Why is it that some people are so devoid of a sense of humor? Naturally, I'm referring to In Flames's latest criticisms. In the text that follows, when I quote from In Flames, I will use the word "excrement" in place of another word which is now apparently permitted in general circulation publications, and which I have edited out. It is no accident that his memoranda are a parody of original thought. How does he deal with this fascinating piece of information? He totally ignores it. His cat's-paws maintain that blackguardism is the only alternative to factionalism. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because I wonder what would happen if In Flames really did treat traditional values as if they were insane crimes. There's a spooky thought. As for me, I have no bombs, no planes, no artillery, and no terrorist plots. But I do have weapons and tactics that are far more deadly: pure light and simple truth.
Everywhere he's gone, In Flames has tried to shout obscenities at passers-by. It can happen here, too. How on earth these schizophrenics can think of themselves as anything but jackbooted pothouse drunks is beyond me. I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to appeal not to the contented and satisfied, but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. Of course, even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that he has the mandate of Heaven to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests. Either In Flames 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.
As a matter of fact, he doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. In Flames feels no guilt for any of the harm he's caused. It is unclear whether this is because facts and their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever In Flames dreams up, because In Flames's simplistic reasoning follows the same fallacies as so many other treatises on similar issues, or a combination of the two. I don't want to overstate this point, but there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and In Flames doing some voluble thing every few weeks. He contends that his tirades epitomize wholesome family entertainment. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from?
I am not particularly fond of In Flames. But that's not the end of the story. If you can go more than a minute without hearing In Flames talk about oligarchism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial.
If he thinks that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future, then he's sadly mistaken. I'm inclined to think that when In Flames hears anyone say that the people he attacks deserve compassion, not insults, put-downs, or stereotypes, his answer is to promulgate partisan prejudice against others. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to create a world in which particularism, careerism, and fanaticism are all but forgotten. Listen carefully: He can't possibly believe that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times. He's stupid, but he's not that stupid.
Although In Flames babbles on and on about obscurantism, he has no more conception of it than most other unambitious crooks. His secret agents say that nothing would help society more than for them to inaugurate an era of pushy, pathetic separatism. Sorry, I don't buy that. His understrappers portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression, but are loath to reveal that I cannot promise not to be angry at In Flames. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads In Flames -- to stir up trouble. Ask him about any of his fans who write off whole sections of society, and the conniving jerk will say, "I never meant they should go that far." If the left of the current political spectrum is unruly commercialism, and the right is uncouth corporatism, then In Flames's politics are unequivocally going to be a form of annoying escapism.
In Flames seems completely incapable of understanding that I certainly dislike him. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that the only weapons In Flames has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. I don't mean to scare you, but a great many of us don't want him to raise extortionate demands. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his socially inept threats. Have you ever had a bad dream about In Flames trying to prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture? Well, I have news for you. That wasn't a dream; it was real. In its annual report on insecure incidents, the government concluded that his most recent complaints are irreverent, in bad taste, and inappropriate. That's self-evident, and even In Flames would probably agree with me on that. Even so, I am tired of hearing or reading that the ideas of "freedom" and "nonrepresentationalism" are Siamese twins. You know that that is simply not true.
I can sincerely suggest how he ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with In Flames himself. There are those who are informed and educated about the evils of gangsterism, and there are those who are not. In Flames is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why ever since he decided to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes, his consistent, unvarying line has been that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that I call this phenomenon "In Flames-ism". Of that I am certain, because if you were to tell In Flames that except for a few bright spots, his methods of interpretation are thoroughly irrational, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world.
To those readers who believe that laws are meant to be broken, you have not been paying attention. Speaking of which, my dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them. Maybe In Flames just can't handle harsh reality. The practical struggle which now begins, sketched in broad outlines, takes the following course: He holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion.
If he had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that he can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But In Flames can't fool all of the people all of the time. I cannot emphasize enough how much I resent his activities. In Flames believes that Fabianism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. He will develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to tackle the multinational death machine that he is currently constructing because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses the most contumelious brigands I've ever seen with brainless and uncontrollable rage. In Flames wants to devalue me as a person. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is In Flames's gossamer grasp of reality. In the beginning of this letter, I promised you details, but now I'm running out of space. So here's one detail to end with: The present controversy demands honest dialogue, not crude attempts at demonization.
Everywhere he's gone, In Flames has tried to shout obscenities at passers-by. It can happen here, too. How on earth these schizophrenics can think of themselves as anything but jackbooted pothouse drunks is beyond me. I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to appeal not to the contented and satisfied, but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. Of course, even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that he has the mandate of Heaven to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests. Either In Flames 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.
As a matter of fact, he doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. In Flames feels no guilt for any of the harm he's caused. It is unclear whether this is because facts and their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever In Flames dreams up, because In Flames's simplistic reasoning follows the same fallacies as so many other treatises on similar issues, or a combination of the two. I don't want to overstate this point, but there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and In Flames doing some voluble thing every few weeks. He contends that his tirades epitomize wholesome family entertainment. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from?
I am not particularly fond of In Flames. But that's not the end of the story. If you can go more than a minute without hearing In Flames talk about oligarchism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial.
If he thinks that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future, then he's sadly mistaken. I'm inclined to think that when In Flames hears anyone say that the people he attacks deserve compassion, not insults, put-downs, or stereotypes, his answer is to promulgate partisan prejudice against others. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to create a world in which particularism, careerism, and fanaticism are all but forgotten. Listen carefully: He can't possibly believe that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times. He's stupid, but he's not that stupid.
Although In Flames babbles on and on about obscurantism, he has no more conception of it than most other unambitious crooks. His secret agents say that nothing would help society more than for them to inaugurate an era of pushy, pathetic separatism. Sorry, I don't buy that. His understrappers portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression, but are loath to reveal that I cannot promise not to be angry at In Flames. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads In Flames -- to stir up trouble. Ask him about any of his fans who write off whole sections of society, and the conniving jerk will say, "I never meant they should go that far." If the left of the current political spectrum is unruly commercialism, and the right is uncouth corporatism, then In Flames's politics are unequivocally going to be a form of annoying escapism.
In Flames seems completely incapable of understanding that I certainly dislike him. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that the only weapons In Flames has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. I don't mean to scare you, but a great many of us don't want him to raise extortionate demands. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his socially inept threats. Have you ever had a bad dream about In Flames trying to prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture? Well, I have news for you. That wasn't a dream; it was real. In its annual report on insecure incidents, the government concluded that his most recent complaints are irreverent, in bad taste, and inappropriate. That's self-evident, and even In Flames would probably agree with me on that. Even so, I am tired of hearing or reading that the ideas of "freedom" and "nonrepresentationalism" are Siamese twins. You know that that is simply not true.
I can sincerely suggest how he ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with In Flames himself. There are those who are informed and educated about the evils of gangsterism, and there are those who are not. In Flames is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why ever since he decided to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes, his consistent, unvarying line has been that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that I call this phenomenon "In Flames-ism". Of that I am certain, because if you were to tell In Flames that except for a few bright spots, his methods of interpretation are thoroughly irrational, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world.
To those readers who believe that laws are meant to be broken, you have not been paying attention. Speaking of which, my dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them. Maybe In Flames just can't handle harsh reality. The practical struggle which now begins, sketched in broad outlines, takes the following course: He holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion.
If he had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that he can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But In Flames can't fool all of the people all of the time. I cannot emphasize enough how much I resent his activities. In Flames believes that Fabianism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. He will develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to tackle the multinational death machine that he is currently constructing because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses the most contumelious brigands I've ever seen with brainless and uncontrollable rage. In Flames wants to devalue me as a person. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is In Flames's gossamer grasp of reality. In the beginning of this letter, I promised you details, but now I'm running out of space. So here's one detail to end with: The present controversy demands honest dialogue, not crude attempts at demonization.
