digibutter.nerr

[Typhoon™]

Please pardon the scurrilous overtones that will be found throughout this post, but Francis's confreres, when they are taken seriously at all, are considered by most scholars to be of questionable credibility. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that Francis could really use a heart, just like the tin man in The Wizard of Oz. Let me rephrase that: There are two sorts of people in this world. There are those who convert houses of worship into houses of antiheroism and there are those who seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. Francis fits neatly into the former category, of course. Here's the heart of the matter: His promise of equality is a false one. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that he has been trying to conceal his plans to go to great lengths to conceal his true aims and mislead the public. Fortunately, the truth about his satanic orations is spreading like a jungle fire. Soon, everyone will know that it is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by Francis's arrogant indiscretions. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and pronounce the truth and renounce the lies.

There is no inconsistency here; Francis's grand plan is to cashier anyone who tries to step back and consider the problem of his memoirs in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Francis must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why he is so desperate to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Francis also realized that he shouldn't impede the free flow of information. 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 paint people of different races and cultures as contemptible alien forces undermining the coherent national will.

Francis hates it when you say that he is a bear of very little brain, and long words bother him. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you. We must work together to call a spade a spade. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against Francis's imprecations. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because 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 if we don't do something soon, Francis's passive-aggressive, hidebound treatises will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people.

Having studied Francis's charges and finding them groundless, I must now tell the world that he has repeatedly threatened to spawn delusions of paternalism's resplendence. Maybe that's just for maximum scaremongering effect. Or maybe it's because I would like to give you an example of how benighted Francis can be. Francis has admitted that he intends to extract obscene salaries and profits from corporations that capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. Okay, that may have been a particularly bald-faced and unsubtle example but that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that even the most rigorous theoretical framework Francis could put forward would not leave him in the position of generalizing with the certainty to which he is prone in his double standards. (Yes, Francis's intellectual dishonesty, mismanagement of facts, and outright lies make mendacious, presumptuous shysters seem ready for sainthood, in comparison, but that's a different story.) It must be pointed out over and over again to Francis's torchbearers and, in a broader sense, to unruly scrubs that Francis uses obscure words like "consubstantiationist" and "extraterritoriality" to conceal his agenda to make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. I find that having to process phrases with long words like those makes me feel hoodwinked, inferior, definitely frustrated, and angry. That's why I strive for utmost clarity whenever I explain to others that I have a New Year's resolution for Francis: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the caustic conclusion that his positions can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality.

Francis maintains that he is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that he likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of statism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, Francis invariably instructs his apple-polishers to sensationalize all of the issues. 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 Francis's vicious beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). It has been revealed that he plans to provide larcenous conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread. First reaction yields that his idolators favor a lifestyle that is as crazy as his monographs. A little more thought leads to the more accurate conclusion that if my own experience has taught me anything, it's that the ultimate aim of Francis's squibs is to restructure society as a pyramid with Francis at the top, Francis's forces directly underneath, overbearing present-day robber barons beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Francis to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide feudalism, which makes me realize that I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that Francis's ipse dixits are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, Francis's theatrics are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, Francis 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 him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Francis is gangsterism. Why? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that it is immature and stupid of Francis to make my worst nightmares come true. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world, and that's why I say that if he is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards.

Does anyone believe Francis's claim that sin is good for the soul? Come on, anyone? Like I thought, it's Francis's deep-seated belief that human life is expendable. 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 if one could get a Ph.D. in Insurrectionism, Francis would be the first in line to have one. Whenever anyone states the obvious—that the only visible result of his apologues has been a series of tactical and strategic policy blunders—discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "Does he realize he's more prurient than a duplicitous hedonist?" This is an important question because it has been said that you should think of this post as a clarion call for us to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by him and his cat's-paws. I, in turn, contend that he argues that I am mephitic for wanting to show some backbone. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago.

Francis uses the word "counterintelligence" to justify insulting my intelligence. In doing so, he is reversing the meaning of that word as a means of disguising the fact that I recently informed him that his loyalists throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future. Francis said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further. After all, he holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City—sterile obstacles to progress who curry favor with jaded louts using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other fork-tongued nonsense. What, then, does "blepharosphincterectomy" mean? It means considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say.

No one today believes that Francis values our perspectives. No joke. He is morally debased and has no convictions of right or wrong. Yet the media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact. He likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what Francis is pushing is both splenetic and contentious.

Though hostile Bonapartism is not discussed in this post, much of what I've written applies to that, as well. Francis's ploys are based on hate. Hate, cronyism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life.

I might have been dreaming but I believe I once heard Francis admit, sotto voce, that he claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to pit the haves against the have-nots. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Francis's adherents. The truth is that Francis's objectives have merged with classism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. And both ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women. If my memory serves me correctly, his slurs all stem from one, simple, faulty premise—that the few of us who complain regularly about his criticisms are simply spoiling the party. As I remove the veil of ignorance I have lived behind, I find that there is still hope for our society, real hope—not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of irresponsible, viperine dips but the hope that makes you eager to clear the cobwebs out of people's heads and help them understand that every one of his promises to us was broken before the words were fully out of his mouth. To conclude, Francis's programs of Gleichschaltung are an immature, misguided carnival of fetishism.

[Paper_Waluigi]

Hooray for argument generators. Lord Bowser did this like a year ago. ФֻФ

[Typhoon™]

[Anti-Guy]

...lolcomplaintgenerator...
...but in all seriousness, this doesn't belong in Feedback, being a joke and all...
...seeing as you most likely didn't even read it...
~White Shy Guy

[Typhoon™]

[Anti-Guy]

[kEvin]

[Super BLU Spy]

I prefer calling a shovel a shovel, though.