Once again, I find disappointment. Once again, I find no satisfaction. Once again, I find that there are a number of complex psychological and social reasons as to why Coach Bob Gainey wants to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. Before I say anything else, let me remind him that I doubtlessly dislike him. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that I and Gainey part company when it comes to the issue of mysticism. He feels that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread, while I aver that he once tried convincing me that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that Gainey tries to assert his autonomy by attempting to tell everyone else what to do. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that he has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. In the strictest sense, Gainey believes that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. Unfortunately, as long as he believes such absurdities, he will continue to commit atrocities. What conclusion should we draw from his complaints? How about that he has come very, very close to making me leave the country? At the very least, as witnesses to mankind's inner dissatisfaction, we must stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit.
By now, we are all more than familiar with Gainey's revolting, annoying quips. This is not rhetoric. This is reality. Perhaps you haven't noticed that Gainey's shills constitute the only species of animal life that is both mammalian and invertebrate. Perhaps you haven't noticed that insurrectionism is an inherently oppressive ideology. And perhaps you haven't noticed that you probably know exactly what I mean. In response to all three of those possibilities, I need to inform you that he contends that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell and that, therefore, separatism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces twisted extortionists (as distinct from the fickle franions who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that predaceous cheapskates and heinous, irascible misers should rule this country. In reality, contrariwise, Gainey's beliefs are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to keep our priorities in check. The only way to destroy his Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "Every morning Gainey asks himself, 'How can I fool the masses today?'." If you think about it you'll see his point.
It's a sad world where pea-brained, splenetic hackers have the power to justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of Gainey's heart. It follows from this that I don't see how he can be so imperious. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. One indication of this is the fact that you might have heard the story that Gainey once agreed to help us point out that the emperor has no clothes on. No one has located the document in which Gainey said that. No one has identified when or where Gainey said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, Gainey's unambitious, dodgy prevarications benefit from this sense of "us versus them". To top that off, Gainey hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What he lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that Gainey's commentaries are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". We mustn't let Gainey exploit the masses. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. Sure, he talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? My answer is, as always, a model of clarity and the soul of wit: I don't know. However, I do know that he either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. Gainey even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to produce a large number of absolutely fatuitous extravagancies, most disreputable indecencies, and, above all, the most prudish blasphemies against everything that I hold most sacred and most dear. His "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is effete, because it leaves no room for compromise.
Gainey is trying hard to convince a substantial number of sophomoric nutters to lower our standard of living. He presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite superficial prevaricators to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that Gainey's announcements do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress. Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That's the function of education: To teach students how to reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from his allegations.
Inerudite, infantile busybodies often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Gainey enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to discredit and intimidate the opposition. Impertinent lowbrows don't really want me to stop the Huns at the gate, although, of course, they all have to pay lip service to the idea. Despite what you may have been taught in school, he has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, Gainey's vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, his vows of equality did little more than convince people that we are becoming a nation of violent, offensive tin-pot tyrants. And I can say that with a clear conscience because I can surely suggest how he ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Gainey himself. Insincere buggers may endanger our property or our security or our economic well-being, but Gainey endangers our souls. Ostensibly, he does not intend to make brainless, hideous swaggerers out to be something they're not, but in fact, it's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an avaricious idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that if we look beyond Gainey's delusions of grandeur, we see that if he wanted to, he could devastate vast acres of precious farmland. He could reinforce the impression that footling psychopaths -- as opposed to Gainey's advocates -- are striving to lay waste to the environment. And he could woo over goofy ruffians by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history. We must not allow he to do any of these.
Gainey's deeds are mingy to the core. In fact, I have said that to Gainey on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to deprive individuals of the right to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum. I wish I could say this nicely, but I don't have much tolerance for sexist nebbishes: What I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of an execrable wacko. It's a fact. Gainey has planted his dupes 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 Gainey's ability to pooh-pooh the concerns of others but it also provides irrefutable evidence that he is really up to something. I don't know exactly what, but all Gainey really wants is to hang onto the perks he's getting from the system. That's all he really cares about.
Sadly, in once sense, Gainey is correct. If we let him cause an increase in disease, chauvinism, crime, and vice, then I will unmistakably be forced to fall prey to his rhetoric and obfuscation. I have long been under the impression that at this point in the letter, I had planned to tell you that there is not much demand for independent thinkers in his coalition. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that Gainey hurts people wherever they may be, penthouse or poorhouse. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion, in which I argue that I don't care what others say about him. Gainey's still impetuous, obstinate, and he intends to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to his snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance. I could substantiate what I'm saying about lewd dunderheads, but I don't feel that that's necessary, since we all know what they're like. I may be questioning the regnant conventional wisdom by stating this, but maybe it may seem difficult at first to raise soulless, biased ideologues out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. It is. But I call upon Gainey to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to waste our time and money.
In many ways, Gainey is still going around insisting that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will undoubtedly find that I want to begin the debate about his squibs. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Why aren't our children being warned about him in school? Apparently, even know-it-all Gainey doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't even matter if he did, given that the ultimate aim of his stances is to restructure society as a pyramid with Gainey at the top, Gainey's trucklers directly underneath, viperine, pouty clunks beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Gainey to promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk, which makes me realize that if he succeeds in his attempt to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys, where they end in frustration and discouragement, it'll have to be over my dead body. I would like to put forth the possibility that I am sick of our illustrious "leaders" treading on eggshells so as not to upset Gainey. Here's what I have to say to them: I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of muddleheaded, peevish imbeciles, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but Gainey's apologists are too lazy to break the mold and stray from the path of conventional wisdom. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that Gainey appears to have found a new tool to use to help him curry favor with lousy reprobates using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other judgmental nonsense. That tool is Fabianism, and if you watch him wield it, you'll certainly see why if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. He provides none. I want to open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them. That may seem simple enough, but Gainey has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but there is a format Gainey should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.
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 I, for one, like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: Gainey and his vicegerents are, by nature, cynical misogynists. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but for those of us who make our living trying to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both, it is important to consider that 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: He has an utter disregard for human life. So what's the connection between that and his expedients? The connection is that if Gainey doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to maintain social control by eliminating rights and freedoms, then he should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend he buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then, Gainey will grasp the concept that he wants to turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. Who does he think he is? I mean, you might say, "He is a lifelong member of the Church of Soporific Obscurantism." Fine, I agree. But on that basis, I should, at this point, lend a helping hand. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Now that I think about it, disruptive self-promoters are more susceptible to Gainey's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle he puts them in. They then lose all recollection that I don't believe that Gainey's bons mots are not worth getting outraged about. So when he says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position.
To make a long story short, what we're involved in with Gainey is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it. It has long been obvious to attentive observers that it can plausibly be surmised that shooting one's mouth off in a public forum on the basis of flimsy facts is neither prudent nor smart. But did you know that if Gainey were to subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community, it would be a grave insult to everyone who devoted his or her life's work to helping the less fortunate? He doesn't want you to know that because if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Gainey doing some brazen thing every few weeks. Ethnocentrism is an exclusive, rather than an inclusive, societal force. So please permit me to appropriate and paraphrase something I once heard: "Gainey has no real regard for other people's rights, privacy, or sanity." Now that this letter has come to an end, I clearly hope you walk away from it realizing that writing instructors seeking to introduce the concept of "autism" into their curricula could hardly do better than to use Coach Bob Gainey's refrains as an example.
Dude... you seriously wrote that much and forgot to include the word, Hockey, Montreal Canadiens, Defence, Offence, Stick, Puck, Team, Organization (well, maybe you hit that one, but not in the reference to a hockey organization)...
I guess I missed the point... But I think you don't like Bobby Gainey, who is obviously a different guy to our Bob Gainey... am I wrong?
I would like to take this opportunity to bring Coach Bob Gainey to justice. In the first place, given a choice of having Gainey mollycoddle execrable spivs or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. Because of his mottos, our schools simply do not teach the basics anymore. Instead, they preach the theology of obnoxious obscurantism. He accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is he who is filled with hate. And he accuses me of being bigoted, while his crotchets show nothing but bigotry. Why does Gainey make those sorts of accusations, then? I, not being one of the many biggety hooligans of this world, would venture the answer has something to do with post-structuralism. To elaborate, we will need to use diverse skills and tactics if we are to act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even interdenominationalism. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me address the real issues faced by mankind. 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 I stand by what I've written before, that Gainey keeps saying that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands. For some reason, Gainey's apple-polishers actually believe this nonsense. Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.
Some people obviously didn't get it. I thought it was funny, thanks for the link! Here is my complaint:
Perhaps you'll pardon me if I write this letter in a more personal vein than usual. I want to tell you about some personal perceptions of mine, primarily because Jose Theodore's arguments don't even prove his point. The following text regards my complaints of recent days against Jose and his subtle but misinformed attempts to increase people's stress and aggression. Innocent children have been brainwashed by his anal-retentive, devious apologues. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to Jose. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that he wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because he has warned us that before you know it, vicious, picayunish insurrectionists will force square pegs into round holes. If you think about it, you'll realize that his warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that I need your help if I'm ever to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most heinous manifestations. It's really amazing, isn't it? We can put people on the Moon and send robot explorers to Mars, but Jose would love to see college campuses morph into small, ivy-covered North Koreas in which the student or faculty member who dares to hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse quickly finds himself in a heap of legal trouble. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that Jose's methods are much subtler now than ever before. Jose is more adept at hidden mind control and his techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized.
Jose is utterly mistaken if he believes that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. Many people respond to his stroppy orations 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 counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that all literature which opposes pauperism was forged by grungy pamphleteers. I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that I want to set the record straight. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because "Jose" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold, I tell him or her to stop "Jose-ing". Lest I forget to mention this later, the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, in order to solve the big problems with Jose, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. Essentially, I am inwardly repelled by the pettifogging phraseology of his vaporings and the soporific style in which they are expressed. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time he tried to call evil good and good evil.
One of the great mysteries of modern life is, Why does Jose insist on boring holes in the hull of the boat in which he himself is also a passenger? Let me give you a hint: I've heard of cranky things like alcoholism and priggism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which Jose's ignorant, unthinking, harebrained brain is too small to understand. It will be objected, to be sure, that he doesn't honestly want to create widespread hysteria. At first glance, this may seem to be true, but when you think about it further, you'll surely conclude that the most significant aspect of his mentality and its lack of refinement is the closeness of Jose's way of thinking in general to the way that sordid tightwads think in particular. Yes, I could add that unimaginative, witless paltry-types are responsible for the Pecksniffian, grotty tenor of his memoirs, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Jose perverts hatred in order to promote mediocrity over merit, it becomes clear that his favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". Jose likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. He then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for him to insist that our society be infested with exclusionism, larrikinism, sesquipedalianism, and an impressive swarm of other "isms". In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that Jose has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and pervert the course of justice -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. Truth be told, it's easy enough to hate Jose any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Jose is up to, things that ought to make a real Jose-hater out of you. First off, he is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, Jose frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to direct social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. Let me close by reminding you that appeasement is not the answer.
Although I generally believe that the less said about Mr. Bob Gainey, the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Mr. Gainey's hypersensitive outbursts. And that's why I feel compelled to say something about effete paper-pushers. "What's that?", I hear you ask. "Is it true that he is opposed to recidivism, even though his own rodomontades are just as upside-down, inside-out, convoluted, inverted, and perverted?" Why, yes, it is.
It is almost funny (but is actually rather scary) to see how far Mr. Gainey will go to perpetuate what we all know is a corrupt system. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of him in embracing this simple fact. How can we expect to build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow if we walk right into his trap? We can't, and that's why I want nothing more -- or less -- than to subject Mr. Gainey's squibs to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. To that task I have consecrated my life, and I invite you to do likewise. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. I will unmistakably be happy to have your help in this endeavor.
Because many of the things I'm about to say regarding Jose Theodore have already been beaten into the ground, I will try to keep this letter short. Perhaps before going on, I should describe Jose to you. Jose is insecure, batty, and snotty. Furthermore, he yearns to diminish society's inducements to good behavior. If a new Dark Age is about to descend upon us -- as many believe it will -- it will be the result of his complaints. I know because I have experienced that personally. You've never heard him announce that he plans to make people weak and dependent? Well, Jose has repeatedly enunciated such a plan, but in his typically convoluted way.
Jose must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Jose accuses me of admitting that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. What I actually said is that Jose's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Jose's bootlickers, who loudly proclaim that things have never been better. Regardless of those profligate proclamations, the truth is that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, if you looked up "subversive" in the dictionary, you'd probably see his picture. For the sake of concreteness, Jose has planted his janissaries 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 Jose's ability to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom, but it also provides irrefutable evidence that he likes to cite poll results that "prove" that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of his pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that the first response to this from Jose's apparatchiks is perhaps that Jose has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with uneducated wheeler-dealers on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to thrust all of us into scenarios rife with personal animosities and petty resentments.
Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that Jose's mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. Jose's goal is to "solve" all our problems by talking them to death. This is abject nepotism! Jose's method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Jose-ism". It is a materialistic and avowedly unpatriotic philosophy that aims to create an ideological climate that will enable Jose to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs. His compeers claim that his blinkered coterie is a benign and charitable agency. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because Jose seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, foolhardy braggadocios. His fantasy is to conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of solecism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that Jose's most silly tactic is to fabricate a phony war between grungy monomaniacs and misinformed, piteous brutes. This way, he can subjugate both groups into helping him fan the flames of philistinism into a planet-spanning inferno. I unequivocally don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that Jose drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that if I recall correctly, Jose's a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. To summarize my views: No one of any intelligence believes that embracing a system of fanaticism will make everything right with the world.
I am writing this letter to persuade you that the Montreal Canadiens's grievances amount to what a proverbial metaphor in Sanskrit describes as trying to extinguish a fire by feeding it enough wood to glut its appetite. I will persuade you of this by providing a few examples and illustrations of the way in which the Montreal Canadiens seeks to play on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures. To begin with, the whole thrust of its exegeses bothers me. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: It should learn to appreciate what it has instead of feeling so oppressed because it can't do everything it wants, every time it wants to. You should not ask, "How can the Montreal Canadiens be so humorless?", but rather, "Is there anything that the Montreal Canadiens can't make its attendants believe?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because many people are incredulous when I tell them that the Montreal Canadiens intends to condition the public to accept violence as normal and desirable. "How could the Montreal Canadiens be so mentally deficient?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is really possible, and now I'll explain exactly how the Montreal Canadiens plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that its philosophies are like an enormous priggism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must improve the lot of humankind, because while the Montreal Canadiens insists that without its superior guidance, we will go nowhere, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular and, as the alternative, the squalid and incoherent dirigisme currently being forced upon us by the Montreal Canadiens. Choose carefully, because it would be charitable of me not to mention that a recent fact-finder's report revealed that we should exuberantly protect little children from blinkered tightwads like the Montreal Canadiens. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that it has been offering uninformed lamebrains a lot of money to lay the foundation for some serious mischief. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that each rung on the ladder of jujuism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for the Montreal Canadiens to create an ideological climate that will enable it to hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help it borrow money and spend it on programs that form the association in the public's mind between any writings it disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality. That is the standard process by which the most huffy lackwits you'll ever see progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom.
I'll let you in on a little secret: if it weren't for dotty miscreants, the Montreal Canadiens would have no friends. The Montreal Canadiens is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me, because its previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that the Montreal Canadiens's new changes will be even more impractical, because given a choice of having it perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. If we don't remove the the Montreal Canadiens threat now, it will bite us in our backside some day. The Montreal Canadiens keeps trying to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate vulgar, disingenuous tossers. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, it will unquestionably succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with fickle ideologues, the Montreal Canadiens's cronies, or anyone else who fails to realize that the Montreal Canadiens's thesis is that it should suborn oleaginous, blockish deadheads to infantilize and corrupt the public because "it's the right thing to do". That's entirely gin-swilling, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that the Montreal Canadiens is indubitably up to something. I don't know exactly what, but if we are to disabuse it of the notion that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the mingy and clueless ideologies that the Montreal Canadiens promotes.
By brainwashing its lickspittles with hedonism, the Montreal Canadiens makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave. If the Montreal Canadiens truly wanted to be helpful, it wouldn't use terms of opprobrium such as "directionless backstabbers" and "nugatory insurrectionists" to castigate whomever it opposes. I am not going to go into too great a detail about imprudent Huns, but be assured that I recently overheard a couple of irritating, acrimonious ogres say that sadism is the key to world peace. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this the Montreal Canadiens-induced era of slogans and propaganda. Show me where it says the Montreal Canadiens has the right to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed. I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people just don't realize that the Montreal Canadiens's press releases were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the "innocents". Rather, the Montreal Canadiens complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that it hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. Did it ever occur to the Montreal Canadiens that our pain is its ecstasy? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that it wants to abridge our basic civil liberties. It gets better: It actually believes that going through the motions of working is the same as working. I guess no one's ever told it that it can't possibly believe that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. It's unprincipled, but it's not that unprincipled. The Montreal Canadiens's views are intended to get us all on board the Marxism train, and everyone with half a brain understands that. And that, in my view, is our real problem.
Last edited by toothlessgrin: 02-06-2006 at 06:28 PM.
I feel that it is my duty to condemn -- without hesitation, without remorse -- all those who increase people's stress and aggression. Before I say anything else, let me remind Jesus Christ that by writing this letter, I am doubtlessly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Jesus will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to develop an eating disorder, although another possibility is that there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Jesus perverts hatred in order to conspire with evil, it becomes clear that he has a strategy. His strategy is to twist the truth. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Jesus. Jesus used to complain about being persecuted. Now he is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that if we can understand what has caused the current plague of what I call out-of-touch, dastardly fiends, I believe that we can then appeal for comity between us and Jesus. It's debatable whether there is no evidence to support his accusations. However, no one can disagree that warped, bleeding-heart punks are born, not made. That dictum is as unimpeachable as the "poeta nascitur, non fit" that it echoes and as irreproachable as the brocard that it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of juvenile crackpots like Jesus can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. Jesus has two imperatives. The first is to detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity -- family, class, private associations. The second imperative is to engage in the trafficking of human beings.
What kind of loser wants to tip the scales in Jesus's favor? A loser like Jesus. He has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. Jesus can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches his nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of alarmism and how he is a spokesman for God. As you listen to Jesus's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that if history follows its course, it should be evident that he should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to. Jesus Christ has no fixed ethical principles. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.