Maelestorm

Some of my colleagues recommended that I write a letter about how Great Britain engages in pietistic babble that nauseates even some of my more religious friends. This is that letter. Here's the story: It is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did Great Britain's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "When Great Britain looks in the mirror in the morning, does it see more than the same, bitter face that all yawping usurers share?" Well, I'm sure Great Britain would rather tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation than answer that particular question. Great Britain lacks the courage to confront me face-to-face. So please permit me to appropriate and paraphrase something I once heard: "Questions of Great Britain's motivation and intent are compelling." Take this example: Let's say that we must get beyond name-calling. Now let's say that it profits from human suffering. Does that mean that Great Britain's activities are on the up-and-up? No, because if you were to try to tell its adherents that its unedifying preoccupation with heathenism will bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives by the next full moon, they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that Great Britain cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, if Great Britain wanted to, it could institutionalize cannibalism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. It could implement a goofy parody of justice called "Great Britain-ism". And it could procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror. We must surely not allow it to do any of these.

Great Britain maintains that it can override nature. Even if this were so, Great Britain would still be indelicate. But I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to challenge Great Britain's stubborn assumptions about merit. Of course, in order to convince us that we ought to worship the worst types of uppity rotters there are as folk heroes, Great Britain often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about Great Britain's tricks. It's quite likely it will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that it claims that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. I respond that my concern is with morality itself, not with the teleological foundations upon which it rests. Mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for Great Britain. If we feel helpless, Great Britain is energized and ramps up its efforts to truck away our freedoms for safekeeping. Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting Great Britain grant revolting braggadocios the keys to the kingdom.

I won't mince my words: Great Britain uses big words like "pancreaticoduodenostomy" 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 Great Britain's slogans may reek like a skunk, Great Britain needs to open up to the world around it, so to speak. Yes, you heard me right; I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to cast a gimlet eye on Great Britain's assertions.

While we do nothing, those who enable heartless nabobs of Bonapartism to punch above their weight are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, if you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, thanks to Great Britain, feral political movements are experiencing a resurgence around the world. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, vandalism, death threats, and slander are typical tactics used by Great Britain's cohorts. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that Great Britain's hastily mounted campaigns are continually evolving into more and more disorganized incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how Great Britain's complaints will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. I'm sure you get my point here.

I want to oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Why is Great Britain so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Great Britain and its followers started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that Great Britain has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to numb the public to the anarchism and injustice in mainstream politics. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that its power-hungry beliefs are largely due to its drawing mistaken conclusions from what it wrongly takes to be evidence. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that Great Britain's eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity. And its vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that it has mystical powers of divination and prophecy?) Be always mindful that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. Admittedly, that's about as likely as Elvis materializing in my room tonight and singing Heartbreak Hotel. Still, the possibility does help one realize that it may seem difficult at first to examine the social and cultural conditions that make Great Britain's calumnies a key dynamic in modern Pyrrhonism by viscerally defining "mediterraneanization" through the experience of self-satisfied expansionism. It is. But Great Britain would have us believe that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. Yeah, right.

Alas, Great Britain likes to brag about how the members of its little empire are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, Great Britain would have us believe that it can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. Since I don't know Great Britain that well, I'll have to be a bit presumptuous when I say that it sees itself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who restore the world back to its original balance). We all need to be aware of each other's existence as intelligent, feeling, human beings, even if some of us are the worst kinds of insensate mountebanks there are. Great Britain wants to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood". Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background.

When you reflect upon this, you'll realize that Great Britain plans to oppress, segregate, and punish others. It has instructed its operatives not to discuss this or even admit to its plan's existence. Obviously, Great Britain knows it has something to hide. Great Britain's faithfuls are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Great Britain, who wants nothing less than to defend collectivism, materialism, and notions of racial superiority.

On a television program last night, I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "There are a series of options I could pursue, if necessary." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual. This moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that if you want to hide something from Great Britain, you just have to put it in a book. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that Great Britain's orations were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the "innocents". Rather, Great Britain is frightened that we might acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. That's why it's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that if you looked up "nettlesome" in the dictionary, you'd probably see Great Britain's logo. It's easy for us to shake our heads at Great Britain's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should subject Great Britain's vaporings to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. It's easy for us to say, "We must continue to monitor Great Britain's myrmidons and expose them as the disdainful, gloomy turncoats they are." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because for those of us who make our living trying to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by Great Britain's ideologies, it is important to consider that I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to get us out of the hammerlock that it is holding us in. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that if Great Britain had even a shred of intellectual integrity, it'd admit that someone has been giving its brain a very thorough washing, and now Great Britain is trying to do the same to us.

What I mean to say is that Great Britain argues that I am catty for wanting to keep its apple-polishers at bay. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. Although Great Britain has tremendous popular appeal, I'm not very conversant with its background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that I stand by what I've written before, that Great Britain says that its opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools.

If I recall correctly, if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that I indeed gainsay Great Britain's notion that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to put our liberties at risk by a snivelling and presumptuous rush to pamper sex-crazed nincompoops. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. If we contradict Great Britain, we are labelled high-handed pikers. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but Great Britain wants nothing less than to assail all that is holy, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its money-grubbing, witless wheelings and dealings. Great Britain likes to compare its bons mots to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. Great Britain makes so many laughably tactless statements, it boggles the mind to think about them. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.

Maelestorm

AND NOW FOR A RANT ABOUT MICROSOFT

I don't know how to tell you this, but adversarialism is Microsoft's main weapon and its chief means of convincing its helots to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that I frequently wish to tell Microsoft that its asseverations turn the stomachs of those who know even a little about the real world. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. What I call bitter astrologers tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: Microsoft's accusations promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Microsoft's secret agents because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Microsoft.

There is a problem here. A very large, bumptious, inconsiderate problem. If Microsoft isn't cruel, I don't know who is. It behooves us to remember that Microsoft has gone way too far with its no-compromise attitude. Nevertheless, I can state with absolute certainty that Microsoft insists that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. How can it be so blind? Very easily. Basically, my purpose here is not to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that Microsoft should clarify its point so people like you and me can tell what the heck it's talking about. Without clarification, Microsoft's personal attacks sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don't really seem to make any sense. People often get the impression that the worst sorts of pouty, demonic despots there are and Microsoft's understrappers are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that the justification Microsoft gave for seeking to disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of oligarchism was one of the most naive justifications I've ever heard. It was so naive, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: Microsoft's anecdotes are saturated with the hopeless, contemptuous rhetoric that will doubtlessly accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Microsoft has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because Microsoft's snow jobs are designed to perpetuate myths that glorify demagogism. And they're working; they're having the desired effect.

We'd all be in grave danger if Microsoft continued to engage in its morally questionable, splenetic behavior. Microsoft worships its own ignorance. Natural law is therefore the fulcrum upon which rests the case that Microsoft just reported that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Microsoft's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to impose a narrow theological agenda on secular society.

Microsoft operates on the basis of an unremitting hatred of civility and decency. Not that I've come to expect any better from Microsoft. Microsoft argues that the sun rises just for it. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: It has never satisfactorily proved its assertion that granting it complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. It has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." It's good that you're reading this letter. It's good that you're listening to what I'm saying. But reading and listening aren't enough. You must also be willing to help me comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations.

Microsoft's biases have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. I apologize if the following points are hard to follow but they're quite relevant to the gist of my argument. First, if Microsoft's intimates, who are legion, are frightened that Microsoft might turn over our country to what I call sniffish brigands before you know it, they have only themselves to blame. And second, I refuse to kowtow to its unpleasant cult. All of this means, of course, that it has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for it. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will get on my nerves sooner than you think.

I've repeatedly pointed out to Microsoft that it can be described only by such words as "debauched" and "muzzy-headed". That apparently didn't register with it, though. Oh, well; I guess Microsoft's opinion is that the cure for evil is more evil. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that Microsoft's yes-men believe that Microsoft is omnipotent. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to upbraid Microsoft for being so intemperate. Tribalism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper Microsoft uses to attract obtuse, heinous mountebanks into its coalition of pestiferous oafs and shallow pip-squeaks. That's clear. But Microsoft asserts that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.

For brevity, I won't comment further on that, but rather on the way that I once had a nightmare in which Microsoft was free to sacrifice children on the twin altars of pharisaism and greed. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that Microsoft may unwittingly provide lazy fanatics with a milieu in which they can make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what it has planned for the future. 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 if Microsoft thinks that it can make me fall firmly into the hands of morally repugnant, out-of-touch Luddites, then it's barking up the wrong tree. There can be no doubt that Microsoft says that human life is expendable. But then it turns around and says that it acts in the public interest. You know, you can't have it both ways, Microsoft. Okay, then, let's move onto the really good part of this letter, the part in which I get to tell you that it has been said that I don't give a hoot in Hell if Microsoft opposes my quest to admonish it not seven times, but seventy times seven. I, in turn, aver that every time it tries, Microsoft gets increasingly successful in its attempts to make people suspicious of those who speak the truth. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well.

Should we worry that Microsoft wants to lay waste to the environment? In a word, yes. And that's not just because it is one of the world's major voices of Maoism but also because Microsoft is trying hard to convince a substantial number of neurotic perjurers to force us to adopt rigid social roles that compromise our inner code of ethics. It presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite ignorant moochers (especially the filthy type) to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that Microsoft thinks we want it to cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills. Excuse me, but maybe just because it and its legatees don't like being labelled as "obstinate slumlords" or "semi-intelligible quacks" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. We can divide Microsoft's shell games into three categories: obdurate, impudent, and directionless. You might think this is all pretty funny now, but I doubt I'll hear you laughing if, in a lustrum or two, Microsoft is successfully able to set the wolf to mind the sheep.

Microsoft's sermons have merged with deconstructionism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of totalitarianism. And both inaugurate an era of crude insurrectionism. Microsoft ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

We need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Microsoft. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that I indubitably hope you're not being misled by the "new Microsoft". Only its methods and tactics have changed. Microsoft's goal is still the same: to turn us into easy prey for pudibund opportunists. That's why I'm telling you that if Microsoft were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that its metanarratives are a syncretism of chauvinism-oriented recidivism and abhorrent statism. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must establish democracy and equality. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that Microsoft is an inspiration to hypocritical schmucks everywhere. They panegyrize its crusade to manipulate the public like a puppet dangling from strings and, more importantly, they don't realize that Microsoft floats with the tide of coldhearted Trotskyism, especially when driven by the gravitational pull of particularism. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that its goal is to help cankered, pesky fugitives evade capture by the authorities. How snivelling is that? How balmy? How unrealistic? Let me back up a little: 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 Microsoft parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. More fundamentally, on several occasions I have heard Microsoft state that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever its institutional interests are at stake. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important, though, is that some organizations are responsible and others are not. Microsoft falls into the category of "not". This is far from all I have to say on the topic, but it's certainly enough for now. Just remember one thing: Microsoft is not above the law.

Deadeye

I'll get started reading your two rants; be back in two hours.

flclisgreat

wall of text!!!!one11111111shiftagain1111!

__________________
you will run in fear of my knowledge of **** that will **** you up

Maelestorm

What the ****. This is meant to be serious.

flclisgreat

i know, but i don't want to read it all. i saw some of the Microsoft one. yeah, they suck

__________________
you will run in fear of my knowledge of **** that will **** you up

baby4711

hehe agreed hehe haha hehe haha mwahahahahahaha good night
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Emarian

Wow, that's old, but it's a really good and long rant. Microsoft really does suck except for the 360.

__________________


"The only journey is the journey within."
- Rainer Maria Rilke

"A ferocious dictator moves countries. A true leader moves continents." -Robert Bernard

Do Not Click This Link

Maelestorm

Shhh. No one must know this!