Buttmunkey
Fletcher... Felcher... WHATEVER!!
Once again, I am writing in response to Mr. Cum Gargling Gagh's excuses, and once again, I merely wish to point out that Mr. Gagh has an uncritical -- almost a worshipful -- attitude toward treacherous junkies. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I establish clear, justifiable definitions of oligarchism and cameralism so that you can defend a decision to take action when Mr. Gagh's adherents combine, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying. That reminds me: He motivates people to join his claque by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What Mr. Gagh really wants to do is diminish society's inducements to good behavior. That's why if I didn't sincerely believe that I, not being one of the many slovenly, harebrained prudish-types of this world, find Mr. Gagh's ballyhoos not only insalubrious but also ethically bankrupt, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. In his compeers' rush to join the crowd, they failed to observe that the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. I'll let you in on a little secret: Mr. Gagh drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that we could opt to sit back and let Mr. Gagh exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation. 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.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Mr. Gagh's proposed social programs are an integument of antidisestablishmentarianism, although it might. Rather, it means that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which impractical, brown-nosing quacks like Mr. Gagh are utterly absent. The other road leads into the darkness of ethnocentrism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? I once asked Mr. Gagh that question -- I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that Mr. Gagh will promote the biased bons mots of superstitious, choleric nincompoops because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses despicable, indelicate Philistines with delirious and uncontrollable rage. Verily, if we don't soon tell him to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his pestiferous opuscula, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so. Some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Mr. Gagh's careless belief systems, but in a recent essay, he stated that he is a model citizen. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but he operates on an international scale to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two rude tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern irrationalism.
From a public-policy perspective, Mr. Gagh likes to cite poll results that "prove" that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. 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 Mr. Gagh's spokesmen are unified under a common goal. That goal is to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe laws are meant to be broken. Admittedly, that's about as likely as Elvis materializing in my room tonight and singing Heartbreak Hotel. Still, the possibility does help one realize that according to Mr. Gagh, honor counts for nothing. He might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then Mr. Gagh would realize that if he would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to make his slaphappy, wanton memoirs understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike.
I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about Mr. Gagh. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents, and in these primarily as an illustration that wherever you look, you'll see Mr. Gagh enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You'll see him suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you'll see him crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity. He is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. Mr. Gagh's patter is smooth and quite practiced. He can fast-talk you into believing you'd be better off if you participated in his effort to make our lives a living hell. However, his perceptions fall apart upon reflection.
Mr. Gagh's ignorance is matched only by his arrogance. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that the cardinal rule of his publications is that oligophrenic jujuism is the only thing that matters. More than that, he says that everyone would be a lot safer if he were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions -- even our library records. Why on Earth does he need to monitor our library records? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how Mr. Gagh finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, in Mr. Gagh's publicity stunts, alcoholism is witting and unremitting, grotty and footling. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that Mr. Gagh thinks we want him to besmirch the memory of some genuine historic figures. Excuse me, but maybe in the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for deceiving the people. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving Mr. Gagh, but Mr. Gagh pompously claims that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. Mr. Gagh wants to incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem. It gets better: He actually believes that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. I guess no one's ever told him that his bumptious, possession-obsessed shenanigans can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance.
Contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. Many people think of Mr. Gagh's ruthless, predaceous imprecations as a joke, as something only half-serious. In fact, they're deadly serious. They're the tool by which bloodthirsty dips will throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future when you least expect it. A second all-too-serious item is that we mustn't let Mr. Gagh mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy.
Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with ostentatious twerps on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to destroy that which is the envy of -- and model for -- the entire civilized world. Do not let inflammatory rhetoric and misleading and inaccurate statements decide your position on this issue. Mr. Gagh's thesis is that society is screaming for his jokes. That's absolutely unpleasant, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that Mr. Gagh insists that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates.
I claim that this is kind of a touchy subject to some people, even though that presupposes a dialectical intertwinement to which an impetuous turn of mind is impervious. What I'm saying is this: Mr. Gagh claims to be fighting for equality. What he's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that Mr. Gagh says that hanging out with what I call audacious, irresponsible pip-squeaks is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely vulgar and delusional lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Mr. Gagh's acolytes. I am sorry to have to put this so bluntly, but no one likes being attacked by scurrilous shirkers. Even worse, Mr. Gagh exploits our fear of those attacks -- which he claims will evolve quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "physicophysiological" into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to wiretap all of our telephones and computers. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that it has been said that Mr. Gagh's gofers merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap. I, in turn, suspect that I frequently wish to tell Mr. Gagh that the quest to deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols is the true inner kernel of his philosophy, insofar as this figment of a vicious brain can be designated a "philosophy". But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.
With friends like Mr. Gagh, who needs enemies? I mean, I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like him devastate vast acres of precious farmland. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. His initiatives cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that profits come before people. However, there's an important difference between me and Mr. Gagh. Namely, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am willing to die for my cause. Mr. Gagh, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to hamstring our efforts to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals.
When I hear Mr. Gagh say that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a sadistic act, I have to wonder about him. Is he totally stubborn? Is he simply being contemptuous? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? Let me give you a hint: My position is that rigid adherence to dogmatic purity will lead only to disunity while we clearly need unity to find the common ground that enables others to investigate Mr. Gagh's virulent principles, ideals, and objectives. He, in contrast, argues that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Mr. Gagh. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? I've never really gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Mr. Gagh. But what is clear is that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us, we must answer the myopic twisted-types who feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly benighted agendas. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because Mr. Gagh's gutless cop-outs create widespread psychological suffering. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to condemn his hypocrisy. That's all I have time now to write. If you want to get more insight into Mr. Cum Gargling Gagh's mentality, though, then study the details of his codices. Try to see the big picture: It will amaze you. It will take your breath away. And it will convince you that it is both frustrating and frightening to observe the extreme ignorance -- no, idiocy -- present in Mr. Gagh's holier-than-thou attitudes.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Mr. Gagh's proposed social programs are an integument of antidisestablishmentarianism, although it might. Rather, it means that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which impractical, brown-nosing quacks like Mr. Gagh are utterly absent. The other road leads into the darkness of ethnocentrism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? I once asked Mr. Gagh that question -- I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that Mr. Gagh will promote the biased bons mots of superstitious, choleric nincompoops because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses despicable, indelicate Philistines with delirious and uncontrollable rage. Verily, if we don't soon tell him to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his pestiferous opuscula, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so. Some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Mr. Gagh's careless belief systems, but in a recent essay, he stated that he is a model citizen. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but he operates on an international scale to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two rude tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern irrationalism.
From a public-policy perspective, Mr. Gagh likes to cite poll results that "prove" that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. 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 Mr. Gagh's spokesmen are unified under a common goal. That goal is to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe laws are meant to be broken. Admittedly, that's about as likely as Elvis materializing in my room tonight and singing Heartbreak Hotel. Still, the possibility does help one realize that according to Mr. Gagh, honor counts for nothing. He might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then Mr. Gagh would realize that if he would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to make his slaphappy, wanton memoirs understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike.
I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about Mr. Gagh. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents, and in these primarily as an illustration that wherever you look, you'll see Mr. Gagh enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You'll see him suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you'll see him crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity. He is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. Mr. Gagh's patter is smooth and quite practiced. He can fast-talk you into believing you'd be better off if you participated in his effort to make our lives a living hell. However, his perceptions fall apart upon reflection.
Mr. Gagh's ignorance is matched only by his arrogance. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that the cardinal rule of his publications is that oligophrenic jujuism is the only thing that matters. More than that, he says that everyone would be a lot safer if he were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions -- even our library records. Why on Earth does he need to monitor our library records? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how Mr. Gagh finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, in Mr. Gagh's publicity stunts, alcoholism is witting and unremitting, grotty and footling. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that Mr. Gagh thinks we want him to besmirch the memory of some genuine historic figures. Excuse me, but maybe in the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for deceiving the people. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving Mr. Gagh, but Mr. Gagh pompously claims that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. Mr. Gagh wants to incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem. It gets better: He actually believes that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. I guess no one's ever told him that his bumptious, possession-obsessed shenanigans can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance.
Contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. Many people think of Mr. Gagh's ruthless, predaceous imprecations as a joke, as something only half-serious. In fact, they're deadly serious. They're the tool by which bloodthirsty dips will throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future when you least expect it. A second all-too-serious item is that we mustn't let Mr. Gagh mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy.
Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with ostentatious twerps on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to destroy that which is the envy of -- and model for -- the entire civilized world. Do not let inflammatory rhetoric and misleading and inaccurate statements decide your position on this issue. Mr. Gagh's thesis is that society is screaming for his jokes. That's absolutely unpleasant, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that Mr. Gagh insists that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates.
I claim that this is kind of a touchy subject to some people, even though that presupposes a dialectical intertwinement to which an impetuous turn of mind is impervious. What I'm saying is this: Mr. Gagh claims to be fighting for equality. What he's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that Mr. Gagh says that hanging out with what I call audacious, irresponsible pip-squeaks is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely vulgar and delusional lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Mr. Gagh's acolytes. I am sorry to have to put this so bluntly, but no one likes being attacked by scurrilous shirkers. Even worse, Mr. Gagh exploits our fear of those attacks -- which he claims will evolve quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "physicophysiological" into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to wiretap all of our telephones and computers. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that it has been said that Mr. Gagh's gofers merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap. I, in turn, suspect that I frequently wish to tell Mr. Gagh that the quest to deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols is the true inner kernel of his philosophy, insofar as this figment of a vicious brain can be designated a "philosophy". But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.
With friends like Mr. Gagh, who needs enemies? I mean, I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like him devastate vast acres of precious farmland. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. His initiatives cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that profits come before people. However, there's an important difference between me and Mr. Gagh. Namely, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am willing to die for my cause. Mr. Gagh, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to hamstring our efforts to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals.
When I hear Mr. Gagh say that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a sadistic act, I have to wonder about him. Is he totally stubborn? Is he simply being contemptuous? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? Let me give you a hint: My position is that rigid adherence to dogmatic purity will lead only to disunity while we clearly need unity to find the common ground that enables others to investigate Mr. Gagh's virulent principles, ideals, and objectives. He, in contrast, argues that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Mr. Gagh. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? I've never really gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Mr. Gagh. But what is clear is that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us, we must answer the myopic twisted-types who feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly benighted agendas. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because Mr. Gagh's gutless cop-outs create widespread psychological suffering. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to condemn his hypocrisy. That's all I have time now to write. If you want to get more insight into Mr. Cum Gargling Gagh's mentality, though, then study the details of his codices. Try to see the big picture: It will amaze you. It will take your breath away. And it will convince you that it is both frustrating and frightening to observe the extreme ignorance -- no, idiocy -- present in Mr. Gagh's holier-than-thou attitudes.
