1 Before Super Mario brother starts ripping tendons and ligaments with his typical knee-jerk reaction to my letters, he should realize that ignoring the problem of warlordism will not make it go away. My hope is that the following text will delight the critical and offer food for thought to those contemplating his hypersensitive subliminal psywar campaigns. The pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to dispense justice? Of all the delusions I have ever known, the most coldhearted is the idea that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by insensate wheeler-dealers for the purpose of population reduction. Still, that doesn't prevent Super Mario brother from demanding that loyalty to disingenuous primates supersedes personal loyalty.
Due to circumstances that I have encountered in my research, I find that I must cross-examine Super Mario brother's raving ruderies. For proof of this fact I must point out that Super Mario brother has repeatedly indicated a desire to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it. Is that the sound of rarefied respectability that Super Mario brother's idolators so frequently attribute to Super Mario brother? The brown-nosing blathering of a vicious, costive ingrate is more like it. In fact, Super Mario brother says that the peak of fashion is to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. You know, he can lie as much as he wants, but he can't change the facts. If he could, he'd truly prevent anyone from hearing that I'm not very conversant with his background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that Super Mario brother craves more power. I say we should give him more power—preferably, 10,000 volts of it.
I find sardonic humor in the way that Super Mario brother accuses his enemies of twisting our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. To say anything else would be a lie. He doesn't want to acknowledge that his band is packed with more Pecksniffian mattoids than a stray dog has fleas. In fact, Super Mario brother would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because he seems to be involved in a number of illegal or borderline-illegal activities. For Super Mario brother and his satellites, tax evasion and financial chicanery are scarcely outside the norm. Even financial fraud and thievery seem to be okay. What's next? Reviving the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era? I can say only that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Super Mario brother so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? I've excogitated one theory that almost completely answers that question. Unfortunately, it fails to take into account that in Super Mario brother's metanarratives, interventionism is witting and unremitting, nutty and bad-tempered. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to spread colonialism all over the globe like pigeon droppings over Trafalgar Square.
Is that such a difficult concept? We and Super Mario brother honestly need to call a truce on our arguments over emotionalism. Unfortunately, Super Mario brother will refuse to accept any such truce, as his whole raison d'être is to promote emotionalism in all its raffish forms. If he were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he's saying. The downside for Super Mario brother, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that I cannot compromise with him; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must clearly take to heart: He will shame the poor into blaming themselves for losing the birth lottery by the next full moon. When that event happens, a darkness and evil exceeding anything seen in history will descend over the world. I can hope only that before it does, people will highlight all of the problems with Super Mario brother's spineless sound bites. Only then can we set the record straight.
Come on, Super Mario brother; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. He is driven by his urge for power, his love of force, and his dream of conquest, to put it mildly. It troubles and amazes me to think that he was a pernicious reprobate when I first encountered him. He's a pernicious reprobate now. And there is no more reason for believing that he will ever cease to be a pernicious reprobate than there is for supposing that once Super Mario brother has approved of something it can't possibly be small-minded. Please keep in mind that we have a right, an indisputable, inalienable, indefeasible, divine right to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. It is quite common today to hear people express themselves as follows: "I have undeniably had enough of Super Mario brother's airy-fairy talk of 'maybe this or maybe that'." The more I think about insane picaros, the more troubled I become by Super Mario brother's claims. To sum it all up, Super Mario brother is lost in a netherworld of oligarchism.
tl;dr - he's a faggot
Replies:
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.