digibutter.nerr

[vg]

I say dump it. Oh wait... Unless further points are to be made, I suggest this topic is to be locked.

[Lord Bowser]

Clearly in all of this hullabaloo, Francis has made it clear that he doesn't care about anyone or anybody in existance other than himself. What are we to do when our leader is nothing but a tyrannical, greedy slob who does nothing but laugh at other people's miseries?

While my better instincts counsel me to follow a policy of laissez-faire, there are a couple of Francis's statements I feel I cannot let pass. One of the first facts we should face is that if Francis had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that it has long been obvious to attentive observers that anyone willing to study and ponder my position on most current matters will sincerely find that he should get off his pedestal and walk a day in our shoes. But did you know that I've received appreciative notes from academic psychologists and students of culture who deplore the misapplication of their subjects by ideologues like Francis? Francis doesn't want you to know that because I can say one thing about him. He understands better than any of us that psychological impact is paramount -- not facts, not anybody's principles, not right and wrong. I'm not suggesting that we behave likewise. I'm suggesting only that immoralism is both a belief system and a material, institutional reality. In reaching that conclusion, I have made the usual assumption that once one begins thinking about free speech, about offensive, jaded antagonists who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own refractory beliefs, one realizes that ever since he decided to brand me as pudibund, his consistent, unvarying line has been that mysticism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. Though Francis's long-term goals be madness, yet there is method to them. Step by step, they make it easier for him to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood". I will not quibble with Francis as to whether or not all people, including militant, irritating fanatics, ought to be kind and sensitive to one another. Instead, I'll simply state that Francis's précis have grown into an unscrupulous tapestry weaving together classical conspiracy theories of the 19th century and post-Marxian economics and leave it at that. There are two reasons which induce me to submit his convictions to a special examination: 1) We see the same kind of phenomenon -- less obvious, perhaps, but distinctly perceptible -- in almost all areas of activity in which he chooses to participate, and 2) the coprophagous and contemptuous nature of his perceptions should indicate to us that something needs to be done. I must admit that the second point, in particular, sometimes fills me with anxious concern. In its annual report on inaniloquent incidents, the government concluded that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. He provides none.

The next time Francis decides to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? I 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: There are some simple truths in this world. First, we must stand united as free, sovereign individuals and reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of hateful, yawping dolts of one sort or another. Second, the cardinal rule of his ultimata is that rummy communism is the only thing that matters. And finally, what he is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly foul activity. Where are the solid statistics that prove that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as Francis? I've never seen any. Yet, identifying and naming the most obscene yutzes you'll ever see is fundamentally different from using their equivocations as an instrument of rebellion. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that I stand by what I've written before, that Francis speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to his pleas.

Francis's ravings are a hotheaded carnival of incendiarism. But let's not lose perspective. If I am correctly informed, as witnesses to mankind's inner dissatisfaction, we must shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. In any case, even when he isn't lying, Francis's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to destroy our moral fiber.

Francis insists that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. How can he be so blind? Very easily. Basically, Francis may be engaged in extortion, racketeering, and/or money laundering. So what's the connection between that and Francis's methods of interpretation? The connection is that he has been offering bestial fomenters of revolution a lot of money to crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to his obloquies. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that we must operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to lift the fog from Francis's thinking. Francis likes to cite poll results that "prove" that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. 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 people often get the impression that unrealistic, treacherous usurers and Francis's proxies are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Francis claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Francis's expositors. The truth is that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Francis's ornery remonstrations. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how the acid test for Francis's "kinder, gentler" new rantings should be, "Do they still impact public policy for years to come?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that some people insist that none of Francis's mottos changes my mind about anything. Others believe that Francis views Trotskyism as a succedaneous religion that authorizes him to create a Frankenstein's monster. In the interest of clearing up the confusion, I'll make the following observation: What we have been imparting to Francis -- 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.

You'd think I'd be pretty well inured by now to the lunacies of Francis's editorials, but I have to say that I oppose Francis's tirades because they are aberrant. I oppose them because they are dastardly. And I oppose them because they will introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms by next weekend. If you will pardon me for mentioning it, Francis proclaims at every opportunity that he'd never remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.

A small child really couldn't understand that I'm not saying anything you don't already know about. But any adult can easily grasp that Francis has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. Then again, just because Francis is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications.

Francis keeps trying to toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will honestly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with ribald, rambunctious stool pigeons, Francis's stooges, or anyone else who fails to realize that Francis will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let him reduce us to acute penury. At least putting up with another Francis hissy fit is easier than convincing Francis's lackeys that I am shocked and angered by Francis's mad improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. One may very well question whether perennial crybabies like Francis wouldn't fare well without a legal skirt to hide under. Still, most people will eventually be convinced that my cause is to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Francis because they saw no other options for change. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that I and Francis part company when it comes to the issue of clericalism. He feels that he is entitled to threaten the common good, while I feel that he says that his decisions are based on reason. You know, he can lie as much as he wants but he can't change the facts. If he could, he'd surely prevent anyone from hearing that he is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees.

Truth be told, Francis says that we should avoid personal responsibility. Yet he also wants to create a regime of juvenile, wayward Fabianism. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because his zingers have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. In point of fact, his mercenaries actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of haughty buggers are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world some day. In reality, of course, I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Francis and his secret agents, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that Francis has written volumes about how he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that his idiotic claim that he has been robbed of all he does not possess is just that, an idiotic claim. Francis's assistants are not, technically, self-serving impolitic-types, but rather bad-tempered drunks. I aver that there is a small -- yet not entirely insignificant -- difference. It's our responsibility to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward irrationalism. That's the first step in trying to appeal not to the contented and satisfied, but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented, and it's the only way to provide you with a holistic and thematic history of his wretched ballyhoos.

Let Francis's shameless, overbearing threats stand as evidence that if you ever ask Francis to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. The largest problem, however, is that he is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to 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. It is quite true, of course, that we have a right and an obligation to hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse. But Francis's expedients symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom.

On that basis, I should, at this point, fight for our freedom of speech. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: In asserting that he is the way, the truth, and the light, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. Francis lives for one reason and for one reason only: to use our weaknesses to his advantage. You might have heard the story that he once agreed to help us make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. No one has located the document in which Francis said that. No one has identified when or where Francis said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, Francis would have us believe that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. Yeah, right. Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my disgust with Francis?

If we all continue to be this blind with the terrible choices Francis makes, nobody shall continue to have the little happiness we have today. What is any part of any life if the joy be held in small quantity?

[vg]

I give up... all I'm seeing is a mudslinging for the next presidential election being practiced on a forum.

[Francis]

I tire of this copypasta. Let's take this outside, reptile vs reptile. King of the Koopas vs. Elite of the Nerrs. Yellow-Belly vs. Lizard Lip. You leave your bomb-ombs and I'll leave my meowbombs.

I'll see you on the playground..