BlueAshes
Notable Member
- Oct 25, 2018
- 1,019
- 6,087
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the most blatantly infernal varlet of them all? Yes, you guessed it: it's Brokenlens. As I'm sure you're aware, Brokenlens has been fighting hard to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. This letter is intended to address the issue of how most effectively to fight back. Our choice of strategy is critical because Brokenlens wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet it is also a big proponent of a particularly irritating form of hucksterism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that I cannot state strongly enough how totally dishonest Brokenlens is. Truth doesn't matter to it. This includes Brokenlens's resentful missives, which come out all the time, always with anonymous sources, and always trying to conceal how there is considerable evidence to show that it is serious about wanting to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. I'm sorry, but there's no politer way to put that. I will tactfully note, however, that I must ask that Brokenlens's co-conspirators shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within Brokenlens's pea-sized brain. 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 crush any semblance of opposition to its volage-brained viewpoints.
Brokenlens claims that character development is not a matter of “strength through adversity” but rather, “entitlement through victimization”. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that the one thing that's central to all of its sanguinolent, blockish proposed social programs is a desire to infiltrate and then dominate and control the mass media. I call this the New Deconstructionism. The old deconstructionism was concerned only with utilizing legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to convert freedom of speech from a human right into a tool of oppression that must be blunted by force. Although that was bad enough, I can't help it if Brokenlens can't take a joke. What emerges from this narrative is that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with it. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that it has allowed itself to become a spokesman for the same point of view shared by longiloquent perverts, dotty vagabonds, and mean-spirited, loud phonies while masquerading as an outspoken radical bucking the system.
Engaging Brokenlens in intelligent debate is far from easy. The last time I saw someone try, furious hatred, frenzied personal attacks, emotionalism, and defiance of reason and fact were all on display in spades, and they were all directed at this one, poor, frightened person. I wish Brokenlens would more calmly accept the fact that it keeps saying that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom. I suggest taking such statements with a grain of salt because the baneful nature of its perceptions is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify. Having said that, let me add that Brokenlens's criticisms are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, for the first time ever, a majority of disaffected heretics have been questioning their role in helping Brokenlens scrawl pro-nihilism graffiti over everything. I think that we should take advantage of this historic opportunity and investigate the real story behind Brokenlens's platitudes. We must search for the truth, find the facts, and convey the message that Brokenlens claims to have proof that it has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. Not surprisingly, its “proof” consists of cherry-picked statistics handed down by some tenth-rate academic determined to prove his or her point of view but presented as if it's the word of either God or pristine science (the two being, for Brokenlens and its shock troops, coterminous). Finally, in case you missed it, what I've really been alluding to in this letter is a queasy combination of revolting incompetence, base insidiousness, neopaganism, and ignorance. All of these characteristics are embodied in Brokenlens, and they all make a strong statement about how my message has always been that scrutinizing Brokenlens's pleas may be instructive in this regard.
Brokenlens claims that character development is not a matter of “strength through adversity” but rather, “entitlement through victimization”. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that the one thing that's central to all of its sanguinolent, blockish proposed social programs is a desire to infiltrate and then dominate and control the mass media. I call this the New Deconstructionism. The old deconstructionism was concerned only with utilizing legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to convert freedom of speech from a human right into a tool of oppression that must be blunted by force. Although that was bad enough, I can't help it if Brokenlens can't take a joke. What emerges from this narrative is that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with it. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that it has allowed itself to become a spokesman for the same point of view shared by longiloquent perverts, dotty vagabonds, and mean-spirited, loud phonies while masquerading as an outspoken radical bucking the system.
Engaging Brokenlens in intelligent debate is far from easy. The last time I saw someone try, furious hatred, frenzied personal attacks, emotionalism, and defiance of reason and fact were all on display in spades, and they were all directed at this one, poor, frightened person. I wish Brokenlens would more calmly accept the fact that it keeps saying that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom. I suggest taking such statements with a grain of salt because the baneful nature of its perceptions is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify. Having said that, let me add that Brokenlens's criticisms are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, for the first time ever, a majority of disaffected heretics have been questioning their role in helping Brokenlens scrawl pro-nihilism graffiti over everything. I think that we should take advantage of this historic opportunity and investigate the real story behind Brokenlens's platitudes. We must search for the truth, find the facts, and convey the message that Brokenlens claims to have proof that it has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. Not surprisingly, its “proof” consists of cherry-picked statistics handed down by some tenth-rate academic determined to prove his or her point of view but presented as if it's the word of either God or pristine science (the two being, for Brokenlens and its shock troops, coterminous). Finally, in case you missed it, what I've really been alluding to in this letter is a queasy combination of revolting incompetence, base insidiousness, neopaganism, and ignorance. All of these characteristics are embodied in Brokenlens, and they all make a strong statement about how my message has always been that scrutinizing Brokenlens's pleas may be instructive in this regard.
