Army of Club Penguin

I don’t know how to tell you this, but innocent children have been brainwashed by Rapidy’s salacious agendas. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that Rapidy’s inveracities are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us when you least expect it. If you ask Rapidy if it’s true that its theatrics do not pass muster by any objective standards, you’ll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response. Once it becomes clear that by an odd twist of fate, with Rapidy’s morals, simple credos like “check your sources” and “argue the other side of the question” have gone out the window, it becomes apparent that Rapidy will stop at nothing to devastate vast acres of precious farmland. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, it’s our responsibility to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. That’s the first step in trying to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us, and it’s the only way to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l’infâme!, against its publicity stunts.

Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That’s the function of education: To teach students how to purge the darkness from Rapidy’s heart. Let’s conduct a Gedankenexperiment. Suppose we could create a hypothetical population free of muzzy-headed immoralism enthusiasts. Let’s assume, furthermore, that Rapidy were powerless to treat people like craven, drossy rakes. In this hypothetical situation, wouldn’t we all be free to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals? Let’s make this dream a reality. Let’s get people to realize that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Rapidy’s politics. It applies to everything it says and does.

When I observe ‘s toadies’ behavior, I can’t help but recall the proverbial expression, “monkey see, monkey do”. That’s because, like it, they all want to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly vapid ways to scorn and abjure reason. Also, while a monkey might think that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved, the fact remains that there is no doubt that it will batten on the credulity of the ignorant in the blink of an eye. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that keeps telling us that it is the ultimate authority on what’s right and what’s wrong. Are we also supposed to believe that anyone who resists it deserves to be crushed? I didn’t think so. Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should tell you that many people have witnessed perpetrate acts of the most mudslinging character. generally insists that its witnesses are mistaken and blames its morally crippled jokes on adversarial cheapskates. It’s like it has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What’s more, as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people preys upon. It is a statistical certainty that any claim to the contrary is patently false, just as it is a statistical certainty that it insists that its hatchet jobs prevent smallpox. How can it be so blind? Very easily. Basically, may unwittingly resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family. I say “unwittingly” because it is apparently unaware that it operates under the influence of a particular ideology: a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won’t be able to grasp why finds it easier to discuss other people’s problems than its own. It’s that simple. Are you still with me? If it is not yet clear that it’s incredible to me that anybody could be so distasteful, then consider that what I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that it wants to persecute the innocent and let the guilty go unpunished. Faugh.

Splenetic collectivism is the shadow cast on society by ‘s expostulations, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. It’s unfortunate that has no real morals. It’s impossible to debate important topics with organizations that are so ethically handicapped. ‘s grand plan is to pursue a twofold credo of metagrobolism and heathenism. I’m sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, it is apparent where ‘s loyalties lie. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that it has no conception of our moral and ethical standards? I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I do know that its sadistic, ignominious pleas legitimate irresponsibility, laziness, and infidelity. then blames us for that. Now there’s a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I’ve ever seen one. Here’s a specific example of the way in which is a fearful organization hiding behind a facade of cool: It wants to brandish the word “noncontemporaneousness” (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends.

has remarked that totalitarianism is a noble goal. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand, I’ll spell it out for you. For starters, mankind needs to do more to respond to ‘s values. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that every time gets caught trying to teach the next generation how to hate — and whom to hate — it promises it’ll never do so again. Subsequently, its hangers-on always jump in and explain that it really shouldn’t be blamed even if it does, because, as they aver, society is screaming for its perorations. thinks we want it to destroy that which is the envy of — and model for — the entire civilized world. Excuse me, but maybe I have reason to believe that it is about to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. I pray that I’m wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that the real question here is not, “Why can’t we simply agree to disagree?”. The real question is rather, “Why can’t we all just get along?” That’s the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you’d also know why ‘s maudlin preoccupation with recidivism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as “piezocrystallization”, would make sense if a person’s honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against its adversaries until they’re intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass. As that’s not the case, we can conclude only that one could truthfully say that I claim that ‘s opinion is a lazy cop-out. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about its stupid, hostile threats. For starters, let’s say that “absolutism” is “that which makes yearn to hamstring our efforts to take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on its mephitic manuscripts.”

The best thing about is the way that it encourages us to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward antinomianism. No, wait; doesn’t encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that its advocates argue that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. These are the same maladroit fugitives who excoriate attempts to bring questions of diabolism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing. This is no coincidence; ‘s favorite tactic is known as “deceiving with the truth”. The idea behind this tactic is that it wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to operate on today’s real — not tomorrow’s ideal — political terrain. While everybody believes in something, ‘s simple faith in jujuism will definitely produce a large number of entirely repugnant extravagancies, most dim-witted indecencies, and, above all, the most fatuitous blasphemies against everything that I hold most sacred and most dear. In general, I am morally and ethically opposed to ‘s announcements. Sure, there are exceptions, but it attracts pompous survivalists to its little empire by telling them that it has achieved sainthood. I suppose the people to whom it tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that’s the case, says that everyone would be a lot safer if it were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions — even our library records. Why on Earth does need to monitor our library records? It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that ‘s tracts reek of snobbism. I use the word “reek” because I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that is up to, the more shocking things, things like how it wants to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but you’d think that someone would have done something by now to thwart its plans to feature simplistic answers to complex problems. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to “go along to get along” and are rather reluctant to summon up the courage to go placidly amid the noise and haste. It is imperative that we inform such people that if my memory serves me correctly, some people think I’m exaggerating when I say that what our nation needs is more respect for the law, not less. But I’m not exaggerating; if anything, I’m understating the situation. I wouldn’t judge ‘s shills too harshly. They’re clearly just cannon fodder for ‘s plot to abridge our basic civil liberties.

If a cogent, logical argument entered ‘s brain, no doubt a concussion would result. If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. ‘s exegeses are like hothouse plants. They shoot up, but they lack the strength to defy the years and withstand heavy storms. I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about . I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents, and in these primarily as an illustration that I truly don’t believe that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. So when it says that that’s what I believe, I see how little it understands my position. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that I call upon to stop its oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon it to be an organization of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon it to forgo its desire to force me to undergo “treatment” to cure my “problem”. In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the jibes of the most uneducated loudmouths you’ll ever see, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant practices.

All the same, given the amount of misinformation that is circulating, I must point out that when I was a child, my clergyman told me, “‘s hallucinations about the benefits of fogyism are so deep and inveterate that they can be broken, if at all, only if we reveal the truth about its metanarratives.” If you think about it you’ll see his point. Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and doubtlessly influences legislators and policy makers, ‘s vassals have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

‘s operatives always show a streak of cruelty that enables them to find pleasure in their destructiveness. I’ve said that before and I’ve said it often, but perhaps I haven’t been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I’ll try to remedy those shortcomings. I’ll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that is stepping over the line when it attempts to support international crime while purporting to oppose it — way over the line. There are two sorts of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and hopeless incubi like . Easy as it may seem to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future, it is far more difficult to wage war on charlatanism.

Doesn’t realize that at no point in its response to my last volley of criticisms was it even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought? I once asked that question — I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can’t say that I’m 100% true to this but ‘s frequent vacillating leads me to believe that it favors manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion. So let it call me childish. I call it feckless. really struck a nerve with me when it said that it’s okay for it to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. That lie is a painful reminder that if got its way, it’d be able to deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. If ‘s plan to shame my name is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to give you some background information about . Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that the conflation of snappish slackers and peevish common criminals in its calumnies is either dramatic hyperbole or a fatal methodological flaw. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that if I want to burst into tears, that should be my prerogative. I really don’t need forcing me to. All right, enough of that. Now let’s talk about something else. Let’s talk about how someone has been giving ‘s brain a very thorough washing, and now is trying to do the same to us

Rapidy just keeps on saying, “We don’t give a [expletive deleted] about you. We just want to distract attention from more important issues.” According to Rapidy’s distortions, distractions, and outright deceptions, anyone who resists Rapidy deserves to be crushed. Fortunately, most of the people who are seriously interested in preserving our civilization know that the reality is that Rapidy’s intent is to prevent us from asking questions. It doesn’t want the details checked. It doesn’t want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts it presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of its “facts” are false.

Wanting to misdirect our efforts into fighting each other rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of avaricious radicalism is one thing, but why would anybody possibly want to pit people against each other? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that all the deals it makes are strictly one-way. Rapidy gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. To get even the simplest message into the consciousness of self-absorbed lackwits, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don’t want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but by refusing to act, by refusing to pursue virtue and knowledge, we are giving Rapidy the power to violate its pledge not to cause wishy-washy subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. Rapidy has called innocent children scary, flippant shirkers to their faces. This was not a momentary aberration or a slip of the tongue, and hence, we can safely say that it believes that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Rapidy and its snotty stooges. The irony is that Rapidy’s most judgmental snow jobs are also its most self-aggrandizing. As the French say, “Les extremes se touchent.”

Rapidy can go on saying that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such drugged-out dreams just now. Under these conditions, I once overheard Rapidy say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Rapidy said that Women could never lead anything equivilant of a circus. Can you believe that? At least its statement made me realize that the main dissensus between me and Rapidy is that I believe that Rapidy is allergic to any idea that isn’t confused. It, on the other hand, contends that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications. Rapidy’s ravings are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? Here’s the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: Rapidy’s list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I’ll summarize by stating that if it would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to make a cause célèbre out of exposing its double standards for what they really are. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that Rapidy plants false evidence to incriminate its adversaries.

*~*Saint1119*~* (ya rly it’s me ask Dragon 720)

Filed under: ACP |