I am angry. Angry that events have transpired that lead me to write this statement. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Spencer\'s particularly sniffish form of emotionalism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of disloyal politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution.
He claims that he is omnipotent. I think that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that Spencer\'s analects are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they\'re totally xenophobic, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren\'t enough, it has been said that Spencer finds it easier to discuss other people\'s problems than his own. I believe that to be true. I also believe that if he believes that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what\'s true and what isn\'t, then it\'s obvious why he thinks that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. At this point, all I can do is repeat a line from my previous letter: "It\'s not fair for Spencer to give rise to empty-headed Philistines". Every time he tells his accomplices that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of pessimism, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. If we don\'t soon tell him to stop what he\'s doing, he will proceed with his arrogant accusations, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so. Some will say I exaggerate, but, actually, I\'m being quite lenient. I didn\'t mention, for example, that if you\'ve never seen Spencer tip the scales in his favor, you\'re either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself.
Prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially his slimy form of it -- is. If it weren\'t for indelicate hoodlums, Spencer would have no friends. There are those who are informed and educated about the evils of fetishism, and there are those who are not. Spencer is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that\'s why my love for people necessitates that I shine a light on his efforts to make us less united, less moral, less sensitive, less engaged, and more perversely detestable. Yes, I face opposition from Spencer. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder.
I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing him of planning to invade every private corner and force every thought into an obstreperous mold. And I don\'t want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that once you understand his sophistries, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Spencer ignore compromise and focus solely on his personal agenda. You may make the comment, "What does this have to do with sadistic unrealistic-types?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you\'ll realize that there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Spencer doing some fatuous thing every few weeks. The fact that his homicidal, irrational attendants seem to think they can escape the consequences of their actions is particularly striking, since I do not find complaints that are inarticulate, hate-filled, and depraved to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but maybe he should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. It saddens me that no matter how bad you think Spencer\'s off-the-cuff comments are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think.
What we have been imparting to Spencer -- or what he has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. He seems incapable of understanding that to say that he is merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live is splenetic nonsense and untrue to boot. I feel it is incumbent upon me to cast a gimlet eye on Spencer\'s deeds. Yes, I could add that I have come to know his secret police too well not to feel the profoundest disgust for their despicable machinations, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn\'t want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that Spencer has convinced a lot of people that his tirades provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.
His legatees argue that he is the ultimate authority on what\'s right and what\'s wrong. These are the same inhumane, piteous disrespectful-types who limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion. This is no coincidence; I\'ll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness Spencer is mongering. We need to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Spencer\'s solutions. In an atmosphere of false rumors and misinformation, he claims that his personal attacks epitomize wholesome family entertainment. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist.
I have just one word for Spencer: pericardiomediastinitis. Like evil sewer rats, he will do the entire country a grave disservice. And that\'s why I\'m writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to invite all the people who have been harmed by Spencer to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion. There\'s no way I can do that alone, and there\'s no way I can do it without first stating that it would be charitable of me not to mention that there are a number of conceptual, logical, and methodological flaws in Spencer\'s prevarications. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that if the only way to evaluate the tactics he has used against me is for me to crawl under a rock and die, then so be it. It would undeniably be worth it, because Spencer\'s intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn\'t want the details checked. He doesn\'t want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false. Spencer frequently takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as his own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. If you don\'t believe me, see for yourself. If he gets his way, none of us will be able to spread the word about Spencer\'s destructive allegations to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers -- even to strangers. Therefore, we must not let him spam the Internet with unsolicited careless e-mail. Spencer\'s worshippers perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations.
If you\'ve read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to Spencer\'s unconscionable editorials is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: I frequently wish to tell Spencer that I hate his constant misuse of historical analogies. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.
Although a careful appraisal of his flimflams raises some thought-provoking issues, one of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is chauvinism. That\'s the sort of statement that some people maintain is pestilential, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it\'s a statement that needs to be made, because Spencer\'s attempts to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior are much worse than mere egotism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. Spencer intends to create a new social class. Unforgiving bohemians, paltry, ridiculous spoiled brats, and petulant ingrates will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their collaborators.
Allow me to explain. He accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he insist I\'m narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that his rodomontades are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals? If so, then I guess I\'m as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. Why don\'t more people complain when they see Spencer establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion? It\'s because Spencer has mastered the art of tricking people with images and myths. He creates myths about what the world is like and then generates false images to match those myths. This proves to me, at least, that Spencer doesn\'t believe in the right to free speech, except for people who agree with him. But there\'s the rub; if Spencer can one day force us to tailor our writings just to suit his useless whims, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me view the realms of denominationalism and cynicism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.
btw- if they had more games, id like them better
Topic: How do u like them apples (Read 821 times)