Topic: Off-topic /
I'm going to get this off of my chest about OT
This post may seem a bit long but OT’s complacent rodomontades cannot be adequately described in less than a long essay. Let me get to the crux of the matter: We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because the only way that we can fight it, the only way we can beat it, is to speak up and speak out against it. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that it deeply believes that it acts in the public interest. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: I don’t know if OT is consciously and purposely evil or merely illogical. I do know, however, that it maintains that the government’s policies should be at odds with the will of the people. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that its most steadfast claim is that it is God’s representative on Earth. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, there is historical precedent for OT’s utterances. Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, it has been bombarding us with an endless array of hate literature. Given how one officious activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping OT get people to vote against their own self-interests, I’d be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that OT decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.
We have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by OT and its winged monkeys or we protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of the worst types of unconscionable, vexatious aretalogers there are. While I don’t expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that OT would have us believe that its decisions are based on reason. To be honest, it has never actually said that explicitly, but if you follow its logic—what little there is—you’ll see that this is its real point.
I could tell OT that its ruminations will clearly lead to decay, to dissolution, to chaos, and to ruin, although it obviously doesn’t care. I could tell it that people are looking for answers, not ideology, but it wouldn’t believe me. It probably also doesn’t care that its satraps have demonstrated brutally, horribly, and with great terror how they will deliver an additional blow to dignity and self-worth. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason OT may be capable of when I tell it that it talks a lot about priggism and how wonderful it is. However, it’s never actually defined what it means. How can OT argue for something it’s never defined? To help answer that question I will offer a single anecdote. A few weeks ago, I overheard some resentful, insensitive perjurer tell everyone who passed by that OT is the arbiter of all things. Astounded, I asked this person if he realized that OT’s love of deconstructionism shows a blindness and stupidity that beggars description. Not only was his answer “no”, but it was also news to him that OT is always prating about how public opinion is a reliable indicator of what’s true and what isn’t. (It used to say that I’m some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that we can change the truth if we don’t like it the way it is, but the evidence is too contrary so it’s given up on that score.)
We cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must do something about the continuing—make that the escalating—effort on OT’s part to defile the air and water in the name of profit. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that OT’s asseverations promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for OT’s sympathizers because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to OT. To get even the simplest message into the consciousness of incoherent demoniacs it has to be repeated at least fifty times. Now, I don’t want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following fifty times, but it’s unequivocally astounding that OT has found a way to work the words “magnetohydrodynamics” and “methylenedioxymethamphetamine” into its campaigns. However, you may find it even more astounding that there is obviously a whiney dimension to its opinions. Or, if “whiney” is too narrow of a term, perhaps you’d prefer “abominable”. In any case, OT’s devotees are lower than frightful, morbid dimbulbs. They are incompetent flibbertigibbets. Those who support their soliloquies or help create the vulgar, empty-headed atmosphere needed for them to bowdlerize all unfavorable descriptions of its programs of Gleichschaltung should realize that many people are convinced that none of OT’s “progressive” ideas have actually resulted in any progress. I can’t comment on that, but I can say that we must work together to build a sane and healthy society free of its destructive influences. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to spread the word about OT’s dishonest, stingy perceptions to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers—even to strangers. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because we must discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. Only then can a society free of its impertinent notions blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that its apologues cannot stand on their own merit. That’s why they’re dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power.
I appreciate feedback and other people’s views on subjects. I don’t, however, appreciate feedback when it’s given in an unprofessional manner. OT makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant’s mother. Consider, for example, OT’s claim that quasi-inane schmegeggies aren’t ever fatuitous. The fact of the matter is that many people are worried that it will initiate a reign of mingy, beggarly terror in a lustrum or two. I don’t like to speculate on uncertain things, but I will say that OT’s financial speculation and peculation will bring entire nations to economic ruin. That’s the sort of statement that some people believe is prolix but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it’s a statement that needs to be made because OT criticizes me for exerting a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. If it wants to play critic, it should possess real and substantial knowledge about whatever it is it’s criticizing. It shouldn’t simply assume that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication.
Believe you me, OT’s hate-filled ravings are as unpleasant as the sewage that gets belched up from a broken garbage disposal in the kitchen sink. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. OT’s Praetorian Guard appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction, yet I keep reminding myself that just the other day, some of OT’s twisted, childish helpmeets forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described OT’s blueprint for a world in which loopy jerks are free to cause people to betray one another and hate one another. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I reflected upon the way that OT should think about how its shell games lead disdainful criminals to embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians. If OT doesn’t want to think that hard, perhaps it should just keep quiet.
OT maintains that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. Even if this were so, OT would still be poxy. But we need the space and autonomy to fight the causeries that hurt us. I’ll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, if one accepts the framework I’ve laid out here, it follows logically that it will not be easy to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that for the overriding reason that its goal is to bathe in splendor while the rest of us go to work in the mines. Let me rephrase that: It plans to punish dissent through intimidation, public ridicule, economic exclusion, imprisonment, and most extremely, death. The result will be an amalgam of conniving mammonism and annoying defeatism, if such a monster can be imagined.
Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: It strikes me as amusing that OT complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! It does nothing but complain.
If we are powerless to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change, it is because we have allowed OT to brandish the word “historicocabbalistical” (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. OT can’t fool me. I’ve met unregenerate ochlocrats before so I know that I’m sticking out my neck a bit in talking about OT’s metanarratives. It’s quite likely it will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that it is locked into its present course of destruction. It does not have the interest or the will to change its fundamentally lubricious diegeses.
I would like to put forth the possibility that OT is convinced that people everywhere have a deeply held love of plagiarism. I profess that if it held a rally in support of plagiarism, no more than two people would show up—one if you exclude the local street vendor who just happens to be peddling his wares in the vicinity. The reason, obviously, is that I once read an article about how OT wants nothing less than to shame my name. It was the powerful and long-lingering momentum of the impressions received on that occasion, more than any other circumstance, that gave definite form and resolution to my purpose of breaking away from the peloton and revealing the truth about OT’s theatrics. As I have tried to show in this letter, in the coming days, OT will order its subordinates to rob from the rich but—unlike Robin Hood—give to the worst sorts of lawless prevaricators there are. As long as you remember that, we may yet be able to urge lawmakers to pass a nonbinding resolution affirming that the surest way for OT’s shills to succeed is for them to woo over aberrant gumps by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history.