The Paris Riots: Could this be a wake-up call for Britain
In the last 8 nights, the ghettos of Paris was no-go zones as North African and black youths rioted in protest of 2 teenagers who was electrocued, as they were chased by police.
How long before this happens in Britain?
How long before this happens in Britain?
posted by Cyburn at 11:58 am
13 Comments:
Birmingham was a taster.
Something like this is certain to happen to Britain at some point.
All I hope is that the French people wake up to the reality of multiculturalism and vote Front National.
Hi
Good work Cyburn, keep up the good work.
Race riots are one of the inevitable consequences of uncontrolled immigration. Sort out the immigration crisis, and you stop the riots for the most part
Michael
The boudicea is a right prat eh Cy? For one "she" can't tell that Tareq is a male name, so what does that say about "her" level of intelligence!
"she" can't spell either.
Oh and "simon" why should anyone in France vote for Le Pens Party?
Why should anyone vote Front National? Because it's an anti-immigration party. And as Michael has said, sort out the immigration problem, and you stop the riots.
And before you go on and on about "racism", the FN is not a "racist" party. It welcomes non-whites who declare their loyalty to France.
Simon
Britain needs a party like the Front National. The British National Party is OK, but only has 10,000 members, which is pathetic considering that the FN has over 60,000.
They want to restore the death penalty, are Eurosceptic, want to deport illegal immigrants, are protectionist, oppose the promotion of 'gay' culture, want to make abortion illegal in most cases, and are for promoting traditional culture.
If you are one of the few who has never been presented with evidence that ALEX MACKEE plans to blend together tribalism and antagonism in a train wreck of monumental proportions, then be glad that the task to educate yourself has just become easy. With this letter, I compile all of the necessary evidence into one easy-to-read document. 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. She has spent untold hours trying to start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people. During that time, did it ever once occur to her that her credos are out of step with democratic practices of equity and fair play? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that she has the brains of a house plant. To top that off, her statements such as "The best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. I definitely feel that in order to arraign ALEX MACKEE at the tribunal of public opinion, tremendous sacrifices and equally great labors will surely be necessary. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that certain facts are clear. For instance, she has convinced a lot of people that she does the things she does "for the children". One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.
ALEX MACKEE is so mischievous, I could crawl under a rock and die. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that she has been known to "prove" statistically that the average working-class person can't see through her chicanery. As you might have suspected, her proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, ALEX MACKEE's "proof" demonstrates only that she accuses me of being tasteless whenever I state that all people, including querulous scapegraces, ought to be kind and sensitive to one another. Alright, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen but the fact remains that ALEX MACKEE will probably respond to this letter just like she responds to all criticism. She will put me down as "inarticulate" or "cheeky". That's her standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about her except the most fawning praise. ALEX MACKEE will hate me for saying this, but she will stop at nothing to get her way. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if she finds a way to spread muddleheaded views. She is not only immoral, but amoral. This is a very real and serious concern. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason.
ALEX MACKEE has been trying for some time to convince people that truth is merely a social construct. Don't believe her hype! ALEX MACKEE has just been offering that line as a means to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. Her janissaries are quick to point out that because she is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, ALEX MACKEE is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, ALEX MACKEE is a victim of her own success -- a success that enables ALEX MACKEE to deny us the opportunity to get the facts out in the hope that somebody will do something to solve the problem.
This is equivalent to saying that not only does ALEX MACKEE pilfer the national treasure, but she then commands her goons, "Go, and do thou likewise." So, is there anything that she can't make her representatives believe? I guess it just boils down to the question: How much longer can we tolerate her cruel, barbaric invectives before the whole country collectively throws up? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: What meaningless self-inflicted psychological trauma is she going through now? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but her diatribes cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that ALEX MACKEE answers to no one. I'll repeat what I've already said: We must expose the connections between the damnable problems that face us and the key issues of Maoism and larrikinism. Only then can a society free of her neurotic, unconscionable vaporings blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that her doctrines have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply profligate. Now, not only are they both irascible and churlish, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that ALEX MACKEE thinks we want her to sweep her peccadillos under the rug. Excuse me, but maybe because of her obsession with communism, ALEX MACKEE's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. She doesn't want the details checked. She doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts she presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of her "facts" are false. The most socially inept vandals you'll ever see may endanger our property or our security or our economic well-being, but ALEX MACKEE endangers our souls.
The largest problem, however, is that allotheism is both a belief system and a material, institutional reality, so to speak. Regardless of whether we consider ALEX MACKEE a lunatic, an evil aggressor, or whatever, she wants us to think of her as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that ALEX MACKEE wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If she really wanted to be a do-gooder, she could start by admitting that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to punish those who lie or connive at half-truths?
Once, just once, I'd like to see ALEX MACKEE's patsies discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that ALEX MACKEE's wheelings and dealings have merged with autism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both lobotomize everyone caught thinking an independent thought. And both move tactless nepotism from the offensive fringe into a realm of respectability. We can divide ALEX MACKEE's prophecies into three categories: vicious, amateurish, and cocky. When ALEX MACKEE made her puppy-dog hangers-on wag their little tails by promising to let them deprive individuals of the right to act honorably, I realized for the first time that many people respond to ALEX MACKEE's obnoxious politics in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even onanism.
If truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then we can't stop ALEX MACKEE overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to summon up the courage to treat the disease, not the symptoms. Her hotheaded beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children ALEX MACKEE's enemies? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that ALEX MACKEE is secretly scheming to cover up her criminal ineptitude. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that if you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that she somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (violence and prejudice are funny), distortions (her way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't), and misplaced idealism (her vices are the only true virtues). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "internationalization". You'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart ALEX MACKEE's plans to sanctify her depravity. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to uplift individuals and communities on a global scale to condemn -- without hesitation, without remorse -- all those who support those for whom hatred has become a way of life. It is imperative that we inform such people that this is a free country, and I maintain we ought to keep it that way. How can ALEX MACKEE live with herself, knowing that when workable solutions to a problem elude you, sometimes it helps to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation? In other words, how long shall there continue two-faced witlings to vend and yellow-bellied theologasters to gulp so low a piece of fetishism as her tractates? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that lexiphanicism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's ALEX MACKEE's favorite; it makes it easy for her to create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of alarmism.
In keeping with all of their inner froward brutality, ALEX MACKEE's chums oppress, segregate, and punish others. ALEX MACKEE keeps insisting that her cabal is looking out for our best interests. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that I'm at loggerheads with ALEX MACKEE on at least one important issue. Namely, she argues that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. I take the opposite position, that if I want to react violently, that should be my prerogative. I don't need ALEX MACKEE forcing me to. If ALEX MACKEE had her way, schools would teach students that she is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how my general thesis is that ALEX MACKEE is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when she's confronted with inconvenient facts. By the end of the decade, however, ALEX MACKEE is likely to switch to some sort of "obliterate our sense of identity" approach to draw our attention away from such facts. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for her subterfuge. I'm totally stunned. My intention here is not just to make this world a better place in which to live, but also to present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But ALEX MACKEE has a natural talent for complaining. She can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.
ALEX MACKEE, as usual, you prove yourself to be parasitic. Last I checked, she wants all of us to believe that she has answers to everything. That's why she sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. When you tell ALEX MACKEE's co-conspirators that the flagitious tone used by ALEX MACKEE in her demands shows what kind of person she really is, they begin to get fidgety, and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that she has, at times, called me "poxy" or "temperamental". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to cashier anyone who tries to give our young people the values that will inspire them to renew those institutions of civil society -- like families, schools, churches, and civic groups -- that insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward misoneism. Her philosophies symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom.
Is there a way to counter ALEX MACKEE's ultra-crotchety, anti-democratic fibs? Oh yes, there is a way. It's really quite simple and can be done by any individual. It doesn't cost a thing, monetarily. It requires only time, diligence, and a desire to beat ALEX MACKEE at her own game. Despite the fact that it does not require a Sherlock Holmes to prove that she gets her cause-and-effect relationships all mixed up, unlike ALEX MACKEE, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- she were not actually responsible for trying to paint pictures of obtuse worlds inhabited by destructive survivalists, then I'd stop saying that I cannot promise not to be angry at ALEX MACKEE. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads ALEX MACKEE -- to respond to this letter with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech. Because ALEX MACKEE is so caught up in trying to repeat the mistakes of the past, I'd like to conclude this letter by quoting to her the last line of R. M. Rilke's poem, "Archaic Torso of Apollo": "You must change your life."
Boudicea/Anonymous, your posts are very interesting. Could you write something about me please?
Regards,
Simon Rigelsford
www.simonrigelsford.blogspot.com
For those who know me, they know it is a rare occurrence for me to be rendered speechless. But when I heard that Simon Rigelsford wants to put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon, I must say that speechless I was. In the text that follows, when I quote from it, I will use the word "excrement" in place of another word which is now apparently permitted in general circulation publications and which I have edited out. Simon Rigelsford's crusades may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into overbearing fanaticism. Of course, Simon Rigelsford should keep its thoughts to itself. I say "of course" because if you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Simon Rigelsford's from the get-go.
Simon Rigelsford pompously claims that it has answers to everything. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. I believe it was Hegel who said, "Its imprudent, resentful smear tactics benefit from this sense of 'us versus them'". Simon Rigelsford can go on saying that its decisions are based on reason, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such callow dreams just now. Lest I forget to mention this later, Simon Rigelsford recently went through a teetotalism phase in which it tried repeatedly to subject human beings to indignities. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of its has entirely passed. My evidence is that Simon Rigelsford keeps trying to exploit the feelings of charity and guilt that many people have over the plight of the homeless. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, it will unmistakably succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with unholy, primitive pip-squeaks, Simon Rigelsford's hirelings, or anyone else who fails to realize that Simon Rigelsford can out-reason passive-aggressive sciolists but not anyone else. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true.
Simon Rigelsford insists that the cure for evil is more evil. In the long run, however, it's only fooling itself. Simon Rigelsford would be better off if it just admitted to itself that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to extract obscene salaries and profits from corporations that subject us to the rambunctious, anti-democratic yapping of huffy Simon Rigelsford clones. Not yet, at least. But there are three fairly obvious problems with its editorials, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to investigate its doctrinaire principles, ideals, and objectives. First, I hope that this sends a strong message to people across the nation that unravelling the Gordian Knot that is Simon Rigelsford is not difficult when you realize the multifaceted nature of Simon Rigelsford and its attendants. Second, we must steer clear of simplistic, monocausal explanations and mythic bogeymen. And third, there is a format Simon Rigelsford should follow for its next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. Simon Rigelsford has the nerve to call those of us who wake people out of their stupor and call on them to maintain social tranquillity "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that Simon Rigelsford's spokesmen are too lazy to expose Simon Rigelsford's adages for what they really are. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Simon Rigelsford for trying to do everything possible to keep disdainful dunces saturnine and shallow. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, Simon Rigelsford really struck a nerve with me when it said that it has its moral compass in tact. That lie is a painful reminder that by brainwashing its serfs with sesquipedalianism, Simon Rigelsford makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave. We must face the undeniable fact that at no time in the past did self-absorbed, foul incubi shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. Simon Rigelsford's desire to start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people is the chief sign that it's an incontinent, warped vandal. (The second sign is that Simon Rigelsford feels obliged to bombard me with insults.)
Simon Rigelsford thinks we want it to denigrate and discard all of Western culture. Excuse me, but maybe villainous quidnuncs have exerted care always to use high-sounding words like "subjectivoidealistic" to hide Simon Rigelsford's plans to justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of Simon Rigelsford's heart. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that ever since Simon Rigelsford decided to twist the teaching of history to suit its bitter purposes, its consistent, unvarying line has been that it is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. Simon Rigelsford needs to stop living in denial. It needs to wake up and realize that it says that it can walk on water. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with its manifestos while punishing those who oppose them. Because Simon Rigelsford may be engaged in extortion, racketeering, and/or money laundering, because it apparently can't tell the difference between flirting and sexual harassment, between white lies and perjury, or between a schoolboy carrying a butter knife and carrying a switchblade, and because its hatchet men have cooperated closely with barbaric thieves on several projects, we can conclude that if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to refute Simon Rigelsford's arguments line by line and claim by claim. I've never bothered Simon Rigelsford. Yet Simon Rigelsford wants to turn our country into a crafty, materialistic cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. Whatever happened to "live and let live"?
After hearing about Simon Rigelsford's irritable attempts to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible, I was saddened. I was saddened that it has lowered itself to this level. While Simon Rigelsford's excuses have reached a depth of degeneracy that was virtually unknown in the past, it is trying to brainwash us. It wants us to believe that it's libidinous to expand people's understanding of its pretentious whinges; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that Simon Rigelsford intends to create a new social class. Obscene, horny purveyors of malice and hatred, jaded, namby-pamby heretics, and stolid sods will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their compeers. Everybody knows that Simon Rigelsford sees life as an ophidian game without any rules, but you should consider that what we have been imparting to Simon Rigelsford -- or what it has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.
When you get right down to it, hooliganism is dangerous. Simon Rigelsford's insensate version of it is doubly so. I heard through the grapevine that Simon Rigelsford's "sincerity" is as transparent as the icy, uncaring look in its eyes. Whether or not this rumor is true, I wonder what would happen if it really did promote unscrupulous ideologies such as Bonapartism. There's a spooky thought. Simon Rigelsford's lies come in many forms. Some of its lies are in the form of practices. Others are in the form of ploys. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.
Maybe you, too, want to promote a culture of dependency and failure, so let me warn you: It's easy for us to shake our heads at Simon Rigelsford's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that Simon Rigelsford is entitled to advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills. It's easy for us to say, "I'm tired of indecent tax cheats." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because the term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of Simon Rigelsford. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to it, which is why I contend that what really irks me is that Simon Rigelsford has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let it trivialize the issue or it'll deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols. All the same, Simon Rigelsford commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for Simon Rigelsford to promote boosterism's traits as normative values to be embraced. Far be it for me to draw unsuspecting undesirables into the orbit of effrontive prophets of metagrobolism. I don't care what others say about Simon Rigelsford. It's still vapid, predatory, and it intends to sacrifice children on the twin altars of nonrepresentationalism and greed. Take a good, close look at yourself, Simon Rigelsford. What you'll probably find is that you're tasteless.
Simon Rigelsford's intimates are just as bad as Simon Rigelsford is, if not worse. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Simon Rigelsford finds a way to dispense outright misinformation and flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories. Simon Rigelsford has planted its peons everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Simon Rigelsford's ability to block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through but it also provides irrefutable evidence that if it succeeds in its attempt to consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of anti-intellectualism, it'll have to be over my dead body. What Simon Rigelsford doesn't realize is that if, five years ago, I had described an organization like Simon Rigelsford to you and told you that in five years, it'd fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries, you'd have thought me out-of-touch. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how there are some simple truths in this world. First, it should have instructed its yes-men not to create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. Second, it is basically a bad organization. And finally, in a recent essay, it stated that its overgeneralizations enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Since the arguments it made in the rest of its essay are based in part on that assumption, it should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but its arguments are full of hair-splitting, lawyer-like quibbling, and references to obscure authorities. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Simon Rigelsford in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Simon Rigelsford is clearly going to be the first to go. On a similar note, Simon Rigelsford can fool some of the people all of the time. It can fool all of the people some of the time. But it can't fool all of the people all of the time.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Simon Rigelsford's plans to spoon-feed us its pabulum. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of jaundiced, prissy thoughts it is thinking about these days. It is imperative that we inform such people that some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of Simon Rigelsford's retinue quite adamantly claim that Simon Rigelsford is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could assert such a thing, but then again, Simon Rigelsford should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. When I state that it looks like Simon Rigelsford is a supporter of everything that was trendy in America in the 1960s -- the marvelous effects of LSD and other psychedelic drugs, pyramid power, various oriental religious cults, transcendental meditation, UFOs and extraterrestrials, CIA conspiracies, you name it -- I'm merely trying to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "pancreaticoduodenostomy". Now, I'm no fan of Simon Rigelsford's, but still, Simon Rigelsford 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 Simon Rigelsford is cynicism. Why? Well, we all know the answer to that question, don't we? But in case you don't, then you should note that if Simon Rigelsford were to mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated -- social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that we must redefine in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that Simon Rigelsford maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around it. There's a word for that: libel.
Now, I am all for freedom of speech, but if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Simon Rigelsford to initiate a reign of whiney, hopeless terror, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Simon Rigelsford claims that hanging out with querulous drongos is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. To put it crudely, Simon Rigelsford had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, it gave us nativism, mysticism, and factionalism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Simon Rigelsford that I once had a nightmare in which it was free to trample over the very freedoms and rights that it claims to support. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that I've heard of heinous things like simplism and escapism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which Simon Rigelsford's ignorant, unthinking, headstrong brain is too small to understand. The recent outrage at Simon Rigelsford's fairy tales may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that Simon Rigelsford's indiscretions are dangerous to my health.
Thanks for that, anonymous/boudicea.
Now write something about Michael.
Vicious. Soulless. Impertinent. In case you can't tell, I'm making a direct reference to MICHAEL. There are a number of reasons MICHAEL isn't telling us as to why she wants to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that her habitués argue that everyone who doesn't share her beliefs is an immature, dirty chucklehead deserving of death and damnation. These are the same cheeky vandals who legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the oppressed. This is no coincidence; it's our responsibility to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from sexism, feudalism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. That's the first step in trying to scuttle her jaded attempts to beat plowshares into swords, and it's the only way to advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. Let us now join hands, hearts, and minds to appeal not to the contented and satisfied, but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. I don't know when materialism became chic, but of all of MICHAEL's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "We should derive moral guidance from MICHAEL's glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented bons mots." I don't know where she came up with this, but her statement is dead wrong.
I've never bothered MICHAEL. Yet MICHAEL wants to caricature and stereotype people from other cultures. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? If she isn't brainless, I don't know who is.
The worst types of harebrained dirtbags there are don't really want me to evaluate the tactics MICHAEL has used against me, although, of course, they all have to pay lip service to the idea. She should shift for herself. It is no more complicated than that. I don't mean to throw fuel on an already considerable fire, but I, speaking as someone who is not a bad-tempered, uncouth flag burner, would really like to comment on her attempt to associate despotism with opportunism. There is no association.
But it gets much worse than that. Relative to just a few years ago, logorrheic junkies are nearly ten times as likely to believe that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by MICHAEL to abridge our basic civil liberties.
MICHAEL goes ballistic every time I so much as hint that her dream is for us to lay down our freedom at our feet and say to her, "Make us your slaves -- but feed us". That is to say, in order to convince us that she can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that she considers craven or bloodthirsty, MICHAEL often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. I have a soft spot for the most closed-minded deviants you'll ever see: a bog not too far from here. Just don't expect consistency from a woman who is totally and undoubtedly militant. MICHAEL motivates people to join her retinue by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What MICHAEL really wants to do is force us to do things or take stands against our will. That's why if we can understand what has caused the current plague of dissolute propagandists, I believe that we can then put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity.
Several things MICHAEL has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of hers that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how it's okay if her crotchets initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. Her sentiments all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that her activities are on the up-and-up. How many of MICHAEL's cat's-paws are content to sit around doing absolutely nothing to contribute to the world around them? I'd hazard to guess that the number is pretty high. MICHAEL deeply believes that she can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: It's easy for us to shake our heads at MICHAEL's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should put inexorable pressure on MICHAEL to be a bit more careful about what she says and does. It's easy for us to say, "The ideological fervor of MICHAEL's helots springs from their desire to adopt approaches that have not been tested to try to solve problems that have not been well-defined." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because I've heard MICHAEL say that we can stop fascism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for fatuous hell-raisers. Was that just a slip of the lip or is MICHAEL secretly trying to glorify the things that everyone else execrates? The answer is not obvious, because she tries to make us think the way she wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons.
MICHAEL claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to make all of us pay for her boondoggles. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by MICHAEL's toadies. The truth is that MICHAEL had previously claimed that she had no intention to promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what she did. Next, she denied that she would paint pictures of avaricious worlds inhabited by treacherous hooligans. We all know what happened then. Now, MICHAEL would have us believe she'd never ever pull the levers of totalitarianism and oil the gears of pessimism. Will she? Go figure. My view is that 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 if you think that going through the motions of working is the same as working, then think again. We cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must educate the public on a range of issues. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that inasmuch as I disagree with MICHAEL's accusations and find her ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet MICHAEL's speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. Interventionism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. Though complacent extremism is not discussed in this letter, much of what I've written applies to that, as well.
To Hell with MICHAEL! All kidding aside, it's coprophagous for her to create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. Or perhaps I should say, it's demented. I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that she had the same intellectual honesty. It is true that I find MICHAEL's "compromises" symptomatic of a dangerous but spreading mentality, but only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that we must shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within her pea-sized brain. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of lazy oafs. You must be the one to view the realms of antiheroism and chauvinism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua. And you must inform your fellow man that the ultimate aim of MICHAEL's outbursts is to restructure society as a pyramid with MICHAEL at the top, MICHAEL's backers directly underneath, saturnine, pigheaded astrologers beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable MICHAEL to hoodoo us, which makes me realize that the central paradox of her ideals, the twist that makes her policies so irresistible to longiloquent, belligerent airheads, is that these people truly believe that her mistakes are always someone else's fault.
Considering the corruption and foolishness that characterize ultra-irresponsible blackguards, the concepts underlying MICHAEL's maladroit, iconoclastic comments are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea -- that the heavens revolve around the Earth -- was wrong, just as MICHAEL's idea that her opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality -- is wrong. MICHAEL doesn't have any principles, or if she does, she puts them aside whenever they're inconvenient. If you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which she may stigmatize any and all attempts to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community in the coming days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that MICHAEL unfairly lambastes people who are trying to do the best they can in a bad situation. Let me rephrase that: MICHAEL is always prating about how a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. (She used to say that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups, but the evidence is too contrary, so she's given up on that score.) Unless MICHAEL's debauches are the result of a high-minded urge to do sociological research, it is simply wrong to conclude that MICHAEL can absorb mana by devouring her nemeses' brains.
Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For MICHAEL's imprecations are dangerous to my health. And let me tell you, if MICHAEL thinks that she can make me hide in a closet, then she's barking up the wrong tree. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but when I hear her say that her roorbacks enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness, I have to wonder about her. Is she utterly childish? Is she simply being bleeding-heart? Or is she merely embracing a delusion in which she must believe in order to continue believing in herself? To help answer that question I will offer a single anecdote. A few weeks ago, I overheard some dim-witted drongo tell everyone who passed by that the cure for evil is more evil. Astounded, I asked this person if she realized that this is what MICHAEL's flunkies try to prevent us from hearing about on radio and television or reading about in popular magazines and large-circulation papers. Not only was her answer "no" but it was also news to her that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly create greater public understanding of the damage caused by MICHAEL's stances. Nevertheless, I do have the will to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of combative alarmism. That's why I obviously aver that MICHAEL's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "MICHAEL is omnipotent" and, "Anyone who dares to tell you a little bit about her and her mendacious jibes can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result". What they don't tell you, though, is that if she wants to be taken seriously, she should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. My long-term goal is to clean up the country and get it back on course again. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, MICHAEL's most recent insults are irreverent, in bad taste, and inappropriate. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me tell you things that MICHAEL doesn't want you to know. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because the point at which you discover that MICHAEL's helpers have discounted their brain as a useless organ is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that she has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. MICHAEL can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches her nostrils, she'll start talking about the joy of denominationalism and how she does the things she does "for the children". As you listen to MICHAEL's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice her hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that ignorance is bliss. This may be why her vicegerents are generally all smiles. This letter has gone on far too long, in my opinion, and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that people should just treat each other with decency and respect.
That was very interesting. Now write about Matt Davies.
I know this topic has been beaten to death lately, but something needs to be said. DOORMAT DAVIES's foot soldiers, who are legion, are delighted with the potential for violent confrontation. The first thing I want to bring up is that DOORMAT DAVIES accuses me of being predatory whenever I state that the most troubling aspect of her personality is her intolerance of dissent. Alright, 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 law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. Now I certainly do not want to sound discouraging, but she really believes that she can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is she living in? The answer to that question has broad implications. For example, if Fate desired that DOORMAT DAVIES make a correct application of what she had read about imperialism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the cantankerous troublemaker would otherwise never in all her life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, DOORMAT DAVIES's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, she always begins an argument with her conclusion (e.g., that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as her) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- she always arrives at that very conclusion.
We must foster mutual understanding. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. The two things I just mentioned -- the way that DOORMAT DAVIES's helpers explain everything through the lens of DOORMAT DAVIES's indecent and ideologically loaded perorations and the fact that she is incapable of empathizing or identifying with others -- may sound like they're completely unrelated, but they're not. The common link is that she exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up her obvious inferiority.
However much DOORMAT DAVIES may deny it, the objection may still be raised that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: There isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that she acts in the name of equality and social justice, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of DOORMAT DAVIES's from the get-go. Although she would rather I discuss the personality flaws of unwed, pregnant teenagers, DOORMAT DAVIES's brethren tend to fall into the mistaken belief that DOORMAT DAVIES can achieve her goals by friendly and moral conduct, mainly because they live inside a DOORMAT DAVIES-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. While her semi-literate ramblings might be of some interest to specialists in child communication, DOORMAT DAVIES says that she's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools.
One might aver that DOORMAT DAVIES's smear tactics set the intellectual and moral stage for a new wave of snappish policies that seek to uproot our very heritage and pave the way for DOORMAT DAVIES's own out-of-touch value system. While that's true, it does somewhat miss the point. You see, we could opt to sit back and let DOORMAT DAVIES shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. Continue to appease her, and DOORMAT DAVIES will definitely go to great lengths to conceal her true aims and mislead the public. That reminds me: When I hear her say that she defends the real needs of the working class, I have to wonder about her. Is she totally lewd? Is she simply being frightful? Or is she merely embracing a delusion in which she must believe in order to continue believing in herself? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because DOORMAT DAVIES lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of her life, I will restate what I said before, for her sake: If she truly believes that we're supposed to shut up and smile when she says cold-blooded things, then maybe she should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101.
Isn't it odd that the worst sorts of inane whiners there are, whose sophomoric, disingenuous lifestyle will harvest what others have sown sooner or later, are immune from censure? Why is that? To answer that question, we need first to consider DOORMAT DAVIES's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) Newspapers should report only on items DOORMAT DAVIES agrees with, so (2) space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. Therefore, (3) sensationalism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us and thus, (4) it's okay if her sophistries initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. As you can see, DOORMAT DAVIES's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that she lacks the courage to confront me face-to-face. What may be news, however, is that that is no excuse for anything. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with DOORMAT DAVIES. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I fight scurrility and slander. DOORMAT DAVIES's cringers perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. DOORMAT DAVIES's initiatives present us with a riddle: How can she be so slaphappy? If I'm not horribly mistaken, there's a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that we mustn't let her promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. Let us not sink to DOORMAT DAVIES's level. Let us combat classism by exercising our right to speak out, to denounce DOORMAT DAVIES's cock-and-bull stories as totally unrepresentative of the values of this society. I welcome DOORMAT DAVIES's comments. However, DOORMAT DAVIES needs to realize that she has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. I can reword my point as follows. DOORMAT DAVIES uses the word "literally" when she means "metaphorically".
Believe me, I certainly don't want to give DOORMAT DAVIES a chance to bad-mouth worthy causes. I have always assumed that I am sick to my stomach of her pettiness and simple ignorance, but the fact of the matter is that even her buddies are afraid that she will plague our minds as soon as our backs are turned. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that the really interesting thing about all this is not that it is a sad state of affairs when testy twits like DOORMAT DAVIES tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. The interesting thing is that her idiotic claim that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel is just that, an idiotic claim. Every time DOORMAT DAVIES tries, she gets increasingly successful in her attempts to create a Frankenstein's monster. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well.
Listen up: This is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that I cannot promise not to be angry at DOORMAT DAVIES. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads DOORMAT DAVIES -- to cast the world into nuclear holocaust. All she wants is to poison the relationship between teacher and student. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to disentangle people from the snares set by her and her votaries, I must explain to the population at large that the justification she gave for seeking to attack the very fabric of this nation was one of the most disreputable justifications I've ever heard. It was so disreputable, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: If I were to compile a list of DOORMAT DAVIES's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that we must treat the disease, not the symptoms, if we are ever to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must unmistakably pursue because I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I indubitably hope that DOORMAT DAVIES serves a long prison term for her illegal attempts to lead us into an age of shoddiness -- shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people. I have to laugh when DOORMAT DAVIES says that the best way to serve one's country is to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it. Where in the world did she get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but I hold her probity in question. That's self-evident, and even DOORMAT DAVIES would probably agree with me on that. Even so, she claims to be fighting for equality. What DOORMAT DAVIES's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that DOORMAT DAVIES's declamations are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that her underlings once used to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people.
Regardless of whether we consider DOORMAT DAVIES a lunatic, an evil aggressor, or whatever, when she was first found trying to gag free speech, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that DOORMAT DAVIES is planning to engulf the world in a dense miasma of defeatism, I'm terrified. Who among you reading these words is not moved to shoo her away like the annoying bug that she is? She's a psychologically defective person. She's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.
While there are many domineering pests, DOORMAT DAVIES is the most intrusive of the lot. Her shills often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. Who else but DOORMAT DAVIES would have the brass to set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that she can retreat into her "victim" status if anyone calls her to account.
Once you understand DOORMAT DAVIES's hastily mounted campaigns, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting DOORMAT DAVIES spawn delusions of nonrepresentationalism's resplendence. I used a phrase a few moments ago. I referred to her patsies as "presumptuous cheapskates." You ought to memorize that phrase, because, frankly, she hates it when you say that she is a scion of dim-witted, capricious polemics. She really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to her sometime, if you have a thick skin and don't mind having her shriek insults at you. Now that this letter has come to an end, I decidedly hope you walk away from it realizing that what we need from DOORMAT DAVIES is fewer monologues and more dialogue.
DOORMAT DAVIES's stratagems have been getting a lot of undeserved attention recently. First, the misinformation: DOORMAT DAVIES suggests that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. Where the heck did she come up with that? To rephrase that question, how much longer can we tolerate her unenlightened disquisitions before the whole country collectively throws up? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that she is up to no good. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that the use of long run-on sentences, bad metaphors, multiple misspellings, and inappropriately placed $5 words like "superserviceableness" does not help her cause at all? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that she can get away with lies (e.g., that she is as innocent as a newborn lamb) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that DOORMAT DAVIES is lying. She appears to have found a new tool to use to help her resort to underhanded tactics. That tool is antiheroism, and if you watch her wield it, you'll doubtlessly see why prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially her hateful form of it -- is. Be always mindful that I recently heard DOORMAT DAVIES tell a bunch of people that it's okay if her ventures initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text.
Here, too, we can see how when I say that DOORMAT DAVIES's proposed social programs are impetuous, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something impetuous or that they have one or two impetuous characteristics. I mean that they are impetuous. In fact, the most impetuous thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that I don't care what others say about DOORMAT DAVIES. She's still muzzy-headed, mendacious, and she intends to compromise the free and open nature of public discourse. In plain, simple-to-understand English, she shouldn't stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions ignore compromise and focus solely on DOORMAT DAVIES's personal agenda. A few days ago, DOORMAT DAVIES actually admitted that she wants to overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars -- family, nation, religion, and democracy. Can you believe that? Perhaps DOORMAT DAVIES forgot to take her antipsychotics that day. An additional clue is that if anything will free us from the shackles of her destructive values, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that DOORMAT DAVIES has been offering pea-brained ingrates a lot of money to damn this nation and this world to Hell. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that DOORMAT DAVIES insists that sniffish, pathological scurrilous-types have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. Sorry, DOORMAT DAVIES, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so."
Someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by DOORMAT DAVIES. The memo spells out her plans to create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that before DOORMAT DAVIES initiated an interventionism flap to help promote her aberrent bruta fulmina, people everywhere were expected to condemn her hypocrisy. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that all the deals DOORMAT DAVIES makes are strictly one-way. DOORMAT DAVIES gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Even though supposedly distancing herself from fastidious, stuck-up pothouse drunks, DOORMAT DAVIES has really not changed her spots at all.
DOORMAT DAVIES's double standards are more than just feral. They're a revolt against nature. Once we have absorbed and understood DOORMAT DAVIES's dysfunctional whinges, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity. Only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that you may be wondering why shiftless scum latch onto DOORMAT DAVIES's witticisms. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why I am surely not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that I have a message for DOORMAT DAVIES. My message is that, for the good of us all, she should never stand in the way of progress. She should never even try to do such a nit-picky thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by "never", I don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", or "it depends". I mean only that the ultimate aim of DOORMAT DAVIES's methods of interpretation is to restructure society as a pyramid with DOORMAT DAVIES at the top, DOORMAT DAVIES's hangers-on directly underneath, malign slimeballs beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable DOORMAT DAVIES to evoke a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances, which makes me realize that to DOORMAT DAVIES's mind, she is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. So that means that courtesy and manners don't count for anything, right? No, not right. The truth is that irrationalism is classically a hodgepodge of complaints crafted for mass appeal. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. On the other hand, there are few certainties in life. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have counted only three: death, taxes, and DOORMAT DAVIES doing some bloodthirsty thing every few weeks.
If DOORMAT DAVIES wants to be taken seriously, she should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. She is frightened that we might bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. That's why she's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that she wants to meddle in everyone else's affairs. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to lend support to the thesis that this should not and need not be the case. DOORMAT DAVIES keeps saying that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. For some reason, DOORMAT DAVIES's companions actually believe this nonsense.
When you tell DOORMAT DAVIES's proxies that DOORMAT DAVIES is a bacillus in the foul gut of plagiarism, they begin to get fidgety, and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to perform noble deeds. Of course, it can plausibly be surmised that in her intimates, we can recognize the symptoms of decay of a slowly rotting world. We can therefore extrapolate that by writing this letter, I am indisputably sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that DOORMAT DAVIES will retaliate against me. She'll most likely try to force me to die an agonizing death, be given no burial place, and have my soul chased by demons in Gehenna from one room to another for all eternity and more, although another possibility is that I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. Do you ever get the feeling that I find DOORMAT DAVIES's modes of thought highly insulting? Well, you should, because if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping DOORMAT DAVIES gag free speech, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that if I want to lose heart, that should be my prerogative. I unmistakably don't need DOORMAT DAVIES forcing me to. Some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that she is secretly scheming to recruit and encourage young people to dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that she is not only immoral, but amoral.
Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to inimical swaggerers who want to abandon me on a desert island. How can we trust DOORMAT DAVIES if she doesn't trust us? We can't. And besides, if she were to test another formula for silencing serious opposition, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that DOORMAT DAVIES decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that she fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.
The problem is, I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But DOORMAT DAVIES has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever she thinks that means) to prove that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that DOORMAT DAVIES wants to evade responsibility. Who does she think she is? I mean, I want to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that she is a stubborn tadpole swimming in a grumpy pond. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Which of the seven deadly sins -- pride, envy, anger, sadness, avarice, gluttony, and lust -- does she not commit on a daily basis? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that I have to wonder where she got the idea that it is my view that classism is the key to world peace. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that DOORMAT DAVIES is the type of person that turns up her nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter, such as why it would be good for her to violate values so important to our sense of community. While everybody believes in something, her simple faith in wowserism will inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. Okay, now it's time to offend a few people. Actually, I hope not to offend anyone, although everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that the odds are more than ten to one that she should take a step back and look at everything from a different perspective. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche.
We must recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to eschew prodigal Dadaism.
It's amazing how low DOORMAT DAVIES will stoop to keep us hypnotized so we don't step back and consider the problem of her stances in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: I find much to disagree with in her sermons. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me take advantage of a rare opportunity to set the record straight. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because DOORMAT DAVIES will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let her take advantage of human fallibility to treat traditional values as if they were officious, soulless crimes. At least putting up with another DOORMAT DAVIES hissy fit is easier than convincing DOORMAT DAVIES's shills that DOORMAT DAVIES never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. She presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, she seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that her pleas are thoroughly otiose. No joke. Following this line of logic, it would appear that even DOORMAT DAVIES's confreres are afraid that DOORMAT DAVIES will help self-satisfied radicals back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof before you know it. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that many people are incredulous when I tell them that DOORMAT DAVIES intends to judge people based solely on hearsay. "How could DOORMAT DAVIES be so mutinous?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is truly possible, and now I'll explain exactly how DOORMAT DAVIES plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that she wants me to stop trying to make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of her assertions. Instead, she'd rather I choke to death. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily. I'm indeed bewildered by the satanic nature of DOORMAT DAVIES's anecdotes. And if that seems like a modest claim, I disagree. It's the most radical claim of all. A final note: None of DOORMAT DAVIES's "progressive" ideas have actually resulted in any progress.
I just want to say one thing: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how DOORMAT DAVIES contends that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. Sounds rather crapulous, doesn't it? Well, that's DOORMAT DAVIES for you. I heard through the grapevine that she has worn out her welcome. Whether or not this rumor is true, only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that if you read DOORMAT DAVIES's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that DOORMAT DAVIES has answers to everything. But if you read her writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that she has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that she doubtlessly believes that the sky is falling. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is she living in? To answer that question, we need first to consider DOORMAT DAVIES's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) Heathenism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society, so (2) we ought to worship meretricious palookas of one sort or another as folk heroes. Therefore, (3) she's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread and thus, (4) malodorous, dour dunces have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. As you can see, DOORMAT DAVIES's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that she has two imperatives. The first is to take away our sense of community and leave us morally adrift. The second imperative is to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than DOORMAT DAVIES has for her deputies.
DOORMAT DAVIES appears to have found a new tool to use to help her put the prisoners in charge of running the prison. That tool is interventionism, and if you watch her wield it, you'll indubitably see why she likes to brag about how the members of her coterie are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. DOORMAT DAVIES provides none. The great irony is that DOORMAT DAVIES is a myth-generating machine. That's the sort of statement that some people aver is disloyal, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: I want to unify our community. DOORMAT DAVIES, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it.
This is particularly interesting when you consider that if I recall correctly, DOORMAT DAVIES will do everything in her power to change this country's moral infrastructure. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; DOORMAT DAVIES plans to destroy our sense of safety in the places we ordinarily imagine we can flee to. She has instructed her chums not to discuss this or even admit to her plan's existence. Obviously, DOORMAT DAVIES knows she has something to hide. Consider the following, which I'll address in greater detail later: DOORMAT DAVIES wants to purge the land of every non-ophidian person, gene, idea, and influence. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background.
With that kind of thinking, an elitism-oriented spirit is precisely the wrong spirit in which to stop DOORMAT DAVIES's encroachments on our heritage, don't you think? DOORMAT DAVIES should take a step back and look at everything from a different perspective. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that DOORMAT DAVIES is a model citizen, then there is clearly no hope for you. As I have indicated, if you can make any sense out her daft calumnies, then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did.
I repeat: DOORMAT DAVIES's inclinations are like an enormous neocolonialism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must treat the disease, not the symptoms, because DOORMAT DAVIES is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how domineering DOORMAT DAVIES is. You can't do it. Not only that, but her contrivances have merged with ruffianism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both glamorize drug usage. And both coordinate a revolution. DOORMAT DAVIES's whole approach is hideous, but I guess nobody ever explained that to DOORMAT DAVIES's followers.
DOORMAT DAVIES motivates people to join her exhibitionism movement by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What DOORMAT DAVIES really wants to do is leach integrity and honor from our souls. That's why DOORMAT DAVIES would have us believe that it's okay to canonize dishonest sods as nomological emblems of propriety. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But DOORMAT DAVIES is surrounded by brown-nosing deviants who parrot the same nonsense, which is why when she hears anyone say that according to her, anyone who points this out is guilty of spreading lies, smears, and Comstockism, her answer is to bamboozle people into believing that her jeremiads enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that the original purpose of nativism was to open the gates of Hell. Developing a policy of inclusion will not be easy, because DOORMAT DAVIES knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive -- or at least overlook -- all of her piteous excesses. My take on the matter is that when I say that her vaporings are obtuse, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something obtuse or that they have one or two obtuse characteristics. I mean that they are obtuse. In fact, the most obtuse thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that DOORMAT DAVIES can't possibly believe that truth is merely a social construct. She's antihumanist, but she's not that antihumanist.
DOORMAT DAVIES is sincerely up to something. I don't know exactly what, but her exegeses cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. If the only way to give her a rhadamanthine warning not to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood" is for me to adopt a new world-view, then so be it. It would surely be worth it because we should not concern ourselves with DOORMAT DAVIES's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that I know some paltry, gin-swilling scofflaws who actually believe that purblind spielers are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Incredible? Those same people have told me that narcissism and ageism are identical concepts. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that we wouldn't currently have a problem with radicalism if it weren't for DOORMAT DAVIES. Although she created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, DOORMAT DAVIES insists that she can solve the problem if we just grant her more power. How naïve does she think we are? Truly, unlike DOORMAT DAVIES, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- she were not actually responsible for trying to fund a vast web of misguided clods, snarky dunderheads, and supercilious vulgarians (especially the neurotic type), then I'd stop saying that DOORMAT DAVIES's projects have kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful adventure we share together -- life! DOORMAT DAVIES brandishes the word "chromatographic" as a kind of up-to-date jack-o'-lantern to scare children. I mean, think about it. Even if her reports were totally successful in making a few people feel better, they would still be demeaning to everyone else. Hard to believe? Then consider the following statement from one of her deceitful vassals: "The rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters." Pretty jejune, huh? Well, the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.
When people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And DOORMAT DAVIES is to blame. If I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to serve on the side of Truth. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that it strikes me as amusing that DOORMAT DAVIES complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! She does nothing but complain. Given her propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that a person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. DOORMAT DAVIES has never had that faculty. She always does what she wants to do at the moment and figures she'll be able to lie herself out of any problems that arise. Without beating around the bush, I'll tell you now what I have concluded about her petulant inveracities. I've concluded that DOORMAT DAVIES is a scion of anti-democratic phonies. DOORMAT DAVIES may mean well but no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how there is an implicit assumption here that she is battening on us. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also address a number of important issues.
DOORMAT DAVIES may not be that spleeny, but she sure is footling. It has been said that nothing would make her happier than to see me run around like a chicken with its head cut off. I, in turn, maintain that she speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables her to distort the facts. We must understand that I urge you to join me in my quest to fight laughable rubes. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible.
There is no contradiction here; even though much of DOORMAT DAVIES's behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the ignorant caitiffs whom DOORMAT DAVIES claims to be trying to help, you mustn't forget that the only weapons DOORMAT DAVIES has in her intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all she has, and she knows it. Am I angry? You bet. If we are powerless to keep her dupes at bay, it is because we have allowed DOORMAT DAVIES to provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction. A final note: DOORMAT DAVIES's cabal is reminiscent of the French Jacobin Club and its morbid obsession with power, death, and solecism.
Although I would very much like to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us, there are several obstacles that make it difficult to give DOORMAT DAVIES a rhadamanthine warning not to till the frightful side of the antidisestablishmentarianism garden. I will briefly adumbrate these obstacles and then refer to them occasionally throughout the body of this letter. 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. As our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people DOORMAT DAVIES preys upon.
DOORMAT DAVIES believes that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. That's just wrong. She further believes that you and I are inferior to inaniloquent, self-satisfied warmongers. Wrong again! She likes half-measures that talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that she has been deluding people into believing that her debauches are the result of a high-minded urge to do sociological research. Don't let her delude you, too.
Given DOORMAT DAVIES's propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that I'm willing to accept that DOORMAT DAVIES is deeply involved emotionally in her attack on truth and reality. I'm even willing to accept that she explicitly seeks out situations where her materialistic behavior will be tolerated, condoned, and admired. But I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "I'm not actually demanding revenge." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that when DOORMAT DAVIES tells us that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity, she somehow fails to mention that it is naive to think that she wouldn't let down ladders which the clueless, mindless, and effete scramble to climb if she got the chance. She fails to mention that all of her insults are based on the premise that "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. And she fails to mention that someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by DOORMAT DAVIES. The memo spells out her plans to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that we must preserve the peace. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that DOORMAT DAVIES's indiscretions are not witty satire, as she would have you believe. They're simply the impractical ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what she's mocking. Hostility is a primary component of DOORMAT DAVIES's behavior, but I won't linger on that. It is morally unjustifiable for DOORMAT DAVIES to muzzle her critics. This means, in particular, that I would never take a job working for her. Given her bumptious codices, who would want to?
Every time DOORMAT DAVIES tells her goombahs that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. Who is she to say that she has been robbed of all she does not possess? According to her distortions, distractions, and outright deceptions, masochism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Fortunately, most of the people who are seriously interested in preserving our civilization know that the reality is that DOORMAT DAVIES's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "Coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power" and, "We should derive moral guidance from DOORMAT DAVIES's glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented roorbacks". What they don't tell you, though, is that DOORMAT DAVIES drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes her sound smarter than she really is and obscures the fact that the most significant aspect of DOORMAT DAVIES's mentality and its lack of refinement is the closeness of DOORMAT DAVIES's way of thinking in general to the way that aberrent traitors think in particular. The sooner she comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
DOORMAT DAVIES has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that if she would abandon her name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to denounce those who claim that newspapers should report only on items she agrees with. Our national media is controlled by jaded, antihumanist purveyors of malice and hatred. That's why you probably haven't heard that it is not news that DOORMAT DAVIES governs her hangers-on with a dictatorial and brutal fist, forcing them to stir up trouble. What speaks volumes, though, is that some people don't seem to mind that DOORMAT DAVIES likes to abet a resurgence of closed-minded, lewd exhibitionism. What a dangerous world we live in! DOORMAT DAVIES, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but I have to laugh when she says that her crusades can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. Where in the world did she get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but she deeply believes that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: DOORMAT DAVIES's gofers believe that the moon is made of green cheese. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to do something about the continuing -- make that the escalating -- effort on DOORMAT DAVIES's part to legitimate irresponsibility, laziness, and infidelity.
DOORMAT DAVIES's whole approach is ignorant, so to speak. DOORMAT DAVIES plans to weaken our mental and moral fiber. The result will be an amalgam of repressive corporatism and licentious diabolism, if such a monster can be imagined. What does DOORMAT DAVIES have to say about all of this? The answer, as expected, is nothing.
DOORMAT DAVIES has been known to "prove" statistically that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. As you might have suspected, her proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, DOORMAT DAVIES's "proof" demonstrates only that I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with DOORMAT DAVIES. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, somebody has to step back and consider the problem of DOORMAT DAVIES's traducements in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. That somebody can be you. In any case, we've all heard DOORMAT DAVIES yammer and whine about how she's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. DOORMAT DAVIES thinks that she has a "special" perspective on pharisaism which carries with it a "special" right to funnel significant amounts of money to uncompanionable vigilantes. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. Anyway, the consequence of all this is that she will probably never understand why she scares me so much. And DOORMAT DAVIES unmistakably does scare me: Her notions are scary, her op-ed pieces are scary, and most of all, I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to oppose her and all she stands for. And just let her try and stop me. Her overgeneralizations are continually evolving into more and more exploitative incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how DOORMAT DAVIES's declamations are distasteful in their impact, disorganized in their aspirations, insolent in their political deviousness, and conceited in their dissolute philosophies. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, DOORMAT DAVIES has two imperatives. The first is to initiate a reign of featherbrained terror. The second imperative is to acquire public acceptance of her doctrinaire belief systems.
On the issue of cameralism, DOORMAT DAVIES is wrong again. Sure, I'm tired of audacious dopeheads. But I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about DOORMAT DAVIES. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents, and in these primarily as an illustration that if DOORMAT DAVIES could have one wish, she'd wish for the ability to lower scholastic standards. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that DOORMAT DAVIES is locked into her present course of destruction. She does not have the interest or the will to change her fundamentally pharisaical publicity stunts. The long and short of it is that DOORMAT DAVIES's dirty peuplade has its origins in the Jewish Kabala, Babylonian mystery cults, Templars, Freemasons, Illuminati, and assorted interests dedicated to Satanic worship and absolute power. She vehemently denies that, of course. But she obviously would, because her expedients symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. It has been proven time and time again that DOORMAT DAVIES insists that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. How can she be so blind? Very easily. Basically, DOORMAT DAVIES can't relate to anyone other than what I call venom-spouting so-called experts. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: If Fate desired that DOORMAT DAVIES make a correct application of what she had read about adversarialism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the reprehensible, polyloquent nabob of mercantalism would otherwise never in all her life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that DOORMAT DAVIES's publications have a distinctly sophomoric tone. Well, how about this for evidence: If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of her tracts, one is promptly condemned as debauched, loud, longiloquent, or whatever epithet she deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. DOORMAT DAVIES's goal is to lay the foundation for some serious mischief. How cold-blooded is that? How power-hungry? How sexist?
In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the revenge fantasies of blathering rubes, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant shenanigans. I am one of DOORMAT DAVIES's victims. But it goes further than that; we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about DOORMAT DAVIES's crazy maneuvers. For starters, let's say that "Trotskyism" is "that which makes DOORMAT DAVIES yearn to poke someone's eyes out." If I have characterized her janissaries up to now as contumelious and Pecksniffian, it is only because she just reported that those of us who oppose her would rather run than fight. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on DOORMAT DAVIES's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to propitiate pestilential beatniks for later eventualities. DOORMAT DAVIES's premise (that she can prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror and get away with it) is her morality disguised as pretended neutrality. DOORMAT DAVIES uses this disguised morality to support her utterances, thereby making her argument self-refuting.
There is a problem here. A large, capricious, maledicent problem. Nonrepresentationalism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's DOORMAT DAVIES's favorite; it makes it easy for her to parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire. DOORMAT DAVIES's desire to progressively enlarge and increasingly centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction is the chief sign that she's an acrimonious lounge lizard. (The second sign is that DOORMAT DAVIES feels obliged to reap a harvest of death.) Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my disgust with DOORMAT DAVIES?
Unless you want to accumulate a long list of examples of DOORMAT DAVIES's acts of corruption and depredation, this letter may become a bit monotonous. However, I undeniably do hope you read it all the way through because the reservoir from which DOORMAT DAVIES draws her emissaries is primarily the masses of addlepated, infantile tax cheats. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For instance, it is a fact that DOORMAT DAVIES deeply believes that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: DOORMAT DAVIES's lies come in many forms. Some of her lies are in the form of methods of interpretation. Others are in the form of invectives. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Inasmuch as I disagree with her accusations and find her ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet her speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. In light of what I just stated, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that DOORMAT DAVIES is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every confused, socially inept ideology finds expression in DOORMAT DAVIES. Well, let's get our facts straight. She's planning to exploit issues such as the global economic crisis and the increase in world terrorism in order to instigate planet-wide chaos. Planet-wide chaos is DOORMAT DAVIES's gateway to global tyranny, which will in turn enable her to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet.
It must be pointed out over and over again to DOORMAT DAVIES's cat's-paws and, in a broader sense, to what I call ignorant low-lifes that if the people generally are relying on false information sown by evil, bloody-minded guttersnipes, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. Let us not sink to DOORMAT DAVIES's level. Let us combat chauvinism by exercising our right to speak out, to denounce DOORMAT DAVIES's pranks as totally unrepresentative of the values of this society.
I used a phrase a few moments ago. I referred to DOORMAT DAVIES's chums as "unambitious louts." You ought to memorize that phrase, because, frankly, we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that DOORMAT DAVIES is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that DOORMAT DAVIES's predaceous arguments can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance. Sure, she talks the talk, but does she walk the walk? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If DOORMAT DAVIES finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that she try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that unrealistic loonies serve as the priests in DOORMAT DAVIES's cult of virulent metagrobolism. These "priests" spend their days basking in DOORMAT DAVIES's reflected glory, pausing only when DOORMAT DAVIES instructs them to publish blatantly perverted rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. What could be more complacent? I'll tell you the answer in a moment. But first, let me just say that the space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which she has tried to invent a new moral system that legitimizes her desire to convince snarky fence-sitters that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining her.
The tone of DOORMAT DAVIES's views is eerily reminiscent of that of capricious, adversarial anthropophagi of the late 1940s, in the sense that DOORMAT DAVIES likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of immoralism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, she invariably instructs her mercenaries to make us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to her inveracities. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual, it makes perfect sense in light of DOORMAT DAVIES's directionless endeavors. Did she cancel her plans to use our weaknesses to her advantage because she had a change of heart, or is she continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. Oddly enough, DOORMAT DAVIES is thoroughly unmovable by truth or reason. Stranger still, DOORMAT DAVIES is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to her adages. I suspect it's important to continue discussing this even after I've made my point, because a number of crapulous pickpockets have succumbed to excessive drug use, alcoholism, and other addictive behavior indicating maladaptive mechanisms. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming, then there is indubitably no hope for you.
On the other hand, it's easy to tell if DOORMAT DAVIES's lying. If her lips are moving, she's lying. DOORMAT DAVIES wants to hold annual private conferences in which snivelling malingerers are invited to present their "research". Why she wants that, I don't know, but that's what she wants.
I may not be perfect, but at least I'm not afraid to say that if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why DOORMAT DAVIES would want to redefine success and obscure failure. I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I feel that there is, because every time she utters or writes a statement that supports larrikinism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that she has her moral compass in tact. I certainly claim we mustn't let her make such statements, partly because her op-ed pieces are a cancer that gnaws away at the national psyche, but primarily because it seems that no one else is telling you that her perorations smack of paternalism. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, DOORMAT DAVIES's adherents insist that "DOORMAT DAVIES can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that there are many illustrations of this, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly carry out this matter to the full extent of the law. Nevertheless, I unequivocally do have the will to reinforce what is best in people. That's why I obviously maintain that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why DOORMAT DAVIES has a vested interest in making me lose my temper. But the short answer is that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until DOORMAT DAVIES and her apologists started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that for the nonce, DOORMAT DAVIES is content to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up. But as soon as our backs are turned, she will eavesdrop on all kinds of private conversations. Having studied DOORMAT DAVIES's charges and finding them groundless, I must now tell the world that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to provide people the wherewithal to empower the oppressed to control their own lives, we must keep our priorities in check. I, not being one of the many apolaustic Philistines of this world, consider that requirement a small price to pay because DOORMAT DAVIES talks a lot about cannibalism and how wonderful it is. However, she's never actually defined what it means. How can she argue for something she's never defined? There is widespread agreement in asking that question, but there is great disagreement in answering it.
I hate to say this, but when I say that I've received appreciative notes from academic psychologists and students of culture who deplore the misapplication of their subjects by ideologues like DOORMAT DAVIES, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that she has a "special" perspective on hooliganism which carries with it a "special" right to defy the rules of logic. This is a common fallacy held by nettlesome, impetuous dole-sucking parasites. What she doesn't realize is that I have a New Year's resolution for her: She should pick up a book before she jumps to the insensate conclusion that the best way to serve one's country is to encourage dissolute, salacious porn stars to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort. It has been revealed that DOORMAT DAVIES plans to steal the fruits of other people's labor. First reaction yields that she ducks the issue of fanaticism by using words and phrases so vague and subject to interpretation that they have no true meaning at all. A little more thought leads to the more accurate conclusion that one of the goals of revanchism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". DOORMAT DAVIES admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, DOORMAT DAVIES's own mediocrity can flourish.
Just think: As that last sentence suggests, DOORMAT DAVIES may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I consider her to be a weapon of mass destruction herself. At first blush, it appears that I am fed up with her boisterous and acrimonious behavior. However, we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: DOORMAT DAVIES. I want to shield people from her inaniloquent and uppity deceptions. That may seem simple enough, but she is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, she has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people she desires to lead. If the mass news media were actually in the business of covering news rather than molding public attitudes to use paid informants and provocateurs to overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars -- family, nation, religion, and democracy -- they would undoubtedly report that I find that some of DOORMAT DAVIES's choices of words in her credos would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "rambunctious" for "hematospectrophotometer" and "execrable" for "hydrometallurgically."
Many people respond to DOORMAT DAVIES's misinformed prognoses in much the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we reveal the truth about DOORMAT DAVIES's machinations. In this land which has befriended the most pouty drunks I've ever seen, DOORMAT DAVIES has conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted, and corrupted, and -- hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of effete, disrespectful cutthroats -- dares to contrive and scheme the death of every principle that has protected her.
DOORMAT DAVIES's memoranda epitomize all that is chthonic in the world. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time DOORMAT DAVIES tried to promote mediocrity over merit. If there is one truth in this world, it's that she says that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. Either DOORMAT DAVIES has no real conception of the sweep of history, or she is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. Her rank-and-file followers can be stereotyped as deplorable tools of prepackaged political ideology and wayward extremists to boot. Enough said. If you wonder why I take the stance that I do, it's because her magic-bullet explanations cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that anyone who disagrees with DOORMAT DAVIES is ultimately witless. Some day, I want to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that what DOORMAT DAVIES seems to be forgetting is that the wisdom that comes from maturation of the spirit, mind, and body will some day prevail over the idiocy of her personal attacks. But you don't have to wait for that. What you can do now is talk to everyone you know about the things I've told you in this letter. Use every medium available to you. Use the Internet. Use your telephone. Use radio and newspapers. And whatever you do, never be afraid to speak out against the evil that is DOORMAT DAVIES.
Unless you're a newly hatched pod person, you already know that inequality does not beget equality. But let me add that DOORMAT DAVIES's epigrams represent the most catty form of moral turpitude conceivable. To begin at the beginning, DOORMAT DAVIES says it is within her legal right to preach fear and ignorance. Whether or not she indeed has such a right, some people think it's a bit extreme of me to institute change -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that DOORMAT DAVIES's asseverations are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. It's easy for us to shake our heads at DOORMAT DAVIES's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should call your attention to the problem of irrational spoilsports. It's easy for us to say, "DOORMAT DAVIES is lying to herself if she thinks that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because she thinks that divine ichor flows through her veins. However, nativism, as a social philosophy, is ignorant. To say otherwise would be brutal. If everyone does his own, small part, together we can speak out against behavior and speech that is intended to block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through. Am I the only one who makes that observation? Of course not. But perhaps I express it more directly, more candidly, and far less euphemistically than most.
To exert more and more control over other individuals is DOORMAT DAVIES's objective, and bookish masochism is her method. It's a well-known fact that DOORMAT DAVIES flaunts her personal comments and attitudes in front of everyone else. It's an equally well-known fact that DOORMAT DAVIES's paroxysms are all too often clad in the unpleasant garb of jujuism. When logic puts these two facts together, the necessary result is an understanding that if you want to hide something from DOORMAT DAVIES, you just have to put it in a book.
There's only one proper consideration here: the harm that'll be caused if DOORMAT DAVIES's allowed to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women. All else is abstract, obstreperous, intellectual hooey. It is painful to write such truisms, but I don't need to tell you that it's quite sad that DOORMAT DAVIES chooses to squander her talent on this sort of flagitious solipsism. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that by brainwashing her compeers with demagogism, DOORMAT DAVIES makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave.
When we tease apart the associations necessary to DOORMAT DAVIES's twisted arguments, we see that DOORMAT DAVIES is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse. Responsible citizens honestly do not woo over power-hungry loudmouths by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history. She's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, DOORMAT DAVIES tells so many lies, she's bound to trip herself up someday.
The truth hurts, doesn't it, DOORMAT DAVIES? In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the demands of lubricious, hopeless losers, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant press releases. At first, you might be unsure as to whether I find her ruinous policies and dubious values unacceptable. But on deeper inspection, you'll definitely conclude that there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent she has tried to apotheosize venal dummkopfs. The other is whether or not the key to DOORMAT DAVIES's soul is her longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. She dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, DOORMAT DAVIES's ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained, in large part, by the following. An equal but opposite observation is that DOORMAT DAVIES's machinations are based on hate. Hate, antiheroism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. It's uneducated for DOORMAT DAVIES to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what she has planned for the future. Or perhaps I should say, it's appalling. I challenge her to tell me what, if anything, in this letter is not utterly truthful. With enough time and room, it would be easy to show why this must be true, but the clinching argument is simply that the concepts underlying her ugly perceptions are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea -- that the heavens revolve around the Earth -- was wrong, just as DOORMAT DAVIES's idea that picayunish knuckleheads are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive is wrong.
I myself would like nothing more than to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, DOORMAT DAVIES wants us to think of her as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that she wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If DOORMAT DAVIES really wanted to be a do-gooder, she could start by admitting that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if DOORMAT DAVIES had learned anything from history, she'd know that if I hear her slaves say, "Cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior" one more time, I'm clearly going to throw up. DOORMAT DAVIES's sermons have paid off: Already, DOORMAT DAVIES has had some success in her efforts to encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom. Her philosophies can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that if DOORMAT DAVIES wants to complain, she should have an argument. She shouldn't just throw out the word "poluphloisboiotatotic", for example, and expect us to be scared.
If you wonder why I take the stance that I do, it's because I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want DOORMAT DAVIES to supplant national heroes with the most hypocritical leeches you'll ever see, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while DOORMAT DAVIES claims that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. She doesn't want to acknowledge that she knows perfectly well that she is the type of person who can look you right in the eye and, with an expression of the utmost sincerity, tell you any kind of whopper that suits her purpose. In fact, DOORMAT DAVIES would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because if she had her way, schools would teach students that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to gain a virtual stranglehold on many facets of our educational system. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how I wonder if DOORMAT DAVIES really believes the things she says. She knows they're not true, doesn't she? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that DOORMAT DAVIES's ruses are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that sin is good for the soul. And they promote the mistaken idea that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate. DOORMAT DAVIES's lapdogs assert that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and incorrigible big-labor bosses (especially the unbalanced type). This is precisely the non-equation that DOORMAT DAVIES is trying to patch together. What she's missing, as usual, is that her peevish hatchet jobs are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of phallocentrism are blooming all around us.
And for those tyrannical, poxy prima donnas who want to hide behind the argument that DOORMAT DAVIES's apostles are not corrupt politicasters, but rather, violent miscreants, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for DOORMAT DAVIES. If we feel helpless, DOORMAT DAVIES is energized and ramps up her efforts to put our liberties at risk by an atrabilious and antisocial rush to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that raving sewer rats with stronger voices than minds would revert to invidious behavior. But once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that DOORMAT DAVIES's fantasy is to suborn infantile used-car salesmen to confiscate other people's rightful earnings. She dreams of a world that grants her such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of corporatism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that if I want to sell my soul to the devil, that should be my prerogative. I don't need DOORMAT DAVIES forcing me to.
DOORMAT DAVIES operates on the basis of an unremitting hatred of civility and decency. But there's the rub; DOORMAT DAVIES thinks it's good that her mottos undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: She has for a long time been arguing that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". Had she instead been arguing that the cliches of her whinges are well-known to us all, I might cede her her point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in DOORMAT DAVIES's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how this should not and need not be the case. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that if she succeeds in her attempt to clear-cut ancient forest lands, it'll have to be over my dead body. Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that DOORMAT DAVIES has been trying for some time to convince people that she holds a universal license that allows her to make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. Don't believe her hype! DOORMAT DAVIES has just been offering that line as a means to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus.
Let us now join hands, hearts, and minds to halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction. I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that I can't possibly believe DOORMAT DAVIES's claim that her subliminal psywar campaigns provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet because DOORMAT DAVIES sometimes uses the word "gastrohysterorrhaphy" when describing her codices. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response. She seems to assume that she commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. This is an assumption of the worst kind because the term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of her. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to her, which is why I claim that DOORMAT DAVIES says that her assertions won't be used for political retribution. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. Ladies and gentlemen, DOORMAT DAVIES plans to organize a whispering campaign against me. The result will be an amalgam of uncompromising paternalism and fatuitous mysticism, if such a monster can be imagined. Finally, whatever your thoughts or feelings about DOORMAT DAVIES are, I urge you to help me put an end to macabre, impolitic lexiphanicism.
I, not being one of the many treasonous pinheads of this world, surely reject DOORMAT DAVIES's demands, but that's not the point of this letter. The point is that I am weary of listening to DOORMAT DAVIES descant on the glories of sesquipedalianism. I want to share this with you because DOORMAT DAVIES shouldn't terrorize our youngsters. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. While she insists that the ideas of "freedom" and "voyeurism" are Siamese twins, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how DOORMAT DAVIES thinks we want her to force us to tailor our allegations just to suit her discourteous whims. Excuse me, but maybe she motivates people to join her lynch mob by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What DOORMAT DAVIES really wants to do is impose a "glass ceiling" that limits our opportunities for promotions in most jobs. That's why the only weapons DOORMAT DAVIES has in her intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all she has, and she knows it.
Ignorance is bliss. This may be why DOORMAT DAVIES's apologists are generally all smiles. Have you ever had a bad dream about DOORMAT DAVIES trying to tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation? Well, I have news for you. That wasn't a dream; it was real.
DOORMAT DAVIES talks a lot about communism and how wonderful it is. However, she's never actually defined what it means. How can she argue for something she's never defined? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that her vassals should reevaluate their cherished assumptions about priggism. The second, more telling, observation is that DOORMAT DAVIES plans to usher in the beginning of a cheeky new era of cynicism. The result will be an amalgam of mindless cameralism and litigious lexiphanicism, if such a monster can be imagined. Don't be intimidated by her threat to threaten national security. In a tacit concession of defeat, DOORMAT DAVIES is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what her malignant rantings have failed at. At the risk of shocking you further, I shall point out that it will not be easy to rouse people's indignation at DOORMAT DAVIES. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that she believes that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. That's just wrong. She further believes that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. Wrong again!
DOORMAT DAVIES's associates' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. Some people think it's a bit extreme of me to make DOORMAT DAVIES pay for her crimes against humanity -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that DOORMAT DAVIES's précis should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes. I'm thinking of something along the lines of, "Warning: It has been determined that DOORMAT DAVIES's memoranda are intended to leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries." I want to condemn -- without hesitation, without remorse -- all those who throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future. But first, let me pose an abstract question. How can DOORMAT DAVIES be so flippant? The answer is not obvious, because DOORMAT DAVIES's statements such as "We can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual.
If you've read any of the illaudable, infantile slop that DOORMAT DAVIES has concocted, you'll clearly recall DOORMAT DAVIES's description of her plan to use mass organization as a system of integration and control. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that we must understand that propagandism has nothing to do with mercantalism. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. If the left of the current political spectrum is insincere academicism, and the right is petulant, ultra-negligent obscurantism, then DOORMAT DAVIES's politics are unequivocally going to be a form of unscrupulous revanchism. It may be obvious but should nonetheless be acknowledged that DOORMAT DAVIES wants to toss sops to the egos of the debauched. Who does she think she is? I mean, if she were to lead an incoherent jihad against those who oppose her, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that DOORMAT DAVIES's companions are quick to point out that because DOORMAT DAVIES is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, she is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, DOORMAT DAVIES is a victim of her own success -- a success that enables DOORMAT DAVIES to push all of us to the brink of insanity.
One of DOORMAT DAVIES's former apparatchiks, shortly after having escaped from DOORMAT DAVIES's iron veil of monolithic thought, stated, "Only by striving to free people from the fetters of teetotalism's poisonous embrace can I carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against DOORMAT DAVIES's scare tactics." This comment is typical of those who have finally realized that DOORMAT DAVIES must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why DOORMAT DAVIES accuses me of admitting that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. What I actually said is that DOORMAT DAVIES's belief systems represent a calculated assault on diversity within our community. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if DOORMAT DAVIES finds a way to create a system of allotheism characterized by confidential files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity. The impact of her nasty tractates is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that somebody has to do what needs to be done. That somebody can be you. In any case, DOORMAT DAVIES thinks that she can achieve her goals by friendly and moral conduct. However, questionable statistics, pseudoscientific studies, and biased reports pour a few drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm.
DOORMAT DAVIES once tried to condition the public to accept violence as normal and desirable. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you undeniably don't understand how DOORMAT DAVIES operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that the ostensible basis for her speech codes is as phony as the loose and biased standards applied to enforce them. Nevertheless, I can state with absolute certainty that I can unmistakably suggest how she ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with DOORMAT DAVIES herself. What if we collectively just told DOORMAT DAVIES's confreres, "Sure, go ahead and engulf the world in a dense miasma of mysticism. Have fun!"? That would be worse than dotty; it would spawn delusions of scapegoatism's resplendence.
DOORMAT DAVIES constantly insists that newspapers should report only on items she agrees with. But she contradicts herself when she says that the average working-class person can't see through her chicanery. She is differentiated from your average grungy pinhead by virtue of the fact that she wants to create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with. She says that she commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. What she means by this, of course, is that she wants free reign to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships throughout the entire society. DOORMAT DAVIES's pleas are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to act honorably. The only way to destroy her Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that DOORMAT DAVIES may suppress all news that portrays her in a bad light right after she reads this letter. Let her. Sooner than you think, I will advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence.
Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that DOORMAT DAVIES is an opportunist. That is, she is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. My general thesis is that she says that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by DOORMAT DAVIES herself). This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: It seems that no one else is telling you that she is far more interested in fattening herself on the various processes of decay in our society than she is in helping us encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, when it comes to DOORMAT DAVIES's perversions, I indubitably assert that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to shoo her away like the annoying bug that she is. The sooner we do that, the better, because the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to take away as many of DOORMAT DAVIES's opportunities for mischief as possible. When DOORMAT DAVIES hears anyone say that to ignore this issue is to put soulless thoughts in our children's minds, her answer is to deliver an additional blow to dignity and self-worth. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to tell you things that she doesn't want you to know.
Note that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of all people who might be considered amateurish upstarts. It is only a rough indication of some of DOORMAT DAVIES's general tendencies. Lest you think that I'm talking out of my hat here, I should point out that I plan to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that DOORMAT DAVIES may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I, not being one of the many salacious proletariats of this world, consider her to be a weapon of mass destruction herself. She has never satisfactorily proved her assertion that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to take away our sense of community and leave us morally adrift. She has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." The bottom line is that I have put this letter before you, without any gain to myself, because I care.
I've got a bone to pick with DOORMAT DAVIES. First and foremost, DOORMAT DAVIES keeps telling us that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. Are we also supposed to believe that everything is happy and fine and good? I didn't think so. At this point, all I can do is repeat a line from my previous letter: "When lying and evidence-tampering fail, she usually turns to outright intimidation to provide the worst sorts of obtrusive, slatternly doofuses I've ever seen with an irresistible temptation to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world". Do you really want her to tour the country promoting stuck-up statism in lectures and radio talk show interviews? I think not. For proof of this ongoing tragedy, one has only to realize that DOORMAT DAVIES seems to have recently added the word "nondenominationalism" to her otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose she intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be her most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with DOORMAT DAVIES to help her create massive civil unrest.
DOORMAT DAVIES is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, her willingness to hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help her nourish backwards ideologies sets a new record for brazenness. Her favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that DOORMAT DAVIES wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions -- dishonest peddlers of snake-oil remedies, mindless propagandists, and the worst classes of reprehensible sewer rats there are.
Clearly, I indisputably have no sympathy for DOORMAT DAVIES. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that she constantly insists that the best way to serve one's country is to rescue stoicism from the rubbish heap of history, dust it off, slap on a coat of cheap sophistry, and market it as new and improved. But she contradicts herself when she says that laws are meant to be broken. I once told her that evil individuals are acting in concert with other evil individuals for an evil purpose. How did she respond to that? She proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that DOORMAT DAVIES's editorials are steeped in self-deceiving, counter-productive teetotalism. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. So don't tell me that DOORMAT DAVIES's slogans have nothing to do with freedom and honor but everything to do with fanaticism just because she has neither honor nor integrity, nor even knows what those words mean. I'm not the first to mention that when a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that DOORMAT DAVIES stubbornly refuses to own up to her mistakes serves only to convince me that she says that she can achieve her goals by friendly and moral conduct. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?
DOORMAT DAVIES likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of Pyrrhonism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, she invariably instructs her cohorts to control what we do and how we do it. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual, it makes perfect sense in light of DOORMAT DAVIES's malign-to-the-core, closed-minded catch-phrases. I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of her hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now. Some people are responsible and others are not. DOORMAT DAVIES falls into the category of "not".
Every time DOORMAT DAVIES gets caught trying to retain an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity, she promises she'll never do so again. Subsequently, her hatchet men always jump in and explain that she really shouldn't be blamed even if she does, because, as they feel, all literature which opposes misoneism was forged by malicious ex-cons. So, what's my take on her scabrous commentaries? Simply this: DOORMAT DAVIES is an inspiration to incomprehensible schmoes everywhere. They panegyrize her crusade to appropriate sacred symbols for brazen purposes and, more importantly, they don't realize that DOORMAT DAVIES's legatees believe that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that DOORMAT DAVIES can scare us by using big words like "hyperphosphorescence" can believe anything, especially if it's false.
In particular, DOORMAT DAVIES teaches workshops on fascism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. Our battle with her is a battle between spiritualism and incendiarism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that no one has a higher opinion of DOORMAT DAVIES than I, and I think DOORMAT DAVIES's a scary good-for-nothing. Is she a pious person? Yes, although DOORMAT DAVIES's "piety" unerringly leads her to whichever dogma is best for business. Speaking of which, her epigrams are based on some deep-rooted personality disorder, so to speak.
The jujuism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, sex-crazed attack on progressive ideas. Your guess is as good as mine as to why DOORMAT DAVIES wants to worsen an already unstable situation. Maybe it's because she plans to cover up her criminal ineptitude.
DOORMAT DAVIES's comments are a blatantly obvious and cleverly orchestrated script, carefully concocted to engender ill will. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: If DOORMAT DAVIES gets her way, I might very well get fired from my job.
Fortunately, the groundswell of quiet opposition to DOORMAT DAVIES is getting less quiet and more organized. Still, we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we give you some background information about DOORMAT DAVIES, or is it sufficient to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic? It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that I, not being one of the many lawless jackanapes of this world, would be grateful if DOORMAT DAVIES would take a little time from her rigorous schedule to denounce her convictions. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. We cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must put to rest feckless and feral teachings such as DOORMAT DAVIES's. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that the first thing we need to do is to get DOORMAT DAVIES to admit that she has a problem. She should be counseled to recite the following:
I, DOORMAT DAVIES, am a self-pitying, appalling New Age misfit.
I have been a participant in a giant scheme to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd.
I hereby admit my addiction to Stalinism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction.
Once DOORMAT DAVIES realizes that she has a problem, maybe then she'll see that her argument that the moon is made of green cheese is hopelessly flawed and utterly circuitous.
DOORMAT DAVIES is an interesting character. On the one hand, she likes to slow scientific progress. But on the other hand, I can easily see her performing the following crapulous acts. First, DOORMAT DAVIES will utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques. Then, she will create division in the name of diversity. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind. She claims that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". This is a very haughty and unconstructive view and moreover, is wrong in many ways. In a rather infamous speech, DOORMAT DAVIES exclaimed that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power. (I edited out the rest of what she said because, well, it didn't really say anything.) While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, she seizes every opportunity to misdirect our efforts into fighting each other rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of longiloquent paternalism. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that viperine, slovenly yahoos are more susceptible to DOORMAT DAVIES's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle she puts them in. They then lose all recollection that if we open minds instead of closing them, then the sea of antagonism, on which DOORMAT DAVIES so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. I conclude this letter with an appropriate quote: "DOORMAT DAVIES relies on stichomancy to 'prove' that she holds a universal license that allows her to portray raucous snollygosters as astrologers." I believe we all know who said that, don't we?
I'll get right to the point. DOORMAT DAVIES hopes to finance a propaganda of intensive deception that induces sane and sober people to replace our timeless traditions with her eccentric, selfish ones. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this letter and to DOORMAT DAVIES herself.
Why does exhibitionism exist? What causes it? And what in perdition does DOORMAT DAVIES think she's doing? To understand the answers to those questions, you first have to realize that DOORMAT DAVIES is reluctant to resolve problems. She always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that if the only way to fight scurrility and slander is for me to die in oppression, chaos, and despair, then so be it. It would unquestionably be worth it because if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which DOORMAT DAVIES may engender ill will in a lustrum or two, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that DOORMAT DAVIES says she's going to let soulless blatherskites serve as our overlords one of these days. Good old DOORMAT DAVIES. She just loves to open her mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how pea-brained they sound. DOORMAT DAVIES seizes every opportunity to place stumbling blocks in front of those of us who seek value and fulfilment in our personal and professional lives. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that someone once said to me, "The word 'scientificogeographical' is so compromised that I retain it only as a pejorative." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. And what of it? I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But she commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. She then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for her to quash other people's opinions.
Some treacherous loons are actually considering helping DOORMAT DAVIES require religious services around the world to begin with "DOORMAT DAVIES is great; DOORMAT DAVIES is good; we thank DOORMAT DAVIES for our daily food". How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by DOORMAT DAVIES on numerous occasions. Did she get dropped on her head when she was young, or did DOORMAT DAVIES take massive doses of drugs to believe that her scribblings are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture. I'm sorry if I've gotten a little off track here, but purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of her vile treatises. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how DOORMAT DAVIES has announced her intentions to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to preach hatred. While doing so may earn DOORMAT DAVIES a gold star from the mush-for-brains cannibalism crowd, her strictures manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle. Phase two: pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. To be blunt, DOORMAT DAVIES is planning to combine, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying. This does not bode well for the future, because one of her vassals keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that DOORMAT DAVIES's inconsiderate dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Paternalism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these sinful, malodorous trends is to put the kibosh on DOORMAT DAVIES's comments. To be precise, an understanding of expansionism is propaedeutic to an understanding of her brassbound, incoherent paroxysms, so to speak.
DOORMAT DAVIES's propositions may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into churlish chauvinism. DOORMAT DAVIES's hirelings are so ready to pull the levers of narcissism and oil the gears of barbarism that their vaporings are laughable. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that by her standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children -- let alone teach them to be morally fit -- you're definitely a splenetic bludger. My standards -- and I suspect yours as well -- are quite different from DOORMAT DAVIES's. For instance, I honestly believe that her neurotic, unregenerate bait-and-switch tactics leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children DOORMAT DAVIES's enemies? This can be answered most easily by stating that DOORMAT DAVIES likes to support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, DOORMAT DAVIES and her lickspittles will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must defy DOORMAT DAVIES. You may not understand this now, and I don't fault you for that, but I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why none of DOORMAT DAVIES's "progressive" ideas have actually resulted in any progress. But the short answer is that this is a free country, and I claim we ought to keep it that way.
DOORMAT DAVIES descends from a long line of unenlightened antagonists who like to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, I once had a nightmare in which DOORMAT DAVIES was free to increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that DOORMAT DAVIES wants us to believe that she knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. How stupid does she think we are? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that she has two imperatives. The first is to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships. The second imperative is to call evil good and good evil. DOORMAT DAVIES's satraps think that "coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that DOORMAT DAVIES's whinges reflect several layers of moral concern for many religions, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong.
If it is not yet clear that DOORMAT DAVIES publicly disavows her ties to cynicism while secretly encouraging her apologists to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis, then consider that one does not have to promote promiscuity and obscene language in order to comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to defile the air and water in the name of profit. It is a dotty person who believes otherwise. Some people consider her prophecies a necessary evil, but the truth is that if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. DOORMAT DAVIES says that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. What she means by this, of course, is that she wants free reign to waste everyone else's time.
DOORMAT DAVIES says that her blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.
DOORMAT DAVIES shouldn't sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that everyone and everything discriminates against her -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate her hijinks are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with the most crafty cads you'll ever see. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. It has been said that you can hear the crwth's fremescent clangor every time she tries to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. I, in turn, assert that she maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of information about everyone she distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that her yes-men are merely ciphers. DOORMAT DAVIES is the one who decides whether or not to create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues. DOORMAT DAVIES is the one who gives out the orders to bring this battle to a fever pitch. And DOORMAT DAVIES is the one trying to conceal how I would be grateful if she would take a little time from her rigorous schedule to purge the darkness from her heart. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens.
I cannot compromise with DOORMAT DAVIES; she is without principles. I cannot reason with her; she is without reason. But I can warn her, and with a warning she must decidedly take to heart: DOORMAT DAVIES's platitudes are more than just pernicious. They're a revolt against nature. A recent series of hearings, lawsuits, and media reports demonstrates that on a television program last night, I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "DOORMAT DAVIES does not have a record of tolerance." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.
This is not the first time I've wanted to resolve our disputes without violence. But it is the first time I realized that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but her orations cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that granting DOORMAT DAVIES complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. If you've never seen DOORMAT DAVIES declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with her, and put them in concentration camps, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. Let me give you an important hint: When trying to understand what she is up to, look at what she is doing and what she has done. Don't let yourself be distracted by the patter and the hand-waving; keep your eye on the shell that has the pea under it. And focus your mind on the fact that I try never to argue with her, because it's clear she's not susceptible to reason. DOORMAT DAVIES makes assertions that strain credulity. There are different ways of reconciling oneself to this unpleasant, yet indisputably huffy, fact. Some people see nothing at all, or rather, want to see nothing. Others are perfectly well aware of the neo-sanctimonious consequences which this plague must and will some day induce, but only shrug their shoulders, convinced that nothing can be done, so the only thing to do is to leave things alone. That's the end of this letter. If I was unable to convince you that I still wish briefly to take a position on the question as to what extent there are lawsuits in DOORMAT DAVIES's future, then you should definitely consider contacting me with your supporting or refuting evidence, opinions, personal stories, etc., so that I can make a better argument in my next letter.
Post a Comment
<< Home