The following are simply some random thoughts that have been rattling about my head of late and that I'd like to let out—a little house cleaning, if you will. The first thing I want to bring up is that we must test the assumptions that underlie Lord_Rommel's prognoses. If we fail then all of our sacrifices and all of the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been in vain. The key is to realize that if we take Lord_Rommel's bunco games to their logical conclusion, we see that in the immediate years ahead, Lord_Rommel will channel the pursuit of scientific knowledge into a narrow band of accepted norms that are based exclusively on his counter-productive, self-pitying propositions. He wants to place intrusive heresiarchs at the head of a nationwide kakistocracy, even though, for most people, this desire is neither necessary nor instinctive. An equal but opposite observation is that he attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, Lord_Rommel calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, he says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does Lord_Rommel say such things? That happens to be a matter on which I do not care to venture either an opinion or a guess. I do, however, feel that I should state that Lord_Rommel ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:
Fact: One positive outcome of the Law of Unintended Consequences is that if we address the continued social injustice shown by coprophagous scum then Lord_Rommel won't be able to lionize impolitic hermits of one sort or another.
Fact: The Orwellian implications of his views are clear.
Fact: He serves up his contumelious form of credentialism as intellectual fast food for his resentful habitués.
In addition, he hates you—yes, you, because you, like me, want to throw down the gauntlet and challenge his faithfuls to take away as many of his opportunities for mischief as possible. Although "tolerance" means tolerance of all, not only of a select few, we are here to gain our voice in this world, and whether or not Lord_Rommel approves, we will continue to be heard.
Orwellian? Indeed. Whatever it is you are quoting, it's awesome. Good job, chica.
I blame Balti for him taking this thing too serious.
I don't want to be rude or disrespectful, and I sincerely don't want to start an argument, but dishonest, craven teetotalism is Balti's preferred quick-fix solution to complex cultural problems. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. To simplify, you may make the comment, "What does this have to do with disorderly philosophasters?" Well, once you begin to see the light you'll realize that most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. Now that you've reached the end of this letter, let me leave you with the key take-away message: Balti is one of the world's major voices of hooliganism.
Although I generally believe that the less said about Ravenstein, the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Ravenstein's chauvinistic apothegms. To get immediately to the point, when a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that Ravenstein stubbornly refuses to own up to his mistakes serves only to convince me that he says that he is entitled to spit in the face of propriety. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. Now that you've read my entire letter, I hope you've concluded that my plan to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against Ravenstein's threats is deserving of serious consideration.
And that is why Chat blames Ravenstein for the lack of chocolate.
Cleverly hidden within this letter, for added incentive to read onward, is one lie. Not a lie of statistical or grammatical error but a ludicrous falsehood at once so absurd as to strike the reader as an insult to human intelligence and yet so insecure as to convince the reader that debate with Disney or a search for common ground is both a fruitless exercise and a suicidal strategy. You may be disappointed to hear that my concrete suggestions on how to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world are sprinkled throughout this letter like raisins in a pudding, not grouped together in a single block of text at the end. This was a conscious decision I made based on the observation that thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that I regret not writing this letter sooner. I was right when I said that it is my greatest and most solemn pleasure to put the kibosh on Disney's perversions. And I was right when I said that mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for Disney. If we feel helpless, Disney is energized and ramps up its efforts to shower possession-obsessed tricksters with undeserved encomia.
Disney has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that its followers resist seeing that its apostles have the audacity to glamorize drug usage. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to break the spell of great expectations that now binds manipulative ratbags to Disney. With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, Disney frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are cankered. Only abhorrent deadheads can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an "inner experience" from this dung heap of cocky revisionism.
It would be nice to say that clueless antipluralism doesn't exist anymore but we all know that it does. I suspect that Disney is willing to use any method, no matter how scientifically unsupported and disreputable, to confirm its a priori beliefs, even though that presupposes a dialectical intertwinement to which an oligophrenic turn of mind is impervious. Before Disney initiated a separatism flap to help promote its ghastly campaigns of malice and malignity, people everywhere were expected to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that if I am correctly informed, I could make an argument for the idea that Disney flaunts its personal theatrics and attitudes in front of everyone else. In any case, as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, its rank-and-file followers don't really care that it has vowed that in the coming days it'll dismantle the guard rails that protect society from the cynical elements in its midst. This is hardly news; Disney has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that it deeply believes that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Disney, with its craftiness and ribald agendas, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches before long. Disney will then use those riches to eliminate the plebiscitary mechanisms which ensure a free and democratic society. The moral of this story is that our national media is controlled by mingy slanderers. That's why you probably haven't heard that Disney's subordinates aver that "principles don't matter." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written instead that Disney's yellow-bellied reportages are a blueprint for the widespread institution of sensationalism then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Disney's intransigent pronouncements and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to build a true community of spirit and purpose based on mutual respect and caring.)
From the perspective of those inside Disney's band, Disney is the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. The reality, however, is that the natural result of its jeremiads is an intolerance that, in the long run, tends to diminish our will to live. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. There's one thing you can truly say about Disney: It has a sense of humor. It was being a real comedian when it told us that it is its moral imperative to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion.
The term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of Disney. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to it, which is why I maintain that Disney maintains that its entourage is looking out for our best interests. This is complete—or at least, incomplete—baloney. For instance, Disney fails to mention that it has declared that it's staging a revolt against everyone who dares to pave the way for people of every sex, race, and socioeconomic status to fulfill their own spiritual destiny. Disney is revolting all right; the very sight of it turns my stomach. All kidding aside, it thinks it would be a great idea to foster anarchism at every opportunity. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.
By this, I mean that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we solve the problems of nepotism, jingoism, economic inequality, and lack of equal opportunity, or is it sufficient to maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting Disney? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: When will Disney come clean and admit that it intends to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem? To turn that question around, how can we break its hypnotic spell over foul-mouthed worrywarts? Although I haven't been able to concoct an acceptable answer to that question, I can suggest a tentative hypothesis. My hypothesis is that it never stops boasting about its generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, Disney's claimed magnanimousness is utterly chimerical, and, furthermore, it has been promoting door-to-door roundups of "troublemakers" (meaning people who resist being inducted into the ranks of its club) and their delivery into concentration camps (more accurately: liquidation camps). I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that a lot of people may end up getting hurt before the final spasm of its rage is played out?
Disney is not known for interpreting facts rationally or objectively. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with it. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I deal with Disney's choleric allocutions on a case-by-case basis. Every time Disney tells its sympathizers that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by purblind miscreants for the purpose of population reduction, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. This may sound like caricature, but if Disney manages to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow, civilization will crumble almost immediately. Investigators from a future era will need to sift through the charred wreckage of our society looking for the black box to figure out what happened. Maybe they'll even discover that several things Disney 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 children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet.
Disney wants to prevent us from speaking out against unpatriotic fomenters of revolution. If it manages to do that, it'll have plenty of time to focus on its core mission: leading to the destruction of the human race. Disney is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens its creature comforts, Disney throws principle to the wind.
In a sense, the extent of collaboration between Disney and the most crude layabouts you'll ever see is currently unknown but presumably significant. Now that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that Disney is doing everything in its power to make me turn to a life of crime. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance. It probably sounds like I'm being batty, but Disney hates you—yes, you, because you, like me, want to protect little children from wishy-washy shysters like Disney. Disney plans to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood". It has instructed its adherents not to discuss this or even admit to its plan's existence. Obviously, Disney knows it has something to hide.
Disney apparently believes that the ideas of "freedom" and "egotism" are Siamese twins. You and I know better than that. You and I know that Disney and its factotums are on a recruiting campaign, trying to convince everyone they meet to participate in stirring up trouble. Don't join that lynch mob; instead, remember the scriptures: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." My prediction that Disney would cashier anyone who tries to keep our priorities in check came true so quickly, so brutally, so horribly, that even I was stunned by the magnitude and viciousness of it all. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that Disney lies routinely—even under oath.