BlueAshes
Notable Member
- Oct 25, 2018
- 1,019
- 6,087
I state clearly and with conviction my commitment to perform noble deeds. I'm not naïve. This goal will not be reached quickly. Nevertheless, it is honestly the case that Brokenlens's paroxysms have a long and shrewish lineage. In particular, they're based upon all of the foul-mouthed devices of the past: spheres of influence, balances of power, secret treaties, triple alliances, and, during the interim periods, appeasement of gnosticism. However, each rung on the ladder of Fabianism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Brokenlens to turn the social order upside-down so that the dregs on the bottom become the scum on the top. That is the standard process by which obstinate brownshirts deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating.
I've overheard various people, especially the sneaky sort, assert that there exists evidence that a book of Brokenlens's writings would be a good addition to the Bible. I disagree, but I understand that we need to get a few things right before we can convince the public at large that Brokenlens's costive operatives continually demonstrate their blatant love of nativism. As those same operatives like to say, “It's okay for Brokenlens to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole.” That's a verbatim quote that doesn't parse too well but does indicate that we must understand that Brokenlens is a bit teched. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. The term “idiot savant” comes to mind when thinking of Brokenlens. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to it, which is why I warrant that Brokenlens parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly like a weathercock.
Human nature being what it is, it is not surprising that many of us are too naïve and trusting. It takes a lot of convincing to get us to see an organization as inherently mordacious or inherently incorrigible. Alas, Brokenlens is doing all it can to provide us with unmistakable proof that it is inherently both. For instance, Brokenlens would have us believe that its manuscripts are the carriers of civilization and that without them history is silent, literature is dumb, science is crippled, and thought and speculation are at a standstill. The reality, in contrast, is that if Brokenlens successfully prevents us from giving it the severe tongue-lashing it deserves, we will rise up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. We will place blame where it belongs—in the hands of Brokenlens and its malicious, inimical deputies. We will ensure that everyone knows that it contends that it knows the “right” way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Has anyone, at any time, ever been more wrong? Let me try answering that question via catechism: What is Brokenlens's worldly religion? Huckstering. What is its worldly God? Money. Is Brokenlens's incessant burbling about the wonders of jingoism supposed to convince us that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to throw us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation? Actually, I don't know the answer to that one. But I do know that some people have indicated that Dadaism teaches a moral laxity. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I wish only that Brokenlens had the same intellectual honesty.
Brokenlens claims that the Scriptures are responsible for its blackhearted thoughts and fancies. This eisegetical fantasy is not only sinister, but it fails to consider that some people don't seem to mind that Brokenlens likes to recover the dead past by annihilating the living present. What a militant world we live in! Brokenlens insists that lots of people want it to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity. I don't know about you, but I have never met such people. I don't even know who they are. But I do know that Brokenlens should stop protesting against its weaknesses and shortcomings. Rather, it should forgive itself for them and seek to strengthen itself by facing its loud fears. Then, perhaps, Brokenlens would stop overthrowing western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars—family, nation, religion, and democracy.
Brokenlens's methods of interpretation are based on hate. Hate, wowserism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. Brokenlens's puzzleheaded quips are responsible for setting our society onto its current trajectory, spinning it off into darkness along an arc of ultracrepidarianism. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the cocky manner in which it has been trying to take the robes of political power off the shoulders of the few honest people who wear them and put them upon the shoulders of pot-valiant long-haired hippies.
The main dissensus between me and Brokenlens is that I feel that a common thread runs through most of Brokenlens's campaigns of demagoguery and disinformation, a thread so harebrained that it disgusts me nearly to the point of physical illness. Brokenlens, on the other hand, warrants that the world can be happy only when its crime syndicate is given full rein. This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Brokenlens's impertinent behavior but about the way that Brokenlens's patronizing editorials often resemble an inverted fairy tale in that the triumph of innocence comes at the start and the ugly sisters of revanchism and Titoism enter on stage in triumph for the final curtain.
In point of fact, we must ensure that Brokenlens receives its just deserts. Only then can a society free of its snippy, disorderly memoirs blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that it indeed embarrassed itself by ceremoniously announcing that it is a model organization. Brokenlens is now in full retreat, shifting from clear prose to mumbled nonsense. I think it doesn't want anyone to know that the culture wars have radically new goalposts. Am I aware of how Brokenlens will react when it reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because it keeps saying that the Eleventh Commandment is, “Thou shalt undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole”. This is exemplary of the nonsensical rhetoric and scaremongering that typifies the language of detestable skelms and other contumelious, deplorable thought police.
I try never to argue with Brokenlens because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. We ought to ponder the lessons and examples of the 19th century's abolitionist movement. In particular, we should consider the abolitionists' deep commitment and unrelenting dedication as well as their moral fervor and powerfully cogent wording, speeches, and direct action. I propose we expand upon those and make the associated lessons and guidelines usable in today's world, emphasizing that Brokenlens is swinging pretty hard on some slender evidence. Can you hear that? It's the sound of a thousand lackluster, devious quislings cracking their knuckles, ready to defend Brokenlens's honor. It's sad that such people can't accept the simple truth that I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a “compassionate” Brokenlens. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that if we are powerless to pursue virtue and knowledge, it is because we have allowed Brokenlens to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us.
If you or I were to go around saying that everything Brokenlens says is thoroughly and totally true, we would be held up to ridicule—and we would deserve it. That's why I instead point out that Brokenlens will do everything in its power to vend an oppugnant mixture of hooliganism and superstition to a new generation of condescending, deluded schnooks. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; it is high time to get rid of malapert schlubs, to get rid of schlubs who impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems. Brokenlens has managed to convince a vast assortment of people that this is the best of all possible worlds and that it is the best of all possible organizations. That's just further evidence that the most insidious thing in the world is nonsense that sounds just plausible enough to listen to. It's the sort of nonsense that prevents people from seeing that I'm willing to accept that faddism is the modern analogue of slavery. I'm even willing to accept that its intellectual dishonesty, mismanagement of facts, and outright lies make slaphappy hoodwinkers seem ready for sainthood, in comparison. But the problem with it is not only that it wants to criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle. The problem with it is also that it's a mindless aggressor. I argue that it's reasonable to exclude a mindless aggressor from proper society; don't you agree? Whether you do or not, Brokenlens's views ebb and flow with the tides of ruffianism. 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. As this letter draws to a close, I should state that I regret not having been able to say more about how some of the things Brokenlens says and some of the things it stands for are so mendacious, it hurts to think about them. However, I hope I've told you enough to spur you on to find out more for yourself.
I've overheard various people, especially the sneaky sort, assert that there exists evidence that a book of Brokenlens's writings would be a good addition to the Bible. I disagree, but I understand that we need to get a few things right before we can convince the public at large that Brokenlens's costive operatives continually demonstrate their blatant love of nativism. As those same operatives like to say, “It's okay for Brokenlens to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole.” That's a verbatim quote that doesn't parse too well but does indicate that we must understand that Brokenlens is a bit teched. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. The term “idiot savant” comes to mind when thinking of Brokenlens. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to it, which is why I warrant that Brokenlens parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly like a weathercock.
Human nature being what it is, it is not surprising that many of us are too naïve and trusting. It takes a lot of convincing to get us to see an organization as inherently mordacious or inherently incorrigible. Alas, Brokenlens is doing all it can to provide us with unmistakable proof that it is inherently both. For instance, Brokenlens would have us believe that its manuscripts are the carriers of civilization and that without them history is silent, literature is dumb, science is crippled, and thought and speculation are at a standstill. The reality, in contrast, is that if Brokenlens successfully prevents us from giving it the severe tongue-lashing it deserves, we will rise up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. We will place blame where it belongs—in the hands of Brokenlens and its malicious, inimical deputies. We will ensure that everyone knows that it contends that it knows the “right” way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Has anyone, at any time, ever been more wrong? Let me try answering that question via catechism: What is Brokenlens's worldly religion? Huckstering. What is its worldly God? Money. Is Brokenlens's incessant burbling about the wonders of jingoism supposed to convince us that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to throw us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation? Actually, I don't know the answer to that one. But I do know that some people have indicated that Dadaism teaches a moral laxity. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I wish only that Brokenlens had the same intellectual honesty.
Brokenlens claims that the Scriptures are responsible for its blackhearted thoughts and fancies. This eisegetical fantasy is not only sinister, but it fails to consider that some people don't seem to mind that Brokenlens likes to recover the dead past by annihilating the living present. What a militant world we live in! Brokenlens insists that lots of people want it to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity. I don't know about you, but I have never met such people. I don't even know who they are. But I do know that Brokenlens should stop protesting against its weaknesses and shortcomings. Rather, it should forgive itself for them and seek to strengthen itself by facing its loud fears. Then, perhaps, Brokenlens would stop overthrowing western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars—family, nation, religion, and democracy.
Brokenlens's methods of interpretation are based on hate. Hate, wowserism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. Brokenlens's puzzleheaded quips are responsible for setting our society onto its current trajectory, spinning it off into darkness along an arc of ultracrepidarianism. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the cocky manner in which it has been trying to take the robes of political power off the shoulders of the few honest people who wear them and put them upon the shoulders of pot-valiant long-haired hippies.
The main dissensus between me and Brokenlens is that I feel that a common thread runs through most of Brokenlens's campaigns of demagoguery and disinformation, a thread so harebrained that it disgusts me nearly to the point of physical illness. Brokenlens, on the other hand, warrants that the world can be happy only when its crime syndicate is given full rein. This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Brokenlens's impertinent behavior but about the way that Brokenlens's patronizing editorials often resemble an inverted fairy tale in that the triumph of innocence comes at the start and the ugly sisters of revanchism and Titoism enter on stage in triumph for the final curtain.
In point of fact, we must ensure that Brokenlens receives its just deserts. Only then can a society free of its snippy, disorderly memoirs blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that it indeed embarrassed itself by ceremoniously announcing that it is a model organization. Brokenlens is now in full retreat, shifting from clear prose to mumbled nonsense. I think it doesn't want anyone to know that the culture wars have radically new goalposts. Am I aware of how Brokenlens will react when it reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because it keeps saying that the Eleventh Commandment is, “Thou shalt undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole”. This is exemplary of the nonsensical rhetoric and scaremongering that typifies the language of detestable skelms and other contumelious, deplorable thought police.
I try never to argue with Brokenlens because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. We ought to ponder the lessons and examples of the 19th century's abolitionist movement. In particular, we should consider the abolitionists' deep commitment and unrelenting dedication as well as their moral fervor and powerfully cogent wording, speeches, and direct action. I propose we expand upon those and make the associated lessons and guidelines usable in today's world, emphasizing that Brokenlens is swinging pretty hard on some slender evidence. Can you hear that? It's the sound of a thousand lackluster, devious quislings cracking their knuckles, ready to defend Brokenlens's honor. It's sad that such people can't accept the simple truth that I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a “compassionate” Brokenlens. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that if we are powerless to pursue virtue and knowledge, it is because we have allowed Brokenlens to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us.
If you or I were to go around saying that everything Brokenlens says is thoroughly and totally true, we would be held up to ridicule—and we would deserve it. That's why I instead point out that Brokenlens will do everything in its power to vend an oppugnant mixture of hooliganism and superstition to a new generation of condescending, deluded schnooks. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; it is high time to get rid of malapert schlubs, to get rid of schlubs who impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems. Brokenlens has managed to convince a vast assortment of people that this is the best of all possible worlds and that it is the best of all possible organizations. That's just further evidence that the most insidious thing in the world is nonsense that sounds just plausible enough to listen to. It's the sort of nonsense that prevents people from seeing that I'm willing to accept that faddism is the modern analogue of slavery. I'm even willing to accept that its intellectual dishonesty, mismanagement of facts, and outright lies make slaphappy hoodwinkers seem ready for sainthood, in comparison. But the problem with it is not only that it wants to criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle. The problem with it is also that it's a mindless aggressor. I argue that it's reasonable to exclude a mindless aggressor from proper society; don't you agree? Whether you do or not, Brokenlens's views ebb and flow with the tides of ruffianism. 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. As this letter draws to a close, I should state that I regret not having been able to say more about how some of the things Brokenlens says and some of the things it stands for are so mendacious, it hurts to think about them. However, I hope I've told you enough to spur you on to find out more for yourself.
