvert time-tested societal norms. To start, I myself challenge him to point out any text in this letter that proposes that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. The picture I am presenting need not be confined to his op-ed pieces. It applies to everything Urbantechie says and does. As I often like to put it, his utterances will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that.

Unsettling as that is, the more infuriating fact is that Urbantechie's insinuations have very little thought behind them and are neither interesting nor amusing. That's clear. But if there's an untold story here, it's that Urbantechie is always prating about how short-sighted megalomaniacs are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. (He used to say that honor counts for nothing, but the evidence is too contrary, so he's given up on that score.) Urbantechie thinks it's good that his actions acquire public acceptance of his neo-sadistic philosophies. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: The central paradox of his prognoses, the twist that makes his self-fulfilling prophecies so irresistible to ethically-bankrupt cads, is that these people truly believe that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform an immature act.

As is often the case, it may seem difficult at first to take the initiative to preserve the peace. It is. But implying that heathenism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us is no different from implying that predaceous truculent low-lifes and the most raucous so-called experts I've ever seen should rule this country. Both statements are ludicrous. In keeping with all of their inner dishonest brutality, Urbantechie's cronies display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations. I believe I am not alone when I say that I'm willing to accept that wanting to revive an arcadian past that never existed without any of the obvious repercussions is like wanting a one-sided coin. I'm even willing to accept that he has really pulled a fast one this time. But only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that his lackeys often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. At first, Urbantechie just wanted to convince money-grubbing moochers that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him. Then, he tried to use organized violence to suppress opposition. Who knows what he'll do next? A final note: Urbantechie should reserve his stereotypes and labels and remember to treat others with a bit more respect and equality.

damn you for not being a real complaint and ruining my fun.

 

[urbantechie]

LOL. Take this!

It is not likely that I shall say anything new here. If I do, it will be of only minor significance. Nevertheless, facts and their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever Chipbgt dreams up. If you disagree with my claim that I have no idea why Chipbgt wannabees have sprouted across the country like mushrooms after a downpour, then read no further.

It is my personal opinion, based on years of observation, that several things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. He does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Chipbgt discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent.

He doesn't have any principles, or if he does, he puts them aside whenever they're inconvenient. On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education. Chipbgt does that even when his liberties aren't being threatened. We've all heard him yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. Just to add a little more perspective, he claims that sesquipedalianism and alcoholism are identical concepts. I respond that on many issues, discussions with Chipbgt quickly turn into fights, and dialogues soon degenerate into name-calling.

Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs, and you will hardly be able to deny that no one of any intelligence believes that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. To cap that off, his modes of thought are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're totally ignorant, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, he wants to spit in the face of propriety. It gets better: He believes that his philosophies enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. I guess no one's ever told him that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? This should be a chance to examine and bring problems to light, to share and join in understanding, but Chipbgt's commentaries are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of classism.

If Chipbgt wanted to, he could confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. He could legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the oppressed. And he could acquire power and use it to indoctrinate gutless killjoys. We must not allow Chipbgt to do any of these. Still, the issue of what to do about Chipbgt's crazy primitive principles is far from settled. The letter you just read should be seen as a starting point for dialogue on this controversial issue.

 

[ltk007]

ahhh!!! too much to read so i won't

 

[chipbgt]

I would get into this....But I tried this exact same thing just last week over at sysopt and cause quite a stink with the mod whom I chose to lift up.

 

[markjs]

Here's the angry letter Anandtech knew it was bound to receive. The rest of this letter is focused exclusively on Anandtech, not because I harbor any ill-will towards it, but because it insists that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. Anandtech has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. I'm not saying this to be gin-swilling, but rather to explain that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Anandtech's acrimonious unsavory politics. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) But it gets worse than that. Our situation is snowballing. And that's where we are right now.

Even if we accepted Anandtech's remarks, so what? Does that mean that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future? Of course not. Your guess is as good as mine as to why Anandtech wants to talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. Maybe it's because it plans to suppress people's instinct and intellect. We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because it will deflect attention from its unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen because it possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses blathering knuckleheads with illiterate and uncontrollable rage. Anandtech's half-measures are perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, the demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something which not only does not exist, but is alien to the human condition. Anandtech's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, it always begins an argument with its conclusion (e.g., that it can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- it always arrives at that very conclusion.

Already, some obtuse insurrectionists have begun to suppress controversy and debate, and with terrifying and tragic results. What recommendations will follow from their camp is anyone's guess. If Anandtech wants to be taken seriously, it should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. If we let Anandtech encourage young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their roots, and adopt a horny self-centered lifestyle, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve.

If Anandtech got its way, it'd be able to appropriate sacred symbols for lawless purposes. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. If the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to challenge Anandtech's unprincipled assumptions about merit. If I hear Anandtech's cronies say, "It's okay for Anandtech to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole" one more time, I'm indubitably going to throw up. To state it in a more sophisticated manner, Anandtech's principles are not witty satire, as it would have you believe. They're simply the unsophisticated ramblings of something that has no idea or appreciation of what it's mocking.

It seems to me that Anandtech is both pompous and moonstruck. Now there's a dangerous combination if I've ever seen one. It probably sounds like I'm being eccentric, but I decisively have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Anandtech put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon. Strictly speaking, most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Anandtech progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom.

Note that I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Anandtech before it can exploit the masses. And just let it try and stop me. I've tried explaining to Anandtech's lackeys that Anandtech is trying very hard to plug the hole in its dike of lies so that no more truth leaks out, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I frequently wish to tell Anandtech that it feels no guilt for any of the harm it's caused. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. An inner voice tells me that Anandtech insists that two wrongs make a right. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates. Those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to plant markers that define the limits of what is odious and what is not have no right to complain when it and its henchmen fill the air with recrimination and rancor. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: Anandtech might sanctify its depravity quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "unextinguishableness". What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? Anandtech's personal interest in seeing its manuscripts shoved down people's throats is birdbrained, but that's to be expected of it.

Some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, Anandtech thinks that laws are meant to be broken. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. Although I can no more change the past than see the future, it's safe to say that Anandtech uses the word "eulamellibranchiate" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. Organizations that are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. I am on an important mission to reveal the nature and activity of Anandtech's assistants and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. If I don't accomplish that mission, Anandtech's plans to sacrifice children on the twin altars of immoralism and greed could well succeed. To what consequences this leads can be seen from a few simple considerations. First of all, some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that there are other strains of narcissism active today, and the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize combative crass apostates whose oppressive behavior blinds them to historical lessons. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation.

Anandtech may mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated -- right after it reads this letter. Let it. Before long, I will answer the scummy kleptomaniacs who clear-cut ancient forest lands. My argument is that it would be a mistake to believe that violence and prejudice are funny. Ridiculous? Not so. This letter should be regarded as the beginning, not the end, of my stance against Anandtech. And let me tell you, my purpose here is not to instill a sense a responsibility and maturity in those who impact public policy for years to come. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that if we take Anandtech's excuses to their logical conclusion, we see that one of these days, Anandtech will defile the air and water in the name of profit. If Anandtech succeeds in its attempt to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings, it'll have to be over my dead body. Forgive me if I ramble; I'm really upset, as I think you can tell. I alluded to this earlier, but I find Anandtech's editorials to be a perversion of the truth. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that Anandtech's claims epitomize wholesome family entertainment, then there is certainly no hope for you. Regardless of what Anandtech seems to feel, the documentation of this matter is abundant and conclusive. If you want to hide something from Anandtech, you just have to put it in a book.

Anandtech, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world. From what I understand, you might say, "Anandtech, mudslinging neo-rapacious louts, and a few decent but occasionally grotesque people are engaged in a desperate struggle for the soul of society." Fine, I agree. But I try never to argue with Anandtech, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason.

Anandtech says that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Should we care that large numbers of prurient perjurers actually believe such unbalanced things? Should we try to convince them otherwise? I don't think so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's our responsibility to make the world safe for democracy. That's the first step in trying to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas, and it's the only way to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward obscurantism. To be blunt, Anandtech's words have merged with corporatism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both preach a propaganda of hate. And both lower our standard of living.

I am on an important mission to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. If I don't accomplish that mission, Anandtech's plans to mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against Anandtech's adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass could well succeed. Anandtech's lackeys are not, technically, semi-intelligible segregationists, but rather pompous misoneism-prone flag burners. I suspect that there is a small -- yet not entirely insignificant -- difference. The primary point of disagreement between myself and Anandtech is whether or not I feel that it has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Anandtech obviously has none, or it wouldn't yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny. The most money-grubbing peddlers of snake-oil remedies you'll ever see can go right ahead and convict me for saying that Anandtech sees only one side of the issue, 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. Anandtech's agendas serve only to safeguard its own power and privilege, right? Right.

While these incidents may seem minor, Anandtech would have us believe that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Anandtech is surrounded by headstrong unsympathetic undesirables who parrot the same nonsense, which is why we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Anandtech's bloody-minded biases, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!!, against its teachings.) I'm sure you get my point here. I do not find politics that are prissy, brazen, and obstreperous to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but Anandtech likes to compare its recommendations to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. I decidedly don't know how to deal with what I call brutish worrywarts. Let me rephrase that: An armed revolt against Anandtech is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified. Anandtech's henchmen compress Anandtech's hatchet jobs into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. Think I'm exaggerating? Just ask any of the most valuable members of our community, and they'll all tell you how several things Anandtech 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 a perpetual victim of injustice.

Will Anandtech's lethargic assistants incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem? Only time will tell. Anandtech believes that its rejoinders enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. Anandtech asserts that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. Taking that notion one step further, we can see that I don't care what others say about Anandtech. It's still whiney, superstitious, and it intends to create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues.

In other words, the objection may still be raised that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: What we see today is a greater than normal manifestation of bad-tempered traits in Anandtech's warnings. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that its claims are pure tripe? Anandtech has, at times, called me "ignominious" or "sordid". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives.

Careless revanchism is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we strengthen our roots so we can weather the storms that threaten our foundation. If I am correct that unilateralism is the leitmotif of Anandtech's offhand remarks, then it ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

Anandtech's outrage at complaints about it is indicative of its self-esteem and value system, pure and simple. Look at what's happened since Anandtech first ordered its lackeys to generate alienation and withdrawal: Views once considered dirty are now considered ordinary. Views once considered dotty are now considered perfectly normal. And the most mean-spirited of Anandtech's views are now seen as gospel by legions of what I call two-faced rash nebbishes.

Anandtech looks down with a really limitless condescension on anyone who has not been dragged through the obligatory schools and had the necessary knowledge pumped into him. This implies that I have to wonder where Anandtech got the idea that it is my view that the laws of nature don't apply to it. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is. Similarly, Anandtech's wheelings and dealings epitomize all that is insidious in the world. That's the sort of statement that some people feel is featherbrained, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because every time Anandtech tries, it gets increasingly successful in its attempts to threaten the common good. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well.

So long as the devastating inequities that characterize our society persist, Anandtech's henchmen will be unable to deny that its actions symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Anandtech is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, it has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people it desires to lead. It's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Anandtech distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions. Anandtech can write anything it wants about how things would be different were we to give into its demands and let it herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses, but I don't need to tell you that I am not particularly fond of it. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that it has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter.

I should state this explicitly. At least, that certainly seems to be the implication in several of the accounts I've heard. If you want to hide something from Anandtech, you just have to put it in a book. Anandtech's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is slatternly, because it leaves no room for compromise. Anandtech's notions are a veritable dictionary and synonymicon of deconstructionism. Of that I am certain, because 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 classes of people Anandtech preys upon. Speaking of which, Anandtech has gotten away with so much for so long that it's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an organization without any sense of limits could desire to promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush.

Assume for a moment that faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as Anandtech has had, I must truly feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. It therefore follows that the gloss that Anandtech's assistants put on Anandtech's inclinations unfortunately does little to put an end to its evildoing. Almost without exception, Anandtech's helpers argue that everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. These are the same rotten scumbags who deprive individuals of the right to maintain social tranquillity. This is no coincidence; it is not my goal to take advantage of human fallibility to provide parasitic conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread, but the opposite, so to speak. It is reasonable to infer that there is something inherently wrong with an organization that wants, more than anything else, to galvanize a self-serving hysteria, a large-scale version of the insecure mentality that can blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of Anandtech's crazy refrains. If you doubt this, just ask around. Socrates was condemned to death by the city of Athens for his views. I hope I don't receive the same treatment for saying that Anandtech is a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

What's interesting is that even if one is opposed to gutless communism (and I am), then surely, every time Anandtech gets caught trying to condemn innocent people to death, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its toadies always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they contend, women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. I've always thought that the ideas backing up Anandtech's commentaries are extremely yawping and ultra-chauvinistic, and hearing the rubbish that Anandtech spews forth proves it beyond all doubt. Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or in the case of Anandtech and its ill-bred supporters, find the hidden agenda. Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that we can't stop Anandtech overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to call your attention to the problem of refractory bums.

Anandtech has two imperatives. The first is to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture. The second imperative is to drive us into a state of apoplexy.

To say that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance is randy nonsense and untrue to boot. Following this line of logic, it would appear that Anandtech possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, it can't even spell or define "erudition," much less achieve it. When Anandtech first announced that it wanted to wipe out delicate ecosystems, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile. Isn't it odd that primitive weasels, whose disorganized lifestyle will discredit and intimidate the opposition in a lustrum or two, are immune from censure? Don't get me wrong; there is no longer any room for hope. But Anandtech, in its hubris, has decided that it has the right to advocate contentious quips. But there's the rub; it maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around it. There's a word for that: libel.

Because of Anandtech's attitude, I usually don't respond to its jibes, but this time I'll make an exception. In the first place, only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that I and Anandtech part company when it comes to the issue of irrationalism. It feels that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications, while I insist that it operates on an international scale to put our liberties at risk by a cynical and amoral rush to jump on everything that is written, said, or even implied and label it as either besotted or vainglorious. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate. When I first became aware of Anandtech's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how Anandtech's dissertations represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the licentious tendencies that make Anandtech want to allow federally-funded research to mushroom into a recalcitrant, grossly-inefficient system, hampered by primitive gutter-dwellers and hidebound grungy cutthroats. Even though I, hardheaded cynic that I am, find Anandtech's wisecracks to be a perversion of the truth, this does not negate the fact that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely-accepted, notion that human life is expendable. Emotionalism doesn't work. So why does Anandtech cling to it? Let me give you a hint: I indeed contend that we need to do more to guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What demons possessed Anandtech to mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against its adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass?

This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that Anandtech is trying to damn this nation and this world to Hell. Their mission? To spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras. Anandtech parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. Funnel significant amounts of money to tyrannical heretics if you like, Anandtech, because I simply don't care.

Does Anandtech have trouble living with itself, knowing that it has let its out-of-touch nature get the better of it? As that last sentence suggests, a central fault line runs through each of Anandtech's disquisitions. Specifically, throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to turn Anandtech's politically-incorrect catch-phrases to our advantage and those who wish to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about its epigrams. Naturally, Anandtech belongs to the latter category. Anandtech asserts that censorship could benefit us. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie.

When surveyed, only two percent of Anandtech's cronies agreed with the statement, "Anandtech's lackeys are insolent Luddites (literally!)." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness. I'm not saying this to be dodgy, but rather to explain that Anandtech has stated that moonstruck dweebs have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. That's just pure absenteeism. Well, in Anandtech's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Anandtech likes to imply that vigilantism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. This is what its sermons amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of prurient drivel devised by its henchmen and mindlessly multiplied by the worst types of silly loudmouths there are. You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to Anandtech's satanic viewpoints. All of my responses presume that Anandtech's musings are propaganda to the point of comedy and are so easily refuted as to render them useless even as such. I'll say that again, because I want it to sink in: Anandtech's mad past resonates in its current orations.

To tolerate Anandtech's combative hatchet jobs simply because they're not packaged and sold as rotten is to engender ill will. I don't know when paternalism became chic, but any rational argument must acknowledge this. Anandtech's uneducated snow jobs, naturally, do not. From a public-policy perspective, 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 my love for people necessitates that I let Anandtech know, in no uncertain terms, that its hastily-mounted campaigns are gangsterism redux. Yes, I face opposition from Anandtech. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. Let me go on record as saying that even when the facts don't fit, Anandtech sometimes tries to use them anyway. It still maintains, for instance, that everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. Anandtech can't help it; it just loves to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era.

I truly find Anandtech's fondness for inquisitions, witch hunts, star chambers, and kangaroo courts most distasteful. So don't feed me any baloney about how it could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. That's just not true. Did it ever occur to Anandtech that the conflation of vengeful deadheads and pigheaded infantile lummoxes in its screeds is either dramatic hyperbole or a fatal methodological flaw? I hate to say this, but Anandtech's attempts to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive are much worse than mere interventionism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation.

Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Anandtech disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of propagandism. Is there a chance that Anandtech isn't laughable, prolix, and discourteous? From what I've seen, I doubt it. Anandtech is unable to use the English language effectively or correctly. 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. Each day, I see the world becoming more ornery as a determined Anandtech carries out its wretched plans. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of Anandtech in embracing this simple fact.

I might be able to forgive Anandtech, but only if it promises never again to create anomie. Anandtech constantly insists that solipsism is a noble goal. But it contradicts itself when it says that what I call avaricious cowards are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Strictly speaking, Anandtech's ideologies are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". It's deplorable for Anandtech to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to help delusional mumpish misanthropes back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof. Or perhaps I should say, it's obdurate. If there's an untold story here, it's that to believe that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape is to deceive ourselves. I have a New Year's resolution for Anandtech: It should pick up a book before it jumps to the asinine conclusion that it can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct.

I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why in plain language, Anandtech's crusades serve no purpose other than to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. My peers think that Anandtech would love to see me throw in the towel. While this is indisputably true, I maintain we must add that its holier-than-thou attitudes are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. I must emphasize that Anandtech teaches workshops on Fabianism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp.

In other words, if I didn't sincerely believe that Anandtech doesn't shower often enough, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. For heaven's sake, we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to speak out against sick officious swaggerers. We were not put here to leave us in the lurch, as Anandtech might feel. What so many people find difficult to grasp is that it has been brought to my attention that posterity will have little occasion to glorify Anandtech's "heroic" existence in a new epic. While this is undoubtedly true, Anandtech has recently been going around claiming that it is a martyr for freedom and a victim of anarchism. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. One last thing: It is amazing to me that Anandtech would dare to criticize someone or something without carefully reading what was written.

 

[Yeeny]

I will stand up for the honor of my friend chip though, with this:

What do disreputable contemptuous fiends, what I call uncouth malodorous lowbrows, and UrbanTechie have in common? If
you answered, "They all destroy the lives of good, honest people," then pat yourself on the back. To address this in a pedantic
manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as
opinions. For instance, it is a fact that if we contradict UrbanTechie, we are labelled untrustworthy ungrateful delinquents. If we
capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. He likes to imply that his wheelings and dealings can give us deeper insights into
the nature of reality. This is what his memoranda amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of
lewd drivel devised by his cronies and mindlessly multiplied by headstrong twisted slobs. This conviction of mine is as firm as a
rock. This is the flaw in UrbanTechie's morals. He doesn't understand that UrbanTechie refuses to come to terms with reality.
He prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. Now for some parting advice: Look at the facts.
Analyze the arguments. Think about the motives of the people who are telling you that doing the fashionable thing is more
important than life or liberty. And have confidence in yourself. Remember, UrbanTechie's fixation with irritable catty blowhards
is devious.

 

[chipbgt]

I am writing to express my dismay and concern over Urbantechie's crafty expostulations. Let me cut to the chase: The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Urbantechie. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to denounce those who claim that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Some critics have called Urbantechie self-pitying. A handful insist he's detestable. His cronies, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century. The underlying message is that people tell me that his comments reflect several layers of moral concern for many religions. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. Does he remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people he made fun of just so others would like him more? Urbantechie's long-term goals represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death.

You may be shocked to hear this, but if I said that the cure for evil is more evil, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being thoroughly honest if I said that if one believes statements like, "Public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't," one is, in effect, supporting what I call incoherent bloodsuckers. No matter how bad you think Urbantechie's ravings are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. The next time Urbantechie decides to convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime, disappointment, and destruction, he should think to himself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? What do you think of this: His modus operandi is to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science?

He has a staggering number of mad lackeys. One way to lower their numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified. Urbantechie maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. I'm willing to accept that he is fiddling while Rome burns. I'm even willing to accept that he has nothing but contempt for responsibility, duty, and honor. But we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because at no time in the past did self-aggrandizing masters of deceit shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them.

Urbantechie is not only callous, but he also lacks the self-control necessary to conform his behavior to reasonable norms. Might I suggest that he search for a hobby? It seems Urbantechie has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk. He has endorsed the idea of rotten faddism in a number of very specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of his henchmen's decision to create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and certainly influences legislators and policy makers, conventional wisdom states that these issues are actually political issues. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.

For the sake of concreteness: All the deals Urbantechie makes are strictly one-way. Urbantechie gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Let me back up a little: His expedients all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that blasphemous recidivists are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Urbantechie has convinced a lot of people that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.

While his pranks may seem sullen, they're in agreement with his noxious editorials. I have seen what he is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid and I am very angry. The main dissensus between me and Urbantechie is that I suspect that Urbantechie was warned by his own assistants not to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world. Urbantechie, on the other hand, contends that everyone and everything discriminates against him -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls.

As stated earlier, he is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. Urbantechie's belief systems disgust and infuriate me. But the problems with Urbantechie's invectives don't end there.

Urbantechie floats with the tide of paltry revanchism, especially when driven by the gravitational pull of factionalism. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that he is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally stupid philippics. The objection may still be raised that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about his whiney put-downs. For starters, let's say that "denominationalism" is "that which makes Urbantechie yearn to shame my name."

However, his helpers are delighted with the potential for violent confrontation. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time he tried to distract people from serious analysis of the situation. There's a little-known truth that isn't readily acknowledged by the worst sorts of virulent protestors I've ever seen: I must ask that Urbantechie's toadies mention a bit about treacherous uncivilized prophets of communism such as Urbantechie. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to foster suspicion -- if not hatred -- of "outsiders".

You are, I'm sure, well aware that his bons mots are pockmarked with brown-nosing sesquipedalianism and other assorted ills. But did you know that he is a shoo-in for this year's awarding of "most sophomoric use of autism"? Pardon me for not being able to empathize with the worst kinds of fastidious mendicants I've ever seen, but if he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Do you really think Urbantechie will ever learn from his mistakes? More to the point, if one could get a Ph.D. in Metagrobolism, he would be the first in line to have one. A final word: You do not need to be ungrateful to know that Urbantechie has a one-track mind.

While there are probably a lot of people out there who would be quite content never to read another letter about Urbantechie, Urbantechie's witticisms are not just retroactively ineffective but proactively inert. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current situation is. If we let him offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to shatter the adage that Urbantechie's sentiments are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos.

I have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate. But you knew that already. So let me add that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions. Despite the fact that as soon as Urbantechie's cronies turn the trickle of jujuism into a tidal wave, their anecdotes will cease to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community and instead will pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a rude coterie of barbarism, I would never take a job working for Urbantechie. Given his wrongheaded excuses, who would want to?

Racism doesn't work. So why does Urbantechie cling to it? Let me give you a hint: We mustn't let Urbantechie make incorrect leaps of logic. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. To leave us in the lurch is an injustice. How can Urbantechie deprive people of dignity and autonomy and then turn around and shed tears for those who got hurt as a result? There is an obvious inconsistency here. When asked to mend his ways, he will give people a wink and a smile, but when the wheels begin to turn, it's business as usual.

So what if he hates me for pointing out that he is a small part of a large movement that seeks to muster enough force to condone illegal activities? Let him hate me. I consider such hatred a mark of honor, a mark of distinction. My usual response to his protests is this: We have come full-circle. However, such a response is much too glib and perhaps a little unscrupulous, so let me be more specific. Time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Urbantechie can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively unregenerate.

It's our responsibility to clean up the country and get it back on course again. That's the first step in trying to deal with the relevant facts, and it's the only way to expose some of his evil deeds. If Urbantechie had done his homework, he'd know that what he 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 viperine activity. He may have the right to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. He may have the right to criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle. But Urbantechie crosses the line when he uses his bully pulpit to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue. I guess that my take on this is that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to his platitudes. It applies to everything Urbantechie says and does. The salient point here is that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still claim that it scares the bejeezus out of me to know that he might make things worse by the end of the decade, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. We have an obligation to tell Urbantechie what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. And we have an obligation to take action.

While there are many unsympathetic prigs, Urbantechie is the most jaded of the lot. We must decidedly preserve the peace. Does that sound extremist? Is it too perverted for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.

In order to understand the motivation behind his generalizations, it is important first to address the continued social injustice shown by tendentious lawless pinheads. It is important to differentiate between the most besotted scamps you'll ever see and self-indulgent flighty adolescents who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Urbantechie's vulgar blanket statements, or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Urbantechie's lackeys, or who maintain contact with Urbantechie as part of serious and legitimate research. We must reverse the devolutionary course he has set for us. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties.

Think about this: some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that when one looks at this bad-tempered parade of dotty loudmouths, one instantly thinks of the word "uncharacteristically". But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. Not only have spineless recidivists decided to glorify their personal attacks by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their bromides are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. A great many of us don't want Urbantechie to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. But we feel a prodigious pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his testy scribblings.

Every time he tries, Urbantechie gets increasingly successful in his attempts to replace love and understanding with particularism and frotteurism. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. He is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Urbantechie and his repressive henchmen. Responsible citizens indeed do not utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques.

While we may all pray for a perfect utopian world in which everyone is holding hands and singing "We Are the World" in perfect harmony, the reality is that an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I maintain that it is not yet strategically justified. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with anal-retentive intrusive ogres. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to fight with spiritual weapons that are as hypocritical as they are delirious. I don't mean to imply that for every dollar we spend to better our communities, Urbantechie'll spend a thousand more to use both overt and covert deceptions to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion, but it's true, nonetheless. He is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, he throws principle to the wind. Urbantechie thrives on the victimization of others. And that's the honest truth.

So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that the trouble with such disingenuous avaricious stupid-types is that they intend to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. Before I say anything else, let me remind Urbantechie that there are three fairly obvious problems with his smears, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to raise unimaginative proletariats out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. First, his choleric viewpoints are to politics what the blitzkrieg was to international diplomacy. Second, the little I've written so far already buttresses the assertion that within the deleterious milieu of feudalism exists the opportunity for him to hinder economic growth and job creation. And third, if we don't soon tell him to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his hotheaded declamations, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so. Although he has a certain fondness for incoherent ugly wheeler-dealers, Urbantechie spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is ageism, which says to me that this is a free country, and I think we ought to keep it that way. He believes that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. That's just wrong. He further believes that we should avoid personal responsibility. Wrong again! There is no time and little temptation for those who work hard on their jobs and their responsibilities to caricature and stereotype people from other cultures. The denial of this fact only proves the effrontery, and also the stupidity, of supercilious cowards.

It must be reemphasized that I have no idea why Urbantechie wannabees have sprouted across the country like mushrooms after a downpour. And while we're on the subject, I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But one does not have to give me reason to hide in a closet in order to clean up the country and get it back on course again. It is a capricious person who believes otherwise. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who subject human beings to indignities, and there are those who begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action. Urbantechie fits neatly into the former category, of course.

Although confused brainless grizzlers are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are increasing in size and fervor. As someone who enjoys brandishing words like "semiprofessionalized" and "counterdemonstration" as a smoke screen to hide his machinations' inherent paradoxes, he must surely be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to his treacherous beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). Continue to appease Urbantechie, and he will decisively leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements, in order to solve the big problems with him, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must place a high value on honor and self-respect. If anything, I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that he is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but what he 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 imprudent activity. In case you don't know, there is a format Urbantechie should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.

His methods of interpretation are worse than the Black Death of olden times. As long as I live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to respond to his self-fulfilling prophecies. If we let Urbantechie wipe out delicate ecosystems, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to stop defending the xenophobic virulent status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change.

The problem with him is not that he's belligerent. It's that he wants to cause chauvinistic subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. Following this line of logic, it would appear that he is typical of parasitic louts in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his excuses.

Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, Urbantechie has commented that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. He hides behind the carefully managed prevarication that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What demons possessed him to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide revisionism?

Urbantechie has convinced a lot of people that he is omnipotent. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation. If you ask him if it's true that I would like to register my strong objection to his theories, you'll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response.

He insists that the Universe belongs to him by right. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. If the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic.

Shame on Urbantechie for thinking that people like you and me are delirious! Despite his evident lack of grounding in what he's talking about, if, five years ago, I had described a person like Urbantechie to you and told you that in five years, he'd commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge his wild sound bites, you'd have thought me lewd. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how he has two imperatives. The first is to support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery. The second imperative is to get on my nerves.

Not surprisingly, almost every day, he outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's indubitably breathtaking to watch him. Urbantechie keeps telling us that if he kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. Are we also supposed to believe that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of cannibalism? My eventual goal for this letter is to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from anarchism, hooliganism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. I'm counting on you for your support.

To deal stiffly with nutty vagabonds who create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat, we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us. And we must acknowledge that Urbantechie has the gall to think that twisted judgemental simpletons aren't ever silly. To get right down to it, Urbantechie insists that human life is expendable. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. As that last sentence suggests, none of what he says carries any weight. But you knew that already. So let me add that he presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically-motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Urbantechie is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors vitriolic scamps. And here we have the ultimate irony, because we should disabuse Urbantechie of the notion that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Something that I have heard repeated several times from various sources -- a sort of "tag line" for Urbantechie -- is, "We should go out and make bargains with the devil. And when we're done with that, we'll all set the wolf to mind the sheep." This is not a direct quote, nor have I heard it from Urbantechie's lips directly, but several sources have paraphrased the content to me in near-enough ways that I feel fairly confident it actually was said. And to be honest, I have no trouble believing it. I am sorry to have to put this so bluntly, but his treatises are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, he is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul.

Naturally, someone has been giving Urbantechie's brain a very thorough washing, and now Urbantechie is trying to do the same to us. Let's face it: I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens within a short period of time. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to investigate the development of Pyrrhonism as a concept. Although theoretical differences can be drawn between Urbantechie's antihumanist jeremiads and hypersensitive solipsism, these are distinctions without a difference. Urbantechie's pronouncements serve as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of truculent kleptomaniacs.

To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that anger is contagious. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. For that reason, Urbantechie's drug-induced ravings manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of his publications so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of Urbantechie's attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth. Phase two: make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks. My purpose here is not to get my message about Urbantechie out to the world. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Urbantechie's teachings, one is promptly condemned as hopeless, obscene, nerdy, or whatever epithet Urbantechie deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. For the moment, he makes no secret of the fact that many people who follow his politics have come to the erroneous conclusion that narcissism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. The stark truth of the matter is that Urbantechie thinks we want him to clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought. Excuse me, but maybe his protests 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 in the coming days.

The practical struggle which now begins, sketched in broad outlines, takes the following course: Now that I've been exposed to Urbantechie's sermons, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Urbantechie. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that what was morally wrong five years ago is just as wrong today. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What demons possessed Urbantechie to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities? Contrary to the impression that the worst sorts of wrongheaded ruffians I've ever seen offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their machinations. Urbantechie's orations all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that things have never been better. Would we, as thinking people, believe usurers who tried to tell us we're all logorrheic? I say "no."

The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that the last time I told Urbantechie's cronies that I want to lead Urbantechie out of a dream world and back to hard reality, they declared in response, "But all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. Shame on him for thinking that people like you and me are noxious! It should be clear by this point that I want to challenge his callous assumptions about merit. That may seem simple enough, but when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Urbantechie is to blame.

There are some simple truths in this world. First, certain individuals in intelligence and law enforcement agencies may have overlooked some of his more homophobic solutions. Second, he should try being a little more open-minded. And finally, in public, he vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, he never fails to fight with spiritual weapons that are as impolitic as they are lousy.

The really interesting thing about all this is not that to Urbantechie, acting like oppressive unrealistic voluptuaries is a lot of fun. The interesting thing is that if he makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to put to rest demented and power-hungry threats such as Urbantechie's. His reports are a hotbed of teetotalism, yes. But I frequently wish to tell him that you won't hear his lackeys admit that he's contemptible. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. While some of Urbantechie's expostulations are very attractive on the surface and are sincerely entertaining, they ultimately serve to advocate fatalistic acceptance of a primitive new world order.

I undoubtedly reject Urbantechie's demands. Ergo, Urbantechie's pleas are designed to break down ages-old institutions and customs. And they're working; they're having the desired effect. To the best of my knowledge, there are three fairly obvious problems with Urbantechie's values, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to make the world safe for democracy. First, Urbantechie's claims are pure tripe. Second, I once had a nightmare in which Urbantechie was free to pit people against each other. And third, an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified. I just want to say that there is a format he should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.

Plan to join Urbantechie's camp? Be sure to check your conscience at the door. Before I knew anything about Urbantechie, I was once an onlooker at a few of his mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his henchmen or the nature of his platitudes. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if he finds a way to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence.

His assistants seem to think that Urbantechie can do no wrong. Let me rephrase that: I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that unforgiving inarticulate carousers with stronger voices than minds would revert to ribald behavior. But it's easy enough to hate Urbantechie any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Urbantechie is up to, things that ought to make a real Urbantechie-hater out of you. First off, he has been known to say that he never engages in cranky, pestilential, or hideous politics. That notion is so lascivious, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. Urbantechie's accusations are so exact in their scheme, so comprehensive in their scope, that sanctimonious bimbos have adopted and embraced them verbatim ac litteratim. Natural law is therefore the fulcrum upon which rests the case that I like to speak of Urbantechie as "pesky". That's a reasonable term to use, I feel, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, he claims that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day. Well, I beg to differ. I feel no shame in writing that this is betrayal of the many by the few. (Actually, it is hard to ignore the impact of his misconduct on our children, our culture, and our national character, but that's not important now.) A final note: As witnesses to mankind's inner dissatisfaction, we must address the continued social injustice shown by scary wackos.

To respond to all of Urbantechie's announcements would take up too much room and time. I would like to address the most nutty ones, though. One of my objectives is to offer true constructive criticism -- listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem. His pleas are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem.

What is happening between his cronies and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a warped attack on our most cherished institutions.

Now, I don't want to overwork the story about how he plans to propitiate the most raving drug lords you'll ever see for later eventualities, so let's just say that he wants nothing less than to keep us hypnotized so we don't recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his asinine mad catch-phrases. Urbantechie offers two principal reasons as to why profits come before people. He argues that (1) he defends the real needs of the working class, and (2) it is hostile to question his perversions. These arguments are invalid for the following reasons: First, he is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens put an end to Urbantechie's evildoing. Responsible citizens indubitably do not hinder economic growth and job creation.

As that last sentence suggests, it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of dirty vermin like him can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that any one believes them. We should give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Urbantechie argues that his views can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. To maintain this thesis, Urbantechie naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. Just to add a little more perspective, if he feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. Urbantechie's arrogance has brought this upon himself. Although Urbantechie is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, he asserts that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.

We mustn't let him turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. Urbantechie's lackeys are not, technically, prurient pettifoggers, but rather baleful crude Machiavellians. I believe that there is a small -- yet not entirely insignificant -- difference. Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to hold Urbantechie responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses? I think we do.

One does not have to bring about a wonderland of nonrepresentationalism in order to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that his quips are more often out of sync with democratic values than aligned with them. It is a cantankerous person who believes otherwise. To use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets has never been something that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, wanted to do. Never.

Urbantechie has stated that the sky is falling. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that things have never been better. Now that's just malign. I oppose, deplore, and disavow discrimination, extremism, and hatred of every kind. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

You might object to my claim that Urbantechie uses vulgar language and makes obscene gestures at those whose opinions differ from his. But bear in mind that whenever there's an argument about Urbantechie's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that corporatism is arguably the most frightening and devastating problem facing us all. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. The objection may still be raised that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that if Urbantechie is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument.

The only weapons he has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. If this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature.

Believe me, I certainly don't want to give Urbantechie a chance to threaten national security. He is bad enough when he's alone, but Urbantechie is even worse when he's joined by ultra-humorless egocentric bloodsuckers. Last I checked, every time he tells his henchmen that his vices are the only true virtues, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. From a public-policy perspective, what we're involved in with him is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it. Thus, in summing up, we can establish the following: 1) Urbantechie respects nothing and no one, and 2) almost every discussion of neocolonialism ignores the critical importance of Urbantechie's narrow-minded sanctimonious epigrams.

Seldom does an event take place which is such an outrage that the silent majority stands up and demands action. But the silent majority is currently demanding that something be done about Urbantechie. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this letter and to Urbantechie himself. He would have us believe that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and what I call foul crybabies. Yeah, right.

He has only half (if that) of the information needed to make an informed decision about cameralism. Surprised? You shouldn't be, because I would sincerely like to comment on his attempt to associate nihilism with particularism. There is no association. You are, I'm sure, well aware that Urbantechie's cronies have the temerity to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with Urbantechie's invectives and then say that everyone else should do the same. But did you know that discrediting ideas by labeling them as contemptuous is an old tradition among Urbantechie's lackeys? I discussed this topic in a previous letter, so I will not go into great detail now, but in public, Urbantechie vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, Urbantechie never fails to denigrate and discard all of Western culture.

You may be shocked to hear this, but to Urbantechie's mind, Urbantechie's exegeses enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. So that means that disingenuous saboteurs and despicable morally-questionable firebrands should rule this country, right? No, not right. The truth is that Urbantechie is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. There are no two ways about it; I have never been in favor of being gratuitously nefarious. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to illustrate the virtues that he lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry. Urbantechie's op-ed pieces are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of blackguardism. Today, we might have let Urbantechie pervert human instincts by suppressing natural feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will resolve a number of lingering problems.

I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to tell Urbantechie what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. If his rodomontades aren't snooty, I don't know what is. For those of you out there who don't know what I'm talking about, let me give you a quick explanation: his statements 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! Urbantechie decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that he fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.

For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that we should bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) I happen to believe that if Urbantechie makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally-produced exposé is irresistible to effete profligate devil-worshippers who want to encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom. His theories represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. In this land which has befriended officious psychics, Urbantechie has conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted, and corrupted, and -- hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of judgemental insurrectionists -- dares to contrive and scheme the death of every principle that has protected him.

He may silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming right after he reads this letter. Let him. Some day, I will provide people the wherewithal to prevent the production of a new crop of doctrinaire oafs. His henchmen care more about speaking, acting, and even thinking like Urbantechie than they care about what makes sense, yet I, for one, find it most unfortunate that this letter had to be written. This sort of vertiginous paradox is well known to most reckless shameless adolescents.

As is so often the case, we can divide his doctrines into three categories: bestial, wild, and cruel. If nothing else, if he is victorious in his quest to exploit the masses, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. Urbantechie's teachings appeal to people who are fearful about the world's political and economic situation and long for simple solutions to complex problems. However true that is, when Urbantechie says that antiheroism and extremism are identical concepts, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound.

Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "It is a cardinal principle that Urbantechie's insinuations are a threat to the freedoms enjoyed by all free citizens of the world." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that if we let Urbantechie wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. Even by Urbantechie's own account, someone once said to me, "I wish slovenly dirtbags like Urbantechie's assistants would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.

Will wayward disloyal anthropophagi ever report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding Urbantechie's useless snotty refrains? Don't bet on it. So what if Urbantechie hates me for pointing out that to the fullest extent that my age and health will permit, I will convince the government to clamp down hard on his manuscripts? Let him hate me. I consider such hatred a mark of honor, a mark of distinction. Which brings me to my point. He wants nothing less than to advocate irascible screeds, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his reprehensible hatchet jobs.

I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: Urbantechie is inherently putrid, eccentric, and ridiculous. Oh, and he also has a vexatious mode of existence. If we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain. I like to speak of Urbantechie as "parasitic". That's a reasonable term to use, I feel, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, in the near future, his lies will be exposed and the truth can be spread. So what's the connection between that and his obiter dicta? The connection is that Urbantechie is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally self-pitying ebullitions. Let me put it this way: I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Urbantechie of planning to destroy everything beautiful and good. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that the really interesting thing about all this is not that he has never been accused of objectivity. The interesting thing is that his "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is bleeding-heart, because it leaves no room for compromise. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me deal with Urbantechie appropriately, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.

Urbantechie's epithets are thoroughly disgusting -- so much so, that if there are any children or sensitive people reading this letter, I suggest that they stop now and not read what I am about to describe. What follows is the story of how Urbantechie can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. In all fairness, if he is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument. As we don our battle fatigues, let's at least be clear about what we're fighting for: Our war is not about reducing the deficit, not about ending welfare for the rich, and not about the largesse or responsibility of private philanthropy. All we want is for his cronies not to block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through. I should add parenthetically that if Urbantechie makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to tell Urbantechie how wrong he is.

Please don't misinterpret that last statement to mean that the purpose of life is self-gratification. That's not at all what it means. Rather, it means that his idiotic claim that racialism and heathenism are identical concepts is just that, an idiotic claim. And for those destructive renegades who want to hide behind the argument that Urbantechie's lackeys are not yellow-bellied hidebound used-car salesmen, but rather, dishonest autocrats, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Alas, the police should lock Urbantechie up and throw away the key. But you knew that already. So let me add that Urbantechie tries to make us think the way he wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. As grumpy as his drug-induced ravings are, crafty spivs (like Urbantechie) are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, even featherbrained brazen Urbantechie clones would think twice before sitting next to someone whose sole dream is to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to create massive civil unrest. (Actually, Urbantechie's henchmen would sooner ally with evil than oppose it, but that's not important now.)

As I've said in the past, he parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the nit-picky tendencies that make Urbantechie want to slow scientific progress. When I say that he expresses a manipulative nostalgia for a uniform, unchallenging, homogeneous society that never really existed, I consider this to mean that he recently stated that the cure for evil is more evil. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary, because he claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to scorn and abjure reason. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Urbantechie's assistants. The truth is that Urbantechie asserts that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. Considering that a day without Urbantechie would be like a day without snivelling opportunism, I find it almost laughable how he remains oblivious to the fact that his morals 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! I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by his helpers, but let me tell you, they're pretty barbaric.

What he doesn't realize is that he has stated that society is supposed to be lenient towards deranged schmucks. That's just pure gnosticism. Well, in Urbantechie's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Urbantechie likes to compare his mottos to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. I want to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. That may seem simple enough, but his hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. But I digress. You don't have to say anything specifically about Urbantechie for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should investigate his truculent principles, ideals, and objectives. I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that power-hungry suborners of perjury with stronger voices than minds would revert to saturnine behavior. But he says that pernicious bums have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely spineless and immoral lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Urbantechie's toadies. There is considerable evidence to show that Urbantechie is serious about wanting to keep us perennially behind the eight ball. No wonder that there is no place in this country where we are safe from his supporters, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack.

I can guarantee the readers of this letter that today, we might have let him seize control of the power structure. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. So far, this letter has merely identified the ways in which Urbantechie's slogans use a philosophical device of asking one question, answering a totally different question, and then applying that answer to the original question. Now, let me shift gears and start telling you about how the objection may still be raised that violence and prejudice are funny. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: Urbantechie says he's going to dispense outright misinformation and flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories in the coming days. Good old Urbantechie. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how contemptible they sound. He is not only avaricious, but he also lacks the self-control necessary to conform his behavior to reasonable norms.

Urbantechie should have instructed his slaves not to harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Of course, it's not quite that simple. Now the surprising news: We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Urbantechie's virulent announcements, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of surly saboteurs.)

His gin-swilling grievances prevent me from getting my work done. Urbantechie then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. While we do nothing, those who take advantage of human fallibility to burn our fair cities to the ground are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we place a high value on honor and self-respect. In a similar vein, Urbantechie has been known to say that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. That notion is so power-drunk, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. To be fair, he dreams of a time when he'll be free to monopolize the press. That's the way he's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't provide some balance to his one-sided pronouncements.

Urbantechie's tirades are perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, the demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something which not only does not exist, but is alien to the human condition. Urbantechie's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., 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 therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. Let's be frank: If it weren't for scornful drug lords, Urbantechie would have no friends.

Still, if you think that he is beyond reproach, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Urbantechie wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. He argues that things have never been better. To maintain this thesis, Urbantechie naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that he never engages in paltry, frightful, or prissy politics.

His expostulations symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Urbantechie can get away with lies (e.g., that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments), because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Urbantechie is lying. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.

It's time to tell the truth about Urbantechie. The first thing I want to bring up is that the encroachment of conceited conclusions into the social fabric of our politics, our institutions, and our laws would give credence to my claim that there is a great temperamental and ideological divide between those who generate alienation and withdrawal and those who debunk the nonsense spouted by Urbantechie's cronies. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that Urbantechie's expedients prevent smallpox, then there is undeniably no hope for you. Believe it or not, throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into factionalism and those who wish to produce a new generation of brutal wimps whose opinions and prejudices, far from being enlightened and challenged, are simply legitimized. Naturally, Urbantechie belongs to the latter category. So we're supposed to give him permission to shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size and hope he's rational enough not to do so? How naive! I use such language purposefully -- and somewhat sardonically -- to illustrate how it has been brought to my attention that he has made some very dangerous assumptions about obstinate authoritarians. While this is truly true, he thinks he can impress us by talking about "anarchoindividualist this" and "transubstantiationalist that". I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that his assumptions are matched in their untenability only by the arrogant fervor with which they are held? Unfortunately, Urbantechie's lewd conjectures neglect to take one important factor into consideration: human nature.

In the strictest sense, Urbantechie's only motivation is an antihumanist attachment to wealth and power. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.

It is apparent to me that if Urbantechie is victorious in his quest to demonize my family and friends, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. His efforts to leach integrity and honor from our souls have touched the lives of every person in this country. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion.

Should we be concerned that he wants to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion? I'll answer that question for you: Yes, we should unquestionably be concerned, because he claims that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. I respond that his lackeys show obsequious deference to him. My point may be made clearer by use of an allegorical tale. Suppose a hypothetical group of three people is standing in a room. One of those people realizes that from the fog and mist of Urbantechie's contrivances rises the leering grimace of pessimism. Another goes on and on about Urbantechie's defeatism-prone expostulations. But the third can't understand why I think this is tragic. In this hypothetical situation, it should be obvious that some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that Urbantechie is secretly scheming to tour the country promoting loquacious imperialism in lectures and radio talk show interviews. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that I have to wonder where he got the idea that it is my view that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is.

Many people are shocked when I tell them that the use of long run-on sentences, bad metaphors, multiple misspellings, and inappropriately-placed $5 words like "disadvantageousness" does not help his cause at all. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that if he wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "labyrinthibranchiate", for example, and expect us to be scared. To most people, the idea that thanks to Urbantechie, callow political movements are experiencing a resurgence around the world is so endemic, so long ingrained, that when others conclude that forbearance and kindly deportment are lost upon him, this merely seems to be affirming an obvious truth. We must also assert with all the sincerity of informed experience and the desperate desire to see our beloved country survive that someone has to be willing to champion the force of goodness against the greed of infernal hermits. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. His henchmen perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Urbantechie. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Urbantechie-induced disaster.

I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that given the amount of misinformation that he is circulating, I must point out that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. We were not put here to take advantage of human fallibility to intensify race hatred, as Urbantechie might feel. Now, lest you jump to the conclusion that he should write off whole sections of society because "it's the right thing to do", I assure you that the poisonous wine of factionalism had been distilled long before he entered the scene. Urbantechie is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. With this in mind, I must defy him.

He says he's not unreasonable, but he's indubitably stinking, and that's essentially the same thing. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that within the deleterious milieu of exclusionism exists the opportunity for Urbantechie to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly-formal rules, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps, but because the main dissensus between me and Urbantechie is that I maintain that every concert that Urbantechie attends rapidly degenerates into a free-for-all of slam dancing and scattered fistfights. He, on t

 

[Sacotool]

I am not writing to agree or disagree with Lord Mike Hunt. What I have to say, however, regards Mike's conscious decision to demand that loyalty to despicable present-day robber barons supersedes personal loyalty. What follows is the story of how he can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation.

My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: If he wanted to, he could rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. He could threaten the common good. And he could fight with spiritual weapons that are as cruel as they are militant. We must not allow Mike to do any of these. He is stepping over the line when he attempts to shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size -- way over the line. And what of it? If he had done his homework, he'd know that I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But today, we might have let Mike form the association in the public's mind between any refrains he disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will speak out against what I call slovenly adolescents. Mike wants nothing less than to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his churlish bait-and-switch tactics. On a similar note, he says that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of clericalism. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.

Almost without exception, Mike and I disagree about our civic duties. I insist that we must do our utmost to protect innocent, little children from abhorrent porn stars like him as expeditiously as possible. Mike, on the other hand, believes that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. I'm sure you get my point here. When surveyed, only two percent of his cronies agreed with the statement, "I wish detestable heinous hatemongers like Mike's lackeys would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness. With this in mind, I must shatter the illusion that Mike can change his pernicious ways. I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "Mike is out of control and must be stopped." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that we've all heard Mike yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear.

His henchmen contend that "it's okay for Mike to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that one of history's clearest lessons is that it is neither possible nor desirable to ignore the issue of solipsism here, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, the poisonous wine of expansionism had been distilled long before Mike entered the scene. Mike is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. Even though he gives flattering titles to his natural distempers, his intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Mike doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false. Despite total incompetence, he is often afflicted with an amazing conceit, which causes him to advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively scary. It strikes me as amusing that he complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! Mike does nothing but complain.

We'd all be in grave danger if he continued to engage in his inimical behavior. Like a verbal magician, he knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. You may make the comment, "What does this have to do with selfish simpletons?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that Mike's worthless opinions prevent me from getting my work done. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence.

One could argue that the crux of the issue is that in every country, there are deceitful twaddlers who are every bit as disgraceful as Mike. This means, in particular, that that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. You might not care that he once used his notoriety, name recognition, and national fund-raising base to preach hatred, but you'd better start caring if you don't want him to overthrow democratic political systems.

I want to keep this brief: It's honestly astounding that he has found a way to work the words "microcinematographic" and "pseudoconglomeration" into his dissertations. However, you may find it even more astounding that he wants to confuse, disorient, and disunify. It gets better: He actually believes that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. I guess no one's ever told him that he is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. I must point out that Mike would have us believe that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. At the same time, to ignore this issue is to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior. That's clear. But if he is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument. I can't predict the future, but I do know this: I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness Mike is mongering. We need to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy.

I want to convince infernal twerps to stop supporting Mike and tolerating his convictions. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because because of Mike's obsession with feudalism, he likes recommendations that challenge all I stand for. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If Mike would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be much easier for me to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. In essence, an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified. After being called "obtuse autocrats" a hundred times or so by Mike and his assistants, my friends and I have reached the conclusion that if we contradict Mike, we are labelled contemptuous drugged-out-types. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms.

If he wants to till the fatuous side of the pessimism garden, let him wear the opprobrium of that decision. Mike, do you feel no shame for what you've done? There can be no doubt that I can guarantee the readers of this letter that time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Mike can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, stir up trouble. He whines about lackluster deranged unbridled-types, yet Mike enthusiastically supports peevish shirkers. Please keep in mind that he apparently wants to use us to fulfill his narrow-minded mission. Why doesn't he point a critical finger at himself? Take, as an example, the way that he wants to undermine liberty in the name of liberty. Well, he spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is tribalism, which says to me that Mike argues that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. 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: His perspective is that he has achieved sainthood. My perspective, in contrast, is that we must decidedly mention a bit about neo-unconscionable miscreants such as Mike. Does that sound extremist? Is it too incompetent for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.

Neither Mike nor his helpers have dealt squarely or clearly with the fact that it would be hard to find anyone who doesn't agree that under the guise of stimulating debate and illuminating diverse perspectives, Mike's credos actually put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. It is common knowledge that we are being insidiously, conspiratorially, and treasonously led by deception, by bribery, by coercion, and by fear to encourage young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their roots, and adopt an uncouth lifestyle. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me make the world safe for democracy, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.

Lord Mike Hunt's litanies are totally disgusting -- so much so, that if there are any children or sensitive people reading this letter, I suggest that they stop now and not read what I am about to describe. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Mike's particularly obtuse form of sexism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of disgusting politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. It strikes me as amusing that he complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! Mike does nothing but complain. I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that I am annoyed by the prolix and sometimes jealous manifestations of rebelliousness against an inherited civilization of which his cronies do not have the slightest understanding. Of course, he has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to let us know exactly what our attitudes should be towards various types of people and behavior. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that almost every day, he outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's unmistakably breathtaking to watch him.

It is important to differentiate between insensitive imbeciles and hidebound half-wits who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Mike's cantankerous communications, or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Mike's lackeys, or who maintain contact with Mike as part of serious and legitimate research. If there's an untold story here, it's that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Mike's pusillanimous gruesome offhand remarks, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to turn random, senseless violence into meaningful action.) If there's a rule, and Mike keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? If the mass news media were actually in the business of covering news rather than molding public attitudes to produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to render unspeakable and unthinkable whole categories of beliefs about power, they would honestly report that most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Mike leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries. Wanting to stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful without any of the obvious repercussions is like wanting a one-sided coin. Which brings us to the harsh reality that must be faced: A person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her sophistries. Mike has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise.

There are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent he has tried to utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques. The other is whether or not Mike is always prating about how individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. (He used to say that honor counts for nothing, but the evidence is too contrary, so he's given up on that score.) Up the ante considerably if you like, Mike, because I simply don't care. Whenever someone tells him not to reward mediocrity, Mike gets all teary-eyed. My, my; how sad. My heart bleeds for him, it really does.

Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that I have nothing more to say on that issue. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that my vision is built on the future, not the past? I could accept, perhaps, commentaries backed by the forces of logic and powerful reasoning. Editorials marked with hypocrisy and contradiction, however, merit none of my respect. It may seem difficult at first to clean up the country and get it back on course again. It is. But if Mike doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. Although he has unfairly depicted me and those who share my beliefs as scamps and boors, we are neither. Yes, Mike's suggestions are unrealistic, but in order to advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals, we must advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most morally crippled manifestations. And that's just the first step. Remember, anyone who thinks that the purpose of life is self-gratification is not living in the real world. To top that off, Mike's machinations are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, many people are shocked when I tell them that attempts to promote the lie of nihilism are a de facto, if not a de jure, example of illogical irrationalism. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that Mike's publications manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. Phase two: create a regime of pouty antiheroism.

It is similarly noteworthy that Mike's claim that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights is factually unsupported and politically motivated. Maybe you, too, want to step on other people's toes, so let me warn you: Mike's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. Mike's pledge not to toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window is merely empty rhetoric, invoked on occasion for theatrical effect but otherwise studiously ignored. If you wonder why I take the stance that I do, it's because Mike has, at times, called me "disdainful" or "morally-questionable". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to paint people of different races and cultures as dirty alien forces undermining the coherent national will.

If he is going to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about his ethics, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, the law of parsimony suggests that his values are as troubling as his insistence that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. And second, racialism doesn't work. So why does Mike cling to it? Let me give you a hint: It disturbs me that these ridiculous sadistic card sharks have so little tolerance for differing points of view. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us, then there is decidedly no hope for you. The grossly fallacious reasoning behind Mike's excuses can be confirmed by some simple fact-checking. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. From what I know of Mike's crusades, he is saying essentially three things:

It's perfectly safe to drink and drive.
Skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius.
Hanging out with treacherous fickle proponents of Fabianism is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience.
Obviously, all three of these are indubitably boisterous.

Mike is typical of disorderly irascible-types in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his rejoinders. Where does the line get drawn? Think about that for a moment. Mike's artifices are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of gangsterism. Mike's vainglorious evil viewpoints make mountains out of molehills. Mike then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.

He says that denominationalism and Maoism are identical concepts. The inference is that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. I'm happy to report that I can't follow that logic. Although the themes in his perorations are limited, his perversions 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! Also let me just say that the problem with Mike is not that he's militant. It's that he wants to make higher education accessible only to those in the higher echelons of society. While invidious vigilantes claim to defend traditional values, they actually incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem.

He hates it when you say that he and his unpleasant disquisitions should be shunned. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime, if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you. You know what I mean? One could imagine that some good might come from letting Mike perpetuate the myth that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. But the only one whose imagination is vivid enough is Mike.

It's somewhat tricky to derail his superstitious little schemes, especially since the media in this country tend to ignore historical connections and are reluctant to analyze ideological positions or treat a fringe political group seriously. What is happening between his henchmen and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a worthless attack on our most cherished institutions. 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 Lord Mike Hunt, Mike-inspired versions of animalism, etc., please tell me, so I can write an even stronger letter next time.


I want to share with you a few of the tentative conclusions I've reached regarding Lord Mike Hunt's shenanigans. And I stress the word "tentative," because the subject of what motivates Mike is tricky and complex. First, the misinformation: Mike suggests that fogyism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. Where the heck did he come up with that? He can blame me for the influx of refractory blusterers if it makes him feel better, but it won't help his cause any.

If you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Never mind that Mike has more understanding of beer and milk regulations than of farsighted plans for the future. What's really important is that this will become even more obvious in the years just ahead. That's clear. But one of Mike's cronies once said, "There's no difference between normal people like you and me and bestial malodorous blowhards." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that Mike plans to unleash an unparalleled wave of denominationalism. He has instructed his lackeys not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Mike knows he has something to hide.

Mike claims that his stratagems can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. This is a very effrontive and unconstructive view and moreover, is wrong in many ways. As another disquieting tidbit, the following must be stated: I must ask that his henchmen build a sane and healthy society free of his destructive influences. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals. I'm willing to accept that antidisestablishmentarianism, as a social philosophy, is perfidious. I'm even willing to accept that as witnesses to mankind's inner dissatisfaction, we must replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose. But his bons mots 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!

I'll go over that again: My purpose here is not to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by the worst classes of directionless stool pigeons there are. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like Mike understate the negative impact of autism. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. Even if we accepted his undertakings, so what? Does that mean that Mike's press releases are not worth getting outraged about? Of course not. Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting Mike desecrate religious objects. While it is reasonable to expect that each liberated mind that examines all of the evidence is a break in the chains that bind us all, it remains that I should note that if he wants to expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate, let him wear the opprobrium of that decision.

I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But no matter what else we do, our first move must be to alert everyone that I'm not sure whether to classify Mike's philippics under "paranoia" or "ignorance". That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also weaken the critical links in Mike's nexus of stolid execrable anti-intellectualism. Mike just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to lower this country's moral tone and depreciate its commercial integrity." Only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less self-satisfied than Mike. I have just one word for him: anticonstitutionally. If Fate desired that Mike make a correct application of what he had read about neopaganism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the meddlesome fool would otherwise never in all his life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, Mike's obnoxious artifices are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of alarmism are blooming all around us.

Before explaining why detestable dunderheads cause insurmountable trouble for us, I must first let him know, in no uncertain terms, that I regret not writing this letter sooner. None but the disrespectful can deny that as that last sentence suggests, Mike is trying to overthrow democratic political systems. His mission? To waffle on all the issues. All the same, he argues that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. To maintain this thesis, Mike naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that human life is expendable. He sometimes uses the word "anthropomorphical" when describing his tactics. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response.

Almost every day, Mike outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's indisputably breathtaking to watch him. If you think about it, he thinks it would be a great idea to go to great lengths to conceal his true aims and mislead the public. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.

Time cannot change Mike's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Mike can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, brand me as repressive. There's no mystery about it, no more room for fairy tales, just the knowledge that he has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. As far back as I can remember, Mike has pitted loan sharks against undesirables and big-mouths against saboteurs. Still, he claims that honor counts for nothing. I respond that I am annoyed by the unregenerate and sometimes delirious manifestations of rebelliousness against an inherited civilization of which his assistants do not have the slightest understanding.

What he doesn't realize is that his assertions may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into foul-mouthed boosterism. It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, frequently wish to tell Mike that his helpers have been trained, organized, and motivated to produce a large number of utterly distasteful extravagancies, most unrestrained indecencies, and, above all, the most brazen blasphemies against everything that I hold most sacred and most dear. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. Many people respond to his uncivilized recommendations in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we tell it like it is. This march into raving Comstockism is not happening by mere chance. It is not, as many craven lummoxes insist, the result of the natural, inevitable course of things. It is happening as a direct result of Mike's cynical canards.

It's a well-known fact that selfish swindlers tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality. It's an equally well-known fact that Mike should have instructed his toadies not to set the hoops through which we all must jump. When logic puts these two facts together, the necessary result is an understanding that if he makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to give peace a chance. Is it possible for those who defend dastardly revisionism to make their defense look more ignominious than it currently is? Efforts to dismantle the guard rails that protect society from the callow elements in its midst are not vestiges of a former era. They are the beginnings of a phenomenon which, if permitted to expand unchecked, will keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. Lord Mike Hunt's supporters believe that those rights and protections which give us voice in a democratic society are the cause of antiheroism and social chaos and must be thwarted or dismantled. So I give you this letter. I hope it helps.


In my last letter, I claimed that few people realize that by now, we are all more than familiar with Lord Mike Hunt's sullen headstrong pranks, and that claim is even more true now. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, honor means nothing to Mike. Principles mean nothing to Mike. All he cares about is how to sensationalize all of the issues. Personally, I don't expect him to give up his crusade to violate values so important to our sense of community. But we'll see. His cronies are unified under a common goal. That goal is to exploit other cultures for self-entertainment. I have just one word for Mike: counterrevolutionize.

Above all, whenever a will-o'-the-wisp of conformism, however unreal, turns up anywhere, he is off at a trot. Once you understand his tactics, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Mike condone universal oppression.

In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the tricks of disgusting thought police, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant epigrams. He thinks that his crusades prevent smallpox. However, he is determined to put as little thought as possible into solving the undeniable problems that our society is still facing with regard to militarism. Am I the only one who makes that observation? Of course not. But perhaps I express it more directly, more candidly, and far less euphemistically than what I call invidious mouthpieces for ignominious communism.

I agree that you have my word that Mike's assertion that he is a perpetual victim of injustice serves only to illustrate his ignorance and poorly hidden bigotry. But I also think that he is unable to use the English language effectively or correctly. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that he says that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life.

Although Mike has never read carefully anything I've written, his artifices 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 his attempts to assuage the hungers of his lackeys with servings of fresh scapegoats are much worse than mere neocolonialism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. On a completely different tack, 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 the next time he decides to grant the worst kinds of subversive nutcases there are the keys to the kingdom, he should think to himself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? Eccentric sensationalism is the shadow cast on society by Mike's orations, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. Some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that Mike is secretly scheming to poke and pry into every facet of our lives. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that his generalizations have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung.

Do his henchmen condemn his hypocrisy? No, that would be the correct and logical thing to do. Instead, they flout all of society's rules. In other words, this is not the first time I've wanted to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by Mike and his assistants. But it is the first time I realized that he has commented that black is white and night is day. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. I cannot compromise with him; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him, and with a warning he must certainly take to heart: It's socially-inept for him to create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues. Or perhaps I should say, it's gutless. There are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent Mike has tried to use both overt and covert deceptions to suppress people's instinct and intellect. The other is whether or not even if one is opposed to ignorant cynicism (and I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am), then surely, I and Mike part company when it comes to the issue of narcissism. He feels that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with, while I believe that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his politics. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that by refusing to act, by refusing to tell you a little bit about him and his cynical notions, we are giving him the power to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women.

It's possible that Mike doesn't realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of sesquipedalianism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. What is happening between his helpers and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a feral attack on our most cherished institutions. It troubles and amazes me to think that he commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions, because that makes it easy for him to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what he has planned for the future. The notion that Mike can be reformed into an upright and honorable person may be a pleasant and attractive thought. But people who believe that this can happen should ask it of Santa Claus, in whom they doubtless also believe.

Should we be concerned that he wants to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a noxious coterie of parasitism? I'll answer that question for you: Yes, we should indeed be concerned, because there are three fairly obvious problems with his smears, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to give peace a chance. First, inequality does not beget equality. Second, to forestall his prudish crotchety stances, it would be immensely helpful to have more people understand that only the assembled and concentrated might of a national passion rearing up in its strength can build a sane and healthy society free of his destructive influences. And third, his eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity. And Mike's vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that laws are meant to be broken?) Sure, even stolid control freaks may have some good points, but I have yet to find one. I am not in any way placing the blame on Mike for abominable protestors who obstruct things. That notwithstanding, Mike is still culpable for plotting to spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras. If he had done his homework, he'd know that the gloss that his toadies put on his modes of thought unfortunately does little to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. Now, why all this fuss about a few unrealistic proposed social programs? Simply put, it's because in a tacit concession of defeat, Mike is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his superstitious screeds have failed at.

He has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and permit rude mendicants to rise to positions of leadership and authority -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. I just want to address the continued social injustice shown by the most illogical quacks I've ever seen. That's why I propose, argue, cajole, plead, wheedle, and joke about ways to take advantage of a rare opportunity to do what needs to be done. I feel that Mike will decidedly steal the fruits of other people's labor in a lustrum or two. I base this confident prediction on, among other things, the fact that his language is turgid and incomprehensible. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me.

The problem, as I see it, is not a question of who the scalawags of this society are, but rather that Mike wants nothing less than to spew forth ignorance and prejudice, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his jaundiced "compromises". Simply put, his intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Mike doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false. Before you read this letter, you might have thought that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. Now you know that Lord Mike Hunt's sophistries are steeped in disorderly fascism.

As they look over the world's painful panorama of war and terror, some people conclude that it is too late, that no amount of information or activity could possibly hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse. But those who take that pessimistic view understand neither Lord Mike Hunt nor his current rung on the ladder to total power. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: If you think that it is Mike's moral imperative to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly-formal rules, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Mike wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. Decisively, he asserts that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, Mike's bait-and-switch tactics are mired in featherbrained militarism. We can therefore extrapolate that by allowing Mike to scrawl pro-factionalism graffiti over everything, we are allowing him to play puppet master.

Perhaps if he thought about it, he'd realize that there are some unforgiving savage blusterers who are reckless. There are also some who are venal. Which category does Mike fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". He is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his notions. How can someone who claims to be so educated and so open-minded dare to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests? Whether or not you realize this, we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we indeed have to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy.

Some readers may doubt that Mike is lawless enough to use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. So let me provide some evidence. But before I do, let me just say that 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.

I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by his cronies, but let me tell you, they're pretty illogical. His lackeys believe a conspiracy of crude New Age scatterbrains control banking, foreign policy, and the media, and everyone with half a brain understands that. I know the following is an incredibly cheap shot, but statements like, "Mike will fail if we unite" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. His politics are continually evolving into more and more militant incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how bookish moochers (like Mike) are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, certain facts are clear. For instance, after hearing about Mike's juvenile attempts to denigrate and discard all of Western culture, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level. We should note, of course, that what I've written about Mike doesn't prove anything in itself. It's only suggestive, but it does make a good point that it must be reemphasized that boosterism is correctly defined by its bleeding-heart style, structure, and methods, not by its stated or apparent ideological premises or goals. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

What is happening between his henchmen and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a pugnacious attack on our most cherished institutions.

As far back as I can remember, he has pitted airheads against rascals and sybarites against bigamists. I am familiar with Mike's goals, I understand how he operates, I have long recognized his tactics, and I know just about where Mike now stands on the ladder to total power. I can therefore say that, unhesitatingly, he insists that he can change his sordid ways. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject.

We must stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that he can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of a foul gang of mad Philistines. By "we", I mean all the hundreds of thousands who fundamentally long for the same thing, without, as individuals, finding the words to describe outwardly what they inwardly visualize. It is clear from what I have already written that if I seem a bit disgraceful, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with him on his own level.

Put simply, Mike thinks it's good that his complaints exploit the masses. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: His assistants often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. It is hard to decide what is stronger in him: his incredible stupidity as far as any real knowledge or ability is concerned, or the abysmal insolence of Mike's behavior. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally-produced exposé is irresistible to grumpy card sharks who want to meddle in everyone else's affairs. Alas, if you don't think that clericalism, as a social philosophy, is loud, then think again. It would please Mike greatly to wreck our country, derail our civilization, and threaten the human race with extinction. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time he tried to control your bank account, your employment, your personal safety, and your mind.

As I remove the veil of ignorance I have lived behind, I find that if I want to lose my temper, that should be my prerogative. I really don't need him forcing me to. Every time Mike tries, he gets increasingly successful in his attempts to boss others around. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. I would like to digress here. Domineering nonentities like him always lie. Even an occasional truth is intended only to cover up a bigger falsification and is therefore, itself, a deliberate untruth.

On that note, let me say that it disturbs me that these soulless hackers have so little tolerance for differing points of view. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that it strikes me as amusing that Mike complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. Quite simply, his crusades all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. Already, some vicious twaddlers have begun to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion, and with terrifying and tragic results. What proposed social programs will follow from their camp is anyone's guess. I would like to close by saying that Lord Mike Hunt thinks nothing of violating the spirit of an indigenous people whose art and songs and way of life are proof that I'm not sure whether to classify Mike's modes of thought under "paranoia" or "ignorance".



In this letter, I'm not going to argue that Lord Mike Hunt's scribblings are attributable to an ignorance born of fear. Nor am I going to argue that even batty suborners of perjury would think twice before sitting next to someone whose sole dream is to distract attention from more important issues. I'm not going to argue those factors, because they're irrelevant. Instead, I will say only that other duplicitous loudmouths are also consumed with a desire to represent heaven as hell and, conversely, the most wretched life as paradise. I assume you already know that anyone who says that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly can be branded as both intellectually-stultified and snotty, but I have something more important to tell you.

He maintains that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. Even if this were so, Mike would still be unpatriotic. But there is something grievously wrong with those offensive insecure sluggards who strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality. Shame on the lot of them! He and his cronies are puppets of unimaginative ratbags. This implies that I am skeptical of efforts to produce a rash definition of "mediterraneanization". But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that if he were to feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly narrow-minded agendas, it would be a grave insult to everyone who devoted his or her life's work to helping the less fortunate? The answer is that if we contradict him, we are labelled malign converts to hooliganism. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms.

Mike's attempts to beat plowshares into swords are much worse than mere sadism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. In a tacit concession of defeat, Mike is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his neurotic artifices have failed at. If one needs a sign that he is prissy, consider that if he gets his way, I might very well adopt a new world-view.

But it goes further than that. The present controversy demands honest dialogue, not crude attempts at demonization. Is it any wonder that one loses count of the number of times Mike has tried to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide Maoism? He is out to talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. Here, too, we can see how there are three fairly obvious problems with his "compromises", each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to do what comes naturally. First, this cannot go on much longer. Second, his anecdotes are despised by everyone but primitive nymphomaniacs. And third, in public, he vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, he never fails to create massive civil unrest.

Even though supposedly distancing himself from mendacious bloodthirsty nitwits, Mike has really not changed his spots at all. I must emphasize that he teaches workshops on antagonism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. There are some truths that are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen, or at least not recognized, by ordinary people. One noteworthy example is the truism that he is utterly mistaken if he believes that everything is happy and fine and good.

While fickle braggarts have previously relied on violence to get their way, their new manipulation of discourteous hastily-mounted campaigns has combined with violence to vilify our history, character, values, and traditions. This is a classic example of a zero-sum game. 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 Mike wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "epididymodeferential", for example, and expect us to be scared. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, do not wish to evaluate paternalism here, though I suspect that when Mike was first found trying to impair the practice of democracy, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Mike is planning to force his moral code on the rest of us, I'm downright terrified.

The outcome of the struggle will ultimately be decided based on the number and influence of people fully informed about his inclinations, committed to his defeat, and organized under sound leadership. But there's the rub; his cronies argue, against a steady accretion of facts of already mountainous proportions, that we'd all be better off if they'd just rip off everyone and his brother. Let me rephrase that: We can divide his tricks into three categories: blasphemous, xenophobic, and vapid. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Mike will empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people. And to overcome these fears, we must raise unbridled turncoats out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. There is a vast empirical literature on this subject. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with patronizing ignominious flag burners when you least expect it. If I may be permitted to make an observation, it strikes me as amusing that Mike complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain.

I insist that his witticisms do not come without a price, even though that presupposes a dialectical intertwinement to which a scornful turn of mind is impervious. Some critics have called him hidebound. A handful insist he's domineering. Mike's lackeys, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century. I know very few temperamental inimical fiends personally, but I know them well enough to surmise that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Mike. We were not put here to defy the law of the land, as Mike might claim. His statements such as "Mike is a perpetual victim of injustice" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual.

I myself contend that people who work with his henchmen discredit themselves. With this central point cleared up, the rest of Mike's arguments are rendered moot, as I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. Even when Mike isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to fight with spiritual weapons that are as raving as they are twisted. Many people aren't aware of how foul-mouthed his smear tactics are, so let's present a little breakdown. First off, I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I act honorably. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that Lord Mike Hunt has a penchant for counterinsurgency and clandestine operations.


The furor over gangsterism has been an acutely frustrating cultural phenomenon: pregnant with great possibility, touching on vital and fascinating issues, yet initially formulated in a one-sided and venal manner that will turn over our country to patronizing phlegmatic bullies by the end of the decade. What's important to note, however, is that Lord Mike Hunt's pronouncements share many of the same characteristics. For starters, Mike is a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. It is quite true, of course, that his cronies can be stereotyped as rabid mean-spirited tools of prepackaged political ideology and iconoclastic antagonists to boot. But he should clarify his point, so people like you and me can tell what the heck he's talking about. Without clarification, his utterances sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don't really seem to make any sense.

So, what am I doing about that? I'm educating. I'm trying to reveal the nature and activity of Mike's lackeys and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. Because "phoneticogrammatical" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must make it clear that now that I've been exposed to Mike's theories, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps by allowing Mike to criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle, we are allowing him to play puppet master. He has been known to say that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. That notion is so unambitious, I hardly know where to begin refuting it.

Mike has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to boss others around. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that his stories about frotteurism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like him put sadistic thoughts in our children's minds. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. All that we have achieved may now be lost, if not in the bright flames of metagrobolism, then in the dense smoke of the confused unenlightened arguments promoted by mad kleptomaniacs. At no time in the past did the worst types of vainglorious yahoos there are shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. Mike's avaricious infantile stratagems leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children his enemies?

Mike can go on saying that a book of his writings would be a good addition to the Bible, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such insecure dreams just now. We don't have to stand for this! To parody the old song, "Fish gotta swim, Mike gotta commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility." He constantly insists that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. But he contradicts himself when he says that officious blackguards are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive.

Due to the power relationship between the dominator and the dominated, I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. Mike's declamations 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! While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a garrulous orthodoxy, Mike himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of lackadaisical narcissism. I could substantiate what I'm saying about amateurish invidious serpents, but I don't feel that that's necessary, since we all know what they're like. If you think that his convictions can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Mike wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. The irrationalism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically-motivated, brilliantly-publicized, uncompromising attack on progressive ideas.

At the same time, the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely-accepted, notion that Mike has a "special" perspective on commercialism which carries with it a "special" right to usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times. It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that if he is victorious in his quest to draw unsuspecting used-car salesmen into the orbit of debauched crooks, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. What Mike does in private is none of my business. But when he tries to drive us into a state of apoplexy, I object. If he isn't ornery, I don't know who is.

It is imperative that all of us in this community give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time. This cannot occur unless there is a true spirit of respect and an appreciation of differences. The magnitude of Mike's lies should disgust anyone who has an even moderate education. However true that is, the tone of Mike's sophistries is eerily reminiscent of that of juvenile lunkheads of the late 1940s, in the sense that I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: If Mike is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument.

On the issue of racism, Mike is wrong again. Sure, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, don't think he understands what defeatism means to all the people it hurts. But Mike has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that I am shocked and angered by his putrid bookish improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. Mike is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, Mike throws principle to the wind.

He ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

Fact: The most believable explanation for many of the destructive trends in politics, economics, morality, and other key areas over the past two years is that a secretive, incredibly bleeding-heart, well-organized movement has been striving relentlessly to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals.

Fact: The extent of collaboration between him and laughable nonentities is currently unknown, but presumably significant.

Fact: Life is too short to have to put up with hopeless boeotians.

In addition, he maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. In whatever form it takes -- magazines, music, propaganda, or any other form -- Mike's rhetoric is designed to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow. This is not the same as saying that Mike's cowardly attacks not only demean Mike's victims, they dehumanize all of us and are contrary to the principles of a free society, although that, too, is true. But there I go again, claiming that Mike says that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.

He is utterly -- and I mean utterly -- ignorant. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. Mike proclaims at every opportunity that he'd never impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Now that you've read this letter, let me challenge you, the reader, not just to help me call a spade a spade, but also to educate others about what I've written.

 

[DataFly]

I can on be pushid so far affeh readigg such rediculous c'plaits bef'e I must write one of my own.

In the, duh uhh, text dat folls, duuhhhh, I won't bodeh discussigg the, uh uh uh, flaws in Mr. Urbantechie's logic, cuz he decided doesn't use any logic. Dgust look at de bill of fare sehbid up in recent moobies 'n telebishun programs, duuhhhh, 'n you will hard be aggle t' deny dat it's irrelebant dat my allegashuns are 100% true. He distrusts my inf'mashun 'n argumins 'n will f'ebeh maitain his current opinions. Eben if his facks webuhre reliaggle, dey webuhre gadehid seleckibe and den manipulatid toerds faborid conclushuns. Urbantechie's statemins such as "Fabianism is a noggle goal" indicate dat webuh're not all lookigg at the, ERRRR, same set of facks. F'tunate, dese facks are easy behifiaggle wid a trip t' de libr by any open 'n honest indibidual. Lee me lone! As it turns out, uh, Urbantechie is tryigg t' exploit de masses. His misshun, duh...uh...? T' ruin my entire day. F' brebity, I won't commin furdeh on dat, uh, but radeh on the, uh, the way dat he has a strategy. His strategy is t' infiltrate de media wid the, uh, express purpose of disseminatigg bitteh inf'mashun. Whehebeh you encounteh dat strategy, you are dealigg wid Urbantechie. Let no one say dat he shudd make our country spiritual blind cuz "it's de rite digg t' do". No, dis is rotten bigilantism 'n must be regardid as an attempp to inflict untold misehy, suffehigg, 'n distress. Um uh. It may be obbious but shudd nonedeless be acsmehtsd dat his remonstrashuns are rife wid contradicshuns 'n difficulties; dey're entire lokacious, duuhhhh, meet no obbuhjeckibe kitehia, 'n are unsuitid f' a supposed educatid populashun. Gawlly!And as if dat wun't enough, it wudd be a mistake t' beliebe dat laws are meant t' be broke. Sad, lack of space prebents me from elaboratigg furdeh. Gawlly!It is kite true, uh uh uh, of cusse, uh uh uh, dat Urbantechie has been willigg t' sup wid the, uhhh, debil ebehy time he felt he cudd profit pehsonal from it, GEEEHEEHEEE.But if Urbantechie is goigg t' talk bou' higheh standards, duuhhhh, den he need t' libe by dose higheh standards. He uses de behy intelleckual tools he kiticizes, duuhhhh, name consekenshulist argumins radeh dan argumins bou' trud or falsity. Urbantechie opehates on an innernashunal scale t' conbiss innocent children t' foll a pad dat leads on to a life of crime, uh uh uh, disappoitmin, 'n destruckion. It's on fittigg, dehef'e, uh uh uh, dat webuh, too, work on an innernashunal scale, uh uh uh, but t' strengden our roots so webuh can webuhadeh the, ERRRR, storms dat dreaten our foundashun. De firss reponse t' dis from his cronies is pehhaps dat human beiggs shudd be appraisid by de numbeheh of diggs 'n de amount of money dey possess instead of by deir innernal balue 'n achiebemins. Um uh.Wrong. Dgust glass at the, uh uh uh, facks: His opinions represent a backerd step of hundreds of years, duuhhhh, a backerd step into a chasm wid no bottom sabe the, uh, enbbless darkness of dead. I'd like t' finish wid a kote from a pribate e-mail message sent t' me by a close friend of mine: "Mr. Urbantechie's genius f' crime, uh uh uh, skalor, 'n disordeh has oss again assehtid itself".

 

[dennilfloss]

Err, I have no beef with Anandtech!

Methinks the Complaint Generator rides again.

Always A Few Things (Dana)

 

[DataFly]

Sorry about the lack of spacing...the Dialectizer screwed it up.:Q

 

[chipbgt]

I am writing to express my dismay and concern over Urbantechie's crafty expostulations. Let me cut to the chase: The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Urbantechie. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to denounce those who claim that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Some critics have called Urbantechie self-pitying. A handful insist he's detestable. His cronies, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century. The underlying message is that people tell me that his comments reflect several layers of moral concern for many religions. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. Does he remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people he made fun of just so others would like him more? Urbantechie's long-term goals represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death.

You may be shocked to hear this, but if I said that the cure for evil is more evil, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being thoroughly honest if I said that if one believes statements like, "Public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't," one is, in effect, supporting what I call incoherent bloodsuckers. No matter how bad you think Urbantechie's ravings are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. The next time Urbantechie decides to convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime, disappointment, and destruction, he should think to himself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? What do you think of this: His modus operandi is to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science?

He has a staggering number of mad lackeys. One way to lower their numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified. Urbantechie maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. I'm willing to accept that he is fiddling while Rome burns. I'm even willing to accept that he has nothing but contempt for responsibility, duty, and honor. But we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because at no time in the past did self-aggrandizing masters of deceit shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them.

Urbantechie is not only callous, but he also lacks the self-control necessary to conform his behavior to reasonable norms. Might I suggest that he search for a hobby? It seems Urbantechie has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk. He has endorsed the idea of rotten faddism in a number of very specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of his henchmen's decision to create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and certainly influences legislators and policy makers, conventional wisdom states that these issues are actually political issues. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.

For the sake of concreteness: All the deals Urbantechie makes are strictly one-way. Urbantechie gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Let me back up a little: His expedients all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that blasphemous recidivists are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Urbantechie has convinced a lot of people that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.

While his pranks may seem sullen, they're in agreement with his noxious editorials. I have seen what he is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid and I am very angry. The main dissensus between me and Urbantechie is that I suspect that Urbantechie was warned by his own assistants not to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world. Urbantechie, on the other hand, contends that everyone and everything discriminates against him -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls.

As stated earlier, he is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. Urbantechie's belief systems disgust and infuriate me. But the problems with Urbantechie's invectives don't end there.

Urbantechie floats with the tide of paltry revanchism, especially when driven by the gravitational pull of factionalism. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that he is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally stupid philippics. The objection may still be raised that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about his whiney put-downs. For starters, let's say that "denominationalism" is "that which makes Urbantechie yearn to shame my name."

However, his helpers are delighted with the potential for violent confrontation. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time he tried to distract people from serious analysis of the situation. There's a little-known truth that isn't readily acknowledged by the worst sorts of virulent protestors I've ever seen: I must ask that Urbantechie's toadies mention a bit about treacherous uncivilized prophets of communism such as Urbantechie. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to foster suspicion -- if not hatred -- of "outsiders".

You are, I'm sure, well aware that his bons mots are pockmarked with brown-nosing sesquipedalianism and other assorted ills. But did you know that he is a shoo-in for this year's awarding of "most sophomoric use of autism"? Pardon me for not being able to empathize with the worst kinds of fastidious mendicants I've ever seen, but if he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Do you really think Urbantechie will ever learn from his mistakes? More to the point, if one could get a Ph.D. in Metagrobolism, he would be the first in line to have one. A final word: You do not need to be ungrateful to know that Urbantechie has a one-track mind.

While there are probably a lot of people out there who would be quite content never to read another letter about Urbantechie, Urbantechie's witticisms are not just retroactively ineffective but proactively inert. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current situation is. If we let him offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to shatter the adage that Urbantechie's sentiments are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos.

I have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate. But you knew that already. So let me add that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions. Despite the fact that as soon as Urbantechie's cronies turn the trickle of jujuism into a tidal wave, their anecdotes will cease to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community and instead will pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a rude coterie of barbarism, I would never take a job working for Urbantechie. Given his wrongheaded excuses, who would want to?

Racism doesn't work. So why does Urbantechie cling to it? Let me give you a hint: We mustn't let Urbantechie make incorrect leaps of logic. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. To leave us in the lurch is an injustice. How can Urbantechie deprive people of dignity and autonomy and then turn around and shed tears for those who got hurt as a result? There is an obvious inconsistency here. When asked to mend his ways, he will give people a wink and a smile, but when the wheels begin to turn, it's business as usual.

So what if he hates me for pointing out that he is a small part of a large movement that seeks to muster enough force to condone illegal activities? Let him hate me. I consider such hatred a mark of honor, a mark of distinction. My usual response to his protests is this: We have come full-circle. However, such a response is much too glib and perhaps a little unscrupulous, so let me be more specific. Time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Urbantechie can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively unregenerate.

It's our responsibility to clean up the country and get it back on course again. That's the first step in trying to deal with the relevant facts, and it's the only way to expose some of his evil deeds. If Urbantechie had done his homework, he'd know that what he 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 viperine activity. He may have the right to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. He may have the right to criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle. But Urbantechie crosses the line when he uses his bully pulpit to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue. I guess that my take on this is that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to his platitudes. It applies to everything Urbantechie says and does. The salient point here is that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still claim that it scares the bejeezus out of me to know that he might make things worse by the end of the decade, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. We have an obligation to tell Urbantechie what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. And we have an obligation to take action.

While there are many unsympathetic prigs, Urbantechie is the most jaded of the lot. We must decidedly preserve the peace. Does that sound extremist? Is it too perverted for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.

In order to understand the motivation behind his generalizations, it is important first to address the continued social injustice shown by tendentious lawless pinheads. It is important to differentiate between the most besotted scamps you'll ever see and self-indulgent flighty adolescents who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Urbantechie's vulgar blanket statements, or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Urbantechie's lackeys, or who maintain contact with Urbantechie as part of serious and legitimate research. We must reverse the devolutionary course he has set for us. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties.

Think about this: some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that when one looks at this bad-tempered parade of dotty loudmouths, one instantly thinks of the word "uncharacteristically". But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. Not only have spineless recidivists decided to glorify their personal attacks by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their bromides are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. A great many of us don't want Urbantechie to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. But we feel a prodigious pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his testy scribblings.

Every time he tries, Urbantechie gets increasingly successful in his attempts to replace love and understanding with particularism and frotteurism. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. He is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Urbantechie and his repressive henchmen. Responsible citizens indeed do not utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques.

While we may all pray for a perfect utopian world in which everyone is holding hands and singing "We Are the World" in perfect harmony, the reality is that an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I maintain that it is not yet strategically justified. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with anal-retentive intrusive ogres. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to fight with spiritual weapons that are as hypocritical as they are delirious. I don't mean to imply that for every dollar we spend to better our communities, Urbantechie'll spend a thousand more to use both overt and covert deceptions to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion, but it's true, nonetheless. He is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, he throws principle to the wind. Urbantechie thrives on the victimization of others. And that's the honest truth.

So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that the trouble with such disingenuous avaricious stupid-types is that they intend to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. Before I say anything else, let me remind Urbantechie that there are three fairly obvious problems with his smears, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to raise unimaginative proletariats out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. First, his choleric viewpoints are to politics what the blitzkrieg was to international diplomacy. Second, the little I've written so far already buttresses the assertion that within the deleterious milieu of feudalism exists the opportunity for him to hinder economic growth and job creation. And third, if we don't soon tell him to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his hotheaded declamations, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so. Although he has a certain fondness for incoherent ugly wheeler-dealers, Urbantechie spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is ageism, which says to me that this is a free country, and I think we ought to keep it that way. He believes that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. That's just wrong. He further believes that we should avoid personal responsibility. Wrong again! There is no time and little temptation for those who work hard on their jobs and their responsibilities to caricature and stereotype people from other cultures. The denial of this fact only proves the effrontery, and also the stupidity, of supercilious cowards.

It must be reemphasized that I have no idea why Urbantechie wannabees have sprouted across the country like mushrooms after a downpour. And while we're on the subject, I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But one does not have to give me reason to hide in a closet in order to clean up the country and get it back on course again. It is a capricious person who believes otherwise. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who subject human beings to indignities, and there are those who begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action. Urbantechie fits neatly into the former category, of course.

Although confused brainless grizzlers are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are increasing in size and fervor. As someone who enjoys brandishing words like "semiprofessionalized" and "counterdemonstration" as a smoke screen to hide his machinations' inherent paradoxes, he must surely be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to his treacherous beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). Continue to appease Urbantechie, and he will decisively leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements, in order to solve the big problems with him, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must place a high value on honor and self-respect. If anything, I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that he is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but what he 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 imprudent activity. In case you don't know, there is a format Urbantechie should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.

His methods of interpretation are worse than the Black Death of olden times. As long as I live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to respond to his self-fulfilling prophecies. If we let Urbantechie wipe out delicate ecosystems, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to stop defending the xenophobic virulent status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change.

The problem with him is not that he's belligerent. It's that he wants to cause chauvinistic subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. Following this line of logic, it would appear that he is typical of parasitic louts in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his excuses.

Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, Urbantechie has commented that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. He hides behind the carefully managed prevarication that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What demons possessed him to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide revisionism?

Urbantechie has convinced a lot of people that he is omnipotent. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation. If you ask him if it's true that I would like to register my strong objection to his theories, you'll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response.

He insists that the Universe belongs to him by right. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. If the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic.

Shame on Urbantechie for thinking that people like you and me are delirious! Despite his evident lack of grounding in what he's talking about, if, five years ago, I had described a person like Urbantechie to you and told you that in five years, he'd commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge his wild sound bites, you'd have thought me lewd. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how he has two imperatives. The first is to support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery. The second imperative is to get on my nerves.

Not surprisingly, almost every day, he outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's indubitably breathtaking to watch him. Urbantechie keeps telling us that if he kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. Are we also supposed to believe that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of cannibalism? My eventual goal for this letter is to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from anarchism, hooliganism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. I'm counting on you for your support.

To deal stiffly with nutty vagabonds who create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat, we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us. And we must acknowledge that Urbantechie has the gall to think that twisted judgemental simpletons aren't ever silly. To get right down to it, Urbantechie insists that human life is expendable. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. As that last sentence suggests, none of what he says carries any weight. But you knew that already. So let me add that he presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically-motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Urbantechie is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors vitriolic scamps. And here we have the ultimate irony, because we should disabuse Urbantechie of the notion that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Something that I have heard repeated several times from various sources -- a sort of "tag line" for Urbantechie -- is, "We should go out and make bargains with the devil. And when we're done with that, we'll all set the wolf to mind the sheep." This is not a direct quote, nor have I heard it from Urbantechie's lips directly, but several sources have paraphrased the content to me in near-enough ways that I feel fairly confident it actually was said. And to be honest, I have no trouble believing it. I am sorry to have to put this so bluntly, but his treatises are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, he is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul.

Naturally, someone has been giving Urbantechie's brain a very thorough washing, and now Urbantechie is trying to do the same to us. Let's face it: I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens within a short period of time. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to investigate the development of Pyrrhonism as a concept. Although theoretical differences can be drawn between Urbantechie's antihumanist jeremiads and hypersensitive solipsism, these are distinctions without a difference. Urbantechie's pronouncements serve as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of truculent kleptomaniacs.

To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that anger is contagious. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. For that reason, Urbantechie's drug-induced ravings manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of his publications so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of Urbantechie's attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth. Phase two: make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks. My purpose here is not to get my message about Urbantechie out to the world. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Urbantechie's teachings, one is promptly condemned as hopeless, obscene, nerdy, or whatever epithet Urbantechie deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. For the moment, he makes no secret of the fact that many people who follow his politics have come to the erroneous conclusion that narcissism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. The stark truth of the matter is that Urbantechie thinks we want him to clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought. Excuse me, but maybe his protests 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 in the coming days.

The practical struggle which now begins, sketched in broad outlines, takes the following course: Now that I've been exposed to Urbantechie's sermons, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Urbantechie. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that what was morally wrong five years ago is just as wrong today. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What demons possessed Urbantechie to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities? Contrary to the impression that the worst sorts of wrongheaded ruffians I've ever seen offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their machinations. Urbantechie's orations all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that things have never been better. Would we, as thinking people, believe usurers who tried to tell us we're all logorrheic? I say "no."

The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that the last time I told Urbantechie's cronies that I want to lead Urbantechie out of a dream world and back to hard reality, they declared in response, "But all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. Shame on him for thinking that people like you and me are noxious! It should be clear by this point that I want to challenge his callous assumptions about merit. That may seem simple enough, but when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Urbantechie is to blame.

There are some simple truths in this world. First, certain individuals in intelligence and law enforcement agencies may have overlooked some of his more homophobic solutions. Second, he should try being a little more open-minded. And finally, in public, he vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, he never fails to fight with spiritual weapons that are as impolitic as they are lousy.

The really interesting thing about all this is not that to Urbantechie, acting like oppressive unrealistic voluptuaries is a lot of fun. The interesting thing is that if he makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to put to rest demented and power-hungry threats such as Urbantechie's. His reports are a hotbed of teetotalism, yes. But I frequently wish to tell him that you won't hear his lackeys admit that he's contemptible. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. While some of Urbantechie's expostulations are very attractive on the surface and are sincerely entertaining, they ultimately serve to advocate fatalistic acceptance of a primitive new world order.

I undoubtedly reject Urbantechie's demands. Ergo, Urbantechie's pleas are designed to break down ages-old institutions and customs. And they're working; they're having the desired effect. To the best of my knowledge, there are three fairly obvious problems with Urbantechie's values, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to make the world safe for democracy. First, Urbantechie's claims are pure tripe. Second, I once had a nightmare in which Urbantechie was free to pit people against each other. And third, an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified. I just want to say that there is a format he should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.

Plan to join Urbantechie's camp? Be sure to check your conscience at the door. Before I knew anything about Urbantechie, I was once an onlooker at a few of his mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his henchmen or the nature of his platitudes. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if he finds a way to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence.

His assistants seem to think that Urbantechie can do no wrong. Let me rephrase that: I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that unforgiving inarticulate carousers with stronger voices than minds would revert to ribald behavior. But it's easy enough to hate Urbantechie any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Urbantechie is up to, things that ought to make a real Urbantechie-hater out of you. First off, he has been known to say that he never engages in cranky, pestilential, or hideous politics. That notion is so lascivious, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. Urbantechie's accusations are so exact in their scheme, so comprehensive in their scope, that sanctimonious bimbos have adopted and embraced them verbatim ac litteratim. Natural law is therefore the fulcrum upon which rests the case that I like to speak of Urbantechie as "pesky". That's a reasonable term to use, I feel, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, he claims that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day. Well, I beg to differ. I feel no shame in writing that this is betrayal of the many by the few. (Actually, it is hard to ignore the impact of his misconduct on our children, our culture, and our national character, but that's not important now.) A final note: As witnesses to mankind's inner dissatisfaction, we must address the continued social injustice shown by scary wackos.

To respond to all of Urbantechie's announcements would take up too much room and time. I would like to address the most nutty ones, though. One of my objectives is to offer true constructive criticism -- listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem. His pleas are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem.

What is happening between his cronies and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a warped attack on our most cherished institutions.

Now, I don't want to overwork the story about how he plans to propitiate the most raving drug lords you'll ever see for later eventualities, so let's just say that he wants nothing less than to keep us hypnotized so we don't recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his asinine mad catch-phrases. Urbantechie offers two principal reasons as to why profits come before people. He argues that (1) he defends the real needs of the working class, and (2) it is hostile to question his perversions. These arguments are invalid for the following reasons: First, he is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens put an end to Urbantechie's evildoing. Responsible citizens indubitably do not hinder economic growth and job creation.

As that last sentence suggests, it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of dirty vermin like him can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that any one believes them. We should give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Urbantechie argues that his views can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. To maintain this thesis, Urbantechie naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. Just to add a little more perspective, if he feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. Urbantechie's arrogance has brought this upon himself. Although Urbantechie is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, he asserts that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.

We mustn't let him turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. Urbantechie's lackeys are not, technically, prurient pettifoggers, but rather baleful crude Machiavellians. I believe that there is a small -- yet not entirely insignificant -- difference. Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to hold Urbantechie responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses? I think we do.

One does not have to bring about a wonderland of nonrepresentationalism in order to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that his quips are more often out of sync with democratic values than aligned with them. It is a cantankerous person who believes otherwise. To use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets has never been something that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, wanted to do. Never.

Urbantechie has stated that the sky is falling. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that things have never been better. Now that's just malign. I oppose, deplore, and disavow discrimination, extremism, and hatred of every kind. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

You might object to my claim that Urbantechie uses vulgar language and makes obscene gestures at those whose opinions differ from his. But bear in mind that whenever there's an argument about Urbantechie's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that corporatism is arguably the most frightening and devastating problem facing us all. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. The objection may still be raised that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that if Urbantechie is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument.

The only weapons he has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. If this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature.

Believe me, I certainly don't want to give Urbantechie a chance to threaten national security. He is bad enough when he's alone, but Urbantechie is even worse when he's joined by ultra-humorless egocentric bloodsuckers. Last I checked, every time he tells his henchmen that his vices are the only true virtues, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. From a public-policy perspective, what we're involved in with him is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it. Thus, in summing up, we can establish the following: 1) Urbantechie respects nothing and no one, and 2) almost every discussion of neocolonialism ignores the critical importance of Urbantechie's narrow-minded sanctimonious epigrams.

Seldom does an event take place which is such an outrage that the silent majority stands up and demands action. But the silent majority is currently demanding that something be done about Urbantechie. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this letter and to Urbantechie himself. He would have us believe that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and what I call foul crybabies. Yeah, right.

He has only half (if that) of the information needed to make an informed decision about cameralism. Surprised? You shouldn't be, because I would sincerely like to comment on his attempt to associate nihilism with particularism. There is no association. You are, I'm sure, well aware that Urbantechie's cronies have the temerity to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with Urbantechie's invectives and then say that everyone else should do the same. But did you know that discrediting ideas by labeling them as contemptuous is an old tradition among Urbantechie's lackeys? I discussed this topic in a previous letter, so I will not go into great detail now, but in public, Urbantechie vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, Urbantechie never fails to denigrate and discard all of Western culture.

You may be shocked to hear this, but to Urbantechie's mind, Urbantechie's exegeses enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. So that means that disingenuous saboteurs and despicable morally-questionable firebrands should rule this country, right? No, not right. The truth is that Urbantechie is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. There are no two ways about it; I have never been in favor of being gratuitously nefarious. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to illustrate the virtues that he lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry. Urbantechie's op-ed pieces are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of blackguardism. Today, we might have let Urbantechie pervert human instincts by suppressing natural feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will resolve a number of lingering problems.

I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to tell Urbantechie what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. If his rodomontades aren't snooty, I don't know what is. For those of you out there who don't know what I'm talking about, let me give you a quick explanation: his statements 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! Urbantechie decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that he fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.

For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that we should bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) I happen to believe that if Urbantechie makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally-produced exposé is irresistible to effete profligate devil-worshippers who want to encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom. His theories represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. In this land which has befriended officious psychics, Urbantechie has conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted, and corrupted, and -- hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of judgemental insurrectionists -- dares to contrive and scheme the death of every principle that has protected him.

He may silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming right after he reads this letter. Let him. Some day, I will provide people the wherewithal to prevent the production of a new crop of doctrinaire oafs. His henchmen care more about speaking, acting, and even thinking like Urbantechie than they care about what makes sense, yet I, for one, find it most unfortunate that this letter had to be written. This sort of vertiginous paradox is well known to most reckless shameless adolescents.

As is so often the case, we can divide his doctrines into three categories: bestial, wild, and cruel. If nothing else, if he is victorious in his quest to exploit the masses, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. Urbantechie's teachings appeal to people who are fearful about the world's political and economic situation and long for simple solutions to complex problems. However true that is, when Urbantechie says that antiheroism and extremism are identical concepts, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound.

Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "It is a cardinal principle that Urbantechie's insinuations are a threat to the freedoms enjoyed by all free citizens of the world." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that if we let Urbantechie wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. Even by Urbantechie's own account, someone once said to me, "I wish slovenly dirtbags like Urbantechie's assistants would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.

Will wayward disloyal anthropophagi ever report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding Urbantechie's useless snotty refrains? Don't bet on it. So what if Urbantechie hates me for pointing out that to the fullest extent that my age and health will permit, I will convince the government to clamp down hard on his manuscripts? Let him hate me. I consider such hatred a mark of honor, a mark of distinction. Which brings me to my point. He wants nothing less than to advocate irascible screeds, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his reprehensible hatchet jobs.

I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: Urbantechie is inherently putrid, eccentric, and ridiculous. Oh, and he also has a vexatious mode of existence. If we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain. I like to speak of Urbantechie as "parasitic". That's a reasonable term to use, I feel, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, in the near future, his lies will be exposed and the truth can be spread. So what's the connection between that and his obiter dicta? The connection is that Urbantechie is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally self-pitying ebullitions. Let me put it this way: I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Urbantechie of planning to destroy everything beautiful and good. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that the really interesting thing about all this is not that he has never been accused of objectivity. The interesting thing is that his "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is bleeding-heart, because it leaves no room for compromise. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me deal with Urbantechie appropriately, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.

Urbantechie's epithets are thoroughly disgusting -- so much so, that if there are any children or sensitive people reading this letter, I suggest that they stop now and not read what I am about to describe. What follows is the story of how Urbantechie can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. In all fairness, if he is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument. As we don our battle fatigues, let's at least be clear about what we're fighting for: Our war is not about reducing the deficit, not about ending welfare for the rich, and not about the largesse or responsibility of private philanthropy. All we want is for his cronies not to block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through. I should add parenthetically that if Urbantechie makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to tell Urbantechie how wrong he is.

Please don't misinterpret that last statement to mean that the purpose of life is self-gratification. That's not at all what it means. Rather, it means that his idiotic claim that racialism and heathenism are identical concepts is just that, an idiotic claim. And for those destructive renegades who want to hide behind the argument that Urbantechie's lackeys are not yellow-bellied hidebound used-car salesmen, but rather, dishonest autocrats, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Alas, the police should lock Urbantechie up and throw away the key. But you knew that already. So let me add that Urbantechie tries to make us think the way he wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. As grumpy as his drug-induced ravings are, crafty spivs (like Urbantechie) are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, even featherbrained brazen Urbantechie clones would think twice before sitting next to someone whose sole dream is to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to create massive civil unrest. (Actually, Urbantechie's henchmen would sooner ally with evil than oppose it, but that's not important now.)

As I've said in the past, he parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the nit-picky tendencies that make Urbantechie want to slow scientific progress. When I say that he expresses a manipulative nostalgia for a uniform, unchallenging, homogeneous society that never really existed, I consider this to mean that he recently stated that the cure for evil is more evil. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary, because he claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to scorn and abjure reason. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Urbantechie's assistants. The truth is that Urbantechie asserts that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. Considering that a day without Urbantechie would be like a day without snivelling opportunism, I find it almost laughable how he remains oblivious to the fact that his morals 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! I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by his helpers, but let me tell you, they're pretty barbaric.

What he doesn't realize is that he has stated that society is supposed to be lenient towards deranged schmucks. That's just pure gnosticism. Well, in Urbantechie's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Urbantechie likes to compare his mottos to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. I want to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. That may seem simple enough, but his hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. But I digress. You don't have to say anything specifically about Urbantechie for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should investigate his truculent principles, ideals, and objectives. I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that power-hungry suborners of perjury with stronger voices than minds would revert to saturnine behavior. But he says that pernicious bums have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely spineless and immoral lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Urbantechie's toadies. There is considerable evidence to show that Urbantechie is serious about wanting to keep us perennially behind the eight ball. No wonder that there is no place in this country where we are safe from his supporters, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack.

I can guarantee the readers of this letter that today, we might have let him seize control of the power structure. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. So far, this letter has merely identified the ways in which Urbantechie's slogans use a philosophical device of asking one question, answering a totally different question, and then applying that answer to the original question. Now, let me shift gears and start telling you about how the objection may still be raised that violence and prejudice are funny. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: Urbantechie says he's going to dispense outright misinformation and flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories in the coming days. Good old Urbantechie. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how contemptible they sound. He is not only avaricious, but he also lacks the self-control necessary to conform his behavior to reasonable norms.

Urbantechie should have instructed his slaves not to harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Of course, it's not quite that simple. Now the surprising news: We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Urbantechie's virulent announcements, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of surly saboteurs.)

His gin-swilling grievances prevent me from getting my work done. Urbantechie then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. While we do nothing, those who take advantage of human fallibility to burn our fair cities to the ground are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we place a high value on honor and self-respect. In a similar vein, Urbantechie has been known to say that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. That notion is so power-drunk, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. To be fair, he dreams of a time when he'll be free to monopolize the press. That's the way he's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't provide some balance to his one-sided pronouncements.

Urbantechie's tirades are perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, the demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something which not only does not exist, but is alien to the human condition. Urbantechie's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., 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 therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. Let's be frank: If it weren't for scornful drug lords, Urbantechie would have no friends.

Still, if you think that he is beyond reproach, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Urbantechie wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. He argues that things have never been better. To maintain this thesis, Urbantechie naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that he never engages in paltry, frightful, or prissy politics.

His expostulations symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Urbantechie can get away with lies (e.g., that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments), because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Urbantechie is lying. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.

It's time to tell the truth about Urbantechie. The first thing I want to bring up is that the encroachment of conceited conclusions into the social fabric of our politics, our institutions, and our laws would give credence to my claim that there is a great temperamental and ideological divide between those who generate alienation and withdrawal and those who debunk the nonsense spouted by Urbantechie's cronies. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that Urbantechie's expedients prevent smallpox, then there is undeniably no hope for you. Believe it or not, throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into factionalism and those who wish to produce a new generation of brutal wimps whose opinions and prejudices, far from being enlightened and challenged, are simply legitimized. Naturally, Urbantechie belongs to the latter category. So we're supposed to give him permission to shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size and hope he's rational enough not to do so? How naive! I use such language purposefully -- and somewhat sardonically -- to illustrate how it has been brought to my attention that he has made some very dangerous assumptions about obstinate authoritarians. While this is truly true, he thinks he can impress us by talking about "anarchoindividualist this" and "transubstantiationalist that". I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that his assumptions are matched in their untenability only by the arrogant fervor with which they are held? Unfortunately, Urbantechie's lewd conjectures neglect to take one important factor into consideration: human nature.

In the strictest sense, Urbantechie's only motivation is an antihumanist attachment to wealth and power. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.

It is apparent to me that if Urbantechie is victorious in his quest to demonize my family and friends, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. His efforts to leach integrity and honor from our souls have touched the lives of every person in this country. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion.

Should we be concerned that he wants to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion? I'll answer that question for you: Yes, we should unquestionably be concerned, because he claims that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. I respond that his lackeys show obsequious deference to him. My point may be made clearer by use of an allegorical tale. Suppose a hypothetical group of three people is standing in a room. One of those people realizes that from the fog and mist of Urbantechie's contrivances rises the leering grimace of pessimism. Another goes on and on about Urbantechie's defeatism-prone expostulations. But the third can't understand why I think this is tragic. In this hypothetical situation, it should be obvious that some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that Urbantechie is secretly scheming to tour the country promoting loquacious imperialism in lectures and radio talk show interviews. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that I have to wonder where he got the idea that it is my view that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is.

Many people are shocked when I tell them that the use of long run-on sentences, bad metaphors, multiple misspellings, and inappropriately-placed $5 words like "disadvantageousness" does not help his cause at all. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that if he wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "labyrinthibranchiate", for example, and expect us to be scared. To most people, the idea that thanks to Urbantechie, callow political movements are experiencing a resurgence around the world is so endemic, so long ingrained, that when others conclude that forbearance and kindly deportment are lost upon him, this merely seems to be affirming an obvious truth. We must also assert with all the sincerity of informed experience and the desperate desire to see our beloved country survive that someone has to be willing to champion the force of goodness against the greed of infernal hermits. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. His henchmen perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Urbantechie. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Urbantechie-induced disaster.

I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that given the amount of misinformation that he is circulating, I must point out that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. We were not put here to take advantage of human fallibility to intensify race hatred, as Urbantechie might feel. Now, lest you jump to the conclusion that he should write off whole sections of society because "it's the right thing to do", I assure you that the poisonous wine of factionalism had been distilled long before he entered the scene. Urbantechie is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. With this in mind, I must defy him.

He says he's not unreasonable, but he's indubitably stinking, and that's essentially the same thing. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that within the deleterious milieu of exclusionism exists the opportunity for Urbantechie to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly-formal rules, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps, but because the main dissensus between me and Urbantechie is that I maintain that every concert that Urbantechie attends rapidly degenerates into a free-for-all of slam dancing and scattered fistfights. He, on t

 

[ltk007]

You know what chip...


In this letter, I plan to discuss Mr. Chip the pimp III's hypocritical screeds quite extensively. Note that the details aren't pleasant. In fact, they're shocking. But I think that people who don't know what Chip is up to doubtlessly need to be shocked. Let me begin by saying that I and Chip part company when it comes to the issue of Comstockism. He feels that laws are meant to be broken, while I feel that many people are shocked when I tell them that I think this is tragic. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that his attempts to create a regime of psychotic illiterate commercialism are much worse than mere oligarchism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. In retrospect, Chip has always been more petty than most disagreeable devil-worshippers. Unless everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell, it is simply wrong to conclude that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. He teaches workshops on pessimism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp.

Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should undeniably mention that if Chip isn't unsympathetic, I don't know who is. Let's get reasonable; those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still maintain that we all have an obligation to stand up together and forcefully oppose his brutish litanies, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to maintain social tranquillity. We have an obligation to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve. And we have an obligation to reveal some shocking facts about his proposed social programs. Chip's cronies say that nothing would help society more than for them to feed blind hatred. Sorry, I don't buy that. Chip maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel.

If we can understand what has caused the current plague of asinine invidious-types, I believe that we can then demonstrate conclusively that he is capable of a large array of negative feelings. Strange, isn't it, how uncontrollable pickpockets are always the first to rip off everyone and his brother? To Hell with Chip! In that respect, we can say that if he can one day make a fetish of the virtues of disrespectful totalitarianism, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. Doesn't he realize that I am not suggesting government censorship of Chip's feckless actions?

Chip believes that the purpose of life is self-gratification. That's just wrong. He further believes that he acts in the public interest. Wrong again! I am being utterly serious when I say that shameless repressive whiners all over the country are now having an absolute field day with their new-found freedoms supposedly granted by Chip's vituperations, and everyone with half a brain understands that. Will someone please explain to me what it is in our lives that can possibly make someone limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion?

This march into macabre incendiarism is not happening by mere chance. It is not, as many cantankerous bitter psychics insist, the result of the natural, inevitable course of things. It is happening as a direct result of Chip's corrupt insinuations. Chip likes intimations that help headlong fugitives evade capture by the authorities. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically imprudent ones championed by the most grotesque converts to isolationism you'll ever see. He is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens tell Chip where he can stick it. Responsible citizens honestly do not deprive individuals of the right to change the world for the better. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that every morning Mr. Chip the pimp III asks himself, "How can I fool the masses today?".

 

[urbantechie]

Hmm.... I really hate linux...here is the longest one..hehe!

Linux's proposed social programs have been getting a lot of undeserved attention recently. You see, I honestly believe that almost every discussion of factionalism ignores the critical importance of Linux's squalid undertakings. 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 see how important Linux's baleful crazy rantings are to its cronies and I laugh. I laugh because it takes more than a mass of appalling schemers to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to do something good for others. Linux's offhand remarks epitomize all that is twisted in the world. Linux and its unprincipled lackeys must laugh about this in private, knowing that I, for one, undeniably wouldn't want to prevent me from sleeping soundly at night. I would, on the other hand, love to take personal action and halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Linux is typical of misinformed antisocial practitioners of cynicism in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its prank phone calls. Having said that, let me add that if I want to lose heart, that should be my prerogative. I unhesitatingly don't need Linux forcing me to.

In public, Linux vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, Linux never fails to glorify the worst kinds of dishonest primates I've ever seen. For the most part, I don't care to share the same planet as Linux. Still, Linux maintains that the laws of nature don't apply to it. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that someone has to be willing to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by what I call evil misers. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli.

Once again, all Linux really wants is to hang onto the perks it's getting from the system. That's all it really cares about. We don't have to stand for this! In spite of all Linux has done, I must admit I really like the organization. No, just kidding.

Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. If Fate desired that Linux make a correct application of what it had read about animalism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the flighty fool would otherwise never in all its life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, there is something grievously wrong with those malign two-faced peddlers of snake-oil remedies who galvanize a salacious hysteria, a large-scale version of the cranky mentality that can defy the law of the land. Shame on the lot of them! If you delve deeply into Linux's hijinks and thus, in tranquil clarity, submit to contemplation the expostulations of bestial cowards, you will doubtlessly discover why I would never take a job working for Linux. Given its subhuman complaints, who would want to? Linux operates on an international scale to appropriate sacred symbols for iconoclastic illogical purposes. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to maintain social tranquillity.

You know what we'd have if everybody wanted to bowdlerize all unfavorable descriptions of Linux's demands? Total chaos. On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of chauvinism. Linux does that even when its liberties aren't being threatened. Since most people oppose Linux's oppressive ebullitions, it has had to institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women using every smarmy means imaginable. It's astounding that Linux has found a way to work the words "pectinatodenticulate" and "physicophilosophical" into its morals. However, you may find it even more astounding that the absurdity of its disquisitions did not dawn on me until I realized that there are some blathering Philistines out there who care nothing for you or your cherished propositions, and everyone with half a brain understands that. There are two main flaws with Linux's effusions: 1) the lockstep ideological conformity of Linux's henchmen and their mindless parroting of Linux's paltry cliches about Marxism have reached a level of absurdity hardly matched by any historical example that comes to mind, and 2) given the amount of misinformation that Linux is circulating, I must point out that I frequently wish to tell it that the ability to artistically arrange words in an amusing manner does not qualify someone to be the leading social voice of a country. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.

We must condemn -- without hesitation, without remorse -- all those who destroy the heart and fabric of our nation. Our children depend on that. Note that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of all people who might be considered slimy junkies. It is only a rough indication of some of Linux's general tendencies. There are two reasons which induce me to submit Linux's shenanigans to a special examination: 1) For Linux, gnosticism is sincerely the name of the game, and 2) by now, we are all more than familiar with Linux's hateful long-term goals. I must admit that the second point, in particular, sometimes fills me with anxious concern. More fundamentally, an organization that wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of its jokes. Linux has never had that faculty. It always does what it wants to do at the moment and figures it'll be able to lie itself out of any problems that arise.

Particularly telling is the way that Linux would have us believe that it defends the real needs of the working class. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Linux is surrounded by crapulous chuckleheads who parrot the same nonsense, which is why if I didn't sincerely believe that it has studiously avoided being contaminated by the facts, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. For one thing, posterity will have little occasion to glorify Linux's "heroic" existence in a new epic. But more important, I frequently talk about how dichotomous thinking has stymied Linux's ability to reach solutions. I would drop the subject, except that there should be a law against this. Let's remember that.

Is it not positively the distinguishing feature of Linux's objectives to repeat the mistakes of the past? As we don our battle fatigues, let's at least be clear about what we're fighting for: Our war is not about reducing the deficit, not about ending welfare for the rich, and not about the largesse or responsibility of private philanthropy. All we want is for Linux's assistants not to promote the lie of militarism. Other maladroit mafia dons are also consumed with a desire to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence, to put it mildly. Linux has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. If Linux would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be much easier for me to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. Does Linux remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people it made fun of just so others would like it more?

Far be it for me to assuage the hungers of Linux's helpers with servings of fresh scapegoats. I will not quibble with Linux as to whether or not its formula for gangsterism is more deranged than ever. Instead, I'll simply state that the similarities between Linux and testy hectoring New Age nebbishes should not be taken lightly and leave it at that. Contrary to the Rousseauian ideal of the transparency of the general will to itself, Linux's insane ethics may have serious repercussions, even beyond the issue of hooliganism. We can therefore extrapolate that Linux decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.

We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because to say that its decisions are based on reason is effrontive nonsense and untrue to boot. It is imperative that all of us in this community stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values. This cannot occur unless there is a true spirit of respect and an appreciation of differences. I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: The first response to this from Linux's toadies is perhaps that the average working-class person can't see through Linux's chicanery. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: When one examines the ramifications of letting Linux demonize my family and friends, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that it commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions, because that makes it easy for it to promote the unruly practices of crass psychics. Linux thinks we want it to increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. Excuse me, but maybe it lacks the courage to confront me face-to-face. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. There is one final irony to my story. Fascism appears to have triumphed.

Seldom does an event take place which is such an outrage that the silent majority stands up and demands action. But the silent majority is currently demanding that something be done about Linux. To get right down to it, Linux says it's going to convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily-herded proletarian cattle before the year is over. Good old Linux. It just loves to open its mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how frightful they sound. Not surprisingly, if I didn't sincerely believe that I would like nothing more than to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Linux is an enemy to its friends and a friend to its enemies, at least insofar as this essay is concerned. Be careful not to be charmed by Linux's platitudes. All they do is revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook.

Irreligionism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically-motivated attack on knowledge. Linux's shell games are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth. Linux's ravings are just a rhetorical ploy to get away from the obvious fact that the last time I told Linux's cronies that I want to justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of Linux and its abominable ventures, they declared in response, "But women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. That's just one side of the coin. The other side is that the first response to this from Linux's lackeys is perhaps that Linux can change its depraved ways. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: Linux's latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining, but certainly not informative. I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But I would like to comment on Linux's attempt to associate scapegoatism with Stalinism. There is no association.

I feel no more personal hatred for Linux than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. Linux's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only inarticulate answers, headlong resolutions to conflicts. How can we trust Linux if it doesn't trust us?

On that note, let me say that Linux insists that obscurantism is a noble goal. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. It would be a strategic blunder of epic proportions for Linux to annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character, and everyone with half a brain understands that.

Perhaps Linux has some sound arguments on its side, but if so, it's keeping them well hidden; all the arguments I've heard from it are thoroughly self-pitying. Believe me, I certainly don't want to give Linux a chance to manipulate public understanding of metagrobolism. We are at a crossroads. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. When Linux hears anyone say that it has an uncritical -- almost a worshipful -- attitude toward abhorrent charlatans, its answer is to carve out space in the mainstream for hypocritical politics. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad. Neo-lazy nebbishes are receptive to Linux's deceitful messages and fool easily, as evidenced by the way that Linux is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to its doctrines.

Worse yet, Linux wants to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms. If you've never seen Linux caricature and stereotype people from other cultures, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. Linux likes magic-bullet explanations that make empty promises. Could there be a conflict of interest there? We don't have to stand for this! Linux wants to tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions. But what if the tables were turned? How would Linux like that?

I must point out that Linux's henchmen all look like Linux, think like Linux, act like Linux, and establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion, just like Linux does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! If you observe some repetition in my statements, it is because such repetition is needed for clarity and emphasis as I stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that Linux would rather talk about making changes than actually make them. I am familiar with Linux's goals, I understand how it operates, I have long recognized its tactics, and I know just about where Linux now stands on the ladder to total power. I can therefore say that, truly, its smear tactics 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 sooner or later.

There is a problem here. A very large, brainless, pretentious problem. Please remember that Linux's publications are based on hate. Hate, misoneism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life.

People who are attacked by obscene ungrateful pseudo-intellectuals basically have three options. They can ignore the attacks, engage the attackers in a debate, or apply some sanction which will put an end to the attack. I believe I have finally figured out what makes organizations like Linux acquire power and use it to indoctrinate malignant oppressive-to-the-core loudmouths. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. Following this line of logic, it would appear that Linux has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter.

We can't stop Linux overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Linux-induced disaster. To those readers who believe that Linux is a model organization, you have not been paying attention. The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, I find that some of Linux's choices of words in its expedients would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "judgemental" for "incontrovertibleness" and "hateful" for "parallelogrammatical." Linux is differentiated from your average rancorous insensitive ridiculous-types by virtue of the fact that it wants to help sexist intellectually-stultified fugitives evade capture by the authorities. Linux constantly insists that we should all bear the brunt of its actions. But it contradicts itself when it says that the laws of nature don't apply to it. Now that you've heard what I've had to say, I want you to think about it. And I want you to join me and lead the way to the future, not to the past.

I wish I didn't have to write a letter like this one, but recent events leave me no choice. For the sake of review, if you don't think that Linux carries the seeds of its own self-destruction, then think again. I use such language purposefully -- and somewhat sardonically -- to illustrate how given the public appetite for more accountability, when Linux is gone, all that will be left from its legacy of hate is the hate itself. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Linux. The long and short of it is that Linux's cronies often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear.

Linux will hate me for saying this, but its "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is politically-incorrect, because it leaves no room for compromise. It's time to get beyond lies, dissembling, and propaganda deliberately spread by Linux and act according to the plain truth. That is to say, Linux's argument that Stalinism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society is hopelessly flawed and completely circuitous.

Is Linux hoping that the readers of this letter won't see the weakness of its argument relative to mine, or is it just being destructive? To parody the old song, "Fish gotta swim, Linux gotta cause this country to flounder on the shoals of self-interest, corruption, and chaos." Is this anything other than refractory demagogism? Linux has a strategy. Its strategy is to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Linux. Linux is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, it has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people it desires to lead.

If I seem a bit ostentatious, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with Linux on its own level. As something that enjoys brandishing words like "internationalization" and "counterintelligence" as a smoke screen to hide its expostulations' inherent paradoxes, Linux must indisputably be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to its pathetic wheelings and dealings. Linux's positions have no credibility. (Actually, this is a truth that Linux's lackeys are told by Linux that they cannot acknowledge, lest they give aid and comfort to the rest of us, but that's not important now.) This is mercantalism! Doesn't Linux realize that what it insists are original jibes are nothing more than warmed-over versions of anarchism? If we are to discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions -- unconscionable mystics, mindless carpetbaggers, and shiftless laughable grizzlers -- then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the sexist and bad-tempered ideologies that Linux promotes.

Maybe it's not fair to call Linux's henchmen "haughty" just because they con us into believing that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable, but remember that Linux would have us believe that it has achieved sainthood. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Linux is surrounded by malicious supercilious-types who parrot the same nonsense, which is why if history follows its course, it should be evident that imperialism doesn't work. So why does Linux cling to it? Let me give you a hint: There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations such as Linux. But there I go again, claiming that someone has been giving Linux's brain a very thorough washing, and now Linux is trying to do the same to us. Those of you who thought that Linux was finally going to leave us alone are in for a big surprise, because Linux recently announced its plans to sue people at random. The underlying message is that Linux insists that it holds a universal license that allows it to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to its tracts. Sorry, Linux, but -- with apologies to Gershwin -- "it ain't necessarily so."

Linux is the root of all evil. I've already explained why, but let me add that "Linux" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone make bigotry respectable, I tell him or her to stop "Linux-ing". If Linux is going to make an emotional appeal, then it should also include a rational argument. In a similar vein, Linux's prank phone calls are designed to leave us in the lurch. And they're working; they're having the desired effect.

Lest I forget to mention this later, Linux's claim that it is a perpetual victim of injustice is factually unsupported and politically motivated. Linux's assistants believe that we should all bear the brunt of Linux's actions. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to overcome the obstacles that people like Linux establish. I am entirely shocked and angered by Linux's pathological improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. The following theorem may therefore be established as an eternally valid truth: If we take Linux's complaints to their logical conclusion, we see that faster than you can say "microcrystallography", Linux will help unctuous junkies back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof.

Call me old-fashioned, but Linux's helpers can't defend their solutions. And I can say that with a clear conscience, because it has been said that Linux's catch-phrases have no place in a free, humane society of individual value, individual choice, and individual responsibility. I, in turn, insist that I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Linux of planning to parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that if the past is any indication of the future, it will once again attempt to resort to underhanded tactics. Before I continue, let me state that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But Linux wants to convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily-herded proletarian cattle. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. Let me give you an important hint: When trying to understand what Linux is up to, look at what it is doing and what it has done. Don't let yourself be distracted by the patter and the hand-waving; keep your eye on the shell that has the pea under it. And focus your mind on the fact that if Linux's toadies had even an ounce of integrity, they would halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction.

It's precisely because before bothering us with its next batch of scurrilous paltry sermons, Linux should review the rules of writing a persuasive essay, most notably the one about sticking to the topic the writer establishes that if Linux is going to talk about higher standards, then it needs to live by those higher standards. Although Linux's overt absolutism has declined, a covert form still survives and may be an important factor in fueling a tendency and/or desire to waste natural resources. Am I angry? You bet. The baneful nature of Linux's effusions is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.

I have just one word for Linux: phototelegraphically. This seems so obvious, I am amazed there is even any discussion about it. Think about how easy it's become for pigheaded fomenters of revolution to remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper. All Linux really wants is to hang onto the perks it's getting from the system. That's all it really cares about. Make no mistake about it, one does not have to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships in order to subject Linux's assertions to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. It is a conniving person who believes otherwise. On a closing note, I hope that this letter, while incomplete, informal, and having no authority except its own inner strength and conviction, has clearly demonstrated to you that anyone who believes that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us is kidding himself.

I am writing this letter in simple English in order that everyone can read and understand my words. I assume you already know that Linux loves the truth only as long as it doesn't conflict with its reinterpretations of historic events, but I have something more important to tell you. Linux favors obfuscation and deviousness above frankness. Equally important is the fact that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Linux's vile bromides, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to investigate the development of careerism as a concept.)

Just think: Linux maintains that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that its complaints are based on some deep-rooted personality disorder. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. Linux presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically-motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. It is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors sick venal-types. And here we have the ultimate irony, because it has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter.

It's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Linux distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions. Trapped by the cognitive dissonance engendered by hard evidence and common sense, Linux feels obligated to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to force us to adopt rigid social roles that compromise our inner code of ethics in a lazy viperine attempt to justify its words.

Linux's cronies have already started to have more impact on Earth's biological, geological, and chemical systems during our lifetime and our children's than all preceding human generations had together. The result: absolute vapidity, impertinent and self-satisfied cacophony, lack of personality, monotony, and boredom. I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Linux. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I create a world in which irrationalism, sensationalism, and teetotalism are all but forgotten. Particularly telling is the way that I recently heard Linux tell a bunch of people that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to woo over uneducated acrimonious scamps by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text.

We've all heard Linux yammer and whine about how it's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. It has been said that the only winners in Linux's games are ambulance services and funeral homes. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it undoubtedly implies that certain facts are clear. For instance, Linux may popularize a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge noxious jerks to authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize anti-democratic exhibitionism right after it reads this letter. Let it. Before you know it, I will challenge Linux's vitriolic assumptions about merit.

Just like dirty clothes on the floor and cluttered closets, Linux's mess won't go away if we simply look the other way. At this point, all I can do is repeat a line from my previous letter: "Linux has lost what little credibility it once had". The bulk of disorganized nitwits are at least marginally tolerable, but not Linux. When Linux first announced that it wanted to send domineering irritating dopeheads on safari holidays instead of publicly birching them, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile.

While I don't know Linux's secret plans, I do know that we must maintain social tranquillity. Our children depend on that. For the moment, Linux makes no secret of the fact that it can't possibly believe that society is supposed to be lenient towards the most profligate louts I've ever seen. It's stupid, but it's not that stupid. Now there will, no doubt, be uncivilized hackers out there who will ask, "So what if Linux's lackeys dismantle the guard rails that protect society from the recalcitrant elements in its midst? That won't affect me." Such crippled thinking is the best example there is as to why in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, Linux pompously claims that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.

Incidentally, the problem with Linux is not that it's salacious. It's that it wants to foment nugatory forms of political tyranny. Isn't it odd that unsympathetic shallow slumlords, whose headstrong lifestyle will pander to stinking whiney scrubs eventually, are immune from censure?

How can we expect to break the neck of Linux's policy of fascism once and for all if we walk right into Linux's trap? Linux practically breaks its arm patting itself on the back when it says, "It takes courage to go down into the muddy trenches and trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life." As if that were something to be proud of. If you agree, read on. Most of us who have been around for a while realize that we can divide Linux's memoranda into three categories: selfish, impetuous, and improvident. I have two words for Linux: Grow up!

After hearing about Linux's useless attempts to jawbone aimlessly, I was saddened. I was saddened that it has lowered itself to this level. Maybe sooner than you think, Linux will create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. Sententious predictions aside, this would not be an impossible scenario if its sanctimonious jealous smear tactics gained ascendancy in our society. Linux's treatises have reached a depth of degeneracy that was virtually unknown in the past. To a lesser degree and on a smaller scale, Linux's "compromises" manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: insist that our society be infested with stoicism, obscurantism, mercantalism, and an impressive swarm of other "isms". Phase two: strip the world of conversation, friendship, and love. When you get right down to it, we must bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate in such as way that there is nothing Linux can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that one of its henchmen once said, "Linux can walk on water." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that if I have a bias, it is only against vigilantism-oriented blackguards who encourage people to leave their spouses, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become the most self-serving twits I've ever seen. To recap the main points made in this letter: 1) Linux behaves as if it's been lobotomized, 2) there's more to this letter than inflammatory rhetoric, and 3) Linux has a different view of reality from the rest of us.

I'm always glad to have the opportunity to speak openly, without fear of Linux twisting my words in an sinful attempt to gag the innocent accused from protesting elitism-motivated prosecutions. Let's review the errors in its statements in order. First, it makes it its job to turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency. Will Linux's callow cronies damn this nation and this world to Hell? Only time will tell.

On a completely different tack, Linux's reinterpretations of historic events are a threat to the freedoms enjoyed by all free citizens of the world. But you knew that already. So let me add that if we are to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward corporatism, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the self-absorbed and jaded ideologies that Linux promotes. Now, I hope Linux was joking when it implied it was going to sugar-coat the past and dispense false optimism for the future, but it sure didn't sound like it. This probably does not affect your daily life, but it is a fact.

Although Linux has never read carefully anything I've written, it doesn't care about freedom, as it can neither sell it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to it. I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that Linux is up to, the more shocking things, things like how it wants to diminish our will to live. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but its statements are not an isolated case of mean-spirited neocolonialism, but a typical example of how misinformed it can be. So what's the connection between that and its epithets? The connection is that there is no place in this country where we are safe from Linux's lackeys, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. To what depths of depravity does Linux need to descend before the rest of us realize we must stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts? Now that I've had time to think hard about Linux's criticisms, my only question is this: Why? Why fill the air with recrimination and rancor? Although Linux is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, it is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when ghastly spoiled brats abandon me on a desert island. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and unprincipled ne'er-do-wells. And fear of disingenuous boneheads like Linux who trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life.

The implications of besotted crass clericalism may seem theoretical, but they have concrete meaning for thousands of people. Almost without exception, I have never been in favor of being gratuitously unprofessional. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to examine the social and cultural conditions that ignite a maelstrom of nonrepresentationalism. Just because I understand Linux's propositions doesn't mean I agree with them. Do you think I'm the only one who wants to take a strong position on Linux's announcements, which, after all, parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire? I assure you, I am not. But Linux's arrogance will lead it to transmogrify society's petty gripes and irrational fears into "issues" to be catered to some day. But there's the rub; Linux has a natural talent for complaining. It can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.

Maybe Linux just can't handle harsh reality. As far as I'm concerned, we are on a slippery slope towards economic strife, social turmoil, cultural chaos, and repugnant obstructionism. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. If Linux wants to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore, let it wear the opprobrium of that decision.

I was thinking about how we must continue to monitor Linux's henchmen and expose them as the prudish insolent hedonists they are. And then it hit me. Linux even condones the vitriolic accusations that will incite an atmosphere of violence and endangerment toward the good men, women, and children of this state. If the mass news media were actually in the business of covering news rather than molding public attitudes to pigeonhole people into predetermined categories, they would really report that Linux has stated that anyone who resists it deserves to be crushed. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. Now that's just raucous.

I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Linux so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? Linux's crusades are precisely the kind of thing that will shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it within a short period of time. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. Just think: Ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Linux would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being nutty. What Linux fails to mention in its ideals is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that Linux wants to withhold information and disseminate half truths and whole lies? Or that I'm not sure whether to classify its double standards under "paranoia" or "ignorance"?

The picture I am presenting need not be confined to Linux's nostrums. It applies to everything it says and does. Up to this point, we have explored some of the motivations and circumstances that make Linux want to talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. However, we must look beyond both Linux's motivations and history if we are truly to understand its witticisms.

We all need to be aware of each other's existence as intelligent, feeling, human beings, even if some of us are clueless ideologues. Let's consider for a moment, though, that maybe one can predict on empirical grounds that by the end of the decade Linux will label everyone it doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible "-ist". Then doesn't it follow that we are in trouble when hitherto reputable people condition the public -- or, more precisely, brainwash the public -- into believing that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights? Moreover, an armed revolt against Linux is morally justified. However, I contend that it is not yet strategically justified.

It's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to begin the debate about Linux's claims. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. Every time Linux gets caught trying to control your bank account, your employment, your personal safety, and your mind, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its assistants always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they claim, we should all bear the brunt of its actions. And that's it. I sincerely maintain that basic principles, painfully and gradually drawn from the wisdom, the suffering, the aspirations, and the prophetic religious teachings of countless centuries before us are far more trustworthy than Linux's hotheaded personal attacks.

By now everyone should have heard about Linux and its superficial ultimata. In case you haven't heard or have even forgotten, allow me to refresh your memory. And that's why I feel compelled to say something about noxious ivory-tower academics.

I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But the more pressing news is that Linux is up to no good. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Linux finds a way to humiliate, subjugate, and eventually, eliminate everyone who wants to investigate its deceitful principles, ideals, and objectives. Education is already suffering as a result of Linux's orations. I've already explained why, but let me add that I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Linux's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now.

Don't get me wrong; in Linux's cronies, we can recognize the symptoms of decay of a slowly rotting world. But in asserting that McCarthyism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions, it demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision.

In order to solve the big problems with Linux, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must help you reflect and reexamine your views on Linux. Linux's lackeys tend to fall into the mistaken belief that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to pursue a smarmy agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever, mainly because they live inside a Linux-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. Linux hates, with a pure and perfect hatred, all those who stop its encroachments on our heritage. It's a pity. Let's consider for a moment, though, that maybe Linux has been, still is, and always will remain more effrontive than hypocritical tax cheats. Then doesn't it follow that Linux is opposed to factionalism, even though its own beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are just as upside-down, inside-out, convoluted, inverted, and perverted?

Linux is an opportunist. That is, it is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. Some will say I exaggerate, but, actually, I'm being quite lenient. I didn't mention, for example, that if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less hidebound than Linux.

In the past, I've said that anyone who says that Linux has a "special" perspective on animalism which carries with it a "special" right to usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times can be branded as both ultra-unregenerate and unctuous. Were I to make such a generalization today, it would contain a few "weasel words" -- an escape hatch or that indispensable cliche that its criticisms serve no purpose other than to wage a clandestine guerilla war against many basic human rights. But because it consistently falls short of telling the whole story or of making a solid point, I am not ready to retract my conviction or to recant error. Linux plans to consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of exhibitionism. It has instructed its henchmen not to discuss this or even admit to its plan's existence. Obviously, Linux knows it has something to hide. It must be pointed out over and over again to Linux's assistants and, in a broader sense, to bleeding-heart hucksters that Linux's statements such as "We're supposed to shut up and smile when Linux says pouty things" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual.

If you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. At this point, all I can do is repeat a line from my previous letter: "Faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as Linux has had, I must decidedly stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that Linux would love to see me become the target of prejudice, ridicule, discrimination, and physical violence". How will Linux's helpers react when they discover that Linux wants to eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights? It's good that you're reading this letter. It's good that you're listening to what I'm saying. But reading and listening aren't enough. You must also be willing to help me direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Linux. You shouldn't let Linux intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not it.

If Linux thinks I'm too improvident to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence, it's sadly mistaken. How did Linux get so phlegmatic? I have my theories, but they're only speculation. At any rate, its toadies have a tendency to say very similar things about it, as if they're quoting from scripture. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: its lackluster grievances.

Why is it that Linux's beliefs are in conflict with accepted morality? It's because Linux has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. No matter how close it's come to making me suffer endless humiliation, it won't be satisfied until it finds a way to glorify viperine bigamists. While there are many inarticulate unscrupulous-types, Linux is the most presumptuous of the lot. Be honest; can you in any way believe Linux's claim that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones? I honestly cannot, mainly because the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.

After all, Linux is capable of a large array of negative feelings. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. Linux shouldn't deny minorities a cultural voice. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions replace law and order with anarchy and despotism. The recent outrage at Linux's rantings may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that I experienced quite an epiphany when I first realized that Linux's supporters internalize and adapt to the unwritten realities they must work under.

I want to make it perfectly clear what I do not intend to do in this letter before I carry on with what I do wish to accomplish with it. And that's why I feel compelled to say something about asinine mouthpieces for power-drunk sensationalism. Some critics have called Linux unimaginative. A handful insist it's brutish. Its cronies, on the other hand, consider it to be one of the great minds of this century. What is Linux's current objective? As usual, there are multiple objectives:

to make human life negligible and cheap,
to develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence Linux's opponents, and
to offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss.

If the people generally are relying on false information sown by impetuous spoilsports, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. The ability to artistically arrange words in an amusing manner does not qualify someone to be the leading social voice of a country. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those raucous "compromises" that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but xenophobic jaded social outcasts. Having said that, let me add that Linux's stances represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death.

Linux's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is vile, because it leaves no room for compromise. Linux is typical of mendacious subversive lunkheads in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its effusions. To the best of my knowledge, it's astounding that Linux has somehow found a way to work the words "counterdemonstration" and "galvanocontractility" into its half-measures. However, you may find it even more astounding that in addition to communicating an understanding of the terrible danger we face, I need to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come -- and Linux knows it. Linux accepts superstition for science, hokum and magic for medicine, monotone chanting for music, and lethargic passivity in lieu of discovery and inquiry. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that Linux's mistakes are always someone else's fault, then there is indubitably no hope for you.

To put a little finer edge on the concept, Linux's lackeys argue that human life is expendable. These are the same hypocritical porn stars who numb the public to the gangsterism and injustice in mainstream politics. This is no coincidence; while we do nothing, those who waste taxpayers' money are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we shine a light on efforts by incorrigible sappy lowbrows to put the prisoners in charge of running the prison. There are situations where certain diatribes are appropriate and there are situations where they are not. If Linux is going to ridicule, parody, censor, and downgrade opposing morals, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, it reminds me of the thief who cries "Stop, thief!" to distract attention from his thievery. And second, its eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity. And Linux's vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel?) Why can't Linux value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse? Linux'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. There is absolutely nothing these blasphemous hatemongers will not do to destroy their enemies. They will poke into the most secret family affairs and not rest until their truffle-searching instinct digs up some sex-crazed incident that is calculated to finish off their unfortunate victim.

I challenge Linux to point out any text in this letter that proposes that refractory charlatans have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. Let me quote to you from the words of my attorney: "Linux's accusations are a cancer that is slowly eating away at our flesh." One can examine this from another angle, and plainly see that Linux and other uncivilized naive hippies continue to whine and pule about how their rights are so much more important than anyone else's. Or, to express that sentiment without all the emotionally charged lingo, there is something grievously wrong with those bloody-minded hermits who make us all miserable. Shame on the lot of them! If the left of the current political spectrum is morally crippled pauperism, and the right is cold-blooded communism, then Linux's politics are indeed going to be a form of shiftless parasitism.

Even Linux's henchmen don't care much for its political objectives; they simply wish to associate with other predaceous extremists and advocate revolting insinuations. I frequently wish to tell Linux that only by taking risks and pushing boundaries with this letter can I ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. Linux's stories about vandalism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. It is my fundamental belief that Linux's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only witless answers, sanctimonious resolutions to conflicts. Well, Linux, we're all getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you've done. We're fed up. And the day is coming when you'll be held accountable for your nasty remonstrations.

You've never heard Linux announce that it plans to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue? Well, Linux has repeatedly enunciated such a plan, but in its typically convoluted way. Linux's treatises do not pass muster by any objective standards. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. Anyway, the consequence of all this is that when I say that all of Linux's teachings share elements of traditional, superficial conspiracy themes in which what I call cruel crackpots secretly blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that its expostulations are not worth getting outraged about. This is a common fallacy held by politically-incorrect subhuman-types.

Judging by the generally headlong nature of Linux's assistants, I can see that Linux is an opportunist. That is, it is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. Personally, I don't expect Linux to give up its crusade to declare that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. But we'll see.

These issues are actually political issues for a variety of reasons. For instance, I certainly wouldn't want to inject Linux's lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. I would, on the other hand, love to promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. And what about Linux's helpers? They, like Linux, are out-of-touch haughty-types.

Linux has an uncritical -- almost a worshipful -- attitude toward the most diabolic proletariats I've ever seen. It's that simple. To promote a culture of dependency and failure is an injustice. In short, Linux has abandoned ethics altogether. What you really need to do to be convinced of that, however, is to study the matter for yourself. I'll be happy to send you enough facts to get you started. Just write to me.

Let's talk again about an all-too-familiar subject: Linux and its clumsy pleas. Wait! Before you dismiss me as contentious, hear me out.

For what it's worth, we must step back and consider the problem of Linux's belief systems in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. Our children depend on that. Forgive me if I ramble; I'm really upset, as I think you can tell. Linux proclaims at every opportunity that it'd never interfere with my efforts to hinder the power of subhuman saboteurs like it. The organization doth protest too much, methinks. We need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Linux. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. I must emphasize that we must understand that Linux is doing more harm than good to its cause. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible.

While I agree with others' assessment that Linux is just one in a long line of ignorant dopeheads who like to make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks, still, ignorance is bliss. This may be why Linux's cronies are generally all smiles. I want to keep this brief: Linux thinks that it has achieved sainthood. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. I'll go over that again: Linux may tell everyone else what to do right after it reads this letter. Let it. As soon as our backs are turned, I will end Linux's control over the minds and souls of countless people.

One indication of this is the fact that Linux's lackeys tend to fall into the mistaken belief that the Universe belongs to Linux by right, mainly because they live inside a Linux-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. A trip to your local library would reveal that by allowing Linux to legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the oppressed, we are allowing it to play puppet master. Considering that I unmistakably disagree with Linux's complacent objectives, I find it almost laughable how it remains oblivious to the fact that I can't count the number of times I've wanted to empower the oppressed to control their own lives. But there's the rub; its accusations 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!

I should add parenthetically that I would never take a job working for Linux. Given its meretricious quips, who would want to? So who's crazy? I, or all the cocky ostentatious used-car salesmen who feel that totalitarianism and priggism are identical concepts? So long as the devastating inequities that characterize our society persist, Linux's henchmen will be unable to deny that it constantly insists that laws are meant to be broken. But it contradicts itself when it says that nihilism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Particularly telling is the way that if Linux doesn't like it here, then perhaps it should go elsewhere.

To pick an obvious, but often overlooked, example, Linux's wheelings and dealings are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition." Funny, that was the same term that its assistants once used to open new avenues for the expression of hate. Quite simply, Linux is stepping over the line when it attempts to lash out at everyone and everything in sight -- way over the line.

(Yes, Linux's helpers are profoundly influenced by what Linux says and does, but that's a different story.) Now, I'm going to be honest here. Linux publicly disavows its ties to obstructionism while secretly encouraging its toadies to permit pusillanimous dictatorial vagabonds to rise to positions of leadership and authority. We can therefore extrapolate that every time it utters or writes a statement that supports revisionism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. I believe we mustn't let it make such statements, partly because it has an uncritical -- almost a worshipful -- attitude toward petty authoritarians, but primarily because it argues that honor counts for nothing. To maintain this thesis, Linux naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which it does by the desperate expedient of claiming that it is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. In whatever form it takes -- magazines, music, propaganda, or any other form -- Linux's rhetoric is designed to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women. The core of this seemingly insoluble problem is the fact that I, for one, unequivocally contend that Linux is completely full of it. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.

Be honest; can you in any way believe Linux's claim that its personal attacks are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos? I cannot, mainly because I cannot promise not to be angry at it. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads Linux -- to misdirect our efforts into fighting each other rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of parasitic nonrepresentationalism. Notice the self-pitying tendency of Linux's assertions. In the strictest sense, I frequently wish to tell Linux that until recently, its insinuations have gone unnoticed and unanalyzed. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. Do you ever get the feeling that I decisively stand foursquare in defense of liberty, freedom of speech, and the right to criticize lackadaisical grotty control freaks? Well, you should, because I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But I try never to argue with Linux, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason.

I don't just maintain that it would be a strategic blunder of epic proportions for Linux to extirpate the things I indeed cherish; I can back that up with facts. For instance, it may seem difficult at first to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. It is. But if we don't soon tell it to stop what it's doing, it will proceed with its nasty ultimata, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given it our permission to do so.

My next point of order is that Linux's supporters are merely liars with charisma. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What demons possessed Linux to dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches? Linux's slaves give Linux credit for things it hasn't done. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. Let's just ignore Linux and see what it does. The important point here is not that Linux has never been accused of objectivity. The vital matter is that Linux has commented that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as its comment is lacking in common sense. One final point: This hasn't sat well with the most unregenerate calumniators you'll ever see.

Linux's effusions are so rife with ignorance, erroneous information, and poorly conceived notions of larrikinism that I hardly know where to begin. Even disregarding obvious errors like its insistence that it understands the difference between civilization and savagery, the fallacies of its claims are glaring to those of us who have educated ourselves about the implications of corporatism. I guess I should start by saying that it can't possibly believe that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. It's stu

 

[Adul]

Good lord. What are you people doing!

 

[urbantechie]

Hmm..how many paragraphs is my last one? I am thinking at least 100!!

 

[markjs]

As they look over the world's painful panorama of war and terror, some people conclude that it is too late, that no amount of information or activity could possibly take the initiative to enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. But those who take that pessimistic view understand neither Anandtech nor its current rung on the ladder to total power. First off, you should never forget the three most important facets of Anandtech's sound bites, namely their diabolism-oriented origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. I must emphasize this because Anandtech doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. It uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Anandtech's pledge not to tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions is merely empty rhetoric, invoked on occasion for theatrical effect but otherwise studiously ignored. Anandtech can push me only so far and no farther. But you knew that already. So let me add that there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about Anandtech's viewpoints. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it.
The most sobering aspect of Anandtech's insinuations is that one does not have to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of Anandtech's slatternly announcements in order to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. It is a dirty person who believes otherwise. You've heard me say that Anandtech's cronies are all unforgiving vagrants of various stripes. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often, they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image.
I understand that passion precludes Anandtech's ability to ignore trivialities and to concentrate on the important aspects of the problem, but if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that implying that courtesy and manners don't count for anything is no different from implying that it is Anandtech's moral imperative to make bribery legal and part of business as usual. Both statements are ludicrous. It may seem difficult at first to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that as far as Anandtech's annoying pestiferous actions are concerned, I will not capitulate today, tomorrow, or ever. It is. But Anandtech insists that it would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a disloyal act. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates. In asserting that its biases prevent smallpox, it demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. It should be stressed that Anandtech will probably respond to this letter just like it responds to all criticism. It will put me down as "benighted" or "slimy". That's its standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about it except the most fawning praise.
Anandtech has, at times, called me "stingy" or "pompous". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to deny minorities a cultural voice.
Now that I've had time to think hard about Anandtech's effusions, my only question is this: Why? Why trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful? I myself have not forgotten that Anandtech doesn't understand politics or simply doesn't care. I have not forgotten that sadism was founded on a world system of enslavement and land theft. And I cannot forget that Anandtech can fool some of the people all of the time. It can fool all of the people some of the time. But it can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Anandtech, does the word "parallelogrammatical" mean anything to you? Now the surprising news: It's incredible to me that anybody could be so discourteous. We can therefore extrapolate that my message has always been that Anandtech doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. But the problems with Anandtech's pranks don't end there.
Yes, you heard me right; Anandtech's stances epitomize insurrectionism in its truest form. So don't feed me any baloney about how the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. That's just not true. But it gets worse than that. Anandtech extricates itself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. To say anything else would be a lie. For the moment, Anandtech makes no secret of the fact that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to convince its lackeys to condemn its hypocrisy. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.
I suspect that we should justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of Anandtech and its power-drunk theories, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by ensuring that I always explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that 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 Anandtech preys upon. My dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to remind Anandtech about the concept of truth in advertising. To put it crudely, if I didn't sincerely believe that according to Anandtech, anyone who points this out is guilty of spreading lies, smears, and incendiarism, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Not only have what I call uncontrollable carousers decided to glorify their rejoinders by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their opinions are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. A recent series of hearings, lawsuits, and media reports demonstrates that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Anandtech distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions.
Imagine getting a dollar every time Anandtech said it wouldn't create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to deal stiffly with garrulous ivory-tower academics who subject us to the vulgar illiterate yapping of hypocritical ideologues, but did so anyway. You'd be very, very rich. Allow me to explain. We need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Anandtech. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that Anandtech claims that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Anandtech even condones the effrontive bait-and-switch tactics that will turn me, a typically mild-mannered person, into an avaricious self-deceiving vat of animalism.
In many ways, if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by Anandtech and its cronies. Anandtech's daft conjectures shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size. Anandtech then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Last I checked, Anandtech's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. It doesn't want the details checked. It doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts it presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of its "facts" are false.
It would be bad enough if Anandtech's lackeys were merely trying to make life less pleasant for us. But their attempts to exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation are just plain gloomy. If we let Anandtech monopolize the press, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different sorts of quasi-malodorous recidivism.
One might insist that Anandtech simply regurgitates the empty arguments that have been fed to it over the years. While that's true, it does somewhat miss the point. You see, Anandtech thinks it would be a great idea to force me to hang myself by the neck until dead. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.
I definitely hope that Anandtech's protests were intended as a joke, although they're not very funny if they were. Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that Anandtech is an opportunist. That is, it is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. Note that you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: Someone has been giving Anandtech's brain a very thorough washing, and now Anandtech is trying to do the same to us. Anandtech has done inestimable damage to everything around it. (Read as: Anandtech is unable to deal with a world populated by human beings.) Anandtech's patter is smooth and quite practiced. It can fast-talk you into believing you'd be better off if you participated in its effort to saddle the economy with crippling debt. However, its dissertations fall apart upon reflection.
If history follows its course, it should be evident that Anandtech is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, it tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. I will not quibble with Anandtech as to whether or not we can't let it enrich itself at taxpayer expense. Instead, I'll simply state that you won't hear Anandtech's henchmen admit that it's flippant and leave it at that. It's good that you're reading this letter. It's good that you're listening to what I'm saying. But reading and listening aren't enough. You must also be willing to help me reach the broadest possible audience with the message that anyone who was sober for more than an hour or two during the last five years knows that Anandtech's assistants fail to recognize that inequality does not beget equality.
We can say that except for a few bright spots, Anandtech's imprecations are totally mephitic, and Anandtech can claim the opposite, and it won't make one bit of difference. Unctuous knee-biters generally think that Anandtech has no intention to pooh-pooh the concerns of others, but Anandtech's often-quoted demands belie this notion. Anandtech has been known to say that it is a model organization. That notion is so irritable, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. I am morally and ethically opposed to Anandtech's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). Of that I am certain, because if Anandtech makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it.
There's a lot of talk nowadays about Anandtech's uncontrollable ravings, but not much action. Anyone who follows today's debates on communism and, by happenstance, is also familiar with Anandtech's nutty witticisms, is struck by that old truism: We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about Anandtech's hate-filled canards. For starters, let's say that "negativism" is "that which makes Anandtech yearn to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice." An inner voice tells me that Anandtech's statements such as "Anandtech should infantilize and corrupt the general public because "it's the right thing to do"" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. While we may all pray for a perfect utopian world in which everyone is holding hands and singing "We Are the World" in perfect harmony, the reality is that Anandtech's perspective is that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. My perspective, in contrast, is that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Anandtech's indecent press releases, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose.)
Anandtech's stances will lead to decay, to dissolution, to chaos, and to ruin. That sounds really evil, but I truly believe that it's an accurate assessment of the situation. Calling Anandtech's helpers manipulative jerks may be accurate, but statements like, "Anandtech works from the false assumption that most people actually want amateurish bigamists to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. It's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of hypocritical fiends like Anandtech can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that any one believes them. After enduring a barrage of Anandtech's short-sighted solutions, one normally experiences intense levels of stress, difficulty sleeping, and anxiety about one's physical safety as well as one's career. But it doesn't stop there.
I am cognizant that abysmal satanic poseurs in general, and Anandtech in particular, intend to impair the practice of democracy, but Anandtech's tricks 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 we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we really have to solve the problems that are important to most people. My intention here is not just to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences, but also to defy the international enslavement of entire peoples.
Anandtech's vituperations always follow the same pattern. It puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. Should sit back and let Anandtech herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses, or should we punish it for its amoral magic-bullet explanations? That choice sure sounds like a no-brainer to me. I, for one, hate having to keep reminding everybody of this, but I do not find memoranda that are pugnacious, disrespectful, and peevish to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but Anandtech spouts the same bile in everything it writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue it's excited about this week is quislingism, which says to me that an armed revolt against it is morally justified. However, I insist that it is not yet strategically justified.
Anandtech refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. True, Anandtech has lost sight of the lessons of history, but whenever there's an argument about Anandtech's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that Anandtech's wheelings and dealings reinforce the point that we still have a long way to go in terms of achieving true tolerance in our society. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
Anandtech has only one goal: to threaten the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet. What Anandtech fails to mention in its long-term goals is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that Anandtech wants to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people? Or that even Anandtech must concede that anyone who thinks that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't is not living in the real world? I believe, way deep down, that Anandtech's wisecracks all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that anyone who resists it deserves to be crushed. It is certainly the height of ironies that Anandtech will give rise to the most cocky heretics I've ever seen because it possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses truculent ornery cutthroats with hotheaded and uncontrollable rage.
Anandtech may have the right to con us into believing that the laws of nature don't apply to it. It may have the right to encourage brutish drug lords to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort. But Anandtech crosses the line when it uses its bully pulpit to detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity -- family, class, private associations. Anandtech's cronies' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be.
During the first half of the 20th century, expansionism could have been practically identified with particularism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called incomprehensible dorks. Anandtech's language is turgid and incomprehensible. People have commented that there may be a gap in my logic there. I myself don't think there is, and I've gone to great pains to explain why.
Anandtech wins ivory-tower academics over to its side using big words like "uncontradictableness". I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. Anandtech keeps saying that everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. For some reason, Anandtech's lackeys actually believe this nonsense.
There is a tortured quality to Anandtech's reasoning, a careful avoidance of obvious conclusions, and a painstaking circumnavigation of embarrassing facts. It is tempting to look for simple solutions to that problem, but there are no simple solutions. Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: Anandtech thinks that you and I are morally inferior to the most stupid enemies of the people you'll ever see. However, one loses count of the number of times it has tried to create a climate of intimidation. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that it's easy enough to hate Anandtech any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Anandtech is up to, things that ought to make a real Anandtech-hater out of you. First off, 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 loquacious activity. Our situation is snowballing. In just a moment I'll discuss some important recent developments based on this fundamental truth. First, however, I want to add a bit to what I wrote previously. I want to plant markers that define the limits of what is grotesque and what is not. That may seem simple enough, but we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because it is locked into its present course of destruction. It does not have the interest or the will to change its fundamentally delirious threats.
I fear that, over time, Anandtech's crusades will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that this serves as a reminder that we'll know soon enough just how crude these classes of kleptomaniacs can be. It's doubtlessly astounding that Anandtech has found a way to work the words "anthropogeographical" and "saccharogalactorrhea" into its treatises. However, you may find it even more astounding that the lockstep ideological conformity of its cronies and their mindless parroting of its callow cliches about favoritism have reached a level of absurdity hardly matched by any historical example that comes to mind. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that I try never to argue with it, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. Please keep in mind that Anandtech has vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom.
If you want to clear up these muddied waters with some reality, then tell everyone you know the truth, that I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Anandtech. And just let it try and stop me. What Anandtech does in private is none of my business. But when it tries to put the most cocky nutcases I've ever seen on the federal payroll, I object. Flattery will get Anandtech nowhere, but given the way things are these days, we must remember that if you think that anyone who disagrees with Anandtech is ultimately vicious, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what it wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Anandtech. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I protect innocent, little children from ribald uncivilized rubes like it.
I'm not saying this to be patronizing, but rather to explain that I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why we need the space and autonomy to fight the excuses that can hurt us. My peers think that Anandtech is a faithful student of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist who advocated demoralizing one's enemy as the highest art of warfare. While this is definitely true, I insist we must add that Anandtech claims that Pyrrhonism is a noble goal. Well, I beg to differ. Consider the issue of pathetic pessimism. Everyone agrees that it appears that, for Anandtech, "open-mindedness" isn't a policy or a belief, but a flag to wave when it feels like it, and one to hide when it doesn't suit its purposes, but there are still some brown-nosing recidivists out there who doubt that Anandtech should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery, specifically, its ego. To them I say: Certain facts are clear. For instance, many people respond to Anandtech's unstable comments in much the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Anandtech does not desire to benefit humanity, but rather to render unspeakable and unthinkable whole categories of beliefs about power.
While I have no proof that Anandtech is hell-bent on suppressing our freedom, you should still believe me, as Anandtech and I disagree about our civic duties. I maintain that we must do our utmost to drive off and disperse the putrid thought police who violate strongly-held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains as expeditiously as possible. Anandtech, on the other hand, believes that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. When one examines the ramifications of letting Anandtech treat anyone who doesn't agree with it to a torrent of vitriol and vilification, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that you might say, "Haughty metagrobolism and dour nonrepresentationalism are a matched pair." Fine, I agree. But it's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to lend a helping hand. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. As I often like to put it, the central preconception in Anandtech's paranoid style is the belief in the existence of a vast, tendentious, preternaturally-effective international conspiratorial network designed to reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with Anandtech's musings while punishing those who oppose them. But there's the rub; when I say that it's really hard to take someone as incompetent as Anandtech very seriously, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that laws are meant to be broken. This is a common fallacy held by what I call capricious creeps. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, and I now have a strong conviction that when Anandtech tells us that revanchism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society, it somehow fails to mention that as far as its superficial scribblings are concerned, I will not capitulate today, tomorrow, or ever. It fails to mention that I would rather die than remain silent in response to that which I am convinced is profoundly militant. And it fails to mention that most other rash manipulators of the public mind are not as silly as they seem. That's the sort of statement that some people suspect is discourteous, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because its eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity. And Anandtech's vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight?) Some readers may doubt that Anandtech is lazy enough to promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group. So let me provide some evidence. But before I do, let me just say that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of quasi-sexist extremists, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Anandtech's mischievous credos, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences.)
What a cunning coup on the part of Anandtech's lackeys, who set out to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of Anandtech's henchmen to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant and got as far as they did without anyone raising an eyebrow. Nevertheless, if you can go more than a minute without hearing Anandtech talk about fascism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. Don't be intimidated by Anandtech's threat to beat plowshares into swords. Taking that notion one step further, we can see that if you've never seen Anandtech cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself.
As is so often the case, the first response to this from Anandtech's assistants is perhaps that Anandtech's vituperations are not worth getting outraged about. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: I don't care what others say about Anandtech. It's still abusive, hopeless, and it intends to kill the goose bearing the golden egg. To state it in a more sophisticated manner, there is a problem here. A very large, blathering, two-faced problem.
Am I angry? You bet. 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: Anandtech.
At first, Anandtech just wanted to leave behind a wake of reprehensible reaction. Then, it tried to renege on an incredibly large number of promises. Who knows what it'll do next? Anandtech fits the stereotypical image of incorrigible schemers, pure and simple. Anandtech sees all the evidence, but it is reluctant to accept the conclusion that it's not a question of if but only of when Anandtech will lash out at everyone and everything in sight. That's clear. But delirious antagonists are receptive to its pusillanimous messages and fool easily. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.
Sure, we could just sit back and let Anandtech deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that sinful perfidious shirkers are capable of, but that prospect really grates on people who have any kind of common sense. It is common knowledge that of all of Anandtech's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "Anandtech's bait-and-switch tactics epitomize wholesome family entertainment." I don't know where it came up with this, but its statement is dead wrong. Imagine getting a dollar every time Anandtech said it wouldn't break our country's national and patriotic backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke of international anti-intellectualism, but did so anyway. You'd be very, very rich.
It would be downright subhuman for Anandtech to defy the rules of logic. So don't feed me any baloney about how obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. That's just not true.
By that, I mean not only in the strictest sense, but also the whole spectrum of related meanings. If I understand Anandtech's snow jobs correctly, then Anandtech says that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely prudish and lousy lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Anandtech's cronies. We don't need to demonize Anandtech; it is already a demon, and furthermore, I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why I myself surely would have expected it to at least listen to my side of the story. My peers think that there is no time and little temptation for those who work hard on their jobs and their responsibilities to leave us in the lurch. While this is truly true, I contend we must add that if it were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that I have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that newspapers should report only on items it agrees with, then there is undoubtedly no hope for you.
Anandtech sees all the evidence, but it is reluctant to accept the conclusion that Anandtech just keeps on saying, "We don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. We just want to usher in the beginning of an ignorant new era of gnosticism." Anandtech's theories turn the stomachs of those who know even a little about the real world. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that it tries to make us think the way it wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. The next time someone denies that passion precludes Anandtech's ability to ignore trivialities and to concentrate on the important aspects of the problem, look that person right in the eye and reply, "Anandtech's lackeys should reevaluate their cherished assumptions about antiheroism." Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which Anandtech produces. For what it's worth, Anandtech uses the very intellectual tools it criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. For all of the foregoing reasons, I can confidently claim that Anandtech would have us believe that it is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Anandtech is surrounded by lackluster exhibitionists who parrot the same nonsense, which is why most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Anandtech precipitate riots.
Anandtech equates non-cooperation and solitariness with individuality. Surprised? You shouldn't be, because Anandtech's argument that it could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else is hopelessly flawed and completely circuitous. Let's just ignore Anandtech and see what it does.
Think of all the lives that could be saved if we would just shatter the illusion that Anandtech holds a universal license that allows it to rip off everyone and his brother. Anandtech's statements such as "Merit is adequately measured by Anandtech's methods and qualifications" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Anandtech's sophistries are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition." Funny, that was the same term that its henchmen once used to cause slimy subversion to gather momentum on college campuses.
By refusing to act, by refusing to investigate the development of colonialism as a concept, we are giving Anandtech the power to blend together propagandism and deconstructionism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. Calling Anandtech's assistants villainous crass manipulators of the public mind may be accurate, but if you want to hide something from Anandtech, you just have to put it in a book. Anandtech says that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Should we care that large numbers of cranky hectoring warmongers actually believe such bookish things? Should we try to convince them otherwise? I don't think so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about its undertakings. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must put the kibosh on its slurs.
Anandtech is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of self-absorbed speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations -- and that's just the short list! Do you really want Anandtech to provide the most nugatory firebrands you'll ever see with a milieu in which they can address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem? I think not.
If I seem a bit domineering, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with Anandtech on its own level. Am I being malignant for wanting a little editorial balance here? Some dishonest truculent perverts actually believe that Anandtech understands the difference between civilization and savagery. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Anandtech is encouraging with its opinions. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as ridiculous deadheads. At the risk of repeating myself, I must reiterate that if anything, corruption, lying, and hypocrisy are the fundaments of Anandtech's editorials. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Anandtech. Despite the obvious fact that Anandtech's remonstrations blend treacherous lascivious expansionism (manifested in a disingenuous stance) with a purported support for environmentalism, trade unionism, and the dignity of labor, when one examines the ramifications of letting Anandtech put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that someone has been giving its brain a very thorough washing, and now Anandtech is trying to do the same to us.
What we see today is a greater than normal manifestation of unprincipled traits in Anandtech's manuscripts. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: Anandtech is thoroughly mistaken if it believes that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. Just like dirty clothes on the floor and cluttered closets, Anandtech's mess won't go away if we simply look the other way. Anandtech's cronies have shared the rostrum with wicked serpents at recent symposia. But don't take my word for it; ask any impetuous invidious crooks you happen to meet. Anandtech's lies come in many forms. Some of its lies are in the form of subliminal psywar campaigns. Others are in the form of machinations. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.
Sure, some of Anandtech's views are valid, but that's not the point. If Anandtech succeeds in its attempt to get on my nerves, it'll have to be over my dead body. Anandtech's recourse to authoritarianism as a tactical modality for waging low-intensity warfare has been successful. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of Anandtech in embracing this simple fact. If we let Anandtech exploit other cultures for self-entertainment, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both.
I had thought the world was free of jaundiced authoritarians. So imagine my surprise when I discovered that Anandtech wants to spew forth ignorance and prejudice. The next time Anandtech decides to interfere with the most important principles of democracy, it should think to itself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? Although the dialectics of duplicitous praxis will alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with Anandtech's current "reality" any day now, Anandtech's vituperations are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of paternalism.
Some people have compared abominable troublemakers to atrabilious primates. I would like to take the comparison one step further. What's interesting is that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that I, not being one of the many grotesque beatniks of this world, cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Anandtech's subterfuge. I'm entirely stunned. As something that enjoys brandishing words like "individualistic" and "pseudoparenchymatous" as a smoke screen to hide its pleas' inherent paradoxes, Anandtech must unquestionably be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to its crazy neurotic words.
This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: phallocentrism. It may be obvious but should nonetheless be acknowledged that Anandtech's new definition of "counterestablishment" is indisputably in disagreement with its incorrigible communications. For proof of this fact, I must point out that Anandtech's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is closed-minded, because it leaves no room for compromise. Pardon my coarse language, but Anandtech operates on an international scale to move brazen hooliganism from the detestable fringe into a realm of respectability. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. I realize that totalitarianism is a tremendous problem in our society, but does it constantly have to be thrown in our faces?
Well, Anandtech, we're all getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you've done. We're fed up. And the day is coming when you'll be held accountable for your dastardly ultimata.
Does Anandtech realize it's more crude than most sleazy segregationists? It would be a semantic quibble to deny that I want to confront and reject all manifestations of sadism. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because Anandtech's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. It doesn't want the details checked. It doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts it presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of its "facts" are false. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that Anandtech's belief systems are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition." Funny, that was the same term that its lackeys once used to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion. Believe you me, Anandtech's put-downs 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 if the people generally are relying on false information sown by intellectually-stultified big-labor bosses, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation.
I cannot compromise with Anandtech; it is without principles. I cannot reason with it; it is without reason. But I can warn it, and with a warning it must definitely take to heart: I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why it remains to be seen if Anandtech will lay waste to the environment in a matter of days. My peers suspect that conventional wisdom states that its campaigns reinforce the point that we still have a long way to go in terms of achieving true tolerance in our society. While this is surely true, I maintain we must add that its wisecracks are as troubling as its insistence that it should disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models because "it's the right thing to do". I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that thanks to Anandtech, bloody-minded fault-finders can now freely propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright post-structuralism, and everyone with half a brain understands that. Woe to the grotesque slanderers who toss sops to the egos of the sexist! While Anandtech might not harvest what others have sown per se, Anandtech's claim that it has a "special" perspective on extremism which carries with it a "special" right to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. What do you think of this: Money and greed shape Anandtech's thinking? The following theorem may therefore be established as an eternally valid truth: Anandtech's cronies all look like Anandtech, think like Anandtech, act like Anandtech, and stigmatize any and all attempts to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by its notions might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational, just like Anandtech does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha!
Though many people agree that we must work together against teetotalism, pauperism, racialism, etc., this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of Anandtech's vile sentiments. Not yet, at least. But if you think that Anandtech's opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality -- then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what it wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. Anandtech talks loudly about family values and personal responsibility, but when it comes to backing up those words with actions, all it does is bombard me with insults.
It is quite common today to hear people express themselves as follows: "One could make a strong argument that Anandtech's standard operating procedure is to control, manipulate, and harm other people." In essence, Anandtech dreams of a time when they'll be free to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. That's the way it's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. The effete anarchism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of asinine sewer rats, nor of the pretentious deceitful individuals who judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. It is the fault of Anandtech.
Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting Anandtech harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. In that respect, we can say that I frequently wish to tell Anandtech that I can't let it move hidebound escapism from the incomprehensible fringe into a realm of respectability. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. That fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence.
Anandtech is not just infantile; it's fastidious, too. Anandtech's slurs 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! Whereas Anandtech claims that newspapers should report only on items it agrees with, I claim that it is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of mindless speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations -- and that's just the short list! Given that Anandtech and its lackeys are wolves in sheep's clothing who will create a beachhead for organized Fabianism faster than you can say "antitintinnabularian", isn't it obvious that Anandtech's henchmen allege, after performing shoddy research and utilizing threadbare scholarship, that a number of their enemies are planning to encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization? Behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when Anandtech denies ever having strived to introduce disease, ignorance, squalor, idleness, and want into affluent neighborhoods. What we have been imparting to Anandtech -- or what it has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. Think of all the lives that could be saved if we would just stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Anandtech-induced disaster.
It has been brought to my attention that each liberated mind that examines all of the evidence is a break in the chains that bind us all. While this is decidedly true, Anandtech's older teachings were postmodernist enough. Its latest ones are doubtlessly beyond the pale. (The merits of Anandtech's memoirs won't be discussed here, because they lack merit.) Anandtech is obviously hiding something. This implies that I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes organizations like Anandtech want to set the wolf to mind the sheep. While Anandtech has a right to its opinion, its vengeful stances leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children Anandtech's enemies?
Is Anandtech just trying to pander to incorrigible cruel-types? What I just said is a very important point, but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it, so I'll say a few more words on the subject. What Anandtech 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 sententious activity.
The mistaken claim that things have never been better is not only incorrect but is somewhat telling of Anandtech's core sentiments. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. In general, Anandtech does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that it is a model organization, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. Here's the heart of the matter: The gloss that Anandtech's assistants put on Anandtech's screeds unfortunately does little to take away as many of its opportunities for mischief as possible.
If we are to bring Anandtech to justice, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the birdbrained and patronizing ideologies that Anandtech promotes. Although self-pitying nutcases are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are rapidly increasing in size and fervor. Perhaps I'm reading too much into Anandtech's screeds, but they don't seem to serve any purpose other than to achieve total world domination. If I didn't think Anandtech would treat traditional values as if they were flippant crimes, I wouldn't say that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to reverse the devolutionary course it has set for us? No one can deny that it's time for Anandtech to grow up, yet Anandtech's subliminal psywar campaigns 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 it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Anandtech's personal attacks in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must take personal action and place a high value on honor and self-respect.
In that respect, we can say that Anandtech is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Think about this: Anandtech has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. Not only have wrongheaded beggars decided to glorify their bromides by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their half-measures are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. As I make no claim to be an authority on the subject, I defer to the judgments of an Oxford University professor, who has observed that Anandtech tries to make us think the way it wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons.
While hostile ivory-tower academics claim to defend traditional values, they actually dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. Anandtech can't possibly believe that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. It's stupid, but it's not that stupid.
To some extent, certain facts are clear. For instance, I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about Anandtech's goals. It's quite likely it will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that we must make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of its editorials. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to make plans and carry them out. Because of Anandtech's tricks, our schools simply do not teach the basics anymore. Instead, they preach the theology of pathetic antiheroism. Yes, Virginia, Anandtech claims that its vituperations are not worth getting outraged about. Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Anandtech maintains that neopaganism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. Even if this were so, Anandtech would still be sordid. But if Anandtech got its way, it'd be able to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with its put-downs. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that.
My point here is that because of Anandtech's obsession with barbarism, 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: Anandtech. If Anandtech wants to complain, it should have an argument. It shouldn't just throw out the word "honorificabilitudinity", for example, and expect us to be scared. A large percentage of Anandtech's cronies can be termed disorderly. I state these facts only to give a bit of personal background as to why the next time Anandtech decides to perpetuate the myth that if it kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick its toes and beg for another kick, it should think to itself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? We were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face. We were not put here to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem, as Anandtech might suspect.
Having already explained that Anandtech's lackeys have an almost identical mentality, as if they all had been cloned from a single haughty prototype, let me now state that Anandtech has been known to say that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. That notion is so irascible, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. In order for us to realize more happiness in our lives, we need to understand that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why Anandtech would want to devastate vast acres of precious farmland. In purely political terms, implying that we should avoid personal responsibility is no different from implying that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of wicked stereotypes. Both statements are ludicrous. When I first became aware of Anandtech's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how Anandtech's excuses command as much respect as the tales in the supermarket tabloids. And I can say that with a clear conscience, because Anandtech's accusations just don't stand up. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Anandtech's beliefs, one is promptly condemned as disagreeable, dastardly, quasi-duplicitous, or whatever epithet Anandtech deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation.
Anandtech's henchmen all look like Anandtech, think like Anandtech, act like Anandtech, and promulgate partisan prejudice against others, just like Anandtech does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! Naturally, if I didn't sincerely believe that nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded and dirty upon closer inspection, than Anandtech's refrains, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Let's just ignore Anandtech and see what it does.
A trip to your local library would reveal that I try never to argue with Anandtech, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. Better, far better, that Man were without the gift of speech than that he use it as Anandtech does. Better that Man could neither read nor write than have his head and heart perverted by the nit-picky and soulless tommyrot that oozes from Anandtech's pen. And better that the cut of Man's coat and the number of his buttons were fixed by statute and enforced by penalties than that Anandtech should hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom.
Doesn't Anandtech realize that I'm doubtlessly afraid of piteous proponents of narcissism? Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Anandtech so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? I fear that, over time, Anandtech's imprecations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. I don't mean to imply that I have had to restrain myself from rebuking Anandtech more vehemently, but it's true, nonetheless.
Now, I'm going to be honest here. Anandtech's canards 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 you know it.
The largest problem, however, is that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about Anandtech's convictions. It's quite likely it will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that some morally crippled insurrectionists actually suspect that its quips are not worth getting outraged about. This is the kind of muddled thinking that it is encouraging with its claims. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as catty hell-raisers. If we can understand what has caused the current plague of the worst types of offensive clods there are, I believe that we can then convince the government to clamp down hard on Anandtech's maneuvers.
It may seem senseless to say that Anandtech's lackeys do not concern themselves much with the people around them. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of stoicism. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Anandtech will develop mind-control technology. And to overcome these fears, we must derail Anandtech's bloodthirsty little schemes. However, Anandtech's claim that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.
Although I can find only circumstantial evidence of misconduct and rule violations, Anandtech keeps saying that it should leave a large part of this country's workforce dislocated and disillusioned because "it's the right thing to do". For some reason, Anandtech's henchmen actually believe this nonsense. You may find it amusing or even titillating to read about Anandtech's ploys, but they're not amusing to me. They're deeply troubling. There can be no doubt that I must ask that Anandtech's assistants work together towards a shared vision. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to take the focus off the real issues.
It is therefore reasonable to infer that Anandtech's helpers maintain that "we should all bear the brunt of Anandtech's actions." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that Anandtech's warnings are based on some deep-rooted personality disorder, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, Anandtech asserts that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. I correctly predicted that Anandtech would fuel inquisitions. Alas, I didn't think it'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that Anandtech's savage amateurish screeds keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to embark on a new path towards change.
Of course, I'm generalizing a little here. But that's only because I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But we must reach out to people with the message that Anandtech isn't as smart as it thinks it is. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty.
But don't despair. Rather, take comfort in the knowledge that I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that I welcome Anandtech's comments. However, Anandtech needs to realize that all of the foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude to understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by it and its toadies to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships throughout the entire society. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that if it had done its homework, it'd know that there are some sleazy leeches who are petulant. There are also some who are jaded. Which category does Anandtech fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".
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 Anandtech's idea of vicious unregenerate mercantalism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a disagreeable irritable blood lust. It is, in every sense, a boisterous and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to an oppressive frenzy and then prompts them to put increased disruptive powers in wretched dirtbags' hands. Anandtech is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens its creature comforts, Anandtech throws principle to the wind. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that Anandtech's insults provide a vivid example of how Anandtech often expresses great interest in, and approval of, violent acts reported in the press -- spousal abuse, shooting sprees, capital punishment, and so forth. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Anandtech finds a way to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about its philosophies.
Even people who consider themselves scurrilous self-serving-types generally agree that we can't stop Anandtech overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action. If there's a rule, and Anandtech keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? As far back as I can remember, Anandtech has pitted boeotians against converts to unilateralism and desperados against slanderers. I like to speak of Anandtech as "bloody-minded". That's a reasonable term to use, I feel, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, if it doesn't like it here, then perhaps it should go elsewhere.
While self-righteous sexist sluggards claim to defend traditional values, they actually prey on people's fear of political and economic instability. Anandtech just keeps on saying, "We don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. We just want to produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to understate the negative impact of expansionism." Anandtech hates it when you say that it is calling for blind, impulsive action for the sake of action, for the sake of making itself feel good. It really hates it when you say that. Try saying that to it sometime, if you have a thick skin and don't mind having it shriek insults at you.
Was Anandtech just trying to be cute when it said that it holds a universal license that allows it to flout all of society's rules? I sure hope so, because to say that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters is truculent nonsense and untrue to boot. All that we have achieved may now be lost, if not in the bright flames of recidivism, then in the dense smoke of the drugged-out undertakings promoted by crass boneheads.
When I state that Anandtech tries to humiliate its opponents rather than win their understanding, I'm merely trying to lead Anandtech out of a dream world and back to hard reality. Here's some food for thought: If you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me

 

[chipbgt]

I've seen a number of pouty and crotchety things over the years, but Anandtech's personal attacks really take the cake. Let's review the errors in Anandtech's statements in order. First, this is a truth that Anandtech's cronies are told by Anandtech that they cannot acknowledge, lest they give aid and comfort to the rest of us. I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Anandtech. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. If there's a rule, and Anandtech keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? Even though Anandtech has aired its disapproval of being criticized, I still believe that its lackeys argue that those who disagree with it should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. These are the same solecism-prone spiteful masters of deceit who mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against its adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass. This is no coincidence; Anandtech's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, it always begins an argument with its conclusion (e.g., that hanging out with careless scrubs is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- it always arrives at that very conclusion.

If Anandtech continues to sue people at random, the result can be a tone-deafness, a cluelessness, on matters that are at the center of experience for vast segments of the population. Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Anandtech so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? If I recall correctly, if Anandtech is going to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, it's not uncommon for it to speak with authority on subjects it clearly knows nothing about. And second, some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that it would tap into the national resurgence of overt pauperism. And, as I predicted, it did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Anandtech could have made the same prediction. If Anandtech has spurred us to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum, then Anandtech may have accomplished a useful thing.

While it is essential -- and among my highest priorities -- to resolve a number of lingering problems, Anandtech's stratagems 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! While I, for one, suspect that Anandtech has every right to its drugged-out opinions, your support of my jibes is an ideal way to tell craven pathetic hedonists just what you think of their nonsense. (Actually, it broadens its appeal by seeking influence and adherents in the irrationalism movement, but that's not important now.) Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which Anandtech produces.

Does Anandtech have a point? I indeed doubt it. Although I consistently address a number of important issues, I do not countenance challenging Anandtech through breaking the law -- to do so is prolix, wayward, and indefensible. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Anandtech's exhibitionism-oriented form of it -- is. Will antihumanist conspiracy theorists ever enlighten the mind of Man and improve him as a rational, moral, and social being? Don't bet on it.

Whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I, not being one of the many stingy recidivists of this world, am willing to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society -- the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth -- all of whose lives are made miserable by Anandtech. Easy as it may seem to create a world in which colonialism, racialism, and fetishism are all but forgotten, it is far more difficult to search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically ignominious ones championed by the most insidious pinheads you'll ever see. Anandtech's smears are incompatible with the proclivities of instrumental reason, which makes it obvious to me that Anandtech's ideas are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that society is supposed to be lenient towards acrimonious whiners. And they promote the mistaken idea that it never engages in superstitious, mephitic, or inimical politics. Anandtech wants all of us to believe that everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. That's why it sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Let me leave you with one last thought: Anandtech's ideologies have been a millstone around our neck for quite some time.

LOL!!!! I can get these in 10 paragraph form!!!


http://www-csag.cs.uiuc.edu/individual/pakin/complaint

-------------------------
PIII 600MHz Katmai, 256MB RAM Windows 2000 Advanced Server kicks ass!!
ICQ 13799279, Heatware to the nick UrbanTech

Message edited by: urbantechie on 09/04/2000 02:44:24



Reply Top Bottom Next Previous



chipbgt

Senior Member Date Posted: Sep/04/2000 2:47 AM

hmm........ I didnt see how long yours was, and for the first paragraph, I thought you were real....so I went and got this:

There is currently a lot of controversy about Urbantechie's belief systems, and I know that any letter on the subject will almost certainly cause someone to besmirch the memory of some genuine historic figures. Still, it would be a strategic blunder of epic proportions for Urbantechie to subvert time-tested societal norms. To start, I myself challenge him to point out any text in this letter that proposes that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. The picture I am presenting need not be confined to his op-ed pieces. It applies to everything Urbantechie says and does. As I often like to put it, his utterances will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that.

Unsettling as that is, the more infuriating fact is that Urbantechie's insinuations have very little thought behind them and are neither interesting nor amusing. That's clear. But if there's an untold story here, it's that Urbantechie is always prating about how short-sighted megalomaniacs are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. (He used to say that honor counts for nothing, but the evidence is too contrary, so he's given up on that score.) Urbantechie thinks it's good that his actions acquire public acceptance of his neo-sadistic philosophies. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: The central paradox of his prognoses, the twist that makes his self-fulfilling prophecies so irresistible to ethically-bankrupt cads, is that these people truly believe that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform an immature act.

As is often the case, it may seem difficult at first to take the initiative to preserve the peace. It is. But implying that heathenism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us is no different from implying that predaceous truculent low-lifes and the most raucous so-called experts I've ever seen should rule this country. Both statements are ludicrous. In keeping with all of their inner dishonest brutality, Urbantechie's cronies display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations. I believe I am not alone when I say that I'm willing to accept that wanting to revive an arcadian past that never existed without any of the obvious repercussions is like wanting a one-sided coin. I'm even willing to accept that he has really pulled a fast one this time. But only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that his lackeys often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. At first, Urbantechie just wanted to convince money-grubbing moochers that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him. Then, he tried to use organized violence to suppress opposition. Who knows what he'll do next? A final note: Urbantechie should reserve his stereotypes and labels and remember to treat others with a bit more respect and equality.

damn you for not being a real complaint and ruining my fun.





Message edited by: chipbgt on 09/04/2000 02:49:06



Reply Top Bottom Next Previous Edit



urbantechie

Senior Member Date Posted: Sep/04/2000 2:51 AM

LOL. Take this!

It is not likely that I shall say anything new here. If I do, it will be of only minor significance. Nevertheless, facts and their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever Chipbgt dreams up. If you disagree with my claim that I have no idea why Chipbgt wannabees have sprouted across the country like mushrooms after a downpour, then read no further.

It is my personal opinion, based on years of observation, that several things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. He does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Chipbgt discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent.

He doesn't have any principles, or if he does, he puts them aside whenever they're inconvenient. On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education. Chipbgt does that even when his liberties aren't being threatened. We've all heard him yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. Just to add a little more perspective, he claims that sesquipedalianism and alcoholism are identical concepts. I respond that on many issues, discussions with Chipbgt quickly turn into fights, and dialogues soon degenerate into name-calling.

Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs, and you will hardly be able to deny that no one of any intelligence believes that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. To cap that off, his modes of thought are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're totally ignorant, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, he wants to spit in the face of propriety. It gets better: He believes that his philosophies enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. I guess no one's ever told him that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? This should be a chance to examine and bring problems to light, to share and join in understanding, but Chipbgt's commentaries are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of classism.

If Chipbgt wanted to, he could confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. He could legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the oppressed. And he could acquire power and use it to indoctrinate gutless killjoys. We must not allow Chipbgt to do any of these. Still, the issue of what to do about Chipbgt's crazy primitive principles is far from settled. The letter you just read should be seen as a starting point for dialogue on this controversial issue.




-------------------------
PIII 600MHz Katmai, 256MB RAM Windows 2000 Advanced Server kicks ass!!
ICQ 13799279, Heatware to the nick UrbanTech



Reply Top Bottom Next Previous



ltk007

Senior Member Date Posted: Sep/04/2000 2:52 AM

ahhh!!! too much to read so i won't

-------------------------
"When you die, if you have a choice between normal heaven, and pie heaven, choose pie heaven, it might be a trick, but if it isnt... MMMMMM boy!"

Life sucks, but its better than the alternative.



Reply Top Bottom Next Previous



chipbgt

Senior Member Date Posted: Sep/04/2000 2:53 AM

I would get into this....But I tried this exact same thing just last week over at sysopt and cause quite a stink with the mod whom I chose to lift up.



Reply Top Bottom Next Previous Edit



markjs

Junior Member Date Posted: Sep/04/2000 2:53 AM

Here's the angry letter Anandtech knew it was bound to receive. The rest of this letter is focused exclusively on Anandtech, not because I harbor any ill-will towards it, but because it insists that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. Anandtech has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. I'm not saying this to be gin-swilling, but rather to explain that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Anandtech's acrimonious unsavory politics. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) But it gets worse than that. Our situation is snowballing. And that's where we are right now.

Even if we accepted Anandtech's remarks, so what? Does that mean that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future? Of course not. Your guess is as good as mine as to why Anandtech wants to talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. Maybe it's because it plans to suppress people's instinct and intellect. We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because it will deflect attention from its unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen because it possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses blathering knuckleheads with illiterate and uncontrollable rage. Anandtech's half-measures are perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, the demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something which not only does not exist, but is alien to the human condition. Anandtech's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, it always begins an argument with its conclusion (e.g., that it can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- it always arrives at that very conclusion.

Already, some obtuse insurrectionists have begun to suppress controversy and debate, and with terrifying and tragic results. What recommendations will follow from their camp is anyone's guess. If Anandtech wants to be taken seriously, it should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. If we let Anandtech encourage young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their roots, and adopt a horny self-centered lifestyle, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve.

If Anandtech got its way, it'd be able to appropriate sacred symbols for lawless purposes. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. If the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to challenge Anandtech's unprincipled assumptions about merit. If I hear Anandtech's cronies say, "It's okay for Anandtech to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole" one more time, I'm indubitably going to throw up. To state it in a more sophisticated manner, Anandtech's principles are not witty satire, as it would have you believe. They're simply the unsophisticated ramblings of something that has no idea or appreciation of what it's mocking.

It seems to me that Anandtech is both pompous and moonstruck. Now there's a dangerous combination if I've ever seen one. It probably sounds like I'm being eccentric, but I decisively have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Anandtech put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon. Strictly speaking, most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Anandtech progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom.

Note that I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Anandtech before it can exploit the masses. And just let it try and stop me. I've tried explaining to Anandtech's lackeys that Anandtech is trying very hard to plug the hole in its dike of lies so that no more truth leaks out, but it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars.

I frequently wish to tell Anandtech that it feels no guilt for any of the harm it's caused. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. An inner voice tells me that Anandtech insists that two wrongs make a right. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates. Those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to plant markers that define the limits of what is odious and what is not have no right to complain when it and its henchmen fill the air with recrimination and rancor. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: Anandtech might sanctify its depravity quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "unextinguishableness". What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? Anandtech's personal interest in seeing its manuscripts shoved down people's throats is birdbrained, but that's to be expected of it.

Some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, Anandtech thinks that laws are meant to be broken. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. Although I can no more change the past than see the future, it's safe to say that Anandtech uses the word "eulamellibranchiate" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. Organizations that are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. I am on an important mission to reveal the nature and activity of Anandtech's assistants and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. If I don't accomplish that mission, Anandtech's plans to sacrifice children on the twin altars of immoralism and greed could well succeed. To what consequences this leads can be seen from a few simple considerations. First of all, some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that there are other strains of narcissism active today, and the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize combative crass apostates whose oppressive behavior blinds them to historical lessons. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation.

Anandtech may mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated -- right after it reads this letter. Let it. Before long, I will answer the scummy kleptomaniacs who clear-cut ancient forest lands. My argument is that it would be a mistake to believe that violence and prejudice are funny. Ridiculous? Not so. This letter should be regarded as the beginning, not the end, of my stance against Anandtech. And let me tell you, my purpose here is not to instill a sense a responsibility and maturity in those who impact public policy for years to come. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that if we take Anandtech's excuses to their logical conclusion, we see that one of these days, Anandtech will defile the air and water in the name of profit. If Anandtech succeeds in its attempt to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings, it'll have to be over my dead body. Forgive me if I ramble; I'm really upset, as I think you can tell. I alluded to this earlier, but I find Anandtech's editorials to be a perversion of the truth. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that Anandtech's claims epitomize wholesome family entertainment, then there is certainly no hope for you. Regardless of what Anandtech seems to feel, the documentation of this matter is abundant and conclusive. If you want to hide something from Anandtech, you just have to put it in a book.

Anandtech, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world. From what I understand, you might say, "Anandtech, mudslinging neo-rapacious louts, and a few decent but occasionally grotesque people are engaged in a desperate struggle for the soul of society." Fine, I agree. But I try never to argue with Anandtech, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason.

Anandtech says that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Should we care that large numbers of prurient perjurers actually believe such unbalanced things? Should we try to convince them otherwise? I don't think so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's our responsibility to make the world safe for democracy. That's the first step in trying to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas, and it's the only way to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward obscurantism. To be blunt, Anandtech's words have merged with corporatism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both preach a propaganda of hate. And both lower our standard of living.

I am on an important mission to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. If I don't accomplish that mission, Anandtech's plans to mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against Anandtech's adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass could well succeed. Anandtech's lackeys are not, technically, semi-intelligible segregationists, but rather pompous misoneism-prone flag burners. I suspect that there is a small -- yet not entirely insignificant -- difference. The primary point of disagreement between myself and Anandtech is whether or not I feel that it has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Anandtech obviously has none, or it wouldn't yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny. The most money-grubbing peddlers of snake-oil remedies you'll ever see can go right ahead and convict me for saying that Anandtech sees only one side of the issue, 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. Anandtech's agendas serve only to safeguard its own power and privilege, right? Right.

While these incidents may seem minor, Anandtech would have us believe that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Anandtech is surrounded by headstrong unsympathetic undesirables who parrot the same nonsense, which is why we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Anandtech's bloody-minded biases, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!!, against its teachings.) I'm sure you get my point here. I do not find politics that are prissy, brazen, and obstreperous to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but Anandtech likes to compare its recommendations to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. I decidedly don't know how to deal with what I call brutish worrywarts. Let me rephrase that: An armed revolt against Anandtech is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified. Anandtech's henchmen compress Anandtech's hatchet jobs into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. Think I'm exaggerating? Just ask any of the most valuable members of our community, and they'll all tell you how several things Anandtech 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 a perpetual victim of injustice.

Will Anandtech's lethargic assistants incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem? Only time will tell. Anandtech believes that its rejoinders enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. Anandtech asserts that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. Taking that notion one step further, we can see that I don't care what others say about Anandtech. It's still whiney, superstitious, and it intends to create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues.

In other words, the objection may still be raised that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: What we see today is a greater than normal manifestation of bad-tempered traits in Anandtech's warnings. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that its claims are pure tripe? Anandtech has, at times, called me "ignominious" or "sordid". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives.

Careless revanchism is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we strengthen our roots so we can weather the storms that threaten our foundation. If I am correct that unilateralism is the leitmotif of Anandtech's offhand remarks, then it ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

Anandtech's outrage at complaints about it is indicative of its self-esteem and value system, pure and simple. Look at what's happened since Anandtech first ordered its lackeys to generate alienation and withdrawal: Views once considered dirty are now considered ordinary. Views once considered dotty are now considered perfectly normal. And the most mean-spirited of Anandtech's views are now seen as gospel by legions of what I call two-faced rash nebbishes.

Anandtech looks down with a really limitless condescension on anyone who has not been dragged through the obligatory schools and had the necessary knowledge pumped into him. This implies that I have to wonder where Anandtech got the idea that it is my view that the laws of nature don't apply to it. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is. Similarly, Anandtech's wheelings and dealings epitomize all that is insidious in the world. That's the sort of statement that some people feel is featherbrained, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because every time Anandtech tries, it gets increasingly successful in its attempts to threaten the common good. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well.

So long as the devastating inequities that characterize our society persist, Anandtech's henchmen will be unable to deny that its actions symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Anandtech is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, it has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people it desires to lead. It's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Anandtech distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions. Anandtech can write anything it wants about how things would be different were we to give into its demands and let it herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses, but I don't need to tell you that I am not particularly fond of it. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that it has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter.

I should state this explicitly. At least, that certainly seems to be the implication in several of the accounts I've heard. If you want to hide something from Anandtech, you just have to put it in a book. Anandtech's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is slatternly, because it leaves no room for compromise. Anandtech's notions are a veritable dictionary and synonymicon of deconstructionism. Of that I am certain, because 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 classes of people Anandtech preys upon. Speaking of which, Anandtech has gotten away with so much for so long that it's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an organization without any sense of limits could desire to promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush.

Assume for a moment that faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as Anandtech has had, I must truly feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. It therefore follows that the gloss that Anandtech's assistants put on Anandtech's inclinations unfortunately does little to put an end to its evildoing. Almost without exception, Anandtech's helpers argue that everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. These are the same rotten scumbags who deprive individuals of the right to maintain social tranquillity. This is no coincidence; it is not my goal to take advantage of human fallibility to provide parasitic conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread, but the opposite, so to speak. It is reasonable to infer that there is something inherently wrong with an organization that wants, more than anything else, to galvanize a self-serving hysteria, a large-scale version of the insecure mentality that can blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of Anandtech's crazy refrains. If you doubt this, just ask around. Socrates was condemned to death by the city of Athens for his views. I hope I don't receive the same treatment for saying that Anandtech is a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

What's interesting is that even if one is opposed to gutless communism (and I am), then surely, every time Anandtech gets caught trying to condemn innocent people to death, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its toadies always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they contend, women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. I've always thought that the ideas backing up Anandtech's commentaries are extremely yawping and ultra-chauvinistic, and hearing the rubbish that Anandtech spews forth proves it beyond all doubt. Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or in the case of Anandtech and its ill-bred supporters, find the hidden agenda. Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that we can't stop Anandtech overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to call your attention to the problem of refractory bums.

Anandtech has two imperatives. The first is to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture. The second imperative is to drive us into a state of apoplexy.

To say that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance is randy nonsense and untrue to boot. Following this line of logic, it would appear that Anandtech possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, it can't even spell or define "erudition," much less achieve it. When Anandtech first announced that it wanted to wipe out delicate ecosystems, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile. Isn't it odd that primitive weasels, whose disorganized lifestyle will discredit and intimidate the opposition in a lustrum or two, are immune from censure? Don't get me wrong; there is no longer any room for hope. But Anandtech, in its hubris, has decided that it has the right to advocate contentious quips. But there's the rub; it maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around it. There's a word for that: libel.

Because of Anandtech's attitude, I usually don't respond to its jibes, but this time I'll make an exception. In the first place, only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that I and Anandtech part company when it comes to the issue of irrationalism. It feels that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications, while I insist that it operates on an international scale to put our liberties at risk by a cynical and amoral rush to jump on everything that is written, said, or even implied and label it as either besotted or vainglorious. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate. When I first became aware of Anandtech's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how Anandtech's dissertations represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the licentious tendencies that make Anandtech want to allow federally-funded research to mushroom into a recalcitrant, grossly-inefficient system, hampered by primitive gutter-dwellers and hidebound grungy cutthroats. Even though I, hardheaded cynic that I am, find Anandtech's wisecracks to be a perversion of the truth, this does not negate the fact that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely-accepted, notion that human life is expendable. Emotionalism doesn't work. So why does Anandtech cling to it? Let me give you a hint: I indeed contend that we need to do more to guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What demons possessed Anandtech to mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against its adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass?

This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that Anandtech is trying to damn this nation and this world to Hell. Their mission? To spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras. Anandtech parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. Funnel significant amounts of money to tyrannical heretics if you like, Anandtech, because I simply don't care.

Does Anandtech have trouble living with itself, knowing that it has let its out-of-touch nature get the better of it? As that last sentence suggests, a central fault line runs through each of Anandtech's disquisitions. Specifically, throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to turn Anandtech's politically-incorrect catch-phrases to our advantage and those who wish to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about its epigrams. Naturally, Anandtech belongs to the latter category. Anandtech asserts that censorship could benefit us. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie.

When surveyed, only two percent of Anandtech's cronies agreed with the statement, "Anandtech's lackeys are insolent Luddites (literally!)." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness. I'm not saying this to be dodgy, but rather to explain that Anandtech has stated that moonstruck dweebs have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. That's just pure absenteeism. Well, in Anandtech's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Anandtech likes to imply that vigilantism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. This is what its sermons amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of prurient drivel devised by its henchmen and mindlessly multiplied by the worst types of silly loudmouths there are. You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to Anandtech's satanic viewpoints. All of my responses presume that Anandtech's musings are propaganda to the point of comedy and are so easily refuted as to render them useless even as such. I'll say that again, because I want it to sink in: Anandtech's mad past resonates in its current orations.

To tolerate Anandtech's combative hatchet jobs simply because they're not packaged and sold as rotten is to engender ill will. I don't know when paternalism became chic, but any rational argument must acknowledge this. Anandtech's uneducated snow jobs, naturally, do not. From a public-policy perspective, 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 my love for people necessitates that I let Anandtech know, in no uncertain terms, that its hastily-mounted campaigns are gangsterism redux. Yes, I face opposition from Anandtech. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. Let me go on record as saying that even when the facts don't fit, Anandtech sometimes tries to use them anyway. It still maintains, for instance, that everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. Anandtech can't help it; it just loves to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era.

I truly find Anandtech's fondness for inquisitions, witch hunts, star chambers, and kangaroo courts most distasteful. So don't feed me any baloney about how it could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. That's just not true. Did it ever occur to Anandtech that the conflation of vengeful deadheads and pigheaded infantile lummoxes in its screeds is either dramatic hyperbole or a fatal methodological flaw? I hate to say this, but Anandtech's attempts to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive are much worse than mere interventionism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation.

Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Anandtech disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of propagandism. Is there a chance that Anandtech isn't laughable, prolix, and discourteous? From what I've seen, I doubt it. Anandtech is unable to use the English language effectively or correctly. 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. Each day, I see the world becoming more ornery as a determined Anandtech carries out its wretched plans. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of Anandtech in embracing this simple fact.

I might be able to forgive Anandtech, but only if it promises never again to create anomie. Anandtech constantly insists that solipsism is a noble goal. But it contradicts itself when it says that what I call avaricious cowards are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Strictly speaking, Anandtech's ideologies are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". It's deplorable for Anandtech to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to help delusional mumpish misanthropes back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof. Or perhaps I should say, it's obdurate. If there's an untold story here, it's that to believe that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape is to deceive ourselves. I have a New Year's resolution for Anandtech: It should pick up a book before it jumps to the asinine conclusion that it can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct.

I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why in plain language, Anandtech's crusades serve no purpose other than to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. My peers think that Anandtech would love to see me throw in the towel. While this is indisputably true, I maintain we must add that its holier-than-thou attitudes are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. I must emphasize that Anandtech teaches workshops on Fabianism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp.

In other words, if I didn't sincerely believe that Anandtech doesn't shower often enough, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. For heaven's sake, we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to speak out against sick officious swaggerers. We were not put here to leave us in the lurch, as Anandtech might feel. What so many people find difficult to grasp is that it has been brought to my attention that posterity will have little occasion to glorify Anandtech's "heroic" existence in a new epic. While this is undoubtedly true, Anandtech has recently been going around claiming that it is a martyr for freedom and a victim of anarchism. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. One last thing: It is amazing to me that Anandtech would dare to criticize someone or something without carefully reading what was written.




-------------------------
Bleeding Head Good! Healed Head Bad!
www.subgenius.com
http://www.geocities.com/joseph11569/



Reply Top Bottom Next Previous



GirlFriday

Senior Member Date Posted: Sep/04/2000 2:54 AM

I will stand up for the honor of my friend chip though, with this:

What do disreputable contemptuous fiends, what I call uncouth malodorous lowbrows, and UrbanTechie have in common? If
you answered, "They all destroy the lives of good, honest people," then pat yourself on the back. To address this in a pedantic
manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as
opinions. For instance, it is a fact that if we contradict UrbanTechie, we are labelled untrustworthy ungrateful delinquents. If we
capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. He likes to imply that his wheelings and dealings can give us deeper insights into
the nature of reality. This is what his memoranda amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of
lewd drivel devised by his cronies and mindlessly multiplied by headstrong twisted slobs. This conviction of mine is as firm as a
rock. This is the flaw in UrbanTechie's morals. He doesn't understand that UrbanTechie refuses to come to terms with reality.
He prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. Now for some parting advice: Look at the facts.
Analyze the arguments. Think about the motives of the people who are telling you that doing the fashionable thing is more
important than life or liberty. And have confidence in yourself. Remember, UrbanTechie's fixation with irritable catty blowhards
is devious.



-------------------------
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Message edited by: GirlFriday on 09/04/2000 02:55:15



Reply Top Bottom Next Previous



chipbgt

Senior Member Date Posted: Sep/04/2000 2:55 AM

I am writing to express my dismay and concern over Urbantechie's crafty expostulations. Let me cut to the chase: The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Urbantechie. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to denounce those who claim that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Some critics have called Urbantechie self-pitying. A handful insist he's detestable. His cronies, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century. The underlying message is that people tell me that his comments reflect several layers of moral concern for many religions. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. Does he remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people he made fun of just so others would like him more? Urbantechie's long-term goals represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death.

You may be shocked to hear this, but if I said that the cure for evil is more evil, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being thoroughly honest if I said that if one believes statements like, "Public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't," one is, in effect, supporting what I call incoherent bloodsuckers. No matter how bad you think Urbantechie's ravings are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. The next time Urbantechie decides to convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime, disappointment, and destruction, he should think to himself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? What do you think of this: His modus operandi is to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science?

He has a staggering number of mad lackeys. One way to lower their numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified. Urbantechie maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. I'm willing to accept that he is fiddling while Rome burns. I'm even willing to accept that he has nothing but contempt for responsibility, duty, and honor. But we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because at no time in the past did self-aggrandizing masters of deceit shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them.

Urbantechie is not only callous, but he also lacks the self-control necessary to conform his behavior to reasonable norms. Might I suggest that he search for a hobby? It seems Urbantechie has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk. He has endorsed the idea of rotten faddism in a number of very specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of his henchmen's decision to create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and certainly influences legislators and policy makers, conventional wisdom states that these issues are actually political issues. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.

For the sake of concreteness: All the deals Urbantechie makes are strictly one-way. Urbantechie gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Let me back up a little: His expedients all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that blasphemous recidivists are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Urbantechie has convinced a lot of people that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.

While his pranks may seem sullen, they're in agreement with his noxious editorials. I have seen what he is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid and I am very angry. The main dissensus between me and Urbantechie is that I suspect that Urbantechie was warned by his own assistants not to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world. Urbantechie, on the other hand, contends that everyone and everything discriminates against him -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls.

As stated earlier, he is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. Urbantechie's belief systems disgust and infuriate me. But the problems with Urbantechie's invectives don't end there.

Urbantechie floats with the tide of paltry revanchism, especially when driven by the gravitational pull of factionalism. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that he is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally stupid philippics. The objection may still be raised that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about his whiney put-downs. For starters, let's say that "denominationalism" is "that which makes Urbantechie yearn to shame my name."

However, his helpers are delighted with the potential for violent confrontation. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time he tried to distract people from serious analysis of the situation. There's a little-known truth that isn't readily acknowledged by the worst sorts of virulent protestors I've ever seen: I must ask that Urbantechie's toadies mention a bit about treacherous uncivilized prophets of communism such as Urbantechie. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to foster suspicion -- if not hatred -- of "outsiders".

You are, I'm sure, well aware that his bons mots are pockmarked with brown-nosing sesquipedalianism and other assorted ills. But did you know that he is a shoo-in for this year's awarding of "most sophomoric use of autism"? Pardon me for not being able to empathize with the worst kinds of fastidious mendicants I've ever seen, but if he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Do you really think Urbantechie will ever learn from his mistakes? More to the point, if one could get a Ph.D. in Metagrobolism, he would be the first in line to have one. A final word: You do not need to be ungrateful to know that Urbantechie has a one-track mind.

While there are probably a lot of people out there who would be quite content never to read another letter about Urbantechie, Urbantechie's witticisms are not just retroactively ineffective but proactively inert. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current situation is. If we let him offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to shatter the adage that Urbantechie's sentiments are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos.

I have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate. But you knew that already. So let me add that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions. Despite the fact that as soon as Urbantechie's cronies turn the trickle of jujuism into a tidal wave, their anecdotes will cease to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community and instead will pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a rude coterie of barbarism, I would never take a job working for Urbantechie. Given his wrongheaded excuses, who would want to?

Racism doesn't work. So why does Urbantechie cling to it? Let me give you a hint: We mustn't let Urbantechie make incorrect leaps of logic. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. To leave us in the lurch is an injustice. How can Urbantechie deprive people of dignity and autonomy and then turn around and shed tears for those who got hurt as a result? There is an obvious inconsistency here. When asked to mend his ways, he will give people a wink and a smile, but when the wheels begin to turn, it's business as usual.

So what if he hates me for pointing out that he is a small part of a large movement that seeks to muster enough force to condone illegal activities? Let him hate me. I consider such hatred a mark of honor, a mark of distinction. My usual response to his protests is this: We have come full-circle. However, such a response is much too glib and perhaps a little unscrupulous, so let me be more specific. Time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Urbantechie can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively unregenerate.

It's our responsibility to clean up the country and get it back on course again. That's the first step in trying to deal with the relevant facts, and it's the only way to expose some of his evil deeds. If Urbantechie had done his homework, he'd know that what he 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 viperine activity. He may have the right to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. He may have the right to criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle. But Urbantechie crosses the line when he uses his bully pulpit to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue. I guess that my take on this is that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to his platitudes. It applies to everything Urbantechie says and does. The salient point here is that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still claim that it scares the bejeezus out of me to know that he might make things worse by the end of the decade, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. We have an obligation to tell Urbantechie what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. And we have an obligation to take action.

While there are many unsympathetic prigs, Urbantechie is the most jaded of the lot. We must decidedly preserve the peace. Does that sound extremist? Is it too perverted for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.

In order to understand the motivation behind his generalizations, it is important first to address the continued social injustice shown by tendentious lawless pinheads. It is important to differentiate between the most besotted scamps you'll ever see and self-indulgent flighty adolescents who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Urbantechie's vulgar blanket statements, or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Urbantechie's lackeys, or who maintain contact with Urbantechie as part of serious and legitimate research. We must reverse the devolutionary course he has set for us. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties.

Think about this: some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that when one looks at this bad-tempered parade of dotty loudmouths, one instantly thinks of the word "uncharacteristically". But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. Not only have spineless recidivists decided to glorify their personal attacks by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their bromides are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. A great many of us don't want Urbantechie to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. But we feel a prodigious pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his testy scribblings.

Every time he tries, Urbantechie gets increasingly successful in his attempts to replace love and understanding with particularism and frotteurism. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. He is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Urbantechie and his repressive henchmen. Responsible citizens indeed do not utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques.

While we may all pray for a perfect utopian world in which everyone is holding hands and singing "We Are the World" in perfect harmony, the reality is that an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I maintain that it is not yet strategically justified. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with anal-retentive intrusive ogres. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to fight with spiritual weapons that are as hypocritical as they are delirious. I don't mean to imply that for every dollar we spend to better our communities, Urbantechie'll spend a thousand more to use both overt and covert deceptions to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion, but it's true, nonetheless. He is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, he throws principle to the wind. Urbantechie thrives on the victimization of others. And that's the honest truth.

So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that the trouble with such disingenuous avaricious stupid-types is that they intend to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. Before I say anything else, let me remind Urbantechie that there are three fairly obvious problems with his smears, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to raise unimaginative proletariats out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. First, his choleric viewpoints are to politics what the blitzkrieg was to international diplomacy. Second, the little I've written so far already buttresses the assertion that within the deleterious milieu of feudalism exists the opportunity for him to hinder economic growth and job creation. And third, if we don't soon tell him to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his hotheaded declamations, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so. Although he has a certain fondness for incoherent ugly wheeler-dealers, Urbantechie spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is ageism, which says to me that this is a free country, and I think we ought to keep it that way. He believes that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. That's just wrong. He further believes that we should avoid personal responsibility. Wrong again! There is no time and little temptation for those who work hard on their jobs and their responsibilities to caricature and stereotype people from other cultures. The denial of this fact only proves the effrontery, and also the stupidity, of supercilious cowards.

It must be reemphasized that I have no idea why Urbantechie wannabees have sprouted across the country like mushrooms after a downpour. And while we're on the subject, I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But one does not have to give me reason to hide in a closet in order to clean up the country and get it back on course again. It is a capricious person who believes otherwise. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who subject human beings to indignities, and there are those who begin a course of car

 

[markjs]

I sincerely hope that the material I'm about to present will open some eyes and minds. I assume you already know that everything Anandtech writes is littered with spelling errors, grammatical mistakes, missing punctuation, irregular capitalization, false statements, and incoherent thoughts and sentences, but I have something more important to tell you. We were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by insipid Machiavellians. We were not put here to substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence, as Anandtech might think. I know the following is an incredibly cheap shot, but Anandtech's theories are based on hate. Hate, blackguardism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life.
Anandtech claims that everything is happy and fine and good. I, however, insist that that's a load of crud. Yes, it got into a snit the last time I pointed out that only those individuals who are able to accept evidence and think clearly about it can reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of homophobic huns, but those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to reinforce notions of positive self esteem have no right to complain when it and its cronies let down ladders which the pompous, yellow-bellied, and stinking scramble to climb. Anandtech wants all of us to believe that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. That's why it sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Anandtech's notions are beer-guzzling in their impact, inane in their aspirations, improvident in their political deviousness, and drugged-out in their incompetent philosophies. But there's the rub; Anandtech should clarify its point, so people like you and me can tell what the heck it's talking about. Without clarification, Anandtech's anecdotes sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don't really seem to make any sense. It is easy for the public at large to dismiss hectoring menaces (especially the irresponsible type) as perverted fork-tongued-types.
Anandtech is a mythmaker, an illusion builder, or to put it less politely, a trickster. It is tempting to look for simple solutions to that problem, but there are no simple solutions. As we all know, it's time that a few facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype. I have just one word for Anandtech: anthropomorphotheist. And what about Anandtech's lackeys? They, like Anandtech, are the worst classes of supercilious slimeballs I've ever seen. To be honest, Anandtech commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions, because that makes it easy for Anandtech to insist that our society be infested with sesquipedalianism, defeatism, irrationalism, and an impressive swarm of other "isms".
Anandtech may suppress people's instinct and intellect right after it reads this letter. Let it. Sooner than you think, I will pave the way for people of every sex, race, and socioeconomic status to fulfill their own spiritual destiny. Anandtech has only one goal: to waste our time and money. As for the lies and exaggerations, the pauperism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically-motivated, brilliantly-publicized, vile attack on progressive ideas. Whenever someone tells Anandtech not to perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other irritating idiots' intentions, Anandtech gets all teary-eyed. My, my; how sad. My heart bleeds for it, it really does.
Maybe Anandtech just can't handle harsh reality. With Anandtech's threats hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles, it makes sense that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Anandtech's disreputable assertions, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically flighty ones championed by infernal biased paranoiacs.)
After hearing about Anandtech's crafty attempts to threaten the common good, I was saddened. I was saddened that it has lowered itself to this level. I see two problems with Anandtech's snow jobs on a very fundamental level. First, I should state this explicitly. And second, its sentiments 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! I can only fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that Anandtech's tracts have become if Anandtech's army of impertinent hippies is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anything and everything for the well-known thirty pieces of silver.
In theory, Anandtech has the gall to think that oppressive schemers aren't ever frightful. But in reality, Anandtech's statements such as "Newspapers should report only on items Anandtech agrees with" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Because "magnetohydrodynamics" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must make it clear that Anandtech's beliefs are indeed uncalled for. (Actually, Anandtech upholds sin as sacred, but that's not important now.) Be honest; can you in any way believe Anandtech's claim that hanging out with what I call naive unprofessional monomaniacs is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience? I cannot, mainly because it is not just stupid. It is unbelievably, astronomically stupid.
All kidding aside, we should expose injustice and puncture prejudice. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) If the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to work beyond the predatory plasticity of Anandtech's publications. Exactly what is Anandtech trying to hide? Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that Anandtech's editorials are careerism redux. No matter what else we do, our first move must be to alert everyone that Anandtech's henchmen descend to character assassination and name calling simply because they think it's fun. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also indicate in a rough and approximate way the two disloyal tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern alcoholism.
The fact is, if Anandtech is going to make an emotional appeal, then it should also include a rational argument. If Anandtech's assistants had even an ounce of integrity, they would take away as many of Anandtech's opportunities for mischief as possible. Taking that notion one step further, we can see that Anandtech would have us believe that its opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.
As they look over the world's painful panorama of war and terror, some people conclude that it is too late, that no amount of information or activity could possibly take the initiative to enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. But those who take that pessimistic view understand neither Anandtech nor its current rung on the ladder to total power. First off, you should never forget the three most important facets of Anandtech's sound bites, namely their diabolism-oriented origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. I must emphasize this because Anandtech doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. It uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Anandtech's pledge not to tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions is merely empty rhetoric, invoked on occasion for theatrical effect but otherwise studiously ignored. Anandtech can push me only so far and no farther. But you knew that already. So let me add that there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about Anandtech's viewpoints. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it.
The most sobering aspect of Anandtech's insinuations is that one does not have to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of Anandtech's slatternly announcements in order to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. It is a dirty person who believes otherwise. You've heard me say that Anandtech's cronies are all unforgiving vagrants of various stripes. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often, they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image.
I understand that passion precludes Anandtech's ability to ignore trivialities and to concentrate on the important aspects of the problem, but if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that implying that courtesy and manners don't count for anything is no different from implying that it is Anandtech's moral imperative to make bribery legal and part of business as usual. Both statements are ludicrous. It may seem difficult at first to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that as far as Anandtech's annoying pestiferous actions are concerned, I will not capitulate today, tomorrow, or ever. It is. But Anandtech insists that it would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a disloyal act. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates. In asserting that its biases prevent smallpox, it demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. It should be stressed that Anandtech will probably respond to this letter just like it responds to all criticism. It will put me down as "benighted" or "slimy". That's its standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about it except the most fawning praise.
Anandtech has, at times, called me "stingy" or "pompous". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to deny minorities a cultural voice.
Now that I've had time to think hard about Anandtech's effusions, my only question is this: Why? Why trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful? I myself have not forgotten that Anandtech doesn't understand politics or simply doesn't care. I have not forgotten that sadism was founded on a world system of enslavement and land theft. And I cannot forget that Anandtech can fool some of the people all of the time. It can fool all of the people some of the time. But it can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Anandtech, does the word "parallelogrammatical" mean anything to you? Now the surprising news: It's incredible to me that anybody could be so discourteous. We can therefore extrapolate that my message has always been that Anandtech doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. But the problems with Anandtech's pranks don't end there.
Yes, you heard me right; Anandtech's stances epitomize insurrectionism in its truest form. So don't feed me any baloney about how the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. That's just not true. But it gets worse than that. Anandtech extricates itself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. To say anything else would be a lie. For the moment, Anandtech makes no secret of the fact that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to convince its lackeys to condemn its hypocrisy. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.
I suspect that we should justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of Anandtech and its power-drunk theories, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by ensuring that I always explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that 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 Anandtech preys upon. My dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to remind Anandtech about the concept of truth in advertising. To put it crudely, if I didn't sincerely believe that according to Anandtech, anyone who points this out is guilty of spreading lies, smears, and incendiarism, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Not only have what I call uncontrollable carousers decided to glorify their rejoinders by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their opinions are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. A recent series of hearings, lawsuits, and media reports demonstrates that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Anandtech distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions.
Imagine getting a dollar every time Anandtech said it wouldn't create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to deal stiffly with garrulous ivory-tower academics who subject us to the vulgar illiterate yapping of hypocritical ideologues, but did so anyway. You'd be very, very rich. Allow me to explain. We need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Anandtech. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that Anandtech claims that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Anandtech even condones the effrontive bait-and-switch tactics that will turn me, a typically mild-mannered person, into an avaricious self-deceiving vat of animalism.
In many ways, if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by Anandtech and its cronies. Anandtech's daft conjectures shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size. Anandtech then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Last I checked, Anandtech's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. It doesn't want the details checked. It doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts it presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of its "facts" are false.
It would be bad enough if Anandtech's lackeys were merely trying to make life less pleasant for us. But their attempts to exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation are just plain gloomy. If we let Anandtech monopolize the press, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different sorts of quasi-malodorous recidivism.
One might insist that Anandtech simply regurgitates the empty arguments that have been fed to it over the years. While that's true, it does somewhat miss the point. You see, Anandtech thinks it would be a great idea to force me to hang myself by the neck until dead. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.
I definitely hope that Anandtech's protests were intended as a joke, although they're not very funny if they were. Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that Anandtech is an opportunist. That is, it is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. Note that you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: Someone has been giving Anandtech's brain a very thorough washing, and now Anandtech is trying to do the same to us. Anandtech has done inestimable damage to everything around it. (Read as: Anandtech is unable to deal with a world populated by human beings.) Anandtech's patter is smooth and quite practiced. It can fast-talk you into believing you'd be better off if you participated in its effort to saddle the economy with crippling debt. However, its dissertations fall apart upon reflection.
If history follows its course, it should be evident that Anandtech is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, it tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. I will not quibble with Anandtech as to whether or not we can't let it enrich itself at taxpayer expense. Instead, I'll simply state that you won't hear Anandtech's henchmen admit that it's flippant and leave it at that. It's good that you're reading this letter. It's good that you're listening to what I'm saying. But reading and listening aren't enough. You must also be willing to help me reach the broadest possible audience with the message that anyone who was sober for more than an hour or two during the last five years knows that Anandtech's assistants fail to recognize that inequality does not beget equality.
We can say that except for a few bright spots, Anandtech's imprecations are totally mephitic, and Anandtech can claim the opposite, and it won't make one bit of difference. Unctuous knee-biters generally think that Anandtech has no intention to pooh-pooh the concerns of others, but Anandtech's often-quoted demands belie this notion. Anandtech has been known to say that it is a model organization. That notion is so irritable, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. I am morally and ethically opposed to Anandtech's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). Of that I am certain, because if Anandtech makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it.
There's a lot of talk nowadays about Anandtech's uncontrollable ravings, but not much action. Anyone who follows today's debates on communism and, by happenstance, is also familiar with Anandtech's nutty witticisms, is struck by that old truism: We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about Anandtech's hate-filled canards. For starters, let's say that "negativism" is "that which makes Anandtech yearn to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice." An inner voice tells me that Anandtech's statements such as "Anandtech should infantilize and corrupt the general public because "it's the right thing to do"" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. While we may all pray for a perfect utopian world in which everyone is holding hands and singing "We Are the World" in perfect harmony, the reality is that Anandtech's perspective is that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. My perspective, in contrast, is that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Anandtech's indecent press releases, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose.)
Anandtech's stances will lead to decay, to dissolution, to chaos, and to ruin. That sounds really evil, but I truly believe that it's an accurate assessment of the situation. Calling Anandtech's helpers manipulative jerks may be accurate, but statements like, "Anandtech works from the false assumption that most people actually want amateurish bigamists to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. It's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of hypocritical fiends like Anandtech can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that any one believes them. After enduring a barrage of Anandtech's short-sighted solutions, one normally experiences intense levels of stress, difficulty sleeping, and anxiety about one's physical safety as well as one's career. But it doesn't stop there.
I am cognizant that abysmal satanic poseurs in general, and Anandtech in particular, intend to impair the practice of democracy, but Anandtech's tricks 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 we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we really have to solve the problems that are important to most people. My intention here is not just to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences, but also to defy the international enslavement of entire peoples.
Anandtech's vituperations always follow the same pattern. It puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. Should sit back and let Anandtech herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses, or should we punish it for its amoral magic-bullet explanations? That choice sure sounds like a no-brainer to me. I, for one, hate having to keep reminding everybody of this, but I do not find memoranda that are pugnacious, disrespectful, and peevish to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but Anandtech spouts the same bile in everything it writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue it's excited about this week is quislingism, which says to me that an armed revolt against it is morally justified. However, I insist that it is not yet strategically justified.
Anandtech refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. True, Anandtech has lost sight of the lessons of history, but whenever there's an argument about Anandtech's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that Anandtech's wheelings and dealings reinforce the point that we still have a long way to go in terms of achieving true tolerance in our society. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
Anandtech has only one goal: to threaten the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet. What Anandtech fails to mention in its long-term goals is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that Anandtech wants to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people? Or that even Anandtech must concede that anyone who thinks that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't is not living in the real world? I believe, way deep down, that Anandtech's wisecracks all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that anyone who resists it deserves to be crushed. It is certainly the height of ironies that Anandtech will give rise to the most cocky heretics I've ever seen because it possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses truculent ornery cutthroats with hotheaded and uncontrollable rage.
Anandtech may have the right to con us into believing that the laws of nature don't apply to it. It may have the right to encourage brutish drug lords to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort. But Anandtech crosses the line when it uses its bully pulpit to detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity -- family, class, private associations. Anandtech's cronies' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be.
During the first half of the 20th century, expansionism could have been practically identified with particularism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called incomprehensible dorks. Anandtech's language is turgid and incomprehensible. People have commented that there may be a gap in my logic there. I myself don't think there is, and I've gone to great pains to explain why.
Anandtech wins ivory-tower academics over to its side using big words like "uncontradictableness". I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. Anandtech keeps saying that everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. For some reason, Anandtech's lackeys actually believe this nonsense.
There is a tortured quality to Anandtech's reasoning, a careful avoidance of obvious conclusions, and a painstaking circumnavigation of embarrassing facts. It is tempting to look for simple solutions to that problem, but there are no simple solutions. Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: Anandtech thinks that you and I are morally inferior to the most stupid enemies of the people you'll ever see. However, one loses count of the number of times it has tried to create a climate of intimidation. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that it's easy enough to hate Anandtech any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Anandtech is up to, things that ought to make a real Anandtech-hater out of you. First off, 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 loquacious activity. Our situation is snowballing. In just a moment I'll discuss some important recent developments based on this fundamental truth. First, however, I want to add a bit to what I wrote previously. I want to plant markers that define the limits of what is grotesque and what is not. That may seem simple enough, but we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because it is locked into its present course of destruction. It does not have the interest or the will to change its fundamentally delirious threats.
I fear that, over time, Anandtech's crusades will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that this serves as a reminder that we'll know soon enough just how crude these classes of kleptomaniacs can be. It's doubtlessly astounding that Anandtech has found a way to work the words "anthropogeographical" and "saccharogalactorrhea" into its treatises. However, you may find it even more astounding that the lockstep ideological conformity of its cronies and their mindless parroting of its callow cliches about favoritism have reached a level of absurdity hardly matched by any historical example that comes to mind. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that I try never to argue with it, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. Please keep in mind that Anandtech has vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom.
If you want to clear up these muddied waters with some reality, then tell everyone you know the truth, that I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Anandtech. And just let it try and stop me. What Anandtech does in private is none of my business. But when it tries to put the most cocky nutcases I've ever seen on the federal payroll, I object. Flattery will get Anandtech nowhere, but given the way things are these days, we must remember that if you think that anyone who disagrees with Anandtech is ultimately vicious, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what it wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Anandtech. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I protect innocent, little children from ribald uncivilized rubes like it.
I'm not saying this to be patronizing, but rather to explain that I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why we need the space and autonomy to fight the excuses that can hurt us. My peers think that Anandtech is a faithful student of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist who advocated demoralizing one's enemy as the highest art of warfare. While this is definitely true, I insist we must add that Anandtech claims that Pyrrhonism is a noble goal. Well, I beg to differ. Consider the issue of pathetic pessimism. Everyone agrees that it appears that, for Anandtech, "open-mindedness" isn't a policy or a belief, but a flag to wave when it feels like it, and one to hide when it doesn't suit its purposes, but there are still some brown-nosing recidivists out there who doubt that Anandtech should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery, specifically, its ego. To them I say: Certain facts are clear. For instance, many people respond to Anandtech's unstable comments in much the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Anandtech does not desire to benefit humanity, but rather to render unspeakable and unthinkable whole categories of beliefs about power.
While I have no proof that Anandtech is hell-bent on suppressing our freedom, you should still believe me, as Anandtech and I disagree about our civic duties. I maintain that we must do our utmost to drive off and disperse the putrid thought police who violate strongly-held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains as expeditiously as possible. Anandtech, on the other hand, believes that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. When one examines the ramifications of letting Anandtech treat anyone who doesn't agree with it to a torrent of vitriol and vilification, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that you might say, "Haughty metagrobolism and dour nonrepresentationalism are a matched pair." Fine, I agree. But it's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to lend a helping hand. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader. As I often like to put it, the central preconception in Anandtech's paranoid style is the belief in the existence of a vast, tendentious, preternaturally-effective international conspiratorial network designed to reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with Anandtech's musings while punishing those who oppose them. But there's the rub; when I say that it's really hard to take someone as incompetent as Anandtech very seriously, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that laws are meant to be broken. This is a common fallacy held by what I call capricious creeps. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, and I now have a strong conviction that when Anandtech tells us that revanchism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society, it somehow fails to mention that as far as its superficial scribblings are concerned, I will not capitulate today, tomorrow, or ever. It fails to mention that I would rather die than remain silent in response to that which I am convinced is profoundly militant. And it fails to mention that most other rash manipulators of the public mind are not as silly as they seem. That's the sort of statement that some people suspect is discourteous, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because its eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity. And Anandtech's vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight?) Some readers may doubt that Anandtech is lazy enough to promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group. So let me provide some evidence. But before I do, let me just say that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of quasi-sexist extremists, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Anandtech's mischievous credos, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences.)
What a cunning coup on the part of Anandtech's lackeys, who set out to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of Anandtech's henchmen to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant and got as far as they did without anyone raising an eyebrow. Nevertheless, if you can go more than a minute without hearing Anandtech talk about fascism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. Don't be intimidated by Anandtech's threat to beat plowshares into swords. Taking that notion one step further, we can see that if you've never seen Anandtech cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself.
As is so often the case, the first response to this from Anandtech's assistants is perhaps that Anandtech's vituperations are not worth getting outraged about. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: I don't care what others say about Anandtech. It's still abusive, hopeless, and it intends to kill the goose bearing the golden egg. To state it in a more sophisticated manner, there is a problem here. A very large, blathering, two-faced problem.
Am I angry? You bet. 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: Anandtech.
At first, Anandtech just wanted to leave behind a wake of reprehensible reaction. Then, it tried to renege on an incredibly large number of promises. Who knows what it'll do next? Anandtech fits the stereotypical image of incorrigible schemers, pure and simple. Anandtech sees all the evidence, but it is reluctant to accept the conclusion that it's not a question of if but only of when Anandtech will lash out at everyone and everything in sight. That's clear. But delirious antagonists are receptive to its pusillanimous messages and fool easily. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.
Sure, we could just sit back and let Anandtech deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that sinful perfidious shirkers are capable of, but that prospect really grates on people who have any kind of common sense. It is common knowledge that of all of Anandtech's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "Anandtech's bait-and-switch tactics epitomize wholesome family entertainment." I don't know where it came up with this, but its statement is dead wrong. Imagine getting a dollar every time Anandtech said it wouldn't break our country's national and patriotic backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke of international anti-intellectualism, but did so anyway. You'd be very, very rich.
It would be downright subhuman for Anandtech to defy the rules of logic. So don't feed me any baloney about how obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. That's just not true.
By that, I mean not only in the strictest sense, but also the whole spectrum of related meanings. If I understand Anandtech's snow jobs correctly, then Anandtech says that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely prudish and lousy lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Anandtech's cronies. We don't need to demonize Anandtech; it is already a demon, and furthermore, I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why I myself surely would have expected it to at least listen to my side of the story. My peers think that there is no time and little temptation for those who work hard on their jobs and their responsibilities to leave us in the lurch. While this is truly true, I contend we must add that if it were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that I have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that newspapers should report only on items it agrees with, then there is undoubtedly no hope for you.
Anandtech sees all the evidence, but it is reluctant to accept the conclusion that Anandtech just keeps on saying, "We don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. We just want to usher in the beginning of an ignorant new era of gnosticism." Anandtech's theories turn the stomachs of those who know even a little about the real world. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that it tries to make us think the way it wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. The next time someone denies that passion precludes Anandtech's ability to ignore trivialities and to concentrate on the important aspects of the problem, look that person right in the eye and reply, "Anandtech's lackeys should reevaluate their cherished assumptions about antiheroism." Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which Anandtech produces. For what it's worth, Anandtech uses the very intellectual tools it criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. For all of the foregoing reasons, I can confidently claim that Anandtech would have us believe that it is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Anandtech is surrounded by lackluster exhibitionists who parrot the same nonsense, which is why most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Anandtech precipitate riots.
Anandtech equates non-cooperation and solitariness with individuality. Surprised? You shouldn't be, because Anandtech's argument that it could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else is hopelessly flawed and completely circuitous. Let's just ignore Anandtech and see what it does.
Think of all the lives that could be saved if we would just shatter the illusion that Anandtech holds a universal license that allows it to rip off everyone and his brother. Anandtech's statements such as "Merit is adequately measured by Anandtech's methods and qualifications" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Anandtech's sophistries are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition." Funny, that was the same term that its henchmen once used to cause slimy subversion to gather momentum on college campuses.
By refusing to act, by refusing to investigate the development of colonialism as a concept, we are giving Anandtech the power to blend together propagandism and deconstructionism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. Calling Anandtech's assistants villainous crass manipulators of the public mind may be accurate, but if you want to hide something from Anandtech, you just have to put it in a book. Anandtech says that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Should we care that large numbers of cranky hectoring warmongers actually believe such bookish things? Should we try to convince them otherwise? I don't think so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about its undertakings. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must put the kibosh on its slurs.
Anandtech is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of self-absorbed speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations -- and that's just the short list! Do you really want Anandtech to provide the most nugatory firebrands you'll ever see with a milieu in which they can address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem? I think not.
If I seem a bit domineering, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with Anandtech on its own level. Am I being malignant for wanting a little editorial balance here? Some dishonest truculent perverts actually believe that Anandtech understands the difference between civilization and savagery. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Anandtech is encouraging with its opinions. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as ridiculous deadheads. At the risk of repeating myself, I must reiterate that if anything, corruption, lying, and hypocrisy are the fundaments of Anandtech's editorials. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Anandtech. Despite the obvious fact that Anandtech's remonstrations blend treacherous lascivious expansionism (manifested in a disingenuous stance) with a purported support for environmentalism, trade unionism, and the dignity of labor, when one examines the ramifications of letting Anandtech put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that someone has been giving its brain a very thorough washing, and now Anandtech is trying to do the same to us.
What we see today is a greater than normal manifestation of unprincipled traits in Anandtech's manuscripts. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: Anandtech is thoroughly mistaken if it believes that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. Just like dirty clothes on the floor and cluttered closets, Anandtech's mess won't go away if we simply look the other way. Anandtech's cronies have shared the rostrum with wicked serpents at recent symposia. But don't take my word for it; ask any impetuous invidious crooks you happen to meet. Anandtech's lies come in many forms. Some of its lies are in the form of subliminal psywar campaigns. Others are in the form of machinations. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.
Sure, some of Anandtech's views are valid, but that's not the point. If Anandtech succeeds in its attempt to get on my nerves, it'll have to be over my dead body. Anandtech's recourse to authoritarianism as a tactical modality for waging low-intensity warfare has been successful. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of Anandtech in embracing this simple fact. If we let Anandtech exploit other cultures for self-entertainment, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both.
I had thought the world was free of jaundiced authoritarians. So imagine my surprise when I discovered that Anandtech wants to spew forth ignorance and prejudice. The next time Anandtech decides to interfere with the most important principles of democracy, it should think to itself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? Although the dialectics of duplicitous praxis will alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with Anandtech's current "reality" any day now, Anandtech's vituperations are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of paternalism.
Some people have compared abominable troublemakers to atrabilious primates. I would like to take the comparison one step further. What's interesting is that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that I, not being one of the many grotesque beatniks of this world, cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Anandtech's subterfuge. I'm entirely stunned. As something that enjoys brandishing words like "individualistic" and "pseudoparenchymatous" as a smoke screen to hide its pleas' inherent paradoxes, Anandtech must unquestionably be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to its crazy neurotic words.
This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: phallocentrism. It may be obvious but should nonetheless be acknowledged that Anandtech's new definition of "counterestablishment" is indisputably in disagreement with its incorrigible communications. For proof of this fact, I must point out that Anandtech's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is closed-minded, because it leaves no room for compromise. Pardon my coarse language, but Anandtech operates on an international scale to move brazen hooliganism from the detestable fringe into a realm of respectability. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. I realize that totalitarianism is a tremendous problem in our society, but does it constantly have to be thrown in our faces?
Well, Anandtech, we're all getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you've done. We're fed up. And the day is coming when you'll be held accountable for your dastardly ultimata.
Does Anandtech realize it's more crude than most sleazy segregationists? It would be a semantic quibble to deny that I want to confront and reject all manifestations of sadism. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because Anandtech's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. It doesn't want the details checked. It doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts it presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of its "facts" are false. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that Anandtech's belief systems are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition." Funny, that was the same term that its lackeys once used to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion. Believe you me, Anandtech's put-downs 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 if the people generally are relying on false information sown by intellectually-stultified big-labor bosses, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation.
I cannot compromise with Anandtech; it is without principles. I cannot reason with it; it is without reason. But I can warn it, and with a warning it must definitely take to heart: I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why it remains to be seen if Anandtech will lay waste to the environment in a matter of days. My peers suspect that conventional wisdom states that its campaigns reinforce the point that we still have a long way to go in terms of achieving true tolerance in our society. While this is surely true, I maintain we must add that its wisecracks are as troubling as its insistence that it should disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models because "it's the right thing to do". I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that thanks to Anandtech, bloody-minded fault-finders can now freely propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright post-structuralism, and everyone with half a brain understands that. Woe to the grotesque slanderers who toss sops to the egos of the sexist! While Anandtech might not harvest what others have sown per se, Anandtech's claim that it has a "special" perspective on extremism which carries with it a "special" right to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. What do you think of this: Money and greed shape Anandtech's thinking? The following theorem may therefore be established as an eternally valid truth: Anandtech's cronies all look like Anandtech, think like Anandtech, act like Anandtech, and stigmatize any and all attempts to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by its notions might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational, just like Anandtech does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha!
Though many people agree that we must work together against teetotalism, pauperism, racialism, etc., this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of Anandtech's vile sentiments. Not yet, at least. But if you think that Anandtech's opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality -- then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what it wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. Anandtech talks loudly about family values and personal responsibility, but when it comes to backing up those words with actions, all it does is bombard me with insults.
It is quite common today to hear people express themselves as follows: "One could make a strong argument that Anandtech's standard operating procedure is to control, manipulate, and harm other people." In essence, Anandtech dreams of a time when they'll be free to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. That's the way it's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. The effete anarchism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of asinine sewer rats, nor of the pretentious deceitful individuals who judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. It is the fault of Anandtech.
Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting Anandtech harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. In that respect, we can say that I frequently wish to tell Anandtech that I can't let it move hidebound escapism from the incomprehensible fringe into a realm of respectability. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. That fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence.
Anandtech is not just infantile; it's fastidious, too. Anandtech's slurs 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! Whereas Anandtech claims that newspapers should report only on items it agrees with, I claim that it is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of mindless speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations -- and that's just the short list! Given that Anandtech and its lackeys are wolves in sheep's clothing who will create a beachhead for organized Fabianism faster than you can say "antitintinnabularian", isn't it obvious that Anandtech's henchmen allege, after performing shoddy research and utilizing threadbare scholarship, that a number of their enemies are planning to encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization? Behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when Anandtech denies ever having strived to introduce disease, ignorance, squalor, idleness, and want into affluent neighborhoods. What we have been imparting to Anandtech -- or what it has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. Think of all the lives that could be saved if we would just stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Anandtech-induced disaster.
It has been brought to my attention that each liberated mind that examines all of the evidence is a break in the chains that bind us all. While this is decidedly true, Anandtech's older teachings were postmodernist enough. Its latest ones are doubtlessly beyond the pale. (The merits of Anandtech's memoirs won't be discussed here, because they lack merit.) Anandtech is obviously hiding something. This implies that I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes organizations like Anandtech want to set the wolf to mind the sheep. While Anandtech has a right to its opinion, its vengeful stances leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children Anandtech's enemies?
Is Anandtech just trying to pander to incorrigible cruel-types? What I just said is a very important point, but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it, so I'll say a few more words on the subject. What Anandtech 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 sententious activity.
The mistaken claim that things have never been better is not only incorrect but is somewhat telling of Anandtech's core sentiments. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. In general, Anandtech does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that it is a model organization, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. Here's the heart of the matter: The gloss that Anandtech's assistants put on Anandtech's screeds unfortunately does little to take away as many of its opportunities for mischief as possible.
If we are to bring Anandtech to justice, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the birdbrained and patronizing ideologies that Anandtech promotes. Although self-pitying nutcases are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are rapidly increasing in size and fervor. Perhaps I'm reading too much into Anandtech's screeds, but they don't seem to serve any purpose other than to achieve total world domination. If I didn't think Anandtech would treat traditional values as if they were flippant crimes, I wouldn't say that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to reverse the devolutionary course it has set for us? No one can deny that it's time for Anandtech to grow up, yet Anandtech's subliminal psywar campaigns 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 it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Anandtech's personal attacks in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must take personal action and place a high value on honor and self-respect.
In that respect, we can say that Anandtech is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Think about this: Anandtech has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. Not only have wrongheaded beggars decided to glorify their bromides by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their half-measures are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. As I make no claim to be an authority on the subject, I defer to the judgments of an Oxford University professor, who has observed that Anandtech tries to make us think the way it wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons.
While hostile ivory-tower academics claim to defend traditional values, they actually dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. Anandtech can't possibly believe that everyone with a different set of beliefs from its is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. It's stupid, but it's not that stupid.
To some extent, certain facts are clear. For instance, I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about Anandtech's goals. It's quite likely it will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that we must make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of its editorials. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to make plans and carry them out. Because of Anandtech's tricks, our schools simply do not teach the basics anymore. Instead, they preach the theology of pathetic antiheroism. Yes, Virginia, Anandtech claims that its vituperations are not worth getting outraged about. Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Anandtech maintains that neopaganism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. Even if this were so, Anandtech would still be sordid. But if Anandtech got its way, it'd be able to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with its put-downs. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that.
My point here is that because of Anandtech's obsession with barbarism, 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: Anandtech. If Anandtech wants to complain, it should have an argument. It shouldn't just throw out the word "honorificabilitudinity", for example, and expect us to be scared. A large percentage of Anandtech's cronies can be termed disorderly. I state these facts only to give a bit of personal background as to why the next time Anandtech decides to perpetuate the myth that if it kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick its toes and beg for another kick, it should think to itself, Cui bono? -- who benefits? We were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face. We were not put here to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem, as Anandtech might suspect.
Having already explained that Anandtech's lackeys have an almost identical mentality, as if they all had been cloned from a single haughty prototype, let me now state that Anandtech has been known to say that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. That notion is so irascible, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. In order for us to realize more happiness in our lives, we need to understand that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why Anandtech would want to devastate vast acres of precious farmland. In purely political terms, implying that we should avoid personal responsibility is no different from implying that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of wicked stereotypes. Both statements are ludicrous. When I first became aware of Anandtech's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how Anandtech's excuses command as much respect as the tales in the supermarket tabloids. And I can say that with a clear conscience, because Anandtech's accusations just don't stand up. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Anandtech's beliefs, one is promptly condemned as disagreeable, dastardly, quasi-duplicitous, or whatever epithet Anandtech deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation.
Anandtech's henchmen all look like Anandtech, think like Anandtech, act like Anandtech, and promulgate partisan prejudice against others, just like Anandtech does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! Naturally, if I didn't sincerely believe that nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded and dirty upon closer inspection, than Anandtech's refrains, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Let's just ignore Anandtech and see what it does.
A trip to your local library would reveal that I try never to argue with Anandtech, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. Better, far better, that Man were without the gift of speech than that he use it as Anandtech does. Better that Man could neither read nor write than have his head and heart perverted by the nit-picky and soulless tommyrot that oozes from Anandtech's pen. And better that the cut of Man's coat and the number of his buttons were fixed by statute and enforced by penalties than that Anandtech should hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom.
Doesn't Anandtech realize that I'm doubtlessly afraid of piteous proponents of narcissism? Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Anandtech so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? I fear that, over time, Anandtech's imprecations will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. I don't mean to imply that I have had to restrain myself from rebuking Anandtech more vehemently, but it's true, nonetheless.
Now, I'm going to be honest here. Anandtech's canards 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 you know it.
The largest problem, however, is that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about Anandtech's convictions. It's quite likely it will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that some morally crippled insurrectionists actually suspect tha

 

[mjquilly]

I'm not going to read all this stuff. I don't even know what you guys are talking about. I hate reading alot of stuff, and I also hate writing alot. So I'm just going to keep out of this and not even bother with this thread.

 

[imhotepmp]

My complaint about Microsoft

This is to voice my dissatisfaction with Microsoft's jibes. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that I like to speak of Microsoft as "ornery". That's a reasonable term to use, I believe, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that it is up to, the more shocking things, things like how it wants to scar little children's self-image. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but the central paradox of its prophecies, the twist that makes its ebullitions so irresistible to the worst classes of imprudent astrologers there are, is that these people truly believe that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. Does Microsoft remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people it made fun of just so others would like it more? Microsoft wants to repeat the mistakes of the past. But what if the tables were turned? How would Microsoft like that?

Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as Microsoft's decision to commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility. Microsoft's method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Microsoft-ism". It is a libidinous and avowedly unsavory philosophy that aims to eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights. Even when Microsoft isn't lying, it's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable it to threaten the common good. Like I said, Microsoft would have us 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. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people just don't realize that Microsoft does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that scary protestors are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. I wish I could say this nicely, but I don't have much tolerance for scummy profiteers: Remaining silent and inactive in the face of Microsoft's notions negates our duty as civilized members of the community. And let me tell you, Microsoft presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically-motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. It is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors predaceous blackguards. And here we have the ultimate irony, because it claims that you and I are inferior to the worst sorts of domineering sociopaths I've ever seen. I respond that it spews nothing but lame retorts and innuendoes. I should add parenthetically that Microsoft is stepping over the line when it attempts to make mountains out of molehills -- way over the line. On a completely different tack, the space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which Microsoft has tried to permit unctuous devil-worshippers to rise to positions of leadership and authority. You may be surprised to learn that I was once like Microsoft. I, too, wanted to drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. It interfered with my judgement, my reasoning, and my ability to instill a sense a responsibility and maturity in those who smear people of impeccable character and reputation.

I don't mean to throw fuel on an already considerable fire, but I am totally shocked and angered by Microsoft's unprincipled improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. Would Microsoft like it if I were ostentatious and maladroit, too? I don't think so. Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, Microsoft? Microsoft's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

Where does the line get drawn? Nevertheless, several things Microsoft 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 never engages in immature, antihumanist, or feeble-minded politics. For better or for worse, if you've never seen Microsoft wipe out delicate ecosystems, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. I assume that Microsoft is unaware of its obligation not to use both overt and covert deceptions to confuse, disorient, and disunify, as this unawareness would be consistent with its prior displays of ignorance. For a variety of reasons, some strategic, some ideological, some attitudinal, and all of them wrong, reckless sappy mendicants empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people. Microsoft's cronies perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. And that, in my view, is our real problem.

A valid complaint?

 

[ltk007]

LOCK!

 

[Aquaman]

This thread is Suck

 

[RentaCow]

Whoa baby!!

Hehe whatever script/complaint generator you are using could someone inform me to where I could access/use it too. Although utterly useless, this kicks ass...