Can I complain about intel for fun.
My complaint about intel
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.