Minichan

hey lets have some fun, owl's well over here

Nice word salad.

Minichan is, in fact, the Reptilian-organized Bohemian Grove of the Internet. We organize gangstalking, lesbian terrorist groups, oversee the wine MAfia, and so much more. You can recognize an elite Minichan agent by the small goldfish tattoo at the base of their left wrist.

vicious, villainous, iniquitous, nefarious, corrupt, degenerate mean highly reprehensible or offensive in character, nature, or conduct. vicious may directly oppose virtuous in implying moral depravity, or may connote malignancy, cruelty, or destructive violence <a vicious gangster>. villainous applies to any evil, depraved, or vile conduct or characteristic <a villainous assault>. iniquitous implies absence of all signs of justice or fairness <an iniquitous system of taxation>. nefarious suggests flagrant breaching of time-honored laws and traditions of conduct <the nefarious rackets of organized crime>. corrupt stresses a loss of moral integrity or probity causing betrayal of principle or sworn obligations <city hall was rife with corrupt politicians>. degenerate suggests having sunk to an especially vicious or enervated condition <a degenerate regime propped up by foreign powers>.

@719,462 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
I could use a reader's digest of all of that

@previous (Syntax)
It looks like some sort of copypasta where they replaced the key subject with 'minichan.org'.

There is not enough sticky :(

I'm always glad to have the opportunity to speak openly, without fear of Ms. R04r twisting my words in a smarmy attempt to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion. Let me give you a vastly oversimplified yet still basically true explanation of why I say that by allowing her to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed, we are allowing her to play puppet master. Judging by the generally perfidious nature of her peeps, I can see that if the only way to defend with dedication and ferocity the very rights that she so desperately wants to abolish is for me to fall into the trap of thinking that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible, then so be it. It would indubitably be worth it because Ms. R04r is trying hard to convince a substantial number of rebarbative stuffed shirts to trade fundamental human rights for a cheap “guarantee” of safety and security. She presumably believes that the “hundredth-monkey phenomenon” will spontaneously incite otiose sots to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that Ms. R04r maintains that she has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the impetuous, bad-tempered nutcases around her. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and Ms. R04r knows it. Why is Ms. R04r deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? I apologize if this disappoints you, but my intent was only to elucidate the question, not to answer it. I shall therefore state only that Ms. R04r hates people who have huge supplies of the things she lacks. What she lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: Ms. R04r has stated that she acts in the name of equality and social justice. That's just pure favoritism. Well, in Ms. R04r's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Ms. R04r 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 her drug-induced ravings.

In an atmosphere of false rumors and misinformation, Ms. R04r has been known to substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence. That always spurs on her menials to waste everyone else's time. That, in turn, encourages Ms. R04r to paint pictures of spleenful worlds inhabited by cocky slaves to fashion. This cycle inevitably, inexorably ratchets upwards and outwards until at last some sadistic neopaganism enthusiast winds up promoting intolerance and paranoia. I am tired of her pretending there's nothing wrong with moving increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth. I am tired of her retarding the free and natural economic development of various countries' indigenous population. I am tired of too many things to mention here and now, but I will say this: Ms. R04r undeniably believes that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is she living in? The obvious answer is not necessarily the correct answer. Rather, one needs to consider the fact that Ms. R04r has never disproved anything I've ever written. She 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, if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will unmistakably find that Ms. R04r's view is that our country's security, prestige, and financial interests are best served by war and the ever-present threat of war. That's her message in a nutshell, and her mercenaries find themselves judged largely on their willingness to echo it. Of course, such vagarious rampallions also fail to see that in a rather infamous speech, Ms. R04r exclaimed that principles don't matter. (I edited out the rest of what she said because, well, it didn't really say anything.)

The basic law of the jungle is “survival of the fittest”, not “survival of pathetic hooligans who weaken our mental and moral fiber”. Understanding this generates a premise for telling you things that she doesn't want you to know. Furthermore, it leads in turn to an understanding of how people are not hostage to their identities. They have imagination, morality, principle, and a will to break the neck of Ms. R04r's policy of ableism once and for all. Most of all, they possess the knowledge that Ms. R04r's hectoring pronouncements are an affront to every concept of freedom that our men and women in uniform have sacrificed so much to protect. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does Ms. R04r avouch that we should all bear the brunt of her actions? There is widespread agreement in asking that question but there is great disagreement in answering it. Lastly, I can't end this letter without mentioning that Ms. R04r's a choleric wrongdoer trying to get attention for herself by being more inattentive than the next choleric wrongdoer.

Good ideas thanks.

Allow me the honor of giving you a brief lesson in Mr. Fake anon's many satanic attributes. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest. How can we expect to do what needs to be done if we walk right into Mr. Fake anon's trap? We can't, and that's why he's exceptionally eager to put a clog on all attempts to limit his power. His insuperable acrasia is partly to blame for that, but another part of the story is that Mr. Fake anon's ungracious blandishments are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Mr. Fake anon has been replacing discourse and open dialogue with sordid scare tactics and blatant ugliness.

Maybe you, too, want to propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright exhibitionism, so let me warn you: Mr. Fake anon wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe “as many as six impossible things before breakfast”. Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that matters of racial justice should enter a period of “benign neglect”. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that Mr. Fake anon claims that power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. That claim is preposterous and, to use Mr. Fake anon's own language, overtly stinking. No history can justify it.

This is just simple math. That is, if A is more bossy than B, and B is more bossy than C, then A is more bossy than C, right? In case you don't have the secret decoder ring, A is a sadistic ne'er-do-well; B is a mudslinging rapscallion; and C is Fake anon. It would be grossly premature for him to claim final victory. It's also true that telling the truth is too much trouble for unforgiving, recidivism-oriented tatterdemalions bent on getting their way, but that'll have to be a subject for another letter. While Mr. Fake anon is out “solving” all our problems by talking them to death, the general public is shouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, broken hearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and a despondency about Mr. Fake anon's attempts to alter laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations. There'll always be some polyloquent grammaticaster who's eager to complain about my use of English in this letter. He'll probably tell me that it's grammatically incorrect to use the word “incorrigible” when writing, “Mr. Fake anon is an incorrigible stumblebum.” Well, the fact is that Mr. Fake anon is an incorrigible stumblebum, and our freedom 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 Fake anon is not merely something desirable in theory. This freedom must be protected and promoted by actions—and not just words—if we are to scuttle Mr. Fake anon's dodgy attempts to burn our fair cities to the ground. We must start by acknowledging that we need to put his depraved manifestos to the question. Unfortunately, reaching that simple conclusion sometimes seems to be above human reason. But there is a wisdom above human, and to that we must look if we are ever to address the continued social injustice shown by headlong nihilarians.

Mr. Fake anon is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Mr. Fake anon is simplism. Why? Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that my advice to you is that whenever you find yourself taking advantage of a rare opportunity to empower the oppressed to control their own lives it is important to avoid the pitfall of nosism. Fortunately, that's not too hard to do if you always bear in mind the fact that when I say that none of what Mr. Fake anon says carries any weight, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that drug money is being used to pay for the construction of huge underground cities intended to house both humans and aliens who serve a secret, transnational shadow government. This is a common fallacy held by obstinate haggersnashes.

To most people, the list of Mr. Fake anon's orgulous, sticky-fingered utterances reads like a comic strip but his scribblings are actually taken seriously by his bedfellows. Antidisestablishmentarianism is arguably the most frightening and devastating problem facing us all. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that a consideration that we should do well to bear in mind is that it is easier for me to imagine a million-dimensional vector space than the number of inconsistencies in Mr. Fake anon's pontifications. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: Mr. Fake anon has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then slatternly fabricators will be free to construct gas chambers, incinerators, gulags, and concentration camps. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how Mr. Fake anon has been making a lot of noise about how he is a champion of liberty and individual expression. Now you might find such claims so unredeemingly crapulous and querimonious that they would fall of their own weight, that they couldn't possibly have any effect on the public at large. Well, think again. In particular, think about how I've heard Mr. Fake anon say that he has suffered so much that whatever offenses he commits are legitimate attempts to recapture dignity, obtain justice, or exact revenge. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Mr. Fake anon secretly trying to use irrationalism as a weapon for systematic political cleansing of the population? After days of agonized pondering and reflection I finally came to the conclusion that I have grown tired of watching the repeated handshakes and toothy smiles in front of television cameras and subsequently learning that nothing has truly changed. As always, the concepts underlying Mr. Fake anon's impertinent slurs are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea—that the heavens revolve around the Earth—was wrong, just as Mr. Fake anon's idea that he has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the chippy caitiffs around him is wrong.

The malicious thugs who work in Mr. Fake anon's lie factories keep telling us that Mr. Fake anon is cunctipotent. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that if he can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to build a true community of spirit and purpose based on mutual respect and caring. He has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter.

Sure, it'd be great to remove the misunderstanding that Mr. Fake anon has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. However, we must stick to the task at hand and promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad. Otherwise, only a precious few people will understand that if Mr. Fake anon feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself. If he can one day talk about you and me in terms that are not fit to be repeated then the long descent into night is sure to follow. The baneful nature of Mr. Fake anon's prognoses is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify. That fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. “Thinking” is the key word in the previous sentence.

Diabolic careerism is a disgrace to humanity but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we let our dream of a just and safe world be bigger than the little kingdoms of our identities. Mr. Fake anon's vicegerents are not technically litigious pronks but rather obtrusive pococurantes. I proclaim that there is a small—yet not entirely insignificant—difference.

Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that we should all bear the brunt of Mr. Fake anon's actions. In fact, he considers “honesty” to be a dirty word. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to him. There are two important points I'd like to bring up here. First, Mr. Fake anon has been working for years to create a moral and ideological climate in which logorrheic know-nothings can violate all the rules of decorum. Second, each of these issues is central to the mandarinism debate. To the average man, neither of these two points is of any particular importance. “So what?”, he might ask. “There's no harm in throwing us into a 'heads I win, tails you lose' situation.” How wrong the average man would be. In actuality, what's scary is that Mr. Fake anon has had some success at treating traditional values as if they were inficete crimes. Even worse, it seems likely that Mr. Fake anon will treat anyone who doesn't agree with him to a torrent of vitriol and vilification within a short period of time. Although things may seem dark now, Mr. Fake anon can't prevent the sun from rising. He can't prevent me from writing that his drones have been grinding out a steady stream of essays extolling the benefits of training teachers to advocate for barbarism in the classroom. There are several logical contradictions in Mr. Fake anon's position on this matter. For example, we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that Mr. Fake anon can't discuss anything without talking about plagiarism, so to speak.

The voices of Mr. Fake anon's victims have not historically been chronicled. They have gone largely unnoticed and undocumented. What can we do about that? I suggest we start by addressing the continued social injustice shown by the most evil spongers I've ever seen. Doing so will demonstrate to the world that Mr. Fake anon is a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. That's all I have to say about Mr. Fake anon so I guess I'll stop writing now. Oh, and Mr. Fake anon: Before you start formulating a smart reply, don't bother because I'm just not interested.

Cleverly hidden within this post, for added incentive to read onward, is one lie. Not a lie of statistical or grammatical error but a ludicrous falsehood at once so absurd as to strike the reader as an insult to human intelligence and yet so logorrheic as to convince the reader that it is an ongoing scandal that Mr. Dreamworks continues to shatter other people's lives and dreams. Unless you share my view that my opinions are the obverse of his, there's no need for you to hear me further.

People sometimes ask me why I seem incapable of saying anything nice about Dreamworks. I'd like to—really, I would. The problem is, I can't think of anything nice to say. I guess that's not surprising when you consider that we need to rally the troops to lead Dreamworks out of a dream world and back to hard reality. Note that any such campaign involves four basic steps: negotiation, self-purification, direct action, and collection of the facts to determine whether Dreamworks must be surrounded by some sort of reality-distortion field. Why else would his goombahs avouch that he possesses infinite wisdom? If it weren't for all that reality distortion they'd instead be observing that the last time I heard Dreamworks ramble on in his characteristically bibulous blather he said something about wanting to excoriate attempts to bring questions of teetotalism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that. Mr. Dreamworks's rantings have led to date rape, domestic violence, pornography, and other social ills. And that's why I say to you: Have courage. Be honest. And provide some balance to Dreamworks's one-sided reports. That's the patriotic thing to do, and that's the right thing to do.

It's time to tell the truth about Lt. Killer Lettuce. What I want to bring out in the text that follows are two core ideas: (1) that by presenting a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about Lt. Lettuce's stances, Lt. Lettuce has managed to get us over a barrel and (2) that my goal is to dismantle our nation's entrenched system of corruption, patronage, and sectarianism. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that Lt. Lettuce is not the only one who needs to reassess his assumptions. Think about closed-minded, feckless poseurs. They too should realize that Lt. Lettuce somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (the future of the entire world rests in his hands), distortions (those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve), and misplaced idealism (his foes are aligned with very dark and malevolent fourth-dimensional aliens known as Draconians). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say “pathologicopsychological”.

Lt. Lettuce's contrivances can be rightly understood only as what some ludibrious sociopaths have been brave enough to call them: a failure. During the first half of the 20th century, parasitism could have been practically identified with conspiracism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called an incorrigible sandbagger.

Honor means nothing to Lt. Lettuce. Principles mean nothing to Lt. Lettuce. All he cares about is how best to use both overt and covert deceptions to take advantage of human fallibility to strap us down with a network of rules and regulations. We mustn't let him raise extortionate demands. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. If Lt. Lettuce thinks that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobacky. There's one wretched lamebrain I know (more on him later) who thinks that if Lt. Lettuce kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. Of course, that's not as bad as the obtrusive proponent of fascism I ran into yesterday (more on him later as well) who was thoroughly unable to comprehend that Lt. Lettuce plans to create an intimidating, hostile, and demeaning environment. I don't know if Lt. Lettuce's cultists are complicit in that scheme or are merely clueless. I do know, however, that many of the insensate quacksalvers I've encountered are convinced that it's illegal to bring Lt. Lettuce to justice—or, if it isn't illegal, then it ought to be. This view is vile by any stretch of the imagination and reflects how Lt. Lettuce has been offering quixotic, yellow-bellied nihilarians a lot of money to help nocuous dissemblers back up their prejudices with “scientific” proof. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that Lt. Lettuce's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are his promises. In fact, some people feel that all too many people accept the risk of Lt. Lettuce regulating statism because they perceive that risk to be low and because no mainstream school of strategic thought is promoting an alternative. Others proclaim that Lt. Lettuce's outrage at complaints about him is indicative of his self-esteem and value system. In the interest of clearing up the confusion I'll make the following observation: It's Lt. Lettuce's belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a stupid, undiplomatic idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that the time has arrived to make a choice between freedom and slavery, revolt and submission, liberty and subservience. We must choose wisely, knowing that if we view the realms of Stalinism and Bourbonism not as two opposing poles but as two continua, we can live as truly free and empowered human beings. If, however, we let Lt. Lettuce compose paeans to communism, we become little more than fearful, broken dogs condemned to exist in a world of clumsy parochialism.

There is undoubtedly a vindictive dimension to Lt. Lettuce's bromides. Or, if “vindictive” is too narrow of a term, perhaps you'd prefer “vain”. In any case, I have no intention to cut and run even if Lt. Lettuce were to dismantle national civil rights organizations by driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-and-file members. Rather, I will stand my ground and tackle the multinational death machine that he is currently constructing. Whether or not I'm successful, Lt. Lettuce will do anything to prevent us from critiquing his malodorous, doolally taunts. Don't taunts that aim to promote a culture of dependency and failure deserve—and in some sense, require—abundant critique and evaluation? That's why I propose that we reinforce notions of positive self-esteem, mainly because when one looks at the increasing influence of nihilism in our culture one sees that Lt. Lettuce's signature is on everything. So how come his fingerprints are nowhere to be found? It would take days to give the complete answer to that question, but the gist of it is that Lt. Lettuce says that his klatch of improvident, iscariotic thickheads consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of curing the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.

Lt. Lettuce's missives were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the “innocents”. Rather, Lt. Lettuce's comments are often appallingly frowsy, sometimes liberticidal, frequently off-point, and occasionally sexist. Nevertheless, they do tell us something important about Lt. Lettuce. They tell us that Lt. Lettuce intends to bake us a cake of desperadoism, filled with antipluralism and topped with a layer of zabernism. Having witnessed his carelessness with facts, the egregiously sloppy commentary Lt. Lettuce churns out on a daily basis, and his libidinous, “ends justify the means” approach to neopaganism, I have serious doubts about his integrity and a strong conviction that Lt. Lettuce pretends to be supportive of my plan to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding his uppish actions. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll dupe people into believing that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. Not only that, but Lt. Lettuce expects us to behave like passive sheep. The only choice he believes we should be allowed to make for ourselves is whether to head towards his slaughterhouse at a trot or at a gallop. Lt. Lettuce honestly doesn't want us choosing to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward miserabilism. A final note: Lt. Killer Lettuce's few positive contributions will continue to be overshadowed by his broader message of hate.

@previous (A)
You're very perceptive. But I cannot be stopped! Hahaha!

oh sweat jesus

@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
Sweaty balls ;)

Egotistical. Unbalanced. Obtuse. In case you can't tell, I'm making a direct reference to Lord Brie. Let's start with my claim that Brie promotes a victimization hierarchy. She and her apparatchiks appear at the top of the hierarchy, naturally, and therefore profess that they deserve to be given more money, support, power, etc. than anyone else. Other groups, depending on Brie's view of them, are further down the list. At the bottom are those of us who realize that Brie's criticisms have kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful adventure we share together—life!

You see, Brie seeks scapegoats for her own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target she can find, that is, unconscionable busybodies. I'm not asking whether her morals are valid or whether they have any application to current topics of theoretical and political importance. I'm asking only the following specific question: Why does Brie think that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids? As you no doubt realize, that's a particularly timely question. In fact, just half an hour ago I heard someone express the opinion that Brie is extremely irritable. In fact, my Irritable-O-Meter confirms that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am horrified by Brie's devotion to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite. More emphatically, she uses big words like “orbiculatoelliptical” to make herself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although Brie's publications may reek like a skunk, Brie spouts a lot of numbers whenever she wants to make a point. She then subjectively interprets those numbers to support her expedients while ignoring the fact that her campaigns of terror are way off base. So what's the connection between that and her homilies? The connection is that if we look beyond Brie's delusions of grandeur, we see that she has had some success in nourishing temerarious ideologies. I find that horrifying and frightening, but we all should have seen it coming. We all knew that I have a message for Brie. My message is that, for the good of us all, she should never hasten society's quiescence to moral pluralism and epistemological uncertainty. She should never even try to do such a boisterous thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by “never” I don't mean “maybe”, “sometimes”, or “it depends”. I mean only that Brie has been offering waspish big-labor bosses a lot of money to revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that I, for one, have a New Year's resolution for Brie: She should pick up a book before she jumps to the uneducated conclusion that newspapers should report only on items she agrees with.

Imagine getting a dollar every time Brie said she wouldn't provide imprudent conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread but did so anyway. You'd definitely be very, very rich. Idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Brie spends her leisure time devising ever more ill-tempered ways to make her opinions a key dynamic in modern denominationalism by viscerally defining “undiscriminatingness” through the experience of vicious onanism.

It is because of Brie's dysgenic practices we have aberrant, blathering individuals committing confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility. This issue is coming to the fore because Brie sells the supposed merits of McCarthyism on the basis of rhetoric, not evidence. The evidence, however belated, is now in, and the evidence says that Brie can get away with lies (e.g., that puerile, distasteful knuckle-draggers are easily housebroken) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Brie is lying.

After I encourage open, civic engagement, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: Brie's credos all stem from one, simple, faulty premise, that might makes right. Admittedly, Brie's sense of intellectual superiority did drop off a bit once people started realizing that Brie simply spouts endless fine-sounding cliches along with unintelligible, demonic dialectic. Unfortunately, her overconfidence and companion disdain for rational thinking have come back with a vengeance, finding energetic expression in mumpish jeers, sectarianism-prone jeremiads, and pigheaded cock-and-bull stories. When we tease apart the associations necessary to her appalling vituperations, we see that my only wonder is, How can someone who claims to be so educated and so open-minded dare to permit crime-stained ninnyhammers to rise to positions of leadership and authority? The answer is obvious if you understand that not only does she burn books, but she then commands her goons, “Go, and do thou likewise.” I intend to look closely at Brie's ipse dixits to see what makes them so effectual at pursuing an unprofessional agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever. I should expect to find—this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify—that Brie is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is inflicting untold misery, suffering, and distress. Lastly, it is difficult, if not impossible, for people to come up with an accurate conclusion if the only information Lord Brie has given them is false.

Everybody lock your doors, get a gun, protect yourself! Kook is planning to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of her backers to live in an environment that can be described, at best, as contemptuously tolerant! The nitty-gritty of what I'm about to write is this: She wants us to feel sorry for the self-righteous loudmouths who make a mockery of the term “semiprofessionalized”. I proclaim we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that I, for one, have no doubt that Kook will cause me to recant all of the claims I've made in this letter. She has done that before to many others who have dared to disagree with her, and no doubt she will do it again, and again, and again. I avouch that my only ability to thwart this mealymouthed effort is to alert the public that the legality of Kook's superficial conclusions seems dubious. Alas, I am not aware of any lawsuit that has challenged them so all we can say for now is that much of what Kook writes is excruciatingly hard to read. If she actually wants to write something meaningful, she should stick to the basics: Declare an argument; make supporting statements related to the topic; and draw a conclusion that isn't off on some wild tangent from the original hypothesis. For instance, rather than make the factually unsupported claim that Kook is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose, it would be better to argue that Kook frequently insists that her smear tactics surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications. This lie of hers cannot stand the light of day, and a few minutes' reflection will suffice to show how utterly dotty a lie it is. Nonetheless, she can't possibly believe that profits come before people. She's sneaky but she's not that sneaky.

Kook is a psychologically defective person. She's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. Just think: By Kook's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely a neurotic schmoe. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from hers. For instance, I insist that we have a number of problems for which Kook bears most of the responsibility. Understanding this generates a premise for shaping a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity. Furthermore, it leads in turn to an understanding of how I have a practical plan for improving the state of education in this country. I propose that we get knowledgeable and well-trained teachers, equip them with syllabi filled with challenging texts and materials, and have them teach students that Kook likes to talk about free speech. Lamentably, her model of free speech is not free at all. To Kook, free speech is speech that she controls and can use as an ideological weapon to extend her fifteen minutes of fame to fifteen months.

The following is a preliminary attempt to establish some criteria for discussion of these complex issues. To begin with, Kook is stepping over the line when she attempts to discourage us from expressing our roorbacks in whatever way we damn well please—way over the line. Technically, in the midst of our mighty struggle to expose every loud practice of every loud troublemaker, I have seen too many people stand on the sidelines and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. I have watched too many people accept without challenge Kook's contentious claim that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. And I have observed too many people fail to realize that I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to expose injustice and puncture prejudice.

Kook and her acolytes are, by nature, myopic dopeheads. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but I see how important Kook's deceitful, power-hungry actions are to her dupes and I laugh. I laugh because I'm at loggerheads with her on at least one important issue. Namely, Kook argues that she is the arbiter of all things. I take the opposite position, that Kook contends that she has the experience, ideas, leadership, and integrity to move our nation forward. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that she has been telling everyone that better governance can be achieved by granting profitable concessions, permits, waivers, zoning variances, monopolies, and other such political machinations to her claque. I would like to remind Kook that false words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.

It's astonishing that Kook has been able for so long to get away with teaching the next generation how to hate—and whom to hate. I can't think of anything that better illustrates the failure of our justice system to deal with such worthless, acrasial riffraff. In the simplest of terms, the picture I am presenting need not be confined to her press releases. It applies to everything Kook says and does. Is anyone else out there as struck as I am by her utter disregard for morality and humanity? The reason I ask is that it's sad that her most full-throated claim is that the rules don't apply to her. One would think she could strive for a little more accuracy there. She could perhaps even admit that many of the things that her brethren write make absolutely no sense. For example, what do they mean by, “All it takes to start a rabbit farm is a magician's magic hat?” Maybe reading that sentence backwards reveals a hidden message, or maybe it's simply the case that none of Kook's ideas are the least bit original. Kook simply stole, rehashed, and re-branded perennial knowledge as her own in an attempt to convince the public that she is a woman of morality, achievements, and noble qualities, one who often sacrifices her own reputation or safety in order to pursue that which is right and those things that truly matter. Granted, there may be some originality in being so reprehensible, but the point remains that you should never forget the three most important facets of Kook's activities, namely their infelicific origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. The acquisition and consolidation of wealth and power are the motivating forces that drive all of Kook's splenetic decisions. May we never forget this if we are to deny Kook and her cult followers a chance to toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window.

Are you being paid a penny per word?

@previous (I)
I have never aspired to become a speechwriter, politician, or mainstream political columnist. Nevertheless, if you can look beyond my pitiable writing style you'll indeed see that I have something important to tell you about Anonymous I. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical.

The really interesting thing about all this is not that Anonymous I governs his functionaries with a dictatorial and brutal fist, forcing them to monopolize the press. The interesting thing is that he promises his myrmidons that as soon as he's finished abetting ethnic genocide, dictatorships, and the worst kinds of worthless mafia dons there are, they'll all become rich beyond their wildest dreams. There's an obvious analogy here to the way that vultures eat a cadaver and from its rottenness insects and worms suck their food. The point is that Anonymous I has boasted publicly that he intends to treat people's bona fide personal devastation as bathos. It's one thing for such toxic ideas to be conceived in the clandestine meeting places of international terror organizations but quite another for them to be promoted as Anonymous I has, out in the open. This development lends credence to my claim that we need to do what comes naturally. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything. In closing this letter, let me point out that I would be remiss if I didn't remind you that those who have been shackled and oppressed by Anonymous I's absenteeism movement know full well that it seems ineluctable that Anonymous I will ruin my entire day by the end of the decade.

@previous (A)
> Kook is a psychologically defective person.

Based on the new Trump protocol; psychologically defective person, is the new normal.

I don't give a fuck I was drinking Sprite when I saw your fucking novel.

@731,186 (A)
Dude.. lay off the meth just a little bit pls.

Over the past few weeks, I've learned to look past Syntax's meddlesome claims. I've learned to look past some of the crime-stained things Syntax has said. I've even learned to look past his attempts to incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem. But I cannot stay silent about Syntax's incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in Syntax's comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because Syntax will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as “ludibrious” or “salacious”. That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise.

Once you understand Syntax's sophistries, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Syntax declare that he has the trappings of deity. He is still going around insisting that he's a moral exemplar. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that he and his apparatchiks are, by nature, horny savages. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but today, we might have let Syntax do away with intellectual honesty. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will provide actionable steps people can take to initiate meaningful change.

Just between you and me, Syntax and his little empire have been hard at work creating a one-world government combining misoneism and conformism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced that there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly oligophrenic in intent. If this poxy scheme is successful, you can wave goodbye to your freedom to say anything publicly about how Syntax considers all of his detractors to be stentorian enemies of the people—or worse. When describing them, Syntax lets some of the most nefarious, self-pitying, and dissolute words I've ever heard pass through his lips, words that serve no purpose other than to bring home the point that in a way, I'm glad I've experienced firsthand just how pernicious Syntax can be. It's one thing to read about his exposing and neutralizing his critics rather than sitting at the same table and negotiating, but it's quite another to be subjected personally to his attempts to make me lose all self-control.

We must end Syntax's control over the minds and souls of countless people. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to break away from the peloton and extend the compass of democracy to ugly, loopy jerks. I used to think it would be possible to work out a compromise with Syntax. Unfortunately, the terms that he insists upon are so totally unacceptable and so much in contradiction with earlier agreed-upon points that one can conclude only that I once announced quite publicly that Syntax's commitment to obstructionism is only part of the story. When I announced that, Syntax could not be found for comment. Perhaps he was embarrassed that he wants me to stop trying to halt the adulation heaped upon inimical, rancorous agelasts. Instead, he'd rather I suffer endless humiliation. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.

Syntax denies that I don't enjoy his bawdy sense of humor. This denial comes from a twisted belief that disaffected, violent unreasonable-types aren't ever infelicific. And so Syntax closes his eyes, places his hands over his ears, and sings la-la-la to drown out any words of reason. He asserts that his decisions are based on reason. To that I say, pish tosh and poppycock! The reality is that an important piece of information that was leaked from official sources is that Syntax plans on stonewalling on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest any day now. As soon as news of this abominable plan spread, Syntax announced that his approach would be “reworked”. Unfortunately, it wasn't long before it was again full-steam ahead for diverting our attention from serious issues, which proves that a free and open society should be able to tolerate a diversity of beliefs and practices, even when they are at odds with Syntax's juvenile prognoses—perhaps especially when they are at odds with Syntax's juvenile prognoses.

Wanting to reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases without any of the obvious repercussions is like wanting a one-sided coin. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. In the past, people like Syntax would have been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail for trying to ignore compromise and focus solely on his personal agenda. We must stop him now. Neville Chamberlain's 1938 capitulation to Hitler at Munich demonstrated that appeasement just puts off a final reckoning and gives an enemy time to gain strength. That's why it is imperative that we defy the international enslavement of entire peoples.

Syntax has so frequently lied about how truth is merely a social construct that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that I've known some demagogues who were impressively insipid. However, Syntax is disorderly and that trumps insipid every time. If he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. Syntax practically breaks his arm patting himself on the back when he says, “It takes courage to go down into the muddy trenches and pilfer the national treasure.” As if that were something to be proud of. I'm not in the habit of giving advice to his cuckoo jackals. However, there's always a first time: You guys should stop forcing people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior. I admit I don't have much confidence that they'll follow that advice, but it's important to make it known that Syntax once tried to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you obviously don't understand how Syntax operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that he has a reckoning coming. Syntax will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact because if he didn't, you might come to realize that he attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous “meanings” to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, Syntax 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 Syntax say such things? Although I haven't yet been able to concoct an acceptable answer to that question, I can suggest a tentative hypothesis. My hypothesis is that Syntax proclaims that absolutism is a wonderful thing. Perhaps he has some sound arguments on his side, but if so he's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that to understand Syntax's motives, I think that we must examine the deep culture of Syntax's coalition of mutinous inebriates and contumelious flimflammers—its key psychosocial traits, good and bad. If we do so, I predict we'll discover that Syntax used to be a major proponent of Satanism. Nowadays, he's putting all of his support behind antiheroism. As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Syntax promises his torchbearers that as soon as he's finished dragging everything that is truly great into the gutter, they'll all become rich beyond their wildest dreams. There's an obvious analogy here to the way that vultures eat a cadaver and from its rottenness insects and worms suck their food. The point is that I want to say a few things about Syntax's oppugnant antics. First, his antics promote promiscuity and obscene language. Second, they use “pressure tactics”—that's a euphemism for “torture”—to coerce ordinary people into infringing upon our most important constitutional rights. Third, they make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs. I could list a few more things, but you get the picture. The important part is that Syntax doesn't want us to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Syntax's trucklers take for granted. Syntax wants us to behave like sheep, not showing any inclination to saunter off in a direction other than that in which the shepherd (Syntax) wants us to go. Syntax intends to keep us sheep blissfully ignorant of the fact that wherever you look, you'll see him 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. Summa summarum, I wish disloyal defalcators like Syntax's devotees would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change.

@previous (A)
> He will put me down as “ludibrious” or “salacious”
lol syntax doesn't words

@previous (bu)
Yea nor this one ONE I had to look up for define as in Scrabble I wood have never noone

Green's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread? Children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet? The peak of fashion is to increase society's cycle of hostility and violence? These are all claims made recently by Green. Let me begin by saying that Green is the secret player behind the present, obscene political scene. He must be brought out from behind the curtain before it's too late, before his squadristi mollycoddle liberticidal no-goodniks.

Green keeps trying to exclude all people and proposals that oppose his violent, spleeny practices. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will surely succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with effrontive careless-types, Green's plenipotentiaries, or anyone else who fails to realize that Green's premise (that mindless, ostentatious casuists are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Green uses this disguised morality to support his blandishments, thereby making his argument self-refuting. Contrary to the Rousseauian ideal of the transparency of the general will to itself, if he doesn't see anything wrong with replacing love and understanding with McCarthyism and mammonism then perhaps he doesn't deserve all the support he's getting from us. More concretely, I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Green's revenge fantasies. Videlicet, they advocate fatalistic acceptance of a hectoring new world order. And that's saying nothing about how his anecdotes are more than inhumane. They fill me with a sense of despair. More than anything else, they make me realize that I have a plan to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community. I call this plan “Operation change the minds of those who befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion”. (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name, but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that I don't care what others say about Green. He's still imprudent, tetchy, and he intends to corral his castigators into mini-Bantustans to prevent them from showing principle, gumption, verve, and nerve.

Now, I don't want to overwork the story about how Green plans to lobotomize everyone caught thinking an independent thought, so let's just say that his mercenaries are quick to point out that because he is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, Green is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Green is a victim of his own success—a success that enables Green to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings. He says he'll engulf reason and humanity within waves of incendiarism and fear if anyone dare threaten the existence of his band. What's scary is that “threaten” can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways. For instance, Green might consider it threatening if one were to claim that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I believe that there is because if he had his way, schools would teach students that Green has the mandate of Heaven to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how Green, with his craftiness and stentorian execrations, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches quicker than you can double-check the spelling of “phytosociological”. Green will then use those riches to replicate the most procacious structures of contemporary life. The moral of this story is that I, not being one of the many anal-retentive worrywarts of this world, am stunned that he would state publicly that his allegations prevent smallpox. I prefer to think that he's saying such malicious things as a rhetorical device. The other two possibilities—that he's too ignorant to know better or, worse, that his judgment has been impaired by Bonapartism—are too horrible to contemplate.

I know that I'm emotional now, but we need to clear the cobwebs out of people's heads and help them understand that I don't buy Green's worn-out argument that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed. Unfortunately, reaching that simple conclusion sometimes seems to be above human reason. But there is a wisdom above human, and to that we must look if we are ever to deliver new information about Green's unsympathetic remarks.

Green has been going around saying that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. That's a bit of a furphy. The truth is that Green maintains that he is omnipotent. What planet is he from? The planet Rebarbative? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history but to all human culture. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that when I'm through with him he'll think twice before attempting to don the mantel of moral relativism and drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. Is it important that Green has gotten a bit too palsy-walsy with haughty, untrustworthy goof-offs? Of course it's important. But what's more important is that my current plan is to give him condign punishment. Yes, Green will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that the baneful nature of his gibes is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.

Come to think of it, where did Green learn how to suppress our freedom? At the intersection of Tribalism Avenue and Elitism Lane? My point is that I've heard numerous complaints about Green's behavior. Many people I've talked to have complained that Green comports himself like a filthy pig, heedless of all needs but his own. Among these needs the paramount one seems to be the need to descend to character assassination and name calling. This backs up my point that he pretends to be supportive of my plan to serve on the side of Truth. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll destroy our sense of safety in the places we ordinarily imagine we can flee to. Not only that, but Green always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to him. Nothing else matters—except maybe to pervert the course of justice. I tell you this because Green argues that better governance can be achieved by granting profitable concessions, permits, waivers, zoning variances, monopolies, and other such political machinations to his den of thieves. This is an entertaining statement, perhaps, except that when taken at face value it presages a likely attempt by Green to excoriate attempts to bring questions of Comstockism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing.

To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that my long-term goal is to raise fractious nebbishes out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, if you were to tell Green that he is greatly increasing the size of his spleenful coalition by needling and wheedling fickle plutocrats into it, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. In summary, it's about time the public realized that they are being hornswoggled by Green and his flunkies. Is anyone listening? Does anyone care?

@previous (A)

> Is anyone listening? Does anyone care?

No.

@719,466 (Syntax)

> I could use a reader's digest of all of that

holy fuck you are stupid