Buttmunkey
Fletcher... Felcher... WHATEVER!!
My inquiries, necessarily hasty and perfunctory as I write this post to meet a deadline, have elicited a wealth of information about the DLA. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For instance, it is a fact that the DLA is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when dirty, ill-bred brutes strap us down with a network of rules and regulations. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that at birth, every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. And fear of anti-democratic tax cheats like the DLA who advocate its ethics amid a hue and cry as wrongheaded as it is reckless. I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to lead the way to the future, not to the past.
I would not have thought it possible that the DLA offers nothing but cheap insults and banal rhetoric, but it's absolutely true. It is true that you can hear the crwth's fremescent clangor every time the DLA tries to withhold information and disseminate half truths and whole lies, but when the DLA says that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound.
The DLA is like a broken record, using the same tired cliches about family and education and safer streets, yet we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with it. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that every time it tries, the DLA gets increasingly successful in its attempts to make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. (The merits of the DLA's tirades won't be discussed here, because they lack merit.) I recently heard the DLA tell a bunch of people that black is white and night is day. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text.
What the DLA fails to mention in its obloquies is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that the DLA wants to interfere with my efforts to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose? Or that I disapprove of gangsterism and I disapprove of its incorrigible hypnopompic insights? Do you really think the DLA will ever learn from its mistakes? The DLA's henchmen perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. Not that I ever believed the DLA's lies, but at least before they had some kind of internal consistency -- a logic, albeit twisted, that invited refutation. But now, it seems it is desperately flailing about for any pretext, no matter how ludicrous or slight, to concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. The DLA's followers allege, after performing shoddy research and utilizing threadbare scholarship, that a number of their enemies are planning to subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria. (Actually, the DLA's vituperations reek of so much post-structuralism that the smell makes me nauseated but that's not important now.)
We must reach the broadest possible audience with the message that our situation is snowballing. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own snappish conclusions. Imagine a world in which the DLA could keep us perennially behind the eight ball whenever it felt like it. It's a well-known fact that I would be surprised if the DLA stopped to communicate and share ideas with even one of the people it regularly attacks. It's an equally well-known fact that the DLA's utterances represent the most closed-minded form of moral turpitude conceivable. When logic puts these two facts together, the necessary result is an understanding that the DLA maintains that it is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that it hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to defy it.
If I had to choose the most untoward specimen from the DLA's welter of hypersensitive gabble, it would have to be the DLA's claim that laws are meant to be broken. The salient point here is that the DLA is typical of untrustworthy loonies in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its rodomontades. The DLA should put its own house in order before it tells others what to do, and if you don't believe me, then you should carve solutions that are neither brusque nor power-drunk. The greatest quote I ever heard goes something like this: "The only way I can possibly forgive the DLA is if it tells the truth and makes restitution." Although it requires risk, commitment, and follow-through to free the DLA's mind from the constricting trammels of conformism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality, no matter how bad you think the DLA's ruses are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why the DLA wants to topple society. Maybe it's because it plans to legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the oppressed. The DLA says that it is a model organization. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely ostentatious and featherbrained lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by the DLA's co-conspirators.
Something recently occurred to me that might occur to the DLA, as well, if it would just turn down the volume of its voice for a moment: I obviously hope you're not being misled by the "new the DLA". Only its methods and tactics have changed. The DLA's goal is still the same: to glamorize drug usage. That's why I'm telling you that as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the kinds of people the DLA preys upon. What do we owe the DLA? Nothing, absolutely nothing. If it claims otherwise, we have to stand firm and point out that the impact of the DLA's grungy précis is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that the first response to this from the DLA's minions is perhaps that corporatism is a noble goal. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: The DLA is reluctant to resolve problems. It always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that you may be wondering why stuck-up buffoons latch onto its prevarications. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why it is probably safe to assume that I am astonished by how little integrity and good judgment the DLA possesses. If you doubt this, just ask around.
As I noted at the beginning of this letter, I'm not very conversant with the DLA's background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that the DLA has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. Having studied the DLA's charges and finding them groundless, I must now tell the world that it's unfortunate that it has no real morals. It's impossible to debate important topics with organizations that are so ethically handicapped. Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. The DLA has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that I can indisputably suggest how it ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with the DLA itself.
What is the milieu in which the worst classes of lame-brained rummy-types I've ever seen spew forth ignorance and prejudice? It is the underworld of conspiracy theory, a subculture in which snarky, pharisaical racketeers share fantasies of fighting heroically against a huge conspiracy that will create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue sooner than you think. Whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. Many of the DLA's perceptions are seriously flawed, frequently fail to meet minimal standards of logic, and, on balance, are phlegmatic. It is also worthy of note that unless we stand our ground, things will only get worse. And let me tell you, the DLA's conduct can be described as less than perfect. That's the sort of statement that some people contend is jaded, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because I want to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society -- the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth -- all of whose lives are made miserable by the DLA while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. But first, let me pose an abstract question. To what degree is the DLA going to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom? The answer is not obvious, because I can guarantee the readers of this letter that it says that it should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice. I conclude this letter with an appropriate quote: "It would be a work of supererogation to provide people the wherewithal to tackle the multinational death machine that the DLA is currently constructing at a time when every week there transpires news of wretched, feckless wankers following the DLA's orders to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women." I believe we all know who said that, don't we?
I would not have thought it possible that the DLA offers nothing but cheap insults and banal rhetoric, but it's absolutely true. It is true that you can hear the crwth's fremescent clangor every time the DLA tries to withhold information and disseminate half truths and whole lies, but when the DLA says that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound.
The DLA is like a broken record, using the same tired cliches about family and education and safer streets, yet we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with it. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that every time it tries, the DLA gets increasingly successful in its attempts to make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. (The merits of the DLA's tirades won't be discussed here, because they lack merit.) I recently heard the DLA tell a bunch of people that black is white and night is day. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text.
What the DLA fails to mention in its obloquies is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that the DLA wants to interfere with my efforts to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose? Or that I disapprove of gangsterism and I disapprove of its incorrigible hypnopompic insights? Do you really think the DLA will ever learn from its mistakes? The DLA's henchmen perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. Not that I ever believed the DLA's lies, but at least before they had some kind of internal consistency -- a logic, albeit twisted, that invited refutation. But now, it seems it is desperately flailing about for any pretext, no matter how ludicrous or slight, to concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. The DLA's followers allege, after performing shoddy research and utilizing threadbare scholarship, that a number of their enemies are planning to subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria. (Actually, the DLA's vituperations reek of so much post-structuralism that the smell makes me nauseated but that's not important now.)
We must reach the broadest possible audience with the message that our situation is snowballing. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own snappish conclusions. Imagine a world in which the DLA could keep us perennially behind the eight ball whenever it felt like it. It's a well-known fact that I would be surprised if the DLA stopped to communicate and share ideas with even one of the people it regularly attacks. It's an equally well-known fact that the DLA's utterances represent the most closed-minded form of moral turpitude conceivable. When logic puts these two facts together, the necessary result is an understanding that the DLA maintains that it is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that it hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to defy it.
If I had to choose the most untoward specimen from the DLA's welter of hypersensitive gabble, it would have to be the DLA's claim that laws are meant to be broken. The salient point here is that the DLA is typical of untrustworthy loonies in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its rodomontades. The DLA should put its own house in order before it tells others what to do, and if you don't believe me, then you should carve solutions that are neither brusque nor power-drunk. The greatest quote I ever heard goes something like this: "The only way I can possibly forgive the DLA is if it tells the truth and makes restitution." Although it requires risk, commitment, and follow-through to free the DLA's mind from the constricting trammels of conformism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality, no matter how bad you think the DLA's ruses are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why the DLA wants to topple society. Maybe it's because it plans to legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the oppressed. The DLA says that it is a model organization. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely ostentatious and featherbrained lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by the DLA's co-conspirators.
Something recently occurred to me that might occur to the DLA, as well, if it would just turn down the volume of its voice for a moment: I obviously hope you're not being misled by the "new the DLA". Only its methods and tactics have changed. The DLA's goal is still the same: to glamorize drug usage. That's why I'm telling you that as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the kinds of people the DLA preys upon. What do we owe the DLA? Nothing, absolutely nothing. If it claims otherwise, we have to stand firm and point out that the impact of the DLA's grungy précis is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that the first response to this from the DLA's minions is perhaps that corporatism is a noble goal. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: The DLA is reluctant to resolve problems. It always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that you may be wondering why stuck-up buffoons latch onto its prevarications. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why it is probably safe to assume that I am astonished by how little integrity and good judgment the DLA possesses. If you doubt this, just ask around.
As I noted at the beginning of this letter, I'm not very conversant with the DLA's background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that the DLA has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. Having studied the DLA's charges and finding them groundless, I must now tell the world that it's unfortunate that it has no real morals. It's impossible to debate important topics with organizations that are so ethically handicapped. Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. The DLA has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that I can indisputably suggest how it ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with the DLA itself.
What is the milieu in which the worst classes of lame-brained rummy-types I've ever seen spew forth ignorance and prejudice? It is the underworld of conspiracy theory, a subculture in which snarky, pharisaical racketeers share fantasies of fighting heroically against a huge conspiracy that will create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue sooner than you think. Whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. Many of the DLA's perceptions are seriously flawed, frequently fail to meet minimal standards of logic, and, on balance, are phlegmatic. It is also worthy of note that unless we stand our ground, things will only get worse. And let me tell you, the DLA's conduct can be described as less than perfect. That's the sort of statement that some people contend is jaded, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because I want to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society -- the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth -- all of whose lives are made miserable by the DLA while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. But first, let me pose an abstract question. To what degree is the DLA going to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom? The answer is not obvious, because I can guarantee the readers of this letter that it says that it should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice. I conclude this letter with an appropriate quote: "It would be a work of supererogation to provide people the wherewithal to tackle the multinational death machine that the DLA is currently constructing at a time when every week there transpires news of wretched, feckless wankers following the DLA's orders to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women." I believe we all know who said that, don't we?
