I wrote a story!

[Sinitron]

What would I do without story to provide me with a non-stop source of cold-blooded pranks to complain about? Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that there is a problem here. A very large, snippy, neo-mendacious problem. If you agree, read on. I've always thought that it's time to put up or shut up, and hearing the rubbish that story spews forth proves it beyond all doubt. To put a little finer edge on the concept, story has no soul. But that's not all: It sometimes has trouble convincing people that everyone who doesn't share its beliefs is an unpatriotic phony deserving of death and damnation. When it has such trouble, it usually trots out a few splenetic rascals to constate authoritatively that story can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. Whether or not that trick of its works, it's still the case that I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by story's prodigal plaints, but its deeds are like an enormous heathenism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must drive off and disperse the mischievous pseudo-intellectuals who operate in the gray area between legitimate activity and illiberal neopaganism, because you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart story's plans to humiliate, subjugate, and eventually eliminate everyone who wants to free people from the spell of nepotism that it has cast over them. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to make it answer for its wrongdoings. It is imperative that we inform such people that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is story so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that story's arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that I am indeed not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that story's adulators all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way it keeps them loyal to it is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.

Contrary to what story would have you believe, it has commented that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as its comment is lacking in common sense. I urge you to join me in my quest to fight what I call clumsy fruitcakes. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does story feel that it is beyond reproach? I could give you the answer now, but it would be more productive for me first to inform you that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness it is mongering. We need to put inexorable pressure on it to be a bit more careful about what it says and does.

Story's merciless attempts to violate values so important to our sense of community are well-nigh unforgivable. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. Each rung on the ladder of obscurantism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for story to exert more and more control over other individuals. That is the standard process by which improvident franions steal the fruits of other people's labor. While self-centered, quasi-gormless buggers claim to defend traditional values, they actually threaten national security. I guess I can't blame story for wanting to construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat. After all, the classism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, grungy attack on progressive ideas.

Choleric louts who perpetuate myths that glorify ageism might not recognize the incongruities in story's shenanigans, but story has been trying to convince us that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day. This pathetic attempt to put our liberties at risk by a conceited and disorderly rush to criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle deserves no comment other than to say that the concepts underlying story's snotty platitudes 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 story's idea that uncivilized, jackbooted poseurs are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes is wrong. To uproot our very heritage and pave the way for story's own presumptuous value system is story's objective, and militant racialism is its method.

Did story cancel its plans to up the ante considerably because it had a change of heart, or is it continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. Although story has repeatedly denied charges of attempting to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of its brutal initiatives, it wants us to think of it as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that story wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If it really wanted to be a do-gooder, it could start by admitting that one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Story, however, is more likely to lure the worthless into its gestapo. What do we owe story? Nothing, absolutely nothing. If it claims otherwise, we have to stand firm and point out that the right thing to do in this case is determined by various vectors of forces in an endless multidimensional tug-of-war involving ropes leading out in many directions. But there is a further-reaching implication: I once managed to get it to agree that its secret police are nothing more than incomprehensible radicals. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, it did a volte-face and denied that it had ever said that.

We must do what needs to be done. Only then can a society free of its dirty expositions blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that it wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving it lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well, because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that story says that human life is expendable. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery! Perhaps story has never had to take a stand and fight for something as critical as our right to give it condign punishment. But it insists that children should belong to the state. How can it be so blind? Very easily. Basically, story's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of story's shock troops, who loudly proclaim that story should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. Regardless of those muddleheaded proclamations, the truth is that it has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to engage in an endless round of finger pointing. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that time cannot change its behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which story can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, replace law and order with anarchy and despotism. Story's attendants constitute the only species of animal life that is both mammalian and invertebrate. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why story says that it needs a little more time to clean up its act. As far as I'm concerned, story's time has run out.

I am sick of our illustrious "leaders" treading on eggshells so as not to upset story. Here's what I have to say to them: Story has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but it's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's story. Not only is story more raving and more antihumanist than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but story asserts that sin is good for the soul. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that if story is allowed to dismantle national civil rights organizations by driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-and-file members, the implications can be widespread. I have no problem with the idea that it must be reemphasized that it doesn't want equality, but revenge. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to uncompromising know-nothings. What I do have a problem with are its maladroit exegeses. If militarism were an Olympic sport, story would clinch the gold medal. Story uses big words like "floccinaucinihilipilification" to make itself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although story's belief systems may reek like a skunk, story's invectives cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that no one is smart enough to see through story's transparent lies.

So, story, maybe the problem is not with noisome skinflints, but with you. I once told story that whenever it wants to appear impressive and moral, it makes aggrandized declarations about how loyal it is. How did it respond to that? It proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that story has no standards of decency. The logical consequences of that are clear: Only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence and encourage others to do the same. But the first step is to acknowledge that it has stated that the most disorganized nymphomaniacs you'll ever see make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that it is a spokesman for God. Now that's just rude.

Story's grunts show obsequious deference to it, which is another way of saying that story is planning to make our country spiritually blind. This does not bode well for the future, because its witticisms are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". In spite of the fact that story's principles represent a calculated assault on diversity within our community, it would have us believe that black is white and night is day. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But story is surrounded by fastidious, subhuman rabble-rousers who parrot the same nonsense, which is why its prophecies are merely a stalking horse. They mask story's secret intention to fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units. Story can fool some of the people all of the time. It can fool all of the people some of the time. But it can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I feel no shame in writing that story wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet it is also a big proponent of a particularly soulless form of totalitarianism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because it either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. Story even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to make a big deal out of nothing. I've known some profiteers who were impressively hopeless. However, story is repressive, and that trumps hopeless every time. After watching story's gofers show us a gross miscarriage of common judgment, one might conclude that story et al. would lay out their own ideas of philosophical pedagogy, textual interpretation, and moral philosophy. Surprisingly, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I'm at loggerheads with story on at least one important issue. Namely, it argues that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of misguided stereotypes. I take the opposite position, that at this point in the letter, I had planned to tell you that one could argue that story's generalizations are a masterpiece of incontinent interventionism. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that no one need be surprised if our culture's personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of story. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion, in which I argue that story claims to be fighting for equality. What it's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that story may guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community right after it reads this letter. Let it. By the end of the decade, I will defy the international enslavement of entire peoples. To reiterate the main message of this letter, story's idea of addressing a problem is not to fix the problem but to establish a task force, council, or commission to look into it, study it, dissect it, and finally talk it to death.

[psi43]

[mishkamash]

oh.
mah.
god.

[Nadroj0711]

well maybe you should stop making stories