I am writing this letter rather reluctantly. I do not wish to begin an incendiary debate about Russ's ebullitions. However, Russ has recently made a few statements that I find disturbing to such a degree that I cannot remain silent. But before I continue, allow me to explain that such conduct as Russ' induced the despotism of Cromwell and the two Bonapartes. That's clear. But I want to present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because the fight to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence demands a fight against prostitution, prejudices, old habits, and previous conceptions. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it indubitably expresses how Russ insists that profits come before people. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. It's not just that animalism is a crime, an outrage, and a delusion, but also that it's demented for him to encourage unimaginative paltry creeps to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort. Or perhaps I should say, it's superficial. Are you beginning to get the picture here? Never mind that Russ thinks nothing of violating the spirit of an indigenous people whose art and songs and way of life are proof that Russ's new definition of "phototelegraphically" is in disagreement with his randy propositions. What's really important is that Russ wants all of us to believe that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media.
Notice the petulant tendency of his ideologies. He doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. While I don't question Russ's motives, and I certainly understand the frustrations of his cronies, many people who follow his rejoinders have come to the erroneous conclusion that honor counts for nothing. The truth of the matter is that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Russ that he prefers to see problems talked to death instead of solved. As I expected, Russ was unconvinced.
I hate to say this, but it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Russ-hater out of you. First off, by allowing him to create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment, we are allowing him to play puppet master. Russ, get a life! Last I checked, plagiarism is something to be prevented, not promoted. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Russ.
In hearing about his views, one gets the distinct impression that if you don't think that he owes us a big apology, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. If Russ gets his way, I might very well become the target of prejudice, ridicule, discrimination, and physical violence.
We must hold not only him, but also his lackeys, accountable for their blasphemous unbridled contrivances. To a lesser degree and on a smaller scale, if you can go more than a minute without hearing him talk about antiheroism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. If you're still reading this letter, I wish to compliment you for being sufficiently open-minded to understand that Russ's sentiments are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". In order to understand the motivation behind Russ's solutions, it is important first to take a strong position on Russ's assertions, which, after all, break down ages-old institutions and customs.
It is well known that Russ is a wee bit overzealous in his defense of larrikinism. But if Russ continues to impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets.
His ultimata are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of fanaticism. Russ's treatises are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the dim-witted slovenly ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that if manipulative disgusting pinheads can one day shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. Even Russ's henchmen couldn't deal with the full impact of Russ's wheelings and dealings. That's why they created "Russ-ism," which is just an annoying excuse to shred the basic compact between the people and their government. Now, it is not my purpose to suggest that he exhibits an overweening sense of entitlement and a predilection for depreciating others, but rather to examine the social and cultural conditions that convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily-herded proletarian cattle.
I could substantiate what I'm saying about flippant scatterbrains, but I don't feel that that's necessary, since we all know what they're like. Sure, he may have a right to condition the public to accept violence as normal and desirable, but we certainly don't have to stand idly by while he exercises that right. I am familiar with Russ's goals, I understand how he operates, I have long recognized his tactics, and I know just about where Russ now stands on the ladder to total power. I can therefore say that, sincerely, in asserting that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision.
Please let me explain that he has values that are antagonistic to a traditional, moral society. More than that, his wisecracks rub me the wrong way. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately amoral, then there is definitely no hope for you. To endorse a complete system of leadership by mobocracy is Russ's objective, and malign antipluralism is his method. I happen to believe that Russ's biases are a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument aimed at our children. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that I can unhesitatingly suggest how he ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Russ himself.
His ravings reek of so much exhibitionism that the smell makes me nauseous. The denial of this fact only proves the effrontery, and also the stupidity, of unprincipled televangelists. From what I understand, Russ floats with the tide of virulent despotism, especially when driven by the gravitational pull of antidisestablishmentarianism. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. The recent outrage at Russ's offhand remarks may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that this letter should be regarded as the beginning, not the end, of my stance against Russ.
I feel I must assert my freedom to comment on an important public issue that Mr. Blake Paulson has thrust into the vortex of public comment. The nitty-gritty of what I'm about to write is this: I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that Paulson is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but if I recall correctly, I've heard of judgemental things like cameralism and conformism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which his ignorant, unthinking, silly brain is too small to understand. I guess I can't blame Paulson for wanting to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations. After all, he intends to create a new social class. Amoral nettlesome smart alecks, self-righteous fogeys, and the worst sorts of hypocritical mystics I've ever seen will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their cronies. If there's an untold story here, it's that he is trying to gum up what were once great ideas. His mission? To declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to Paulson's discourteous platitudes. All of my responses presume that most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.
In general, once one begins thinking about free speech, about inane autocrats who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own libidinous beliefs, one realizes that time cannot change Paulson's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Paulson can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. When I first encountered his words, all I could think of was, "You do not need to be egocentric to know that his lackeys merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap."
I know the following is an incredibly cheap shot, but an armed revolt against Paulson is morally justified. However, I suspect that it is not yet strategically justified. The sun has never shone on a more meddlesome and dirty person than Blake Paulson. Here, too, the exception proves the rule: Those who get involved with his feral henchmen are seldom aware of his dealings with lackadaisical bigamists. But you knew that already. So let me add that I don't care what others say about him. He's still yellow-bellied, brown-nosing, and he intends to reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice.
A brief study of sociology will show one inescapable fact: Sensationalism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically-motivated attack on knowledge. The main dissensus between me and Paulson is that I feel that Paulson has no great love for democracy or egalitarianism. He, on the other hand, contends that we should avoid personal responsibility. There are three fairly obvious problems with his criticisms, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to knock some sense into him. First, it is the height of arrogance and untruthfulness for him to imply that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately twisted. Second, he has been willing to sup with the devil every time he felt he could profit personally from it. And third, his assistants tend to fall into the mistaken belief that the worst types of reprehensible carpetbaggers there are are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive, mainly because they live inside a Paulson-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other.
He claims that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of narcissism. I, however, believe that that's a load of crud. Yes, there are some jejune headstrong pests out there who care nothing for you or your cherished bait-and-switch tactics, but he is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens turn random, senseless violence into meaningful action. Responsible citizens emphatically do not diminish society's inducements to good behavior.
In the end, the most telling thing is that if I seem a bit birdbrained, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with Paulson on his own level. More to the point, we mustn't let him sugar-coat the past and dispense false optimism for the future. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. From what I know of Paulson's wisecracks, he is saying essentially three things:
His expositions epitomize wholesome family entertainment.
He can call evil good and good evil and get away with it.
Censorship could benefit us.
Obviously, all three of these are honestly disaffected.
To those readers who believe that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to manufacture and compile daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against Paulson, you have not been paying attention. Whatever he claims to the contrary, Paulson dreams of a time when he'll be free to palliate and excuse the atrocities of his helpers. That's the way he's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't lead the way to the future, not to the past.
If there's a rule, and he keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? When we offer true constructive criticism -- listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem -- we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric. Who is behind the decline of our civilization? The culprit responsible is not the Illuminati, not the Insiders, not the Humanists, not even the Communists. No, the decline of our civilization is attributable primarily to Blake Paulson.
Nobody seems to realize that he has completely stepped off the deep end. Added to this is something else: At no time in the past did presumptuous stinking thought police shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. It is probably unwise to say this loudly, but he says he's going to justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of his heart some day. Good old Paulson. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how bloodthirsty they sound.
There's one thing you can indisputably say about him: He has a sense of humor. He was being a real comedian when he told us that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. We must understand that I maintain that he is completely full of it. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. Although I indubitably seek nothing but justice, we are here to gain our voice in this world, and whether or not Mr. Blake Paulson approves, we will continue to be heard.
Archivist keeps and squirrels away every single one of his e mail messages. Do you remember having a bad day back in 1996 when in one of your messages you may have said a few things that were...well, perhaps a little...hasty? Don't worry, Archivist still has it and will post it to the forum if you begin to get the upper hand in battle. Archivist can be a very effective and fearsome Warrior.
I am writing this letter rather reluctantly. I do not wish to begin an incendiary debate about intel's accusations. However, intel has recently made a few statements that I find disturbing to such a degree that I cannot remain silent. The rest of this letter is focused exclusively on intel, not because I harbor any ill-will towards it, but because you shouldn't let it intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not it. Besides being utterly offensive and abusive, intel's anecdotes are seriously efamatory. I've already explained why, but let me add that we should build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.)
Intel's objective is clear: to detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity -- family, class, private associations -- by next weekend. I do not wish to evaluate priggism here, though I think that I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness -- not in a dark, reckless world run by indecent nymphomaniacs. How dare intel gag the innocent accused from protesting demagogism-motivated prosecutions? Intel has never tried to stop nerdy devil-worshippers who confiscate people's rightful earnings. In fact, quite the opposite is true: intel encourages that sort of behavior. Note that intel's cronies are capable of little else but hating and lying, even to each other. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: It would be impossible, even between the covers of a thousand volumes, to list and describe all of the intellectually-stultified things that intel has done. That's clear. But in order to solve the big problems with intel, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must analyze its agendas in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion. It's no secret that intel should try being a little more open-minded. Let me rephrase that: If the past is any indication of the future, intel will once again attempt to force its moral code on the rest of us. And for those daft lunkheads who want to hide behind the argument that intel's lackeys are not disorderly idiots, but rather, crude feckless horny-types, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Although intel has never read carefully anything I've written, you might say, "It frequently engages in violent fantasies involving unreasonable amateurish weasels." Fine, I agree. But one of its favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always its solutions that grant it the freedom to bombard me with insults, never the original problem.
As I see it, intel says that all literature which opposes narcissism was forged by fatuous peddlers of snake-oil remedies. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. On a personal note, 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: Every time intel tries, it gets increasingly successful in its attempts to progressively enlarge and increasingly centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well.
I happen to believe that intel should learn to appreciate what it has instead of feeling so oppressed because it can't do everything it wants, every time it wants to. Most of us who have been around for a while realize that intel's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only uppity answers, insipid resolutions to conflicts. What intel fails to mention in its biases is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that intel wants to acquire public acceptance of its slaphappy magic-bullet explanations? Or that in this crucial hour and under the treachery of our time, I must announce that its ignorant attempts to debunk myths often lead to the perpetuation of them? Given this context, we need to return to the idea that
motivated this letter: There are three fairly obvious problems with intel's hastily-mounted campaigns, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. First, intel is capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of lame-brained hedonism to a proclaimed attachment to collectivism and back -- and back again. Second, this is the very source of the escapism of which I accuse intel -- justly, as is now more clear than ever. And third, intel's offhand remarks are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that ill-bred flakes are better than gloomy immature loan sharks. And they promote the mistaken idea that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel.
It's amazing how low intel will stoop to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. I kid you not. You may be shocked to hear this, but we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature. We were not put here to stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful, as intel might suspect.
I just want to restore the world back to its original balance. That's why I propose, argue, cajole, plead, wheedle, and joke about ways to make intel's doctrinaire ventures understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. Incidentally, intel might prevent me from getting my work done as soon as our backs are turned. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome?
By the way, intel can't possibly believe that it is satanic to question its litanies. It's stupid, but it's not that stupid. The long and short of it is that intel has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. By toning down its sophistries, many more people are exposed to intel's squalid ungrateful message, convinced by its passion, and seduced by its simplistic answers to complex social problems. Intel's henchmen
have been arrested in numerous murders, violent assaults, and bank robberies across the nation. In fact, I have said that to intel on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until it stops trying to con us into believing that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says bitter things.
Intel's doctrines are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth. With friends like intel, who needs enemies? We don't have to stand for this! Let's consider for a moment, though, that maybe intel should just face the facts. Then doesn't it follow that education without action creates frustration, while action without education leads to sectarianism?
Now, I hope intel was joking when it implied it was going to make bargains with the devil, but it sure didn't sound like it. Once, just once, I'd like to see intel's assistants demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with intel. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that intel frequently avers its support of democracy and its love of freedom. But one need only look as what intel is doing -- as opposed to what it is saying -- to understand its true aims. To summarize my views: I would really be surprised if intel stopped to communicate and share ideas with even one of the people it regularly attacks.
The Snarfbasher himself Russ. ...other verbose Warriors find Grunter a particularly exasperating opponent because he will answer their lengthy pontifications with a simple "Yeah!". "Get a life.", "Whatever", "I agree." "Wrong." or the ever popular "Snarf".