|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Xanga is for fags. I'm moving to Facebook. | | |
| This letter is not meant to be witty or insulting and I am afraid I won't even be able to make it eloquent. But I will do the best I can to do something good for others. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how Mr. Douglas Bill Gelfeld insists that might makes right. In the long run, however, he's only fooling himself. Mr. Gelfeld would be better off if he just admitted to himself that he seems to assume that clericalism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. This is an assumption of the worst kind because he keeps insisting that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that Mr. Gelfeld should be forced to wear a scarlet "W" for "Wants to make us less united, less moral, less sensitive, less engaged, and more perversely reckless". What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Does he contend that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately villainous because it fits his political agenda or because he's too ignorant of the facts to know that the only morally sound solution is to dispense justice? The answer is obvious if you understand that at no time in the past did chauvinistic peddlers of snake-oil remedies shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that Mr. Gelfeld frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what Mr. Gelfeld is doing -- as opposed to what he is saying -- to understand his true aims. Without a doubt, however, I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like him want to use cheap, intemperate propaganda to arouse the passions of surly, directionless scrubs.
Despite some perceptions to the contrary, Mr. Gelfeld says he's going to lobotomize everyone caught thinking an independent thought in the immediate years ahead. Good old Mr. Gelfeld. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how tendentious they sound. Contrary to what he would have you believe, he attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality charcteristics. For example, if you're shy, Mr. Gelfeld calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, he says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does Mr. Gelfeld say such things? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: What exactly is the principle that rationalizes Mr. Gelfeld's slaphappy slurs? To ask that question another way, why is it that 99 times out of 100, Mr. Gelfeld, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to hijack the word "conventionalization" and use it to ruin people's lives? This is not a question that we should run away from. Rather, it is something that needs to be addressed quickly and directly, because you won't find many of his subordinates who will openly admit that they favor Mr. Gelfeld's schemes to censor any incomplicitous tractates. In fact, their scare tactics are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that what Mr. Gelfeld is doing is voyeurism in its most duplicitous form. But the problems with Mr. Gelfeld's campaigns don't end there.
Mr. Gelfeld 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 Mr. Gelfeld need to monitor our library records? In other words, how far do Mr. Gelfeld's lies extend? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that if I want to suffer endless humiliation, that should be my prerogative. I don't need Mr. Gelfeld forcing me to. How I pity him if I were to be his judge. I would start by notifying the jury that if you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner.
As the oft-repeated saying goes, "Mr. Gelfeld's latest politics have arisen like a phoenix out of the ashes and failures of their obstinate forebears". The importance of that saying is that it reminds us that it's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Mr. Gelfeld. Not only is Mr. Gelfeld more merciless and more blasphemous than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but Mr. Gelfeld's older pronouncements were satanic enough. His latest ones are sincerely beyond the pale. I have the following to say to the assertion that he can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime: Baloney!
While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, Mr. Gelfeld's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false. You may make the comment, "What does this have to do with prurient nincompoops?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that no matter how bad you think Mr. Gelfeld's prevarications are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. My prediction that Mr. Gelfeld would quote me out of context came true so quickly, so brutally, so horribly, that even I was stunned by the magnitude and viciousness of it all.
If we don't remove the Douglas Bill Gelfeld threat now, it will bite us in our backside by the next full moon. His "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is vicious, because it leaves no room for compromise. You may not understand this now, and I don't fault you for that, but if Mr. Gelfeld's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, he wouldn't consider it such a good idea to eroticize relations of dominance and subordination.
My concern is with morality itself, not with the teleological foundations upon which it rests. For proof of this fact, I must point out that Mr. Gelfeld is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. And what about his worshippers? They, like Mr. Gelfeld, are footling backstabbers. I aver it's important to continue discussing this even after I've made my point, because 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 present another paradigm in opposition to Mr. Gelfeld's primitive ruses. He wants you to believe that his ideologies are Right with a capital R. You should be wary of such claims. Be aware! Be skeptical! Think! Do not be diverted, deceived, or mesmerized by Mr. Gelfeld's conceited strictures.
Despite total incompetence, Mr. Gelfeld is often afflicted with an amazing conceit which causes him to lash out at everyone and everything in sight. Think about this: the really interesting thing about all this is not that thanks to Mr. Gelfeld, I'm now suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. The interesting thing is that I once managed to get him to agree that he supports rule by Man according to his own passions, opinions, and dictates, rather than rule by law. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that. What goes around comes around. But that's not the end of the story. I am tired of hearing or reading that human life is expendable. You know that that is simply not true.
Sure, even clueless, caustic hostes generis humani may have some good points, but I have yet to find one. We must uplift individuals and communities on a global scale to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own insensitive op-ed pieces.
In hearing about Mr. Gelfeld's smears, one gets the distinct impression that Mr. Gelfeld's maudlin preoccupation with communism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "saccharomucilaginous", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that none of Mr. Gelfeld's sophistries changes my mind about anything. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that if his peons had even an ounce of integrity, they would illustrate the virtues that Mr. Gelfeld lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry. When you get right down to it, Mr. Gelfeld's policies are propaganda to the point of comedy and are so easily refuted as to render them useless even as such. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that it is past time for us to lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight? To reiterate the main message of this letter, from the fog and mist of Mr. Douglas Bill Gelfeld's vaporings rises the leering grimace of propagandism. | | |
| MC Vikram and Luda Krishna representin' y'all! | | |
|
