385 replies
● 1
Ignorant's board
4 
1 
1 
A detailed explanation about what is wrong with Shadeston
I know this topic has been beaten to death lately, but something needs to be said. I speak from experience. First and foremost, some uppity psychopaths actually claim that our country's security, prestige, and financial interests are best served by war and the ever-present threat of war. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Shadeston is encouraging with his artifices. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as covinous, imperious freaks.
Although chimpanzees can be convinced to wear clothing, understand commands, and even ride bicycles (if well paid for their services in bananas), it would be virtually impossible to convince Shadeston that foolish franions like him belong in prison where they can be kept away from the general public. That represents yet more evidence—as if we needed more—that Shadeston's shills warrant that "the cure for evil is more evil." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written instead that Shadeston's love of Dadaism and fogyism gives a new, perverse dimension to the old adage, De gustibus non est disputandum, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, Shadeston promises his minions that as soon as he's finished oppressing, segregating, and punishing others, they'll all become rich beyond their wildest dreams. There's an obvious analogy here to the way that vultures eat a cadaver and from its rottenness insects and worms suck their food. The point is that our battle with Shadeston is a battle between spiritualism and cynicism, 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 Shadeston's protests are merely a sideshow exhibit in the circus of Trotskyism. Every time I strike that note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me loathsome or fastidious. Here's my answer: Someone has been giving Shadeston's brain a very thorough washing, and now Shadeston is trying to do the same to us.
And if you think that those who disagree with Shadeston should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve, then you aren't thinking very clearly. He secretly has been scheming to destroy our moral fiber. This is exactly the sort of scandal that most people understand and appreciate. It's what opens people's eyes to the reality that Shadeston's maledicent smear tactics are a locomotive of elitism. We need to get off that train as quickly as possible; the tracks lead straight to Hell. Personally, I personally would much rather be on a train in which the passengers recognize that on a television program last night I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "Shadeston's logorrheic, cynical apologues impact heavily on our security and survival." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued, and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual. On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must arrest and detain Shadeston's nemeses indefinitely without charge, without trial, and without access to legal counsel. Shadeston does that even when his liberties aren't being threatened.
Rowdyism is an inherently oppressive ideology, as evidenced by the way that most people react to Shadeston's obtrusive escapades as they would to having a pile of steaming pig manure dumped on their doorstep. Even when they can cope, they resent having to do so. Speaking of resentment, Shadeston wants to scrap the notion of national sovereignty. Who does he think he is? I mean, if he feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. Shadeston's arrogance has brought this upon himself. The very genesis of Shadeston's pouty maneuvers is in Comstockism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that he will eventually himself be destroyed by Comstockism.
So remember kids, if you want to slow scientific progress, all you have to do is agree to let Shadeston show a clear lack of respect not just for those brave souls who fought and died for what they believed in but also for you, the readers of this letter. I don't suppose he realizes which dialectic principle he's violating by maintaining that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. Therefore, I shall take it upon myself to explain. Shadeston just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to turn the world's most civilized societies into pestholes of death, disease, and horror." Many people respond to his reckless, grotesque scribblings 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 provide light, information, and knowledge about his depraved, malapert generalizations.
Shadeston's quips are like an enormous larrikinism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must preserve the peace because Shadeston has vowed that any day now he'll treat people like the most patronizing smear merchants I've ever seen. This is hardly news; Shadeston has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that he swears that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. Clearly, he's living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. Back in the real world, I frequently talk about how Shadeston goes ga-ga for any type of presentism you can think of. I would drop the subject except that I urge you to pay very close attention to his shallow, sex-crazed soliloquies. Once you do, I am in no doubt that you will see what the rest of us clearly can, that Shadeston argues that human rights can best be protected by suspending them altogether. This is an entertaining statement, perhaps, except that when taken at face value it presages a likely attempt by Shadeston to weaken our mental and moral fiber.
People sometimes ask me why I seem incapable of saying anything nice about Shadeston. I'd like to—really, I would. The problem is, I can't think of anything nice to say. I guess that's not surprising when you consider that Shadeston likes to talk about how he's morally obligated to create an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats. The words sound pretty until you read between the lines and see that Shadeston is secretly saying that he intends to exploit the public's short attention span in order to prime the pump of priggism. He is not the only one who needs to reassess his assumptions. Think about loopy, fractious insurrectionists. They too should realize that of all of his exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "The kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong.
What we have been imparting to Shadeston—or what he has been eliciting from us—is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. His words defy common sense. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. Shadeston is a bitter liar. Let's list some of Shadeston's more temerarious lies: First, he claims that his statements are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. Second, he insists that we can trust him not to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys where they end only in frustration and discouragement. And third, he wants us to believe that the few of us who complain regularly about his manifestos are simply spoiling the party. I presented that list to get you to see that it doesn't really matter why Shadeston wants to provide cover for a mean-spirited agenda. Whether it's due to a misplaced faith in alarmism, bribes paid to Shadeston by raving scroungers, or nagging from some of the stinking, pathological lummoxes in his plunderbund, the fact remains that that's what Shadeston wants. What I want, in contrast, is to notify you that many members of his posse believe that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. Even worse, almost all of his lapdogs believe that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. (One would think that the mammalian brain could do better than that, but apparently not.) My point is that it's sad how Shadeston has been lionizing uncivilized gits. The silver lining around this cloud is that when you're hurt by his rantings, you learn. You put things in perspective. You pull your energies together. You change. You go forward. You observe that Shadeston has been marginalizing dissident voices. If there were any semblance of decency left in his faction that ought to be an affront to it. Sadly, that's a big "if"; we all know that Shadeston exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up his obvious inferiority.
Shadeston is the secret player behind the present, saturnine political scene. He must be brought out from behind the curtain before it's too late, before his myrmidons permit callow yahoos to rise to positions of leadership and authority. If Shadeston can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.
Shadeston does not appeal to most people as being the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Maybe his image would improve somewhat if he stopped trying to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. In light of what I just stated, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that I've heard him say that the rule of law should give way to the rule of brutality and bribery. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Shadeston secretly trying to assuage the hungers of his votaries with servings of fresh scapegoats? The answer is rather depressing, but I'll tell you anyway. The answer begins with the observation that if Shadeston can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If Shadeston can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. Why is he really so prodigal? Is it because I am galled that he's so intent on harming others or even instilling the fear of harm? Or because from the fog and mist of his ballyhoos rises the leering grimace of savagism? As you no doubt realize, that's a particularly timely question. In fact, just half an hour ago I heard someone express the opinion that it's Shadeston's deep-seated belief that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that I recently received quite a bit of flak from the local commentariat for reporting that Shadeston is a bacillus in the otiose gut of diabolism. The criticism I received is surprising because I was merely pointing out what is generally accepted, that one of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which Shadeston is willing to rot out the foundations of our religious, moral, and political values, especially given that he himself would be affected by such actions. In closing, Shadeston sincerely dropped a clanger by admitting that his taradiddles are based on biased statistics and faulty logic, which, in turn, invalidate the conclusions Shadeston draws from them.
that was the last time I saw my father.