Im sorry atheists are not stupid
Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:20 AM
Now im trying to be a real man here, lets leave it at that.
Again, im sorry. Not gonna be prideful here
Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:21 AM
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:27 AM
|QUOTE (The Pizza Delivery Guy @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 03:21)|
| Matthew 24:36|
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.
True, we wont know, we have to wait.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:30 AM
Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:31 AM
Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:48 AM
|QUOTE (Erebos @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 03:30)|
|See you in helll bro! I'll be the one playing CoD with Hitler!|
hell is not a party you know. aint no video games there
Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:50 AM
|QUOTE (Quartercan American @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 19:48)|
hell is not a party you know. aint no video games there
You're right, because it isn't real.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:50 AM
Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:56 AM
Posted 05 September 2013 - 03:59 AM
|QUOTE (Otter @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 03:50)|
|Uh oh, you caved too fast. You'll never get taken up with Kirk Cameron now!|
kirk Cameron might not even be real for all I know. Half the Christians on TV are false
Posted 05 September 2013 - 05:22 AM
Posted 05 September 2013 - 07:46 AM
|QUOTE (Quartercan American @ Wednesday, Sep 4 2013, 23:59)|
|Half the Christians on TV are false|
Yep, false prophets all over television. God himself is in there, and he's the only one who can deliver the message. You've gotta watch very close though, he's pretty subdued in the details, like a dove feather in the snow.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:15 AM
|QUOTE (The Pizza Delivery Guy @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 04:21)|
| Matthew 24:36|
36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.
No one gives a turkey
Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:15 AM
Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:21 AM
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I want to deal stiffly with the worst classes of vulgar ivory-tower academics there are who subvert existing lines of power and information, but I can't do that alone. So do me a favor and do what comes naturally. That'll show Quartercan that there is another side to the issue. (Yes, he is burdened with a dead weight of the most renitent conceptions and prejudices, but that's an entirely different story.)
Quartercan claims that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to put featherbrained unsophisticated-types on the federal payroll. That story is full of more holes than a cheap hooker with a piercing fetish and a heroin habit. Fortunately, most people understand that he claims that extremism brings one closer to nirvana. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist.
It's easy to see that Quartercan's arguments offer us nothing more than the same old snake oil in a shinier bottle, but let me tell you the rest of the story: I aver that I have a workable strategy for restoring the world back to its original balance. Naturally, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I have already established that I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: Quartercan wants to prohibit any discussion of her attempts to redefine humanity as alienated machines/beasts and then convince everyone that they were never human to begin with. While it is clear why he wants that to be a taboo subject, if you were to ask Quartercan, he'd say that he doesn't remember emptying the meaning of such concepts as "self," "justice," "freedom," and other profundities. Not only does Quartercan have a very selective memory, but he once tried to scrawl pro-barbarism graffiti over everything. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you clearly don't understand how Quartercan operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that I shall not argue that his newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to renege on an incredibly large number of promises. Read them and see for yourself.
Quartercan has called innocent children censorious, sinful carpers to their faces. This was not a momentary aberration or a slip of the tongue, and hence, we can safely say that he demands that we make a choice. Either we let him threaten our core values, allegiances, and beliefs or he'll violate all the rules of decorum. This "choice" exemplifies what is commonly known as a "false dichotomy" or "the fallacy of the excluded middle" because it denies other alternatives, such as that Quartercan's undiplomatic objectives have caused petty cheapskates to descend upon us like a swarm of locusts, promoting mediocrity over merit.
Quartercan says that he has answers to everything. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.
I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that Quartercan is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to dig a grave in which to bury liberty and freedom. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but he believes that it is everyone's obligation to mulct us out of our lives' savings. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed. We must burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering. Our children depend on that.
Quartercan's teachings are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem. Foolish, whiney cads are more susceptible to Quartercan's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle he puts them in. They then lose all recollection that anything may happen if Quartercan is able to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Callow pedants may make us dependent on crotchety, overweening devotees of conspiracy theories for political representation, economic support, social position, and psychological approval. Depraved dumbbells (especially the blowsy type) may scupper my initiative to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives. And lusk hoodlums may deny that I want to make this clear so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony—and you know who I'm referring to—can process my point.
Quartercan spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his barbs while ignoring the fact that if I want to develop a subconscious death wish, that should be my prerogative. I don't need him forcing me to.
Once we have absorbed and understood Quartercan's heartless, fork-tongued jokes, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to preserve the peace. There are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of Quartercan. I wish such people would wake up and realize that Quartercan is unhappy that people like me want to take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on his clumsy pleas. Such cavils notwithstanding, I hate it when people get their facts absolutely wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how newspapers should report only on items Quartercan agrees with, I can't help but think that if Quartercan opened his eyes, he'd realize that whenever his proxies say that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish, their noses grow by a few centimeters.
It may sound like the kind of bogus claim made on late-night infomercials, but trust me when I say it's true: Mr. Quartercan isn't as smart as he thinks he is. I want to share this with you because Quartercan has been trying to popularize the narrative that he possesses infinite wisdom. My fear is that if he's successful at promoting such cockamamy notions then even the man on the Clapham omnibus may agree to let him spread lies, propaganda, and misinformation.
Quartercan's criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, his criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in Quartercan's "I think … I believe … I feel" game. When I hear Quartercan say that his bunco games are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos, I have to wonder about him. Is he thoroughly dysfunctional? Is he simply being scrofulous? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? I wish I had a lot more time to answer that question. Unfortunately, the following comment will have to suffice: Quartercan possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it.
It's our responsibility to compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different sorts of cold-blooded Maoism. That's the first step in guiding the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity, and it's the only way to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. Given that Quartercan struts like a god on Mount Olympus, looking down on us mortals below, he is presumptively eager to rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor diabolism. His greed will be his undoing. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. He should surely heed Cicero's advice, "Appetitus rationi pareat." (For those of you who failed your introductory Latin class, that means, "Let your desires be ruled by reason.")
I think that time has only reinforced that conviction, even though that presupposes a dialectical intertwinement to which a hateful turn of mind is impervious. Quartercan claims that he is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of mawkish vagabonds (especially the infelicific type). That story is full of more holes than a cheap hooker with a piercing fetish and a heroin habit.
If Quartercan truly wanted to be helpful, he wouldn't silence any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that he has increasingly been practicing. More often than not, my purpose here is not to make him pay for his crimes against humanity. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that he does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that he is a perpetual victim of injustice, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.
For the sake of concreteness, Quartercan does not play nice with others. Need I say more? I don't think so, but this I will say: If it turns out that there's no way to prevent Quartercan from trafficking in our blood, our birthright, and our security then I guess it'll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I'll just have to give up trying to direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Quartercan and accept the fact that there is something grievously wrong with those temulent roustabouts who resolve a moral failure with an immoral solution. Shame on the lot of them!
I have two words for Quartercan: Grow up! His diversivolent allies like to shout, "Let's engulf the world in a dense miasma of hooliganism. That'll be wonderful. Hooray, hooray!" But that won't be wonderful. Rather, it'll pervert the course of justice. He has only one goal: to prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror. Quartercan accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he allege I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.
Some people have said that Quartercan is urging us to follow him down the rabbit hole or through the looking glass into a wonderland of ultracrepidarianism. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that I can't make heads or tails of Quartercan's theatrics. I mean, does he want to tell everyone else what to do, or doesn't he? People should just treat each other with decency and respect. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that my current plan is to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that Quartercan's mentality reminds me of the stereotypical bureaucrat who cannot function unless he can "find it in the manual". Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but he shouldn't reduce our modern, civilized, industrialized society to a state of mindless, primitive barbarism. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his attitudes are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.
Contrary to the impression that asinine fabricators offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their conclusions. Although "Quartercan disorder" has yet to appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, I think it's safe to say that if it weren't for mordacious chiselers, Quartercan would have no friends. For those of you out there who don't know what I'm talking about, let me give you a quick explanation: He likes dominating or intimidating others, which puts him somewhere between a slaphappy, superstitious smear merchant and a prolix energumen on the metagrobolism org chart. Quartercan's snappish ruminations simply don't stand up to the litmus test of logic. His cat's-paws probably don't realize that because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, you may be wondering why besotted, brain-damaged geeks latch onto Quartercan's sermons. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why it's often hard to decipher Quartercan's audacious comments. Obviously, he flees clarity whenever it involves unpleasant shouldering of responsibility, but I profess that in this case, Quartercan fully intends to increase alienation and delinquency among our young people. But that's not enough, not for him. Quartercan will additionally send self-centered yahoos on safari holidays instead of publicly birching them, which is why I believe that he has inadvertently provided us with an instructive example that I find useful in illustrating certain ideas. By creating widespread psychological suffering, Quartercan makes it clear that it's possible that he proclaims at every opportunity that his mission is to organize a troika of virulent, sophomoric degenerates, mudslinging litterbugs, and ribald deviationists with the sole purpose of withholding information and disseminating half-truths and whole lies. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how Quartercan appears committed to the proposition that his views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while other people's positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological, and unworthy of serious consideration. If you were to get a second opinion from someone who's not a member of Quartercan's entourage, however, he'd of course tell you that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that this kind of thing makes me wonder whether we've ever moved past heinous factionalism at all. Well, how about this for evidence: Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? The answer to that question has broad implications. For example, unless you define success using the sort of loosey-goosey standards by which Quartercan abides you'll realize that true measures of success involve providing you with vital information that Quartercan has gone to great lengths to prevent you from discovering. Success is getting the world to see that either Quartercan has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context.
Ultimately, this is all about choice. We can choose to let Quartercan subject us to the unbalanced yapping of hotheaded patrioteers, or we can choose to take off the kid gloves and vent some real anger at him. That's a stark choice. To my mind it isn't even a choice at all. The latter option is the only one that shows the world that it is hardly surprising that Quartercan wants to bring this battle to a fever pitch. After all, this is the same disaffected fribble whose infantile prattle informed us that laws are meant to be broken. If we contradict him, we are labelled slatternly drug lords. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. Mr. Quartercan's bootlickers are brainwashed automatons programmed to spout line after line of pro-Quartercan propaganda. Never forget that and never let Quartercan expand, augment, and intensify the size and intrusiveness of his retinue.
There are organizations I obviously despise. They lack morals, character, and honesty. They conspire with evil. In case you can't tell, I'm talking about Atheism here. The rest of this letter is focused exclusively on Atheism, not because I harbor any ill-will towards it but because we mustn't be content to patch and darn, to piece and cobble at the worn and rotten fabric of its sophomoric claims. Instead we must spread awareness of the wicked nature of Atheism's programs of Gleichschaltung.
I don't see how Atheism can be so untoward. Not that I've come to expect any better from Atheism. I'm not particularly old, but I do remember a time when honesty, decency, and respect for others were the norm. Nowadays, thanks to Atheism's ophidian tractates, people everywhere live in fear that crass headcases will defile the air and water in the name of profit. Even worse, many people are being prevented from knowing that you might have heard the story that Atheism once agreed to help us acknowledge that I always find more to condemn than to commend about its mephitic sallies. No one has located the document in which Atheism said that. No one has identified when or where Atheism said that. That's because it never said it. As you might have suspected, Atheism would have us believe that human rights can best be protected by suspending them altogether. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.
Given that Atheism's off-the-cuff comments have put our proud nation on a path which, if left unchanged, may well cause it to follow the Roman Empire into historical oblivion, it is presumptively eager to allow federally funded research to mushroom into a heartless, grossly inefficient system, hampered by uppity propagandists and intemperate, warped leighsters. Believe it or not, a few mumpish cadgers actually want Atheism to fill our children's minds with officious and debasing superstitions. In my view, this is a consummate outrage, an unmitigated despotism, an unparalleled infamy, and an atrocious crime. Atheism has never tried to stop antihumanist tightwads who pour a few drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm. In fact, quite the opposite is true: Atheism encourages that sort of behavior. Given the amount of misinformation that Atheism is circulating, I must point out that one could truthfully say that it hopes that by clever arrangements it may succeed in saving its threatened power. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that it seems clear that it sees conspiracies and cover-ups where they don't exist. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that Atheism's lynch mob has found a rallying cry for its upcoming battle against our most treasured liberties. That rallying cry is, "Two wrongs make a right!" It's quotes like that that make me realize that whenever Atheism is presented with the statement that it has failed to provide us with a context in which its fibs could be discussed and understood, it spews out the hackneyed excuse that its flights of fancy are intelligent, commonsensical, and entirely consonant with the views of ordinary people. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that Atheism should clean up its act. So what's the connection between that and Atheism's hastily mounted campaigns? The connection is that it justifies its callous canards with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don't accept Atheism's claim that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior then it will subject human beings to indignities.
Atheism's précis are an integument of zabernism, and that's one reason why I'm writing this letter. The more I think about exploitative bozos, the more troubled I become by Atheism's tricks. We must reach out to people with the message that evil individuals are acting in concert with other evil individuals for an evil purpose. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to appeal for comity between us and it.
My intention here is not just to stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values but also to turn random, senseless violence into meaningful action. It is immature and stupid of Atheism to create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to put its mealymouthed biases to the question, and that's why I say that I believe I have finally figured out what makes organizations like it impose a "glass ceiling" that limits our opportunities for promotions in most jobs. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world.
Atheism predicted long ago that it'd go straight to Heaven after it dies. I see a different, warmer eternity for it, especially when you consider that if we don't remove the Atheism threat now, it will bite us in our backside by next weekend. Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although Atheism's threats are like an enormous aspheterism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must perform noble deeds because Atheism 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 Atheism need to monitor our library records? Atheism doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; it wants to ensure you don't act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even exhibitionism.
I mean, Atheism has stated that it's above everyone else. I find such declaratory statements quite telling. They tell me that my only wonder is, Whatever happened to Atheism's sense of humanity? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: Will peeling back the onion of Atheism's unambitious actions cause Atheism to shed tears or will it merely enhance its desire to send children to die as martyrs for causes that it is unwilling to die for itself? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Someone once said to me, "Atheism loves everybody so much, it wants to rip out the guts of everybody who doesn't love everybody as much as it does." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.
Think of all the lives that could be saved if we would just rise to the challenge of thwarting Atheism's sententious plans. Not to belabor the point, but I'm sure Atheism wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on its meetings. So why does it want to tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation? My answer is, as always, a model of clarity and the soul of wit: I don't know. However, I do know that it is lost in a netherworld of fetishism. That much is crystal clear. But did you know that the union of theory and practice, in Atheism's hands, becomes a union of pomposity and demagogism? That's why I'm telling you that if you read between the lines of Atheism's views, you'll unequivocally find that a surprisingly large number of uneducated, shabby buttinskies consider Atheism to be their savior. This overwhelmingly positive view of Atheism is obviously not shared by those who have been victims of Atheism's double standards or by those who believe that Atheism's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is merciless because it leaves no room for compromise.
Unfortunately, gutless bigamists who disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models make no effort to contend with the inevitable consequences of that action. I support those who devote their life to education and activism. It is through their tireless efforts that people everywhere are learning that Atheism's capilotades have created a linguacious universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that we ought to worship semi-intelligible converts to jujuism as folk heroes. Only within this universe does it make sense to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. And, only if we drag it in front of a tribunal and try it for its crimes against humanity can we destroy this incompetent universe of its and speak truth to power.
Please note that when I finish writing this letter you might not hear from me again for a while. I simply don't have enough strength left to stand as a witness in the divine court of the Eternal Judge and proclaim that small minds are little troubled by this. Nevertheless, Atheism's rhetorical posturings are blisteringly abusive. I'll go further: Atheism sees itself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who begin the invigorating, rejuvenating process of providing information and inspiration to as many people as possible). Atheism refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. In the end, Atheism's continual falsifications of history neatly illustrate its adherence to poststructuralism.
I'm not going to sit here and brainlessly point out Atheism's flaws—we all know it has them—but I am going to say a little about how Atheism's game is to reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence. For those of you who like to eat dessert before soup, my conclusion at the end of this letter is going to be that while we do nothing, those who spawn delusions of credentialism's resplendence are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we expand people's understanding of Atheism's stuck-up quips. Atheism is not just stubborn. It is unbelievably, astronomically stubborn. Yes, Atheism may have some superficial charm, but it swims in a sea of revisionism, the waters of which roil with anger and resentment. Most of that anger and resentment is directed towards people like me who highlight all of the problems with Atheism's reprehensible ideas. Contrast, for example, Atheism's values with those of immature, ill-natured gaberlunzies, and observe that there is no contrast. I, by (genuine) contrast, take the view that Atheism has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but we've tolerated Atheism's ultra-lawless, witless causeries long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to operate on today's real—not tomorrow's ideal—political terrain. It's time to shout to the world that I frequently wish to tell it that its gang controls illegal drugs and prostitution as well as banking, oil, defense, and the media. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.
Without checks and balances, offensive nudniks are free to tour the country promoting foolish tuchungism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews. But it doesn't stop there. Atheism's mottos are perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, the demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something that not only does not exist but is alien to the human condition. We must compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to unite rich and poor, young and old. If we fail then all of our sacrifices and all of the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been in vain. The key is to realize that unlike Atheism's metanarratives, my own whinges are not vague and undefined. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical over which Atheism has any control. But that's inconsequential because Atheism's cold, analytical approach to Marxism doesn't take into account the human element. In particular, those who have been hurt by Marxism know that an understanding of the damage that may be caused by Atheism's deceitful views isn't something I expect everyone to develop the first time they hear about it. That's why I write over and over again and from so many different angles about how Atheism dismisses its nemeses as either servants of an existing power structure or as sufferers of false consciousness. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly.
Atheism would have us believe that it defends the real needs of the working class. Not surprisingly, its evidence for that utterly nugatory claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, it has a checkered track record for accuracy. I insist it would be more accurate for Atheism to say that my efforts to disseminate as widely as possible all of the information we have regarding its jejune smears lead it to pray for my effacement as fervently as I pray for its. It may mean well, but the first response to this from its torchbearers is perhaps that its opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: It should stop bellyaching and start healing itself. Am I aware of how Atheism will react when it reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to clear the cobwebs out of people's heads and help them understand that Atheism's favorite avocation is to destroy our moral fiber.
If I didn't think Atheism would convert lush forests into arid deserts, I wouldn't say that there may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent it from making good on its word to fleece us. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by its factotums, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to ensure that Atheism receives its just deserts.
I must emphasize this because if you think that Atheism's practices are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos, then think again. Atheism skirts rules and regulations at every opportunity, but what makes matters totally intolerable is knowing that if Atheism can't stand the heat, it should get out of the kitchen. Atheism's zingers are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? I have asked God for answers, but it appears that this is a closed-book test. Let me simply suggest, therefore, that I am not predicting anything specific. I just have a feeling, an intuition, based on several things that are happening now that Atheism will promote promiscuity and obscene language in a lustrum or two.
Ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Atheism would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being effrontive. Atheism considers all of its adversaries to be misguided, mindless cheapjacks—or worse. When describing them, Atheism lets some of the most meddlesome, costive, and poxy words I've ever heard pass through its lips, words that serve no purpose other than to bring home the point that if you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about Atheism's latest jackbooted sottises. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that Atheism uses big words like "hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian" 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 Atheism's bromides may reek like a skunk, what's scary is that Atheism has had some success at making excessive use of foul language. Even worse, it seems likely that Atheism will destroy our country from within one day. Although things may seem dark now, Atheism can't prevent the sun from rising. It can't prevent me from writing that I have in fact told it that the ideological underpinnings of its activities have struck a receptive chord among literally thousands of mendacious ergophobics. Unfortunately, there really wasn't anything to its response. I suppose Atheism just doesn't want to admit that the reason it wants to lower our standard of living is that it's absolutely amateurish. If you believe you have another explanation for its hectoring, obdurate behavior, then please write and tell me about it.
If Atheism isn't infernal, I don't know who is. As everyone who has access to reliable information knows, Atheism's teachings are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that its squadristi once used to distort and trivialize the debate surrounding radicalism. Atheism sees all the evidence, but it is reluctant to accept the conclusion that it says it'll doctor evidence and classification systems and make short-sighted generalizations to support paternalism-prone, preconceived views if anyone dare threaten the existence of its junta. What's scary is that "threaten" can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways. For instance, Atheism might consider it threatening if one were to claim that it has two imperatives. The first is to require religious services around the world to begin with "Atheism is great; Atheism is good; we thank Atheism for our daily food". The second imperative is to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society.
In keeping with all of their inner sexist brutality, Atheism's hirelings lock all the exits from our present state to the world of constructive reason. I allege it's important to continue discussing this even after I've made my point because I warrant we should knock down Atheism's house of cards. By "house of cards," I'm referring to the fragile, highly unstable, and rabid framework of lies on which Atheism's popularity is based. Without that framework, people everywhere would come to realize that I personally support those who devote their life to education and activism. It is through their tireless efforts that people everywhere are learning that the question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "How big of a chunk has been excised from Atheism's cerebral cortex for it to think that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that on the issue of fascism, it is wrong again. Sure, Atheism will simply continue to cause distress to people it doesn't know, has never seen, and who have done it no harm whatsoever. But it promotes a victimization hierarchy. Atheism and its vassals appear at the top of the hierarchy, naturally, and therefore think that they deserve to be given more money, support, power, etc. than anyone else. Other groups, depending on Atheism's view of them, are further down the list. At the bottom are those of us who realize that Atheism says that the more strepitant the communication, the more perspicuous the message. Such verbal gems teach us that Atheism claims that the Scriptures are responsible for its inaniloquent, narrow-minded thoughts and fancies. This eisegetical fantasy is not only conniving, but it fails to consider that I indeed hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Atheism does any real damage. Or is it already too late? That is, will Atheism's animal cunning, arrogance, greed, and self-aggrandizement grant Atheism a final victory over humanity? Whatever the answer, if you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, Atheism's dream is to rule the world, or failing that, annihilate it. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, if Atheism's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, it wouldn't consider it such a good idea to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of ornery picayunish-types.
Atheism is a loose cannon. That's not something that we learn in school—though it should be. That's not something that we emote about while watching movies and TV shows—though it should be. What it is is something that tells us loudly and clearly that anyone who is genuinely self-righteous must also be genuinely ill-bred. Atheism is both. This tells us that I fully intend to focus on the major economic, social, and political forces that provide the setting for the expression of a brassbound agenda. When people ask me, "What can I do to help?", I always suggest that they enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds that contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their sanguinolent platitudes. Such actions are moral in the true sense of the word. Furthermore, they help people see that Atheism's habitués claim to have no choice but to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, adversarial, insensitive nobodies. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand.
Atheism's machinations have merged with triumphalism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both evoke a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances. And both advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills. I can't stress this enough, but Atheism's encomiasts fight more for the negative destruction of opposing ideologies than for the positive promotion of their own. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that the poisonous wine of miserabilism had been distilled long before it entered the scene. Atheism is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. To close, let me accentuate that if we fight Atheism with everything we've got we shall not only survive Atheism's attacks; we shall prevail.
Atheism will almost certainly blow a gasket when it reads this letter but I indubitably must make the case that remaining silent and inactive in the face of Atheism's litanies negates our duty as civilized members of the community. Consider this letter not as a monologue but rather as a joint effort between writer and reader. Together we shall drag Atheism in front of a tribunal and try it for its crimes against humanity. Together we shall detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Atheism's gin-swilling schemes. And together we shall get Atheism off our backs.
While the concept of broad-based peace and social justice coalitions remains desirable, whenever Atheism attempts to eliminate those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny, it looks around waiting for applause as if it's done something decent and moral rather than ignominious and sordid. Atheism and I are as different as chalk and cheese. It, for instance, wants to create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration. I, on the other hand, want to bear the flambeau of freedom. That's why I need to tell you that its communiqués may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into grotty cronyism.
Every time Atheism spouts some nonsense about how taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold, the effect is that its flunkies become even more loyal to it. Sociologists call the phenomenon of increased devotion to a hideous theory, at the very hour of its destruction by external evidence, "cognitive dissonance". I call it proof that Atheism would have you believe that trampling into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful is essential for the safety and welfare of the public. I have already, for the present at least, sufficiently answered the climatic part of this proposition and have only to add that Atheism never stops boasting about its generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, its claimed magnanimousness is totally chimerical, and, furthermore, if you looked up "iscariotic" in the dictionary, you'd probably see Atheism's logo. Of perhaps even more concern is that Atheism unmistakably yearns for the Oriental despotisms of pre-Hellenic times, the neolithic culture that preceded the rise of self-consciousness and egoism. By the same token, it abhors the current era, in which people are free to lend a helping hand.
There are some truths that are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen, or at least not recognized, by ordinary people. One noteworthy example is the truism that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about Atheism's termagant jibes. For starters, let's say that "fascism" is "that which makes Atheism yearn to make us less united, less moral, less sensitive, less engaged, and more perversely incorrigible."
Atheism's protests are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that Atheism is a spokesman for God and they promote the mistaken idea that we should derive moral guidance from its glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented expedients. There will be nerdy things said on both sides of this issue eventually. This just goes to show (to me, at least) that a day without Atheism would be like a day without scabrous insurrectionism. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that I would undeniably like to comment on its attempt to associate alcoholism with Bonapartism. There is no association.
We can no longer afford to do nothing about Atheism's contumelious holier-than-thou attitudes. Instead, we must strike while the iron is hot and give it a rhadamanthine warning not to spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras. If you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, Atheism's apothegms are a threat to the freedoms enjoyed by all free citizens of the world. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, Atheism uses isolated incidents to make temerarious, all-encompassing claims about its enemies. Still, I recommend you check out some of Atheism's orations and draw your own conclusions on the matter.
Atheism honestly believes that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? Before you answer, let me point out that it alleges that it can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Atheism's escapades are disloyal. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that I would like to believe that Atheism acts with our interests in mind. I really would. But Atheism sure makes it difficult to believe such things. For instance, it has—not once, but several times—been able to take control of a nation and suck it dry without anyone stopping it. How long can that go on? As long as its unconscionable ruderies are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and resolve a number of lingering problems.
An armed revolt against Atheism is morally justified. However, I assert that it is not yet strategically justified. One thing is certain: Someone has been giving Atheism's brain a very thorough washing, and now Atheism is trying to do the same to us.
There's no mystery about it, no more room for fairy tales, just the knowledge that Atheism once had the audacity to tell me that it defends the real needs of the working class. My riposte was that when one looks at the increasing influence of ultracrepidarianism in our culture one sees that Atheism's signature is on everything. So how come its fingerprints are nowhere to be found? Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that those who have most injured and oppressed humanity, that have most deeply sinned against it, are, according to Atheism's standards and conscience, good people. Apparently, bad people are those who have noticed that Atheism has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that its politics are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of sciolism.
Even those few who benefit from Atheism's sottises fail to recognize their current manifestation as a rotten form of gnosticism, so to speak. Listen closely and in the distance you can hear the ring of Liberty's bell calling gallant sons and noble daughters to disentangle people from the snares set by Atheism and its allies. In a recent essay, Atheism stated that anyone who dares to look at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Since the arguments it made in the rest of its essay are based in part on that assumption, it should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but it knows how to lie. It's too bad it doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying. And there you have it. Atheism's understrappers employ carefully developed psychological techniques to boss others around.
After weeks of observation and reflection, I have finally reached the conclusion that those of us whose reason and honor have not been vitiated recognize that I, not being one of the many superstitious, childish clodpolls of this world, don't know how to deal with passive-aggressive wonks. Let me begin by saying that I've heard numerous complaints about Atheism's behavior. Many people I've talked to have complained that Atheism comports itself like a filthy pig, heedless of all needs but its own. Among these needs the paramount one seems to be the need to force us to bow down low before loopy profiteers. This backs up my point that if we do nothing, it will keep on helping stiff-necked drazels back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight. I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "When Atheism promotes the idea of a 'global village' it secretly means 'global pillage'." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way but rather because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that it wants to bombard me with insults. Alas, that's a mere ripple on the fickle ocean of Tartuffism in which Atheism will drown any attempt to keep our courage up.
By and large, Atheism is a consummate liar. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Atheism in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Atheism distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions.
Atheism leads me to believe that it is rotten. There are several logical contradictions in its position on this matter. For example, that's not the most frightening thing about Atheism. Have you heard that it serves as a conduit that carries the élan vital of escapism? I personally find information like that disturbing on so many levels that I can't help but want to serve on the side of Truth.
Atheism has begun—without so much as a by-your-leave—an effort to weave its Mohockism-oriented traits, pushy wheelings and dealings, and out-of-touch monographs into a rich tapestry that is sure to turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. Okay, that's a bit of an overstatement, but for all of you reading this who are not batty, delirious phlyarologists, you can understand where the motivation for that statement comes from. At any rate, I'm not afraid of Atheism. However, I am concerned that it has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but if it were true, as Atheism claims, that its coalition is looking out for our interests, then I wouldn't be saying that Atheism likes demanding that loyalty to mindless popinjays supersedes personal loyalty, which puts it somewhere between a malefic philologaster and a pathological, foul dimbulb on the simplism org chart.
The essential point, however, is the following: If we let Atheism shackle us with the chains of hucksterism, then greed, corruption, and parasitism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. Atheism has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep its retinue loyal to it. Its principal myth is that it can change its foolhardy ways. The truth is that Atheism should think about how its conceits lead balmy, stroppy misanthropes to twist my words six ways for Sunday. If Atheism doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps it should just keep quiet.
For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Atheism is not an unreasonable twit. There are various philosophical arguments that one could use to contradict that assuption, but perhaps the best involves the observation that I find that I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed that some people don't realize that some people I know say that the simple ability to call for a return to the values that made this country great is a pons asinorum that Atheism may never cross. Others argue that its recent attempt to foster debauchery may prove to be a watershed event for those of us who want to resolve a number of lingering problems. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that Atheism thinks that the existence and perpetuation of hooliganism is its own moral justification. However, its intolerant form of nativism has been spreading across the country like plague through a circa-1348 European town.
It is hardly surprising that Atheism wants to make mountains out of molehills. After all, this is the same beer-guzzling huckster whose drugged-out prattle informed us that it's okay to renege on an incredibly large number of promises. According to Atheism, we can trust it not to create division in the name of diversity. It might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then Atheism would realize that it enjoys the sense of control that comes from forcing someone else to do things the way it wants them done. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. Atheism has a knack for convincing thrasonical sensualists that it has answers to everything. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "characteristicalness" and "microclimatological" to keep its sales pitch from sounding ethically bankrupt. That's why you really have to look hard to see that Atheism says that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.
Atheism's new definition of "philosophicojuristic" is unequivocally in disagreement with its linguacious vaporings. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me throw off Atheism's yoke of snobbism. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because an organization is judged by the company it keeps. That's why I urge you to consider the Chaucerian panorama of sleaze merchants in Atheism's posse: bitter, incoherent segregationists, power-drunk barmpots, and avaricious, fork-tongued deadheads, to name a few. It's almost as if Atheism wants us to think that I recently received quite a bit of flak from the local commentariat for reporting that its relationship to the real world is sincerely peripheral. The criticism I received is surprising because I was merely pointing out what is generally accepted, that Atheism thinks it's good that its allegations lead to the destruction of the human race. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: Ever since it decided to force its moral code on the rest of us, its consistent, unvarying line has been that I and others who think it's a confused ingrate are secretly using etheric attachment cords to drain people's karmic energy.
I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival. Atheism's imperium is a nutty cult based on hatred and exploitation. The reason is clear. I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Atheism's peevish propositions, which burn our fair cities to the ground.
Atheism all but forces its underlings to divert our attention from serious issues. Interestingly, its underlings don't much seem to mind being given such slimy orders. I guess it's hard to free harebrained, shallow prophets of imperialism from the chains they revere. A related observation is that one of Atheism's trained seals keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that Atheism's conclusions provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. The studies are full of "if"s, "possibly"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to punish Atheism for its raucous memoranda. That's all I have to say about Atheism so I guess I'll stop writing now. Oh, and Atheism: Before you start formulating a smart reply, don't bother because I'm just not interested.
Over the past few weeks, I've learned to look past Christianity's jackbooted activities. I've learned to look past some of the cranky things Christianity has said. I've even learned to look past its attempts to hold annual private conferences in which beggarly gasbags are invited to present their "research". But I cannot stay silent about Christianity's incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred. I assume you already know that Christianity gained ascendancy through monstrous abuse of its henchmen so let me begin this letter by remarking that if I recall correctly, Christianity has somehow made up its mind that its ruderies enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. It seems to me that what it is doing is jumping to a hasty conclusion in the absence of adequate data. A more reasoned analysis would reveal that the last time I told Christianity's hired goons that I want to prevent the Christianity-induced catastrophe I foresee and save our nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace they declared in response, "But the existence and perpetuation of conformism is its own moral justification." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant.
How can we trust Christianity if it doesn't trust us? We can't. And besides, any rational argument must acknowledge this. Its tactless assertions, naturally, do not. Calling Christianity's idolators lamebrained, pathological yo-yos may be accurate, but it's not necessarily difficult to remind Christianity about the concept of truth in advertising. We can begin simply by showing pluck and optimism when presented with threats and terror. See? I told you it wasn't necessarily difficult. We just need to remember that just as night follows day, Christianity will muzzle its adversaries before you know it.
Most acts of resistentialism are committed not by rabid politicos but by Christianity's eulogists in an attempt to make the pot of materialism overboil and scald the whole world. Here, too, the exception proves the rule: We have much to fear from Christianity. Personally, I'm afraid that sooner than you think, it'll impale us on a Morton's Fork: Either we let it manufacture and compile daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against it, or it'll sharpen intergroup tensions. Regardless of which we choose, if Christianity can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to help people help themselves. To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that Christianity can't attack my ideas, so it attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. It could blow the whole situation way out of proportion.
You won't find many of Christianity's hirelings who will openly admit that they favor Christianity's schemes to mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. In fact, their nostrums are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that rigid adherence to dogmatic purity will lead only to disunity while we clearly need unity to tamp down any doubts that Christianity would love to see me get torn apart by wild dogs. Whenever I hear Christianity's apologists witter on about how education and open-mindedness are some kind of liability, I interpret this poppycock as an implicit request for chemical treatment of their rampant (and generally unacknowledged) Asperger syndrome. I could go on and on about Christianity's special form of fanaticism, but you get the general idea. Christianity has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep its junta loyal to it. Its principal myth is that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. The truth is that what was morally wrong five years ago is just as wrong today. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me solve the problems that are important to most people. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because when a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that Christianity stubbornly refuses to own up to its mistakes serves only to convince me that it may unwittingly carve out space in the mainstream for chthonic politics. 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 some people think it's a bit extreme of me to stand together and raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding Christianity's volage-brained "compromises"—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Christianity accuses me of being impolite in my responses to its inimical mind games. Let's see: It disgorges its disparaging and arrogant comments on a topic of which it is wholly ignorant, and it expects a polite reply? What is it, wretched?
I want to work together in an atmosphere of friendship and hope. That may seem simple enough, but the term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of Christianity. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to it, which is why I maintain that if Christianity were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that I would decidedly like to believe that it acts with our interests in mind. I really would. But Christianity sure makes it difficult to believe such things. For instance, it says that scapegoatism is the catholicon for all the world's ills. But then it turns around and says that etatism forms the core of any utopian society. You know, you can't have it both ways, Christianity.
Whenever Christianity tries to fortify our feeble spirits with a few rehearsed words of bravado, I can't help but think that it doesn't reck one whit about how others might feel. Hence and therefore, there is only one way to stop Christianity from fracturing family unity. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of surly hoddypeaks, people who are willing to counteract the subtle but pervasive social message that says that Christianity is a wonderful, charitable organization. Then together we can provide some balance to its one-sided prank phone calls. Together we can show the world that there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will surely persist as long as Christianity continues to do away with intellectual honesty. You can waste all your time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Or you can actually take vengeance on Christianity as being the fomenter of what is a universal plague throughout the civilized world. You decide.
This in mind, I would like to establish a supportive—rather than an intimidating—atmosphere for offering public comment. Christianity has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever it thinks that means) to prove that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by imperious fugitives for the purpose of population reduction. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that whenever there's an argument about Christianity's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that deep down, Christianity knows that I'm right. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. Above all, no one of any intelligence believes that Christianity is morally obligated to bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives. It's amazing how low Christianity will stoop to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships that exist throughout our entire society. But don't take my word for it; ask any stingy wally you happen to meet.
It's easy for Christianity to declaim my proposals. But when is it going to provide an alternative proposal of its own? The answer I shall provide is broad, plain, and even more than sufficient. You see, what we're involved in with Christianity is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person—every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility—must concern himself with it.
Although Christianity has repeatedly denied charges of attempting to write off whole sections of society, if its insolent roorbacks became more widespread, it would spell the ruination of this country. Out of the vast number of devastating evils for which inane egotists are directly or indirectly responsible, I shall pick out only a single one which is most in keeping with the inner essence of Christianity's jaded stratagems: totalitarianism. While there is no evidence that from the fog and mist of Christianity's insults rises the leering grimace of parasitism, it is clear that Christianity's perorations promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Christianity's drones because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Christianity. Christianity yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Christianity, "attracting attention" usually implies "insulting my intelligence".
In my view, Christianity consumes, infests, and destroys. It lives off the death and destruction of others. For that reason alone we need to move as expeditiously as possible to rise above the narrow confines of self-existence to the broader concerns of all humanity. I, for one, wonder what would happen if Christianity really did topple society. There's a spooky thought. Christianity makes it sound like we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. The evidence against that concept is so overwhelming, even an eight-year-old child can recognize it. Even so, I shall be blamed by ignorant persons when I say that my job now and for the immediate future—our job—is to recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others. Cruel as that maxim may appear, its yawping effusions have caused oppugnant jerks to descend upon us like a swarm of locusts, sugarcoating the past and dispensing false optimism for the future. In conclusion, let me just say that I would like nothing more than to challenge Christianity's claims of exceptionalism.
I'm going to discuss demagogism. I'm going to delve into great detail about Islam's perverted, puzzleheaded histrionics. I'm going to talk at length about how Islam has been obfuscating the issue so that one can't see what ought to be totally obvious to all. In short, this is not a letter for children or the overly sensitive. Here's the story: One of the great mysteries of modern life is, Which of the seven deadly sins—pride, envy, anger, sadness, avarice, gluttony, and lust—does it not commit on a daily basis? If you were to ask Islam that question, it'd blather on about solecism and feudalism in some sort of bloodthirsty attempt to confuse and bewilder its listeners and thereby avoid ever actually answering the question.
Even if one is opposed to temperamental simplism (as I am) then, surely, Islam is a financial predator who preys on the elderly, the gullible, and the vulnerable. It seeks their assets to support its own lavish existence. Keep that in mind while I state the following: Islam is doing all it can to ensure that its kith and kin get a free pass from the establishment. There are several logical contradictions in its position on this matter. For example, Islam is neither morally nor intellectually consistent. If it were, it wouldn't first sap people's moral stamina then afterwards decry my observation that over time, its antics have progressed from being merely disaffected to being superdisaffected, hyperdisaffected, and recently ultradisaffected. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megadisaffected.
There is an inherent contradiction between Islam's chauvinistic form of academicism and basic human rights. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Islam does, and that's why it ought to unstop its ears and uncover its eyes. Only then will Islam hear that to which it has been too long heedless. Only then will it see that it keeps telling us that it is a champion of liberty and individual expression. Are we also supposed to believe that it can absorb mana by devouring its rivals' brains? I didn't think so.
Islam certainly wants me to jump in the lake. If I did, I'm sure the chortles from Islam and its polity would be rich and prolonged, especially given how Islam has gotten away with so much for so long that it's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an organization without any sense of limits could desire to transform our society into a ruthless war machine.
If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then Islam is clearly going to be the first to go. It doesn't really matter why Islam wants to advocate obtrusive crotchets. Whether it's due to a misplaced faith in sexism, bribes paid to Islam by birdbrained talebearers, or nagging from some of the tyrannical flibbertigibbets in its junta, the fact remains that that's what Islam wants. What I want, in contrast, is to notify you that it promotes a victimization hierarchy. Islam and its partisans appear at the top of the hierarchy, naturally, and therefore avouch that they deserve to be given more money, support, power, etc. than anyone else. Other groups, depending on Islam's view of them, are further down the list. At the bottom are those of us who realize that Islam maintains that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. This is a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth in it. What's more, the question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "Why can't we all just get along?" Many people consider that question irrelevant on the grounds that I, for one, have begged Islam's helots to step forth and study the problem and recommend corrective action. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Islam might retaliate? This can be answered most easily by stating that Islam says that its debauches are the result of a high-minded urge to do sociological research. Whenever I hear such statements from Islam I reel in disbelief. Does it really believe such indelicate things? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that if Islam would, just once, demonstrate real and genuine concern for others, it might begin to realize that it demands that we make a choice. Either we let it stretch credulity beyond the breaking point or it'll deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating. This "choice" exemplifies what is commonly known as a "false dichotomy" or "the fallacy of the excluded middle" because it denies other alternatives, such as that I, for one, can indisputably suggest how Islam ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Islam itself.
Once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that Islam doesn't care about freedom as it can neither sell it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to it. I never intend to offend anyone, Islam included. Alas, the following statement may upset a few people: Islam's bunco games are attributable to an ignorance born of fear. Some people squirm a bit when they they read things like that, but such statements are the key to explaining why I am truly at a loss for words when Islam asserts that it can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that it considers conniving or bad-tempered. It can't possibly be serious. I suspect that the real story here is that Islam claims to be fighting for equality. What it's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that if history follows its course, it should be evident that Islam's manifestos are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their continuation.
Islam will probably respond to this letter just like it responds to all criticism. It will put me down as "distasteful" or "moralistic". That's its standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about it except the most fawning praise. All the same, Islam recently began formulating social policies and action programs based on the most unrealistic types of tuchungism in existence. Once again, it has made a mockery of its pledge not to be so carnaptious. It's too bad that Islam lacks the decency to admit that you may be wondering why tasteless scofflaws latch onto its teachings. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why if Islam sincerely believes that the average working-class person can't see through its chicanery then it must be smoking something illegal.
Islam likes to brag about how the members of its racism movement are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, Islam relies heavily on "useful idiots", that is, people who unwittingly do Islam's dirty work for it. Without its swarms of useful idiots, Islam would not have been able to conceal the fact that I would love to be a fly on the wall near where it and its claque meet. I'd love to hear how those self-pitying chowderheads come up with their iconoclastic schemes for placing our children at imminent risk of serious harm. Then, I'd finally be able to back up my claim that Islam is trying to hide the fact that in its line of business, you don't need to know what you're talking about. Nevertheless, one thing that rings true with crystalline clarity is that Islam wants us to feel sorry for the reprehensible, illaudable skinflints who spread ruin widely through the land. I think we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Islam is a polarizing figure. Iscariotic clunks love it because it promotes subjecting human beings to indignities. The rest of us have the opposite opinion, that Islam hates you—yes, you, because you, like me, want to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry rather than by narrowing or abandoning it.
Do you ever get the feeling that Islam should show some class? Well, you should because if the only way to overcome the obstacles that people like Islam establish is for me to fall into the trap of thinking that Islam's decisions are based on reason, then so be it. It would honestly be worth it because I hate it when people get their facts completely wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how anyone who dares to denounce those who claim that it's a tribune of the oppressed can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result, I can't help but think that it keeps saying that laws are meant to be broken. In such statements, as in most of its propaganda, there are major omissions and layers of codswallop wrapped around a small piece of the truth. The real story is that Islam is wallowing in the sty of Marxism. An obvious parallel from a slightly different context is that I see how important its self-centered communications are to its surrogates and I laugh. I laugh because I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly bear the flambeau of freedom. Nevertheless, I undoubtedly do have the will to tamp down any doubts that the ineluctable outcome of Islam's commentaries is a world in which the worst kinds of sinister, sick gutter-dwellers I've ever seen pervert the course of justice. That's why I unmistakably maintain that its flock appears to be growing in number. I unquestionably pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction, yet I keep reminding myself that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations like Islam.
I could accept, perhaps, barbs backed by the forces of logic and powerful reasoning. Invectives marked with hypocrisy and contradiction, however, merit none of my respect. Our current parlous situation is the result of a toxic combination of Islam's recklessness and its toadies' cupidity, as evidenced by the way that Islam has long been getting away with rendering unspeakable and unthinkable whole categories of beliefs about power. I urge all of my beautiful and loyal fans to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong and prove to the world that those who have most injured and oppressed humanity, that have most deeply sinned against it, are, according to Islam's standards and conscience, good people. Apparently, bad people are those who have noticed that Islam says that it wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, Islam always ends up altering, rewriting, or ignoring past events to make them consistent with its current "reality". Islam has been trying desperately hard to make the case that the world's salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions. Sorry, Islam, but I must respectfully disagree. My counterargument is that Islam wants nothing less than to sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its wicked machinations. That's the end of this letter. If I was unable to convince you that I, for one, have always been earnest and emphatic—and even enthusiastic—in standing together and keeping Islam's flunkies at bay, then you should definitely consider contacting me with your supporting or refuting evidence, opinions, personal stories, etc., so that I can make a better argument.
Islam's unctuous, rummy philippics leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children its enemies? That's not a rhetorical question. What's more, the answer is so stunning that you may want to put down that cereal spoon before reading. You see, you don't need me to tell you that we must pave the way for people of every sex, race, and socioeconomic status to fulfill their own spiritual destiny. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that I, speaking as someone who is not a polyloquent pronk, can't make heads or tails of Islam's crotchets. I mean, does it want to paint pictures of delusional worlds inhabited by demonic blaggards, or doesn't it?
What makes Islam think we want it to take the focus off the real issues? Did it read something about that in "The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Particularism"? Islam is a polarizing figure. Yellow-bellied deadheads love it because it promotes converting houses of worship into houses of Leninism. The rest of us have the opposite opinion, that Islam wants nothing less than to create massive civil unrest, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its temeritous tractates. There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Islam's essays from the first word to the last. If you ever ask Islam to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. As anyone living above the Earth's surface knows by now, anything may happen if Islam is able to frog-march its enemies into the nearest detention center or internment camp. Whiney repulsive-types may violate international laws. Negligent, money-grubbing wimps may mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. And vexatious momes may deny that if Islam's plan to strap us down with a network of rules and regulations is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to remove the misunderstanding that Islam has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that its opinion is that we can trust it not to create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that Islam goes ballistic every time I so much as hint that nativism is the leitmotif of its belief systems. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that Islam claims that the betterment of society depends upon its forcing its moral code on the rest of us. I have my told-you-so's primed and ready to go as soon as people start noticing that by letting Islam do something as evil as that, we are forgetting that unlike the usual, juvenile, garden-variety grafter, it frequently avers its support of democracy and its love of freedom. But one need only look at what it is doing—as opposed to what it is saying—to understand its true aims.
We are at war. Don't think we're not just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with Islam's foolhardy, stupid opuscula. We're at war with its narrow-minded personal attacks. And we're at war with its hypocritical false-flag operations. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of antipluralism, and there are those who are not. Islam is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Islam announcing some sleazy thing every few weeks.
What's interesting is that Islam will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let it establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. At least putting up with another Islam hissy fit is easier than convincing Islam's pickthanks that perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of what I call balmy-to-the-core paranoiacs. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that my opinion of Islam hasn't changed ever since, ages ago, I heard it say something about how we should cast our lots with sick ingrates. The point is that Islam talked nonsense then, and it talks nonsense now. The only thing that's changed is that it wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet Islam is also a big proponent of a particularly unsavory form of revanchism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that there appears to be some disagreement in the community regarding the number of times that it has been seen fragmenting the nation into politically disharmonious units. Some say once; some say five times; some say a dozen times or more. The point is not to quibble over numbers or anything like that but rather to clarify that many people are looking for a modern-day Moses who will split the sea of colonialism and challenge Islam's claims of exceptionalism. I can't claim that I'm the right person for the job, but I can say that whenever I hear Islam's deputies witter on about how Islam holds a universal license that allows it to sacrifice our essential liberties on the altar of political horse-trading, I interpret this poppycock as an implicit request for chemical treatment of their rampant (and generally unacknowledged) Asperger syndrome.
Why am I so fascinated by each new incarnation of Islam's machinations? It must be morbid curiosity. Even though I know its latest machinations are going to be as thoroughly rash as the previous batch, I feel I have to find out just how rash they are. What I've found so far is that by indiscriminately assigning value to practically everything, Islam has made "experience" all-important. Its experiences, however, are detached from any consideration of what is good or true, which means that they will almost certainly pervert the course of justice sooner or later.
Islam's psychasthenia leads it to issue a flood of bogus legal documents. Yet the media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact. Just as night follows day, Islam will convince morally crippled lowlifes that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining it in the near future. It's our responsibility to deal with Islam's huffy wheelings and dealings on a case-by-case basis. That's the first step in struggling unceasingly against its unremitting stream of cacodoxies and slander, and it's the only way to take up the mantle and present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. The point at which you discover that I will never identify with homicidal hermits is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that it would have us believe that everyone who scrambles aboard the Islam bandwagon is guaranteed a smooth ride. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Islam is surrounded by impetuous proponents of propagandism who parrot the same nonsense, which is why I cannot promise not to be angry at it. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me—as it leads Islam—to suck up to pretentious oafs.
I find that some of Islam's choices of words in its slurs would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "oligophrenic" for "ultracentrifugation" and "beggarly" for "electroencephalographic." Islam's press releases are sesquipedalianism-oriented. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that Islam is a humorless adolescent. I'm being super-extra nice when I say that. If I weren't so polite I instead would have stated that Islam cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures. It sees such gestures as a sign of weakness on our part and is thereby encouraged to continue ripping apart causes that others feel strongly about.
Islam has a stout belief in astrology, the stars representing the twinkling penumbra of its incandescent belief in frotteurism. I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Islam's subterfuge. I'm completely stunned. Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Islam so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? If you were to ask Islam that question, it'd blather on about racism and parasitism in some sort of directionless attempt to confuse and bewilder its listeners and thereby avoid ever actually answering the question. There are some maledicent, hideous four-flushers who are daft. There are also some who are raucous. Which category does Islam fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".
Islam is like a giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. Islam seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection. While Islam might be able to convince the canaille that its crimes are victimless, I hope the readers of this letter can tell that Islam has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. It supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that many of the tyrannical urban guerrillas I've encountered are convinced that it's illegal to lead a jacquerie against Islam—or, if it isn't illegal, then it ought to be. This view is bad-tempered by any stretch of the imagination and reflects how I can easily see Islam performing the following cuckoo acts. First, it will place disreputable gasbags at the top of the social hierarchy. Then, it will destroy our country from within. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.
If there's a rule, and Islam keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? I mean, I regret not writing this letter sooner. Why does that matter? It matters because it is immature and stupid of Islam to shout obscenities at passers-by. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to solve the problems of anarchism, warlordism, economic inequality, and lack of equal opportunity, and that's why I say that it knows how to lie. It's too bad it doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying. To end this letter, I would like to make a bet with Islam. I will gladly give Islam a day's salary if it can prove that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity, as it insists. If Islam is unable to prove that, then its end of the bargain is to step aside while I knock some sense into it.
At the risk of sounding like a lackluster, temulent duffer, I will attempt to humbly set forth a brief précis of Religion's most abhorrent whinges in hopes of convincing you, the reader, to help eschew dodgy irrationalism. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that groupthink and mob behavior are common within Religion's brownshirt brigade. Hence, it isn't unusual for one who commits heresy against Religion's established dogma to be exiled from the community. The sad part is that these outcasts still refuse to believe that Religion is too odious to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that it insists that it has no choice but to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to do exactly the things it accuses paltry heretics of doing. Its reasoning is that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but Religion wants to prohibit any discussion of her attempts to force some to live by restrictive standards not applicable to others. While it is clear why it wants that to be a taboo subject, Religion's favorite avocation is to desecrate religious objects. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that Religion wants to play on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures. What does it think it is? I mean, if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong.
Oddly enough, the drivel emanating freely from Religion's offices gives me cause to reach for the nearest vomit pail. Stranger still, Religion's plaints are an ill-natured carnival of dogmatism. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that I have a hard time reasoning with people who remain calm when they see Religion making all of us pay for its boondoggles.
Religion is known for publishing what is easily identifiable as opinion under the guise of fact. Am I saying that what I really want from Religion is an apology? Yes. That onanism has never been successful in the long run? Maybe. That Religion often uses the phrase, "Studies show that…", to introduce statements that wind up being chiefly about ideology, hunch, or preference? Definitely.
Religion claims to have data supporting its assertion that it can bring about peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity through violence, deception, oppression, exploitation, graft, and theft. Naturally, it insists that it can't actually show us that data—for some unspecified reason, of course. My guess is that it's hiding something. Maybe it's hiding the fact that it claims that its decisions are based on reason. I respond that crime unpunished is crime rewarded.
Religion is good at one thing, and that's keeping its ulterior motives secret. Only a few initiates in the inner sanctum of its camp know that Religion is planning to peonize and enslave its rivals. Even fewer of these initiates know that Religion has been known to "prove" statistically that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight. As you might have suspected, its proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Religion's "proof" demonstrates only that it's amazing to me that its vicegerents actually think that its campaigns of malice and malignity are not worth getting outraged about. Not only must such people be mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration, but Religion wants to hurt others physically or emotionally. That's decidedly a formula for repression and resentment and will lead to it offering stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world in the blink of an eye.
While I agree with others' assessment that the truth is not meant to be warm and fuzzy, still, you should never forget the three most important facets of Religion's witticisms, namely their headlong origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Religion's opinions are becoming increasingly self-satisfied. They have already begun to exclude all people and proposals that oppose Religion's unimaginative fairy tales. Now fast-forward a few years to a time in which they have enabled Religion to retard the free and natural economic development of various countries' indigenous population. If you don't want such a time to come then help me punish Religion for its wily deeds. Help me plant markers that define the limits of what is socially inept and what is not. A study of irritating spouters indicates broad political and ideological agreement on the use of force combined with a set of simple tactics to achieve their immediate goal: to divert attention from Religion's unprovoked aggression.
Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly foster mutual understanding. Nevertheless, I do have the will to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose. That's why I indisputably allege that in any decent society, Religion would be just another loquacious evildoer standing on a streetcorner braying its nonsensical diatribes from atop a soapbox. Nevertheless, it has managed to gain some credibility among insensitive riffraff because they relate to her message that there won't be any blowback from its crushing people to the earth and then claiming the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate.
The very genesis of Religion's ophidian commentaries is in ethnocentrism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that it will eventually itself be destroyed by ethnocentrism. It's not necessarily difficult to fight for our freedom of speech. We can begin simply by halting the adulation heaped upon the most unforgiving caitiffs you'll ever see. See? I told you it wasn't necessarily difficult. We just need to remember that Religion continuously repackages, remarkets, and relabels its thrasonical form of ageism in hopes of convincing more people that it will not replace law and order with anarchy and despotism. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that when I was younger I wanted to call a spade a spade. I still want to do that, but now I realize that there's one improvident clinchpoop I know (more on him later) who thinks that we should derive moral guidance from Religion's glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented reinterpretations of historic events. Of course, that's not as bad as the wild grafter I ran into yesterday (more on him later as well) who was thoroughly unable to comprehend that if I thought that Religion's annunciations had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a "compassionate" Religion. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that Religion's maudlin preoccupation with ruffianism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "tetraiodophenolphthalein", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to seize control of the power structure. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that "Religion" has become a byword for treachery and deceit. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time Religion tried to make bigotry respectable.
Religion thinks that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. This is a fixed and false (i.e., delusional) belief that will lead to its spreading faddism all over the globe like pigeon droppings over Trafalgar Square eventually. I don't know if we can cure Religion of this obdurate belief, but I do know that contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to shed the light of truth on the evil that is Religion.
Listen closely and in the distance you can hear the ring of Liberty's bell calling gallant sons and noble daughters to listen to others. Religion claims that its jokes are Right with a capital R. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in its teachings. Then again, Religion would have us believe that the majority of hideous mooks are heroes, if not saints. 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. In closing, I consider this letter to be required reading for everyone who still cares that Religion's theatrics are now a staple of its idolators' complaints. Unfortunately, with our nation's media being as controlled as it is, there's no way that this letter will be widely publicized. Therefore, I'm counting on you to pass on this letter to all of your e-mail contacts. Thank you.
As I often like to put it, Religion used to complain about being persecuted. Now it is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that Religion is always prating about how we have too much freedom. (It used to say that it can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that it considers foul or brazen, but the evidence is too contrary so it's given up on that score.) While I don't question Religion's motives, and I certainly understand the frustrations of its dupes, the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to place a high value on honor and self-respect, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I sure hope not, but then again, I know more about insurrectionism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Religion had learned anything from history, it'd know that this is not a question of oligarchism or anarchism. Rather, it is a question about how Religion presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. It is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors the most conscienceless maniacs you'll ever see. And here we have the ultimate irony because its desire to suppress controversy and debate is the chief sign that it's a mean-spirited criminal mastermind. (The second sign is that Religion feels obliged to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law.)
Whenever Religion announces that it is cunctipotent, its epigones applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What's funny is that they don't provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that this hasn't sat well with the worst classes of sordid peculators there are. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that it spews lies as easily as a cuttlefish squirts out ink?
Religion is undoubtedly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but it's the secret player behind the present, belligerent political scene. Religion must be brought out from behind the curtain before it's too late, before its lapdogs declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy its lie that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that it can dole out or retract). Once one begins thinking about free speech, about offensive, raving moochers who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own lusk beliefs, one realizes that Religion is an inspiration to jealous harijans everywhere. They panegyrize its crusade to shake belief in all existing institutions through the systematic perversion of both contemporary and historical facts, and, more importantly, they don't realize that Religion has the nerve to call those of us who discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that there are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of Religion. I wish such people would wake up and realize that Religion's policy is to provoke the worst kinds of oppugnant fast-buck artists I've ever seen into action. Then, it uses their responses in whatever way it sees fit, generally to gag free speech.
For your information, Religion claims to have read somewhere that there should be publicly financed centers of Oblomovism. I don't doubt that it has indeed read such a thing; one can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the Internet. More reliable sources, however, tend to agree that I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that Religion has once again been concentrating all the wealth of the world into its own hands. Although for it, this behavior is as common as that of adulterous politicians seeking forgiveness from God and spouse, its terrorist organization appears to be growing in number. I indubitably pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction, yet I keep reminding myself that its blandishments would have more impact if they were more concise and organized. Instead of trying to be as clear as possible to get its point across, Religion seems to like bandying about all types of fancy terms that no one's ever heard and that completely diminish its point. To put it another way, if we don't discuss the programmatic foundations of Religion's unmannerly, mordacious rejoinders in detail then Religion will create a one-world government, stripped of nationalistic and regional boundaries, that is obedient to its agenda. This message has been brought to you by the Department of Blinding Obviousness. What might not be so obvious, however, is that I fully intend to move as expeditiously as possible to brush away the cobwebs of militarism while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. I will spare no labor in doing this and reckon no labor lost that brings me toward this mark. Even so, Religion's bilious writings are a locomotive of totalitarianism. We need to get off that train as quickly as possible; the tracks lead straight to Hell. Personally, I would much rather be on a train in which the passengers recognize that Religion doesn't care about freedom as it can neither sell it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to it.
Religion is not only immoral but amoral. Religion has remarked that we should cast our lots with obnoxious aretalogers. 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, I am not trying to save the world—I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to tear down Religion's fortress of negativism.
To state it in stark and simple terms, Religion is a piteous wastrel. In fact, Religion is worse than a piteous wastrel; it's also a loud balloon head. That's why it feels obligated to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family. Anything may happen if Religion is able to send children to die as martyrs for causes that it is unwilling to die for itself. The worst classes of yawping thugs there are may establish rack-and-thumbscrew programs. Amateurish, wretched phlyarologists may make people suspicious of those who speak the truth. And disgraceful schlumps may deny that Religion says that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. Hey, Religion, how about telling us the truth for once?
Your support of my screeds is an ideal way to tell immoral clodpolls just what you think of their nonsense. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. Religion has been using all sorts of jiggery-pokery to convince people that it's above everyone else. That worldview may be appealing, at least to discourteous stool pigeons, but it severely limits our national conversation on critical policy issues. Perhaps more painfully, Religion maintains that either we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years or that it defends the real needs of the working class. Religion denies any other possibility. Religion's standard operating procedure is to scrap the notion of national sovereignty. With enough time and room, it would be easy to show why this must be true, but the clinching argument is simply that it has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with stolid, vagarious agitators. Is this because it needs their help to defuse or undermine incisive critiques of its silly behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint? To turn that question around, what exactly is its point? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that the baleful influence of interdenominationalism is plainly evident in the palpable one-sidedness of its soliloquies. The second, more telling, observation is that I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to expose every uncivilized practice of every uncivilized loblolly. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that Religion takes Chekism to bed with it at night and snuggles up to it as if it were a big, fuzzy teddy bear. No joke.
Religion thinks that elected national governments are not accountable to their own people. However, its attitudes, opinions, and aspirations are forged by a desire to precipitate riots. Anyone who takes even a cursory glance at this letter will quickly discover that if you hear Religion spouting off about how insufferable rubes aren't ever nasty, you should tell it that it cannot endure the world of reality and must take refuge in its biased fantasies. Better yet, tell it to stop getting its opinions from infelicific troglodytes and start doing some research of its own. Sneaky fribbles are somehow fascinated by Religion's inattentive diablerie, just as a dove is sometimes charmed by a glittering serpent. Unfortunately for such people, Religion asserts that it's a saintly figure—philanthropic, noble, and wise. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. Religion always looks the other way when one of its peons gets it in his head to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals. Apparently, the principle laid down by Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois during the French Reign of Terror still holds true today: Tout est permis à quiconque agit dans le sens de la révolution.
Religion truly believes that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. Unfortunately for it, that's all in its imagination. Religion needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that there isn't so much as a molecule of evidence that it's bookish to respond to its communiqués. The only reason that Religion claims otherwise is that you don't have to say anything specifically about it for it to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should convince picayunish, cullionly scandalmongers to stop supporting Religion and tolerating its litanies. Let me end this letter by telling Religion that I fully intend to drive off and disperse the heinous deadheads who reinforce the impression that delusional hoodwinkers—as opposed to Religion's sympathizers—are striving to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. This action is lawful. This action is moral. And this action is right.
The nature and extent of our current national crisis, as well as its causes and cures, are the subject of intense political struggle. I offer this letter as a contribution to that struggle and debate in hopes of helping to provide a trenchant analysis of Religion's false-flag operations. You may be disappointed to hear that my concrete suggestions on how to extricate as many people as possible from Religion's grip are sprinkled throughout this letter like raisins in a pudding, not grouped together in a single block of text at the end. This was a conscious decision I made based on the observation that Religion recently went through a denominationalism phase in which it tried repeatedly to rob, steal, cheat, and murder. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of its has entirely passed. My evidence is that Religion wants all of us to believe that it can scare us by using big words like "semiprofessionalized". That's why it sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media.
I have never read anything Religion has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. Its statement that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel is no exception. What's more, I can't possibly believe its claim that its opponents are aligned with very dark and malevolent fourth-dimensional aliens known as Draconians. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet because what really gets my goat is knowing that Religion uses a rather militant definition of "unextinguishableness". Hence and therefore, what it insists are original diatribes are nothing more than warmed-over versions of factionalism, but that's a story for another time. For now, I want to focus on the way that I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, Religion doesn't want us to convince the government to clamp down hard on its values. It would rather we settle for the meatless bone of Fabianism.
Because the foundation of isolationism is terribly flawed, anything based on it will also be terribly flawed. That explains why Religion's overgeneralizations are so mindless. In fact, not only are they mindless, but they fail to take into consideration the way that we could opt to sit back and let Religion mulct us out of our lives' savings. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part.
Religion will hate me for saying this, but given a choice of having it push our efforts two steps backward or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to turn random, senseless violence into meaningful action.
I am not in any way placing the blame on Religion for niddering, ill-tempered adolescents who confiscate other people's rightful earnings. That notwithstanding, Religion is still culpable for plotting to coordinate a revolution. It's possible that I doubtlessly don't want my community tainted with such blatant egoism. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how I have absolutely no idea why Religion makes such a big fuss over jingoism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that I'm not very conversant with Religion's background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Religion of planning to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that the public is like a giant that it has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Religion leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to ask the tough questions and not shy away from the tough answers. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that Religion's long-term goal is to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. I hate to break it to it, but down that path lies only heartache and tears. That's why I insist on mentioning that I want to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. That may seem simple enough, but if Religion were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what it's saying. The downside for Religion, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that this is not the first time I've wanted to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of shambolic alcoholism. But it is the first time I realized that it is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, it has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people it desires to lead. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that Religion's latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining but certainly not informative.
I believe in "live and let live". Religion, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of its précis but endorsement of them. It's because of such mumpish demands that I myself insist that I am shocked and angered by its ultra-procacious improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. Religion should start developing the parts of its brain that have been impaired by elitism. At least then it'll stop trying to foster suspicion—if not hatred—of "outsiders". If I want to drink the phthartic poison of exhibitionism, that should be my prerogative. I don't need Religion forcing me to.
Would Religion like it if I were subhuman and ungrateful, too? I don't think so. I like to think I'm a reasonable person but you just can't reason with nefarious jerks. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to let lackluster big-mouths run rampant through the streets.
I have not forgotten that what was morally wrong five years ago is just as wrong today. I have not forgotten that Religion is begging the question when it says that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. And I cannot forget that I have to wonder where it got the idea that it is my view that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is. Unlike the usual, impractical, garden-variety tax cheat, Religion truly believes that it has the mandate of Heaven to stand in the way of progress. I hope you realize that that's just a tasteless pipe dream from a fatuous, crazy pipe and that in the real world, if Religion opened its eyes, it'd realize that its bait-and-switch tactics are uncalled for. Religion is good at one thing, and that's keeping its ulterior motives secret. Only a few initiates in the inner sanctum of its retinue know that Religion is planning to reduce human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Even fewer of these initiates know that Religion consorts with satanic doctrinaire-types. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day, then there is indubitably no hope for you.
Religion 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.
Interestingly, Religion has recently begun conceding that perhaps it's not necessarily the case that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like it. However, it still vehemently insists that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. As the ancient Romans used to say, "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." Translated, this means, roughly, that it seems clear that Religion has been causing a lot of wahala by mocking, ridiculing, deprecating, and objurgating people for their religious beliefs. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that Religion's squibs always follow the same pattern. It puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom. To summarize my views: We stand to lose far more than we'll ever gain if we don't burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering.
Edited by Lightning Strike, 05 September 2013 - 10:41 AM.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 10:43 AM
Lightning Strike, that was beautiful. How long did that take you to write?
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:00 AM
|QUOTE (maxoS @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 08:22)|
|God? angles? Can I eat them? Omg you're ridiculously. Religon is nothing more then a book full of lies.|
I love the internet, most of you never even read a passage from the Bible or the Torah or the Qur'an and immediately judge it, just because it's 'cool' to be Atheist and it's a trend so it seems, at least on the internet, I've met only 2-3 religious people (regardless of their religion) and the rest of them are Atheist.
And they're butthurt as hell (sorry non-butthurt Atheists), it's perfectly fine if you want to believe that there is no God, but don't come and shove your propaganda that a book is full of lies and sh*t down my throat just like I am not shoving my "book full of lies" down your throat.
I don't care what happens on the outer side, I don't care what others do and I only care about me, and I know that I am not a hateful person and go around screaming, "YOU'LL BURN IN HELL BITCH!".
I ask everyone here to respect me and my choice of belief just I respect your opinion and choice of not believing.
I believe we can all be peaceful.
@Lightning Strike - I won't even bother to read that, feel free to make a TL;DR version.
- Joe Chip likes this
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:09 AM
|QUOTE (TheNando @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 10:43)|
| Might be off-topic, might be on-topic, but my view on religion is that if it has yet to be scientifically proven, it didn't happen.|
Lightning Strike, that was beautiful. How long did that take you to write?
Well considering all 'scientific facts' are merely theories, that's a really stupid way to think. It was scientifically proven that the earth was flat at one point.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:15 AM
Note: I'm not claiming that religion answered that, because it did not, but a sh*tload of people claim that science knows-all, apparently, it doesn't.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:16 AM
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:20 AM
|QUOTE (OchyGTA @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 11:09)|
|It was scientifically proven that the earth was flat at one point.|
It couldn't have been, because they never found the edge.
Now that I think about it, my statement about religion does actually lack full validity.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:22 AM
|QUOTE (Sleepy187. @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 14:00)|
|I ask everyone here to respect me|
|QUOTE (Sleepy187. @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 14:15)|
|Another question I want science to answer is.. What is behind the universe?|
Note: I'm not claiming that religion answered that, because it did not, but a sh*tload of people claim that science knows-all, apparently, it doesn't.
Atheism has nothing to do with science and everything to do with logic.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:23 AM
The Earth was never "proven" flat since a mere observation would find that it clearly isn't.
No, Science can't answer how the Universe began, but it can make estimations based on what we know about the universe.
@OchyGTA - You say scientific facts are merely theories. They began as theories true, but they're facts because they're been tested and observed. Scientists will tell you that they're constantly trying to disprove theories rather than prove them to be true, this way you narrow down all the possibilities until you find the one true fact.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:24 AM
|QUOTE (TheNando @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 12:20)|
|It couldn't have been, because they never found the edge.|
That's not as much scientifically provable as it is empirically provable.
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:25 AM
|QUOTE (OchyGTA @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 14:09)|
Well considering all 'scientific facts' are merely theories, that's a really stupid way to think. It was scientifically proven that the earth was flat at one point.
Do you even know what "theory" really means?
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:25 AM
|QUOTE (_____ @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 14:22)|
Atheism has nothing to do with science and everything to do with logic.
For the image, lol, I'm not 'demanding' respect, I just ask people to respect me as I respect them.
However, atheism has a lot to do with science, since 80% of the atheists I've seen so far simply talk about science, science this, science that.
It has everything to do with logic? I'm pretty sure it's something supernatural going on behind the universe, since it constantly expands, every second, it's logical that something supernatural occurs, no?
Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:33 AM
|QUOTE (Sleepy187. @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 11:15)|
|I'm not claiming that religion answered that, because it did not, but a sh*tload of people claim that science knows-all, apparently, it doesn't.|
Here's your problem, you're looking for something, anything that could posses an almost omniscient amount of knowledge about our Universe. You won't find that, with religion you'll find something that would make the claim that it knew everything but in truth it doesn't, science on the other hand is in a constant state of change because the moment that something comes around that proves what we used to believe was true is actually a falsehood it won't try to defend that old way of thinking.
Science is constantly developing and involving where as religions stagnate the moment they're created, though as it has been previously stated, atheism has nothing to do with science and everything to do with logic.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users