[QUOTE=funkyhoney;17406779]Yeah, we just didn't put lyrics in ours. :lol:

And 5.[/QUOTE]

Haha. I might have to take that route as a last resort. I'm keen to have a nice detailed booklet to boost the value of it and all but it's beyond my power a bit.

Nice number, is it gonna have a title?

Nah, just self-titled. We'll think of a witty name for the album though.

Wicked.

I always wanted to make an album and call it something ridiculous and a complete non-sequitur to everything, ever. Like..

Upside-down cocktails on the moon.

Sounds like you've got a solo album to get cracking on.

Eh, a solo album by me would be ****. I can barely play guitar. Barely play drums. Have no skills with music software and can only just manage minor backing vocals.

It couldn't be any worse than [i]Smile From The Streets You Hold[/i].

I could call it something so preposterous people would buy it based on sheer bemusement.

Tried and tested, gotta grab attention with a title these days to pull in the street traffic.

My few problems with the casual and Spiff
 

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 we can't stand idly by and let the casual sweep its peccadillos under the rug. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in its comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because the casual used to complain about being persecuted. Now it is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that the casual says that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. Yet it also wants to pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because it's best to ignore most of the quotes that it so frequently cites. The casual takes quotes of of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and, presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, it keeps trying to promote a herd mentality over principled, individual thought. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, it will decidedly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with loud schizophrenics, the casual's minions, or anyone else who fails to realize that wanting to force me to swallow the casual's solutions whole, without question or quibble, without any of the obvious repercussions is like wanting a one-sided coin. But there's the rub; the casual's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are its promises. In fact, the casual operates on an international scale to introduce absurd, baseless, terror-ridden lawsuits intended to destroy the lives of countless innocent people. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding the casual's lousy shell games.

Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that there is no place in this country where we are safe from the casual's accomplices, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. The casual is like a jellyfish in that you can't see its stings coming. We can therefore extrapolate that the casual is absolutely subversive, as it has proved to my complete satisfaction. The casual plans to relabel millions of people as "logorrheic" as soon as our backs are turned. I'd like to see it try to get away with such a plan; that should be good for a laugh. You see, most people have already observed that the casual has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then what I call treacherous lummoxes will be free to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe the casual's line that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as it. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that this is a free country, and I aver we ought to keep it that way.

One does not have to treat traditional values as if they were pathological crimes in order to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come. It is an infantile person who believes otherwise. To spread its message of parasitism, the casual solicits assistance from cheeky clodpolls, mealymouthed, xenophobic ninnyhammers, and other well-rewarded notables of exploitation and arrogance, superficiality and self-indulgence. The casual once heard a hotheaded gadfly say, "The casual's juvenile camp is a benign and charitable agency." What's amazing is that the casual was then able to use that single quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince its helots that it has its moral compass in tact, which unmistakably makes me wonder, "Is there anything that it can't make its shock troops believe?" One might as well ask, "What accounts for its prodigious criminality and dissipation?" Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that what goes around comes around. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. It is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to treat the disease, not the symptoms.

The casual should be forced to wear a scarlet "W" for "Wants to promote the lie of Bonapartism", by which I mean that if it wants to make incorrect leaps of logic, let it wear the opprobrium of that decision. One thing is certain: Social stability and family unity are two things that mindless wisenheimers have no concern for. And here, I avouch, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in the casual's utterances. If nothing else, the casual is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to its disquisitions. The casual pretends to put power into the hands of the people while actually increasing society's cycle of hostility and violence. Ergo, I have frequently criticized the casual's unspoken plan to defile the present and destroy the future. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of Pyrrhonism, fogyism, child molestation, and halitosis. The casual hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that the casual thinks it's good that its crotchets advocate its plaints amid a hue and cry as brazen as it is pretentious. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: It can't fool me. I've met refractory, ridiculous ruffians before, so I know that I wouldn't want to make conditions far worse than could ever have been the case without the casual's childish efforts. I would, on the other hand, love to lead the way to the future, not to the past. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter.

The casual avers that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and the casual are like oil and water. This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that the casual and I are as different as chalk and cheese. It, for instance, wants to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. I, on the other hand, want to carry out this matter to the full extent of the law. That's why I need to tell you that if you think that sin is good for the soul, then think again.

And for those shambolic blockheads who want to hide behind the argument that the casual's slaves are not brassbound mountebanks but rather sanctimonious hippies, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Why does particularism exist? What causes it? And why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that outrage pounded in my temples when I first realized that the casual wants to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of its own base nature? To understand the answers to those questions, you first have to realize that not only does it bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives, but it then commands its fans, "Go, and do thou likewise." The casual may unwittingly stir up one part of the population against another. I say "unwittingly" because it is apparently unaware that it operates under the influence of a particular ideology—a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why the casual never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that it does not tolerate any view that differs from its own. Rather, the casual discredits and discards those people who contradict it along with the ideas that they represent.

Though the lethargic spring up like grass and whiney jokers flourish, they are doomed to be destroyed forever—especially if we get people to sign a petition to limit the casual's ability to cause trouble. In particular, the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how wayward and ostentatious the casual has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how it is immature and stupid of it to do the devil's work. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to call for a return to the values that made this country great, and that's why I say that whenever I turn around I see it brainwashing the masses into submission. To deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of our own senses. I believe it was Hegel who said, "It blames others for its meretricious deeds". When I first encountered the casual's bromides, all I could think of was, "The casual expects everyone else to cater to its every idiosyncratic whim."

The primary point of disagreement between myself and the casual is whether or not it claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to elevate its bait-and-switch tactics to prominence as epistemological principles. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by the casual's companions. The truth is that the last time I told the casual's pals that I want to complain about disorderly sociopaths they declared in response, "But the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant.

The casual can't possibly believe that its vices are the only true virtues. It's maladroit but it's not that maladroit. Once, just once, I'd like to see the casual's sympathizers make plans and carry them out. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting the casual, or is it sufficient to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance? The answer has two parts to it. The first part regards the manner in which the cure for corruption, conspiracy, and treason must start by exposing the problem to people who care and are not themselves corrupted. The second part of the answer is focused on the the way that no matter how bad you think the casual's suggestions are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice—especially the casual's unpleasant form of it—is.

The casual likes to break down traditional values. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, the casual and its votaries will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must rise to the challenge of thwarting the casual's coldhearted, gin-swilling plans. The recent outrage at the casual's prophecies may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that the casual has been, still is, and always will remain more cankered than incompetent control freaks.
After reading this letter, you will never again be able to trust the casual and you will see with crystal clarity the way that it should take all the bull-pucky it's been throwing at us and fertilize its garden with it. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: On the issue of immoralism, it is wrong again. Sure, there must be justice for all of us or there will be peace for none. But it may seem difficult at first to defy it. It is. But if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that the tone of the casual's ****-and-bull stories is eerily reminiscent of that of loud, antihumanist exponents of particularism of the late 1940s in the sense that as the casual matures morally it'll eventually grow out of its present way of thinking and come to realize that if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

It doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of the casual's shenanigans in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must give parents the means to protect their children. The casual's personal interest in seeing its publicity stunts shoved down people's throats is perverted but that's to be expected of it.

In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that when the casual says that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues, it's just plain wrong—not "partially wrong" but "completely and totally wrong". Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. You may find it amusing or even titillating to read about the casual's programs of Gleichschaltung, but they're not amusing to me. They're deeply troubling. Since this is one of those "don't say I didn't warn you" letters, I want also to note that it is literally the case that perennial crybabies like the casual wouldn't fare well without a legal skirt to hide under. To top that off, there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations like the casual.

As will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, a "respected" member of the casual's peuplade recently said (to closely paraphrase), "The casual is a martyr for freedom and a victim of separatism". That's probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that when the casual's distasteful utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, it appears to be saying that the laws of nature don't apply to it. For me, this pathetic, confused moonshine serves only to emphasize how if you want to hide something from the casual, you just have to put it in a book. In case you hadn't noticed, if you can go more than a minute without hearing the casual talk about negativism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial.

Well, the casual, we're all getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you've done. We're fed up. And the day is coming when you'll be held accountable for your venal, ill-natured editorials. Before I move on, I just want to state once more that we could opt to sit back and let the casual engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. Am I being too idealistic—a Pollyanna—when I suggest that all we need to do is examine the casual's worldview from the perspective of its axiology (values) and epistemology (ways of knowing)? I don't think so. Admittedly, it is one of the world's major voices of mysticism, but if the casual's policies get any more brainless, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep.

If the casual can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If the casual can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. Others may disagree but I think that the casual has never disproved anything I've ever written. It does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, you might have heard the story that the casual once agreed to help us wage war on sexism. No one has located the document in which the casual said that. No one has identified when or where the casual said that. That's because it never said it. As you might have suspected, I see how important the casual's indelicate theatrics are to its deputies and I laugh. I laugh because it claims that censorship could benefit us. Well, I beg to differ.

The casual's conjectures are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, the casual has never satisfactorily proved its assertion that it is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. It has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." If you don't think that the casual is the root of all evil, then you've missed the whole point of this letter.

The casual's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, it tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. I note in passing that sensationalism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's the casual's favorite; it makes it easy for it to crush national and spiritual values out of existence and substitute the selfish and voluble machinery of autism. The casual is off its trolley. But even if we disregard all that and examine only the casual's immoral insults, this seems to me to be enough to show that my love for people necessitates that I bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Yes, I face opposition from the casual. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder.

The casual has no fixed ethical principles. Interestingly, the casual doesn't seem to care about that. If I am doomed to kiss my freedom goodbye then the casual will obviously engulf the world in a dense miasma of opportunism quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "disadvantageousness".

This probably does not affect your daily life, but it is a fact. If the casual is going to make an emotional appeal then it should also include a rational argument. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that the casual will make all of us pay for its boondoggles. And to overcome these fears, we must break the neck of the casual's policy of masochism once and for all. I've left out many criticisms of the casual from this wailing wall of a letter. Nevertheless, I avouch that it's a start—a philosophical space where we can plant a new flag symbolizing all that is wrong with the casual.

I need to tell you a little about how I lost all respect for the casual when I heard that it plans to feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly crazy agendas. And so I shall. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in its comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because the hate just keeps on coming. There's no need here to present any evidence of that; examples can be found all over the World Wide Web. In fact, a simple search will quickly reveal that it's easy for us to shake our heads at the casual's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should unveil the semiotic patterns that the casual utilizes to perpetuate the myth that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. It's easy for us to say, "By working together, we can punish the casual for its impudent sermons." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because the casual craves more power. I say we should give it more power—preferably, 10,000 volts of it.

A common thread runs through most of the casual's belief systems, a thread so predaceous that it disgusts me nearly to the point of physical illness. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Isn't the casual the jaded carouser who recently wanted to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law? A clue might be that there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about its assertions. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must stop defending the negligent status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change. The casual has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. It can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches the casual's nostrils, it'll start talking about the joy of cronyism and how our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. As you listen to the casual's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice its hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that it's more than harebrained. The casual's mega-harebrained. In fact, to understand just how harebrained it is, you first need to realize that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of shallow thoughts the casual is thinking about these days.

Please don't ask me to drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. I simply can't do that. The casual maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating information about everyone it distrusts, to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? The answer has two parts to it. The first part regards the manner in which failure to recognize this salient point will result in the casual's getting free reign to kill the goose bearing the golden egg. The second part of the answer is focused on the the way that some mudslinging vermin are actually considering helping the casual submerge us in a sea of Pyrrhonism. How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by the casual on numerous occasions.

Simply put, I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to listen to others. And just let it try and stop me. There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of the casual's essays from the first word to the last.

For future reference, unless we stand our ground, things will only get worse. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. I've tried explaining to the casual's lapdogs that there is not much demand for independent thinkers in the casual's teetotalism movement. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that with the casual so forcefully causing riots in the streets, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must take action.

Still, I am truly at a loss for words when the casual asserts that we have too much freedom. It can't possibly be serious. I, speaking as someone who is not an unambitious hostis generis humani, suspect that the real story here is that the casual wants to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is the casual's gossamer grasp of reality.

The casual's fans believe that the sun rises just for the casual. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles can believe anything, especially if it's false. The casual's trained seals are too lazy to give parents the means to protect their children. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that the casual is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of dastardly speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations—and that's just the short list! The casual's cultists are merely ciphers. The casual is the one who decides whether or not to threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this world of ours. The casual is the one who gives out the orders to make empty promises. And the casual is the one trying to conceal how the last time I heard it ramble on in its characteristically bibulous blather it said something about wanting to stand in the way of progress. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that.

The casual is firmly convinced that anyone who dares to cast a gimlet eye on its sophistries can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Its belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that the casual insists that violence and prejudice are funny. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates. Is the casual's head really buried too deep in the sand to know that it should show some class? Let me give you a hint: I am merely pointing out what I have observed. But you knew that already. So let me add that enough is enough. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. The casual, however, is more likely to create a new cottage industry around its high-handed form of McCarthyism.

I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want the casual to dismantle the family unit, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while the casual claims that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. If the casual gets its way, I might very well suffer endless humiliation. Hey, it's not my fault that the casual's a financial predator who preys on the elderly, the gullible, and the vulnerable. It seeks their assets to support its own lavish existence. Keep that in mind while I state the following: Relative to just a few years ago, ethically bankrupt rapscallions are nearly ten times as likely to believe that the casual can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic, pink, pixie dust over everything that it considers perfidious or selfish. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by the casual to create an atmosphere of mistrust in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories.

The casual's pledge not to take control of a nation and suck it dry is merely empty rhetoric, invoked on occasion for theatrical effect but otherwise studiously ignored. The casual dreams of a time when they'll be free to confuse, disorient, and disunify. That's the way it's planned it and that's the way it'll happen—not may happen but will happen—if we don't interfere, if we don't protect little children from dour firebrands like it. I have had enough of the casual's effete, mendacious programs of Gleichschaltung. That's clear. But the casual says that anyone who disagrees with it is ultimately malodorous. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. When I state that it is widely known and beyond dispute that the casual's conduct can be described as less than perfect, I'm merely trying to call a spade a spade. To end this letter, I would like to make a bet with the casual. I will gladly give the casual a day's salary if it can prove that those who disagree with it should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve, as it insists. If the casual is unable to prove that, then its end of the bargain is to step aside while I speak out against the most two-faced punks you'll ever see. So, do we have a bet, the casual?

I need to get something out of the way before I begin. I must say that that statement can be most easily defended, since it is not quantitative, but qualitative. To begin at the beginning, Spaceman Spiff's eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that he is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people?) Although I can find only circumstantial evidence of misconduct and rule violations, anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that this is clear to every knowledgeable observer. What may be news, however, is that I find that unbalanced imbeciles are no different from sex-crazed malefactors. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that feral control freaks serve as the priests in Spiff's cult of imperious gangsterism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Spiff's reflected glory, pausing only when Spiff instructs them to control your bank account, your employment, your personal safety, and your mind. What could be more homophobic? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that the issues surrounding pharisaism are more complex and embedded than he will admit. Yes, I could add that the core of this seemingly insoluble problem is the fact that he has no sense of personal boundaries, 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 Spiff believes that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.

By toning down his positions, many more people are exposed to Spiff's raving message, convinced by his passion, and seduced by his simplistic answers to complex social problems. I am not mistaken when I say that we must understand that Spiff is one of the world's major voices of denominationalism. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. His slurs are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, I have never been in favor of being gratuitously destructive. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Spiff's corrupt schemes.

If we don't do something soon, Spiff's conceited, crafty ramblings will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people. Spiff's army of rude carpers controls illegal drugs and prostitution as well as banking, oil, defense, and the media. The same might be said of unprincipled party animals. Spiff managed to convince a bunch of unsophisticated, mindless Huns to help him exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not pathetic meanies. What was the quid pro quo there? I once asked Spiff that question—I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that Spiff's cheerleaders were recently seen forcing me to have a conniption. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's Spiff's policy.

In essence, Spiff's reinterpretations of historic events are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. People who are attacked by the most quasi-domineering layabouts I've ever seen basically have three options. They can ignore the attacks, engage the attackers in a debate, or apply some sanction that will put an end to the attack. The ideological fervor of Spiff's helpers, who are legion, springs from their desire to deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that Spiff is capable of. It follows from this that most of his writings are thesis-less runarounds that leave the reader unclear as to both his point and his position on the issue. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that his dupes have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times—stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize his closed-minded beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). It is indeed not a pretty sight. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Spiff will entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of the ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice of the most scornful exhibitionists I've ever seen. And to overcome these fears, we must perform noble deeds.

Spiff has warned us that in the immediate years ahead, uncouth, shabby freeloaders will contaminate clear thinking with Spiff's purblind perceptions. If you think about it, you'll realize that Spiff's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that if Spiff can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. I think that this was true long before the latest scandal broke. You probably think that too. But Spiff does not think that. Spiff thinks that the future of the entire world rests in his hands.

We must show Spiff that we are not powerless pedestrians on the asphalt of life. We must show him that we can criticize the obvious incongruities presented by him and his legatees. Maybe then Spiff will realize that the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, he claims that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. I respond that I'd like people who create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration to find themselves behind bars, looking out. Did you know that some debauched, inhumane whiners want to help Spiff further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law? Others just want to ride the alarmism bandwagon. In either case, I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Spiff's choleric jeremiads, which confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds.

It should come as no shock to anyone that if you've read this far then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Lest you think that I'm talking out of my hat here, I should point out that if Spiff would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to wake people out of their stupor and call on them to keep our priorities in check. If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Time cannot change Spiff's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Spiff can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet.

Spiff's goal is to issue a flood of bogus legal documents. This is abject nonrepresentationalism! Spiff is thoroughly versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Spiff warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against adversarialism. But when Spiff's safely surrounded by his foot soldiers, he instructs them to poke someone's eyes out. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Spiff's thesis is that he is the way, the truth, and the light. That's utterly imprudent, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be Spiff's most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Spiff to help him foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government.

We could opt to sit back and let Spiff disarm us morally, make us rootless and defenseless, and then destroy us. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Spiff's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many uninformed extremists realize that if Spiff's plan to prevent the real problems from being solved is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to convert retreat into advance. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that his rodomontades always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't.

I'll talk about that another time. I have other, more important, things to discuss now. For starters, I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Spiff's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now. I conclude this letter with an appropriate quote: "My psychologist friends tell me that Spaceman Spiff considers 'honesty' to be a dirty word." I believe we all know who said that, don't we?

Unless you want to accumulate a long list of examples of Spaceman Spiff's acts of corruption and depredation, this letter may become a bit monotonous. However, I certainly do hope you read it all the way through because there is no possible justification for the argument that if Spiff kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. For starters, Spiff seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren't hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that his prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. We have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by Spiff and his lickspittles or we raise amoral masters of deceit out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. While I don't expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that Spiff's generalizations always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that querulous bigamists make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers.

Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs and you will hardly be able to deny that blackguardism appears to have triumphed. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to investigate his bad-tempered principles, ideals, and objectives. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that he wants nothing less than to make us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to his crusades. His bedfellows then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with incontinent vigilantes who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that Spiff has repeatedly been spotted turning bloodsuckers loose against us good citizens. When questioned about that, he either denies any knowledge of it or offers unbelievable and ludicrous explanations that only a virulent, poxy bottom-feeder could believe. I do not wish to endorse jujuism but rather to illustrate that Spiff is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every barbaric ideology finds expression in Spaceman Spiff.

At the very least, the public is like a giant that Spiff has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Spiff leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to reinforce notions of positive self-esteem. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that it seems clear that none of what Spiff says carries any weight. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that it's best to ignore most of the quotes that Spiff so frequently cites. He takes quotes of of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and, presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, empty-headed and impolitic, Spiff's slogans resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that in Spiff's bons mots, Bonapartism is witting and unremitting, vulgar and insidious. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions.

Are you prepared to discuss this, Spiff? His hatchet men are unified under a common goal. That goal is to perpetuate the myth that gangsterism-oriented, villainous mouthpieces for insolent alarmism should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. Please forgive the following sermon, but it can't be avoided in this discussion: He might place our children at imminent risk of serious harm eventually. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome?

If Spiff thinks that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobacky. We should note, of course, that what I've written about him doesn't prove anything in itself. It's only suggestive but it does make a good point that if you want to hide something from him, you just have to put it in a book. Since Spiff claims to know more than the rest of us, I'm sure he's aware that he will probably never understand why he scares me so much. And Spiff sincerely does scare me: His announcements are scary, his ideologies are scary, and most of all, whenever he announces that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power, his apostles applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What's funny is that they don't provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that there is a format Spiff should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.

I aver that it is widely known and beyond dispute that I mention that in this spot because of its close connection with the item just above, even though that presupposes a dialectical intertwinement to which a phlegmatic turn of mind is impervious. What I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Spiff's line that mingy mental defectives aren't ever mawkish. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that Spiff's hatchet jobs are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, Spiff contends that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from?

Currently, Spiff lacks the clout to muddy the word "compartmentalization". But in the coming days, he will have enough serfs to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. It is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to give parents the means to protect their children. Some critics have called him bilious. A handful insist he's hypersensitive. Spiff's legates, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century. I heard through the grapevine that Spiff tries to assert his autonomy by attempting to push our efforts two steps backward. Whether or not this rumor is true, Spiff's mercenaries actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of arrogant, stingy blowhards are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world before the year is over. In reality, of course, if you were to try to tell Spiff's yes-men that his sympathizers seem to profess that Spiff can do no wrong, they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that Spiff focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, he attempts to twist and distort facts to justify his feelings but that just goes to show that Spiff's followers maintain that "profits come before people." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written instead that Spiff is swinging pretty hard on some slender evidence then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, Spiff has warned us that by the end of the decade, counter-productive scofflaws will destroy the lives of good, honest people. If you think about it, you'll realize that Spiff's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Spiff provides none.

If Spiff's plan to ridicule, parody, censor, and downgrade opposing ideas is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that if five years ago I had described a person like Spiff to you and told you that in five years he'd make peevish carpers out to be something they're not, you'd have thought me nugatory. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how when I hear his torchbearers parrot the party line—that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities—I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how I have to wonder where Spiff got the idea that it is my view that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented demands. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is.

By the way, it strikes me as amusing that Spiff complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain.

Do you quarrel, sir?

no y

Just making sure.

Even Sade has never gone on a circa 9000 word rant before :lol:.

lol thats from a website you plug stuff in and it turns you into the single greatest author since ernest hemingway

Yeah I figured the incoherencies in it were the mark of a generator of some kind but even copying and pasting it is beyond the effort of the average post in this thread :lol:.

i can barely find the motivation to jerk off anymore i mean really the internet is getting boring

Just think of baby Jesus and the inner strength will glow within you.

lets talk about how jesus was just as evil as the god of the OT

Look on the brightside, if Mary Magdalene was a virgin AND a prostitute, she must have packed a regal blowjob.

id sooooooo **** mary

She likes to be bent over the table that Joseph built for her. I wonder if he knows where her money really comes from.

Hmm.

We're considering going through with recording an album. There's a label who'll put it out for us and get it distributed, but we'd have to do everything else ourselves.

I do really want to do it, but it'd be hella expensive :( Good studio time doesn't come cheap.

[quote=muthafunkabass;17406971]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 we can't stand idly by and let the casual sweep its peccadillos under the rug. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in its comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because the casual used to complain about being persecuted. Now it is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that the casual says that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. Yet it also wants to pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because it's best to ignore most of the quotes that it so frequently cites. The casual takes quotes of of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and, presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, it keeps trying to promote a herd mentality over principled, individual thought. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, it will decidedly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with loud schizophrenics, the casual's minions, or anyone else who fails to realize that wanting to force me to swallow the casual's solutions whole, without question or quibble, without any of the obvious repercussions is like wanting a one-sided coin. But there's the rub; the casual's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are its promises. In fact, the casual operates on an international scale to introduce absurd, baseless, terror-ridden lawsuits intended to destroy the lives of countless innocent people. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding the casual's lousy shell games.

Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that there is no place in this country where we are safe from the casual's accomplices, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. The casual is like a jellyfish in that you can't see its stings coming. We can therefore extrapolate that the casual is absolutely subversive, as it has proved to my complete satisfaction. The casual plans to relabel millions of people as "logorrheic" as soon as our backs are turned. I'd like to see it try to get away with such a plan; that should be good for a laugh. You see, most people have already observed that the casual has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then what I call treacherous lummoxes will be free to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe the casual's line that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as it. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that this is a free country, and I aver we ought to keep it that way.

One does not have to treat traditional values as if they were pathological crimes in order to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come. It is an infantile person who believes otherwise. To spread its message of parasitism, the casual solicits assistance from cheeky clodpolls, mealymouthed, xenophobic ninnyhammers, and other well-rewarded notables of exploitation and arrogance, superficiality and self-indulgence. The casual once heard a hotheaded gadfly say, "The casual's juvenile camp is a benign and charitable agency." What's amazing is that the casual was then able to use that single quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince its helots that it has its moral compass in tact, which unmistakably makes me wonder, "Is there anything that it can't make its shock troops believe?" One might as well ask, "What accounts for its prodigious criminality and dissipation?" Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that what goes around comes around. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. It is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to treat the disease, not the symptoms.

The casual should be forced to wear a scarlet "W" for "Wants to promote the lie of Bonapartism", by which I mean that if it wants to make incorrect leaps of logic, let it wear the opprobrium of that decision. One thing is certain: Social stability and family unity are two things that mindless wisenheimers have no concern for. And here, I avouch, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in the casual's utterances. If nothing else, the casual is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to its disquisitions. The casual pretends to put power into the hands of the people while actually increasing society's cycle of hostility and violence. Ergo, I have frequently criticized the casual's unspoken plan to defile the present and destroy the future. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of Pyrrhonism, fogyism, child molestation, and halitosis. The casual hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that the casual thinks it's good that its crotchets advocate its plaints amid a hue and cry as brazen as it is pretentious. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: It can't fool me. I've met refractory, ridiculous ruffians before, so I know that I wouldn't want to make conditions far worse than could ever have been the case without the casual's childish efforts. I would, on the other hand, love to lead the way to the future, not to the past. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter.

The casual avers that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and the casual are like oil and water. This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that the casual and I are as different as chalk and cheese. It, for instance, wants to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. I, on the other hand, want to carry out this matter to the full extent of the law. That's why I need to tell you that if you think that sin is good for the soul, then think again.

And for those shambolic blockheads who want to hide behind the argument that the casual's slaves are not brassbound mountebanks but rather sanctimonious hippies, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Why does particularism exist? What causes it? And why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that outrage pounded in my temples when I first realized that the casual wants to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of its own base nature? To understand the answers to those questions, you first have to realize that not only does it bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives, but it then commands its fans, "Go, and do thou likewise." The casual may unwittingly stir up one part of the population against another. I say "unwittingly" because it is apparently unaware that it operates under the influence of a particular ideology—a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why the casual never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that it does not tolerate any view that differs from its own. Rather, the casual discredits and discards those people who contradict it along with the ideas that they represent.

Though the lethargic spring up like grass and whiney jokers flourish, they are doomed to be destroyed forever—especially if we get people to sign a petition to limit the casual's ability to cause trouble. In particular, the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how wayward and ostentatious the casual has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how it is immature and stupid of it to do the devil's work. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to call for a return to the values that made this country great, and that's why I say that whenever I turn around I see it brainwashing the masses into submission. To deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of our own senses. I believe it was Hegel who said, "It blames others for its meretricious deeds". When I first encountered the casual's bromides, all I could think of was, "The casual expects everyone else to cater to its every idiosyncratic whim."[/quote]


tl;dr

[quote=muthafunkabass;17406973]The primary point of disagreement between myself and the casual is whether or not it claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to elevate its bait-and-switch tactics to prominence as epistemological principles. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by the casual's companions. The truth is that the last time I told the casual's pals that I want to complain about disorderly sociopaths they declared in response, "But the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant.

The casual can't possibly believe that its vices are the only true virtues. It's maladroit but it's not that maladroit. Once, just once, I'd like to see the casual's sympathizers make plans and carry them out. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting the casual, or is it sufficient to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance? The answer has two parts to it. The first part regards the manner in which the cure for corruption, conspiracy, and treason must start by exposing the problem to people who care and are not themselves corrupted. The second part of the answer is focused on the the way that no matter how bad you think the casual's suggestions are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice—especially the casual's unpleasant form of it—is.

The casual likes to break down traditional values. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, the casual and its votaries will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must rise to the challenge of thwarting the casual's coldhearted, gin-swilling plans. The recent outrage at the casual's prophecies may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that the casual has been, still is, and always will remain more cankered than incompetent control freaks.
After reading this letter, you will never again be able to trust the casual and you will see with crystal clarity the way that it should take all the bull-pucky it's been throwing at us and fertilize its garden with it. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: On the issue of immoralism, it is wrong again. Sure, there must be justice for all of us or there will be peace for none. But it may seem difficult at first to defy it. It is. But if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that the tone of the casual's ****-and-bull stories is eerily reminiscent of that of loud, antihumanist exponents of particularism of the late 1940s in the sense that as the casual matures morally it'll eventually grow out of its present way of thinking and come to realize that if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

It doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of the casual's shenanigans in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must give parents the means to protect their children. The casual's personal interest in seeing its publicity stunts shoved down people's throats is perverted but that's to be expected of it.

In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that when the casual says that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues, it's just plain wrong—not "partially wrong" but "completely and totally wrong". Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. You may find it amusing or even titillating to read about the casual's programs of Gleichschaltung, but they're not amusing to me. They're deeply troubling. Since this is one of those "don't say I didn't warn you" letters, I want also to note that it is literally the case that perennial crybabies like the casual wouldn't fare well without a legal skirt to hide under. To top that off, there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations like the casual.

As will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, a "respected" member of the casual's peuplade recently said (to closely paraphrase), "The casual is a martyr for freedom and a victim of separatism". That's probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that when the casual's distasteful utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, it appears to be saying that the laws of nature don't apply to it. For me, this pathetic, confused moonshine serves only to emphasize how if you want to hide something from the casual, you just have to put it in a book. In case you hadn't noticed, if you can go more than a minute without hearing the casual talk about negativism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial.

Well, the casual, we're all getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you've done. We're fed up. And the day is coming when you'll be held accountable for your venal, ill-natured editorials. Before I move on, I just want to state once more that we could opt to sit back and let the casual engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. Am I being too idealistic—a Pollyanna—when I suggest that all we need to do is examine the casual's worldview from the perspective of its axiology (values) and epistemology (ways of knowing)? I don't think so. Admittedly, it is one of the world's major voices of mysticism, but if the casual's policies get any more brainless, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep.

If the casual can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If the casual can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. Others may disagree but I think that the casual has never disproved anything I've ever written. It does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, you might have heard the story that the casual once agreed to help us wage war on sexism. No one has located the document in which the casual said that. No one has identified when or where the casual said that. That's because it never said it. As you might have suspected, I see how important the casual's indelicate theatrics are to its deputies and I laugh. I laugh because it claims that censorship could benefit us. Well, I beg to differ.

The casual's conjectures are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, the casual has never satisfactorily proved its assertion that it is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. It has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." If you don't think that the casual is the root of all evil, then you've missed the whole point of this letter.

The casual's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, it tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. I note in passing that sensationalism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's the casual's favorite; it makes it easy for it to crush national and spiritual values out of existence and substitute the selfish and voluble machinery of autism. The casual is off its trolley. But even if we disregard all that and examine only the casual's immoral insults, this seems to me to be enough to show that my love for people necessitates that I bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Yes, I face opposition from the casual. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder.

The casual has no fixed ethical principles. Interestingly, the casual doesn't seem to care about that. If I am doomed to kiss my freedom goodbye then the casual will obviously engulf the world in a dense miasma of opportunism quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "disadvantageousness".

This probably does not affect your daily life, but it is a fact. If the casual is going to make an emotional appeal then it should also include a rational argument. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that the casual will make all of us pay for its boondoggles. And to overcome these fears, we must break the neck of the casual's policy of masochism once and for all. I've left out many criticisms of the casual from this wailing wall of a letter. Nevertheless, I avouch that it's a start—a philosophical space where we can plant a new flag symbolizing all that is wrong with the casual.[/quote]

tl;dr

[quote=muthafunkabass;17406974]I need to tell you a little about how I lost all respect for the casual when I heard that it plans to feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly crazy agendas. And so I shall. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in its comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because the hate just keeps on coming. There's no need here to present any evidence of that; examples can be found all over the World Wide Web. In fact, a simple search will quickly reveal that it's easy for us to shake our heads at the casual's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should unveil the semiotic patterns that the casual utilizes to perpetuate the myth that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. It's easy for us to say, "By working together, we can punish the casual for its impudent sermons." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because the casual craves more power. I say we should give it more power—preferably, 10,000 volts of it.

A common thread runs through most of the casual's belief systems, a thread so predaceous that it disgusts me nearly to the point of physical illness. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Isn't the casual the jaded carouser who recently wanted to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law? A clue might be that there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about its assertions. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must stop defending the negligent status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change. The casual has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. It can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches the casual's nostrils, it'll start talking about the joy of cronyism and how our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. As you listen to the casual's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice its hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that it's more than harebrained. The casual's mega-harebrained. In fact, to understand just how harebrained it is, you first need to realize that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of shallow thoughts the casual is thinking about these days.

Please don't ask me to drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. I simply can't do that. The casual maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating information about everyone it distrusts, to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? The answer has two parts to it. The first part regards the manner in which failure to recognize this salient point will result in the casual's getting free reign to kill the goose bearing the golden egg. The second part of the answer is focused on the the way that some mudslinging vermin are actually considering helping the casual submerge us in a sea of Pyrrhonism. How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by the casual on numerous occasions.

Simply put, I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to listen to others. And just let it try and stop me. There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of the casual's essays from the first word to the last.

For future reference, unless we stand our ground, things will only get worse. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. I've tried explaining to the casual's lapdogs that there is not much demand for independent thinkers in the casual's teetotalism movement. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that with the casual so forcefully causing riots in the streets, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must take action.

Still, I am truly at a loss for words when the casual asserts that we have too much freedom. It can't possibly be serious. I, speaking as someone who is not an unambitious hostis generis humani, suspect that the real story here is that the casual wants to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is the casual's gossamer grasp of reality.

The casual's fans believe that the sun rises just for the casual. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles can believe anything, especially if it's false. The casual's trained seals are too lazy to give parents the means to protect their children. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that the casual is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of dastardly speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations—and that's just the short list! The casual's cultists are merely ciphers. The casual is the one who decides whether or not to threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this world of ours. The casual is the one who gives out the orders to make empty promises. And the casual is the one trying to conceal how the last time I heard it ramble on in its characteristically bibulous blather it said something about wanting to stand in the way of progress. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that.

The casual is firmly convinced that anyone who dares to cast a gimlet eye on its sophistries can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Its belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that the casual insists that violence and prejudice are funny. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates. Is the casual's head really buried too deep in the sand to know that it should show some class? Let me give you a hint: I am merely pointing out what I have observed. But you knew that already. So let me add that enough is enough. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. The casual, however, is more likely to create a new cottage industry around its high-handed form of McCarthyism.

I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want the casual to dismantle the family unit, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while the casual claims that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. If the casual gets its way, I might very well suffer endless humiliation. Hey, it's not my fault that the casual's a financial predator who preys on the elderly, the gullible, and the vulnerable. It seeks their assets to support its own lavish existence. Keep that in mind while I state the following: Relative to just a few years ago, ethically bankrupt rapscallions are nearly ten times as likely to believe that the casual can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic, pink, pixie dust over everything that it considers perfidious or selfish. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by the casual to create an atmosphere of mistrust in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories.

The casual's pledge not to take control of a nation and suck it dry is merely empty rhetoric, invoked on occasion for theatrical effect but otherwise studiously ignored. The casual dreams of a time when they'll be free to confuse, disorient, and disunify. That's the way it's planned it and that's the way it'll happen—not may happen but will happen—if we don't interfere, if we don't protect little children from dour firebrands like it. I have had enough of the casual's effete, mendacious programs of Gleichschaltung. That's clear. But the casual says that anyone who disagrees with it is ultimately malodorous. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. When I state that it is widely known and beyond dispute that the casual's conduct can be described as less than perfect, I'm merely trying to call a spade a spade. To end this letter, I would like to make a bet with the casual. I will gladly give the casual a day's salary if it can prove that those who disagree with it should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve, as it insists. If the casual is unable to prove that, then its end of the bargain is to step aside while I speak out against the most two-faced punks you'll ever see. So, do we have a bet, the casual?[/quote]

tl;dr

[quote=muthafunkabass;17406978]I need to get something out of the way before I begin. I must say that that statement can be most easily defended, since it is not quantitative, but qualitative. To begin at the beginning, Spaceman Spiff's eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that he is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people?) Although I can find only circumstantial evidence of misconduct and rule violations, anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that this is clear to every knowledgeable observer. What may be news, however, is that I find that unbalanced imbeciles are no different from sex-crazed malefactors. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that feral control freaks serve as the priests in Spiff's cult of imperious gangsterism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Spiff's reflected glory, pausing only when Spiff instructs them to control your bank account, your employment, your personal safety, and your mind. What could be more homophobic? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that the issues surrounding pharisaism are more complex and embedded than he will admit. Yes, I could add that the core of this seemingly insoluble problem is the fact that he has no sense of personal boundaries, 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 Spiff believes that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.

By toning down his positions, many more people are exposed to Spiff's raving message, convinced by his passion, and seduced by his simplistic answers to complex social problems. I am not mistaken when I say that we must understand that Spiff is one of the world's major voices of denominationalism. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. His slurs are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, I have never been in favor of being gratuitously destructive. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Spiff's corrupt schemes.

If we don't do something soon, Spiff's conceited, crafty ramblings will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people. Spiff's army of rude carpers controls illegal drugs and prostitution as well as banking, oil, defense, and the media. The same might be said of unprincipled party animals. Spiff managed to convince a bunch of unsophisticated, mindless Huns to help him exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not pathetic meanies. What was the quid pro quo there? I once asked Spiff that question—I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that Spiff's cheerleaders were recently seen forcing me to have a conniption. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's Spiff's policy.

In essence, Spiff's reinterpretations of historic events are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. People who are attacked by the most quasi-domineering layabouts I've ever seen basically have three options. They can ignore the attacks, engage the attackers in a debate, or apply some sanction that will put an end to the attack. The ideological fervor of Spiff's helpers, who are legion, springs from their desire to deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that Spiff is capable of. It follows from this that most of his writings are thesis-less runarounds that leave the reader unclear as to both his point and his position on the issue. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that his dupes have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times—stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize his closed-minded beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). It is indeed not a pretty sight. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Spiff will entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of the ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice of the most scornful exhibitionists I've ever seen. And to overcome these fears, we must perform noble deeds.

Spiff has warned us that in the immediate years ahead, uncouth, shabby freeloaders will contaminate clear thinking with Spiff's purblind perceptions. If you think about it, you'll realize that Spiff's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that if Spiff can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. I think that this was true long before the latest scandal broke. You probably think that too. But Spiff does not think that. Spiff thinks that the future of the entire world rests in his hands.

We must show Spiff that we are not powerless pedestrians on the asphalt of life. We must show him that we can criticize the obvious incongruities presented by him and his legatees. Maybe then Spiff will realize that the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, he claims that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. I respond that I'd like people who create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration to find themselves behind bars, looking out. Did you know that some debauched, inhumane whiners want to help Spiff further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law? Others just want to ride the alarmism bandwagon. In either case, I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Spiff's choleric jeremiads, which confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds.

It should come as no shock to anyone that if you've read this far then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Lest you think that I'm talking out of my hat here, I should point out that if Spiff would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to wake people out of their stupor and call on them to keep our priorities in check. If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. Time cannot change Spiff's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Spiff can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet.

Spiff's goal is to issue a flood of bogus legal documents. This is abject nonrepresentationalism! Spiff is thoroughly versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Spiff warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against adversarialism. But when Spiff's safely surrounded by his foot soldiers, he instructs them to poke someone's eyes out. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Spiff's thesis is that he is the way, the truth, and the light. That's utterly imprudent, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be Spiff's most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Spiff to help him foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government.

We could opt to sit back and let Spiff disarm us morally, make us rootless and defenseless, and then destroy us. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Spiff's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many uninformed extremists realize that if Spiff's plan to prevent the real problems from being solved is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to convert retreat into advance. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that his rodomontades always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't.

I'll talk about that another time. I have other, more important, things to discuss now. For starters, I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Spiff's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now. I conclude this letter with an appropriate quote: "My psychologist friends tell me that Spaceman Spiff considers 'honesty' to be a dirty word." I believe we all know who said that, don't we?[/quote]

tl;dr