FrigidWinter (OP)
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
|
 |
April 04, 2014, 03:06:26 AM
Last edit: April 04, 2014, 03:20:00 AM by FrigidWinter |
|
I will not waste my time criticizing or insulting Spoetnik as 1) he is unlikely to change, and 2) Spoetnik probably revels in the letters of shock and repulsion that he regularly receives. Instead, I will focus on his termagant memoranda, which, after all, are the things that make us dependent on hotheaded widdifuls for political representation, economic support, social position, and psychological approval. The key point of the following exposition is that he has a strategy. His strategy is to numb the public to the larrikinism and injustice in mainstream politics. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Spoetnik.
I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like Spoetnik formulate social policies and action programs based on the most huffy classes of irrationalism in existence. 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. Some people are responsible and others are not. Spoetnik falls into the category of “not”.
Spoetnik's ability to flap his gums greatly exceeds his cognitive skills. This issue is coming to the fore because Spoetnik's insinuations raise a number of brow-furrowing questions. I'm referring to questions such as, “What exactly is the principle that rationalizes Spoetnik's thrasonical ballyhoos?” It's questions like that that get people thinking about how I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how what we have been imparting to Spoetnik—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.
Spoetnik whines about recalcitrant sectarians, yet he enthusiastically supports scrofulous lotharios. Prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence if you like, Spoetnik, because I simply don't care. Although he would like us to believe that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist, he has given us neither good reason nor credible evidence to believe that. His blanket statements, on the other hand, give us good reason to believe that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, love hearing the claims of a filthy politicaster who doesn't realize that he's a filthy politicaster. As a case in point, consider Spoetnik's claim that he is the arbiter of all things. Such claims always make me laugh because, as we all know, if they could speak, the birds, snakes, and other creatures who are our Earth brothers and Earth sisters would indisputably say that I cannot compromise with Spoetnik; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must indubitably take to heart: Spoetnik accuses me of being addlepated whenever I state that it does not require a Sherlock Holmes to prove that nearly all of the assumptions and statements made by him and his shills, who are legion, are completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that the conflation of snappish couch potatoes and resentful, prudish party animals in Spoetnik's convictions is either dramatic hyperbole or a fatal methodological flaw. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that no matter how bad you think Spoetnik's press releases are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think.
We must find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts. Only then can a society free of his volage-brained musings blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Spoetnik, however, is more likely to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on choleric adversarialism. Personally, I don't expect him to give up his crusade to spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness, but we'll see. Rather than pick out appropriate verbs and nouns, Spoetnik pads all of his sentences with extra syllables to grant them an atmosphere of authority. I, on the other hand, prefer to use simple language to express the sentiment that it may not be easy to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence, but it can be done. And it needs to be done. And we must always remember that Spoetnik operates on the basis of an unremitting hatred of civility and decency. To enter adequately into details or particulars upon this subject in such a short letter as this is quite out of the question. Hence, I will only remark here, in a general way but with all the emphasis of earnestness and truth, that if you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that I wonder what would happen if Spoetnik really did repeat the mistakes of the past. There's a spooky thought.
Spoetnik has been known to say that you and I are morally inferior to the worst sorts of disaffected ragamuffins there are. That notion is so untrustworthy, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. He has repeatedly indicated a desire to cashier anyone who tries to straighten out our thinking and change the path we're on. Is that the sound of rarefied respectability that Spoetnik's cultists so frequently attribute to Spoetnik? The noisome blathering of a mean-spirited, laughable cumber-ground is more like it. In fact, I should note that one could truthfully say that facts and their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever Spoetnik dreams up. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that he has declared that he's staging a revolt against everyone who dares to lift the fog from his thinking. Spoetnik is revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, one of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that people who know me know that I'm very observant. I can identify an indelicate backbiter merely by spotting certain turns of phrase, certain sentence constructions, certain ways of being. I can therefore undeniably conclude that Spoetnik is the most indelicate backbiter of them all and that we desperately need to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward voyeurism. It's not enough merely to keep our heads down and pray that Spoetnik doesn't violate all the rules of decorum. As I like to say, if you set the bar low, you jump low.
The mainstream media have said nary a word about how I predict that Spoetnik will persist with his perversions, profligacy, and perilous pursuits. This is not rhetoric. This is reality. The first lies that he told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; Spoetnik's lies will grow until they blot out the sun.
Spoetnik regards the exception as the rule, the criminal as the hero, the loser as the winner, and the winner as the oppressor. 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 Spoetnik demonstrates a terrible, inaccurate, even lusk, misuse of history with his self-deluded theories. To top that off, from secret-handshake societies meeting at “the usual place” to back-door admissions committees, Spoetnik's mercenaries have always found a way to diminish our will to live. While I can't speak for anyone else, I warrant that no one has a higher opinion of Spoetnik than I, and I think Spoetnik is a quisquilious stinking-type.
Given the destructiveness of Spoetnik's Pecksniffian, distasteful arguments, I propose that we implement a long-range survival plan. For starters, this plan should acknowledge that Spoetnik's supporters ignore compromise and focus solely on Spoetnik's personal agenda, as though it were a disgrace to test the assumptions that underlie Spoetnik's plans for the future. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to establish clear, justifiable definitions of negativism and Machiavellianism so that one can defend a decision to take action when his epigones initiate a reign of twisted terror. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that he used to be a major proponent of mammonism. Nowadays, Spoetnik is putting all of his support behind scapegoatism. As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Spoetnik would not hesitate to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys where they end only in frustration and discouragement if he felt he could benefit from doing so. Why doesn't he realize that people who believe that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him need to be worked over with an oak table leg and then sentenced to 20 years of hard labor in order to straighten out their thinking? Perhaps his failure of recognition lies rather in the degeneracy of the faculty of seeing than in the misrepresentation of the vision to be seen. It may be also confessed that Spoetnik's hysteria-producing hatchet jobs are sufficient to give pause to the less thoughtful among us. “Uh-oh,” such people think. “We'd better help Spoetnik take away what few freedoms we have left—just in case.” I don't know what to do about the rise in savagism I see all around me. Spoetnik's solution. not surprisingly, is to shame my name. This is one case in which the cure is certainly worse than the disease. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must take a strong position on Spoetnik's allegations, which, after all, seek temporary tactical alliances with cullionly creeps in order to cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills. I will decidedly be happy to have your help in this endeavor.
|
