My complaint against non-believers
01 Dec '05 07:51Once again, I find it necessary to write in defense of myself and my beliefs. It is worth noting at the outset that to Non-believers's mind, clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. So that means that its vices are the only true virtues, right? No, not right. The truth is that Non-believers's primary viewpoint, that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't, is directly related to the attitudes in our society that smear people of impeccable character and reputation. It is no more complicated than that. How can we expect to encourage our spirits to soar if we walk right into Non-believers's trap? We can't, and that's why in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, I have never been in favor of being gratuitously merciless. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to fight scurrility and slander. Non-believers is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to confuse, disorient, and disunify. Non-believers's most progressive idea is to convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way.
We must surely make Non-believers's caustic ballyhoos understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. Does that sound extremist? Is it too unsophisticated for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life. I must emphasize that if Non-believers continues to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. Non-believers has been willing to sup with the devil every time it felt it could profit personally from it. That is to say, as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Non-believers's foot soldiers don't really care that the last time I told its functionaries that I want to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding its detestable activities, they declared in response, "But Non-believers's cabal is looking out for our best interests." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant.
Plan to join Non-believers's camp? Be sure to check your conscience at the door. Non-believers's methods are much subtler now than ever before. Non-believers is more adept at hidden mind control and its techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me.
Non-believers has a strategy. Its strategy is to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Non-believers. Let me just say that Non-believers has, at times, called me "vapid" or "flippant". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to issue a flood of bogus legal documents. To state it in stark and simple terms, Non-believers obviously believes that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to canonize what I call wrongheaded purveyors of malice and hatred as nomological emblems of propriety. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: What does it hope to achieve by repeatedly applying its lips to the posteriors of coldhearted, inhumane cadgers? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but it is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Non-believers is fogyism. Why? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Non-believers and its janissaries take is that Non-believers's perceptions are amalgams of popular themes among mingy calumniators, dysfunctional dips, and what I call hypocritical grifters. I have reason to believe that Non-believers is about to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that I feel no more personal hatred for Non-believers 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.
To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. Innocent children have been brainwashed by Non-believers's snotty, out-of-touch taradiddles. There's really no other conclusion you can reach. It's precisely because Non-believers is incapable of empathizing or identifying with others that the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I sure hope not, but then again, purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Non-believers's loud, ribald attitudes. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how I cannot compromise with Non-believers; it is without principles. I cannot reason with it; it is without reason. But I can warn it, and with a warning it must unequivocally take to heart: Non-believers is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when cold-blooded loan sharks scrap the notion of national sovereignty. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that onanism is a noble goal. And fear of fork-tongued, dour pickpockets like Non-believers who subject human beings to indignities.
I never cease to be amazed at the way that Non-believers's a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. Interventionism is dangerous. Non-believers's contemptuous version of it is doubly so. It troubles and amazes me to think that Non-believers has been known to "prove" statistically that this is the best of all possible worlds and that it is the best of all possible organizations. As you might have suspected, its proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Non-believers's "proof" demonstrates only that it makes no sense at all. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Non-believers has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because Non-believers has declared that it's staging a revolt against everyone who wants to carve solutions that are neither lame-brained nor mephitic. Non-believers's revolting all right; the very sight of it turns my stomach. All kidding aside, the baneful nature of its hatchet jobs is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.
It goes without saying that Non-believers has failed entirely to grasp the essence of my criticisms of it. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to unleash an unparalleled wave of Trotskyism. That's just not true. I won't pull any punches here: Non-believers is doing more harm than good to its cause. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to it. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that Non-believers can't possibly believe that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. It's disruptive, but it's not that disruptive.
The great irony is that if the only way to purge the darkness from Non-believers's heart while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear is for me to fall into the traps set for me by Non-believers's subalterns, then so be it. It would indisputably be worth it because it twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. Non-believers unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what it claims gives it the right to transform our society into a lewd war machine. Non-believers would not hesitate to foster post-structuralism at every opportunity if it felt it could benefit from doing so. It may seem difficult at first to do what needs to be done. It is. But the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations? I'll give you an example of this, based on my own experience. As you know, we wouldn't have a problem with statism if it weren't for Non-believers. Although it created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Non-believers insists that it can solve the problem if we just grant it more power. How naïve does it think we are? Truly, Non-believers recently claimed that it is rancorous to question its hypnopompic insights. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from it a hundred times before.
This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those boisterous endeavors that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but maledicent good-for-nothings. I am tired of hearing or reading that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. You know that that ...
We must surely make Non-believers's caustic ballyhoos understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. Does that sound extremist? Is it too unsophisticated for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life. I must emphasize that if Non-believers continues to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. Non-believers has been willing to sup with the devil every time it felt it could profit personally from it. That is to say, as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Non-believers's foot soldiers don't really care that the last time I told its functionaries that I want to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding its detestable activities, they declared in response, "But Non-believers's cabal is looking out for our best interests." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant.
Plan to join Non-believers's camp? Be sure to check your conscience at the door. Non-believers's methods are much subtler now than ever before. Non-believers is more adept at hidden mind control and its techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me.
Non-believers has a strategy. Its strategy is to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Non-believers. Let me just say that Non-believers has, at times, called me "vapid" or "flippant". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to issue a flood of bogus legal documents. To state it in stark and simple terms, Non-believers obviously believes that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to canonize what I call wrongheaded purveyors of malice and hatred as nomological emblems of propriety. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: What does it hope to achieve by repeatedly applying its lips to the posteriors of coldhearted, inhumane cadgers? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but it is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Non-believers is fogyism. Why? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Non-believers and its janissaries take is that Non-believers's perceptions are amalgams of popular themes among mingy calumniators, dysfunctional dips, and what I call hypocritical grifters. I have reason to believe that Non-believers is about to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that I feel no more personal hatred for Non-believers 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.
To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. Innocent children have been brainwashed by Non-believers's snotty, out-of-touch taradiddles. There's really no other conclusion you can reach. It's precisely because Non-believers is incapable of empathizing or identifying with others that the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I sure hope not, but then again, purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Non-believers's loud, ribald attitudes. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how I cannot compromise with Non-believers; it is without principles. I cannot reason with it; it is without reason. But I can warn it, and with a warning it must unequivocally take to heart: Non-believers is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when cold-blooded loan sharks scrap the notion of national sovereignty. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that onanism is a noble goal. And fear of fork-tongued, dour pickpockets like Non-believers who subject human beings to indignities.
I never cease to be amazed at the way that Non-believers's a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. Interventionism is dangerous. Non-believers's contemptuous version of it is doubly so. It troubles and amazes me to think that Non-believers has been known to "prove" statistically that this is the best of all possible worlds and that it is the best of all possible organizations. As you might have suspected, its proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Non-believers's "proof" demonstrates only that it makes no sense at all. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Non-believers has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because Non-believers has declared that it's staging a revolt against everyone who wants to carve solutions that are neither lame-brained nor mephitic. Non-believers's revolting all right; the very sight of it turns my stomach. All kidding aside, the baneful nature of its hatchet jobs is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.
It goes without saying that Non-believers has failed entirely to grasp the essence of my criticisms of it. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to unleash an unparalleled wave of Trotskyism. That's just not true. I won't pull any punches here: Non-believers is doing more harm than good to its cause. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to it. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that Non-believers can't possibly believe that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. It's disruptive, but it's not that disruptive.
The great irony is that if the only way to purge the darkness from Non-believers's heart while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear is for me to fall into the traps set for me by Non-believers's subalterns, then so be it. It would indisputably be worth it because it twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. Non-believers unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what it claims gives it the right to transform our society into a lewd war machine. Non-believers would not hesitate to foster post-structuralism at every opportunity if it felt it could benefit from doing so. It may seem difficult at first to do what needs to be done. It is. But the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations? I'll give you an example of this, based on my own experience. As you know, we wouldn't have a problem with statism if it weren't for Non-believers. Although it created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Non-believers insists that it can solve the problem if we just grant it more power. How naïve does it think we are? Truly, Non-believers recently claimed that it is rancorous to question its hypnopompic insights. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from it a hundred times before.
This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those boisterous endeavors that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but maledicent good-for-nothings. I am tired of hearing or reading that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. You know that that ...
Back to Top