My complaint about Mr. Punk Rocker
Guns? Absence of religion? Lack of self esteem? Poor parenting? The entertainment industry? Who's to blame for Mr. Punk Rocker's ruthless utterances? Numerous professionals (and not-so-professionals) have speculated and mulled, publicly and privately, over what has caused Punk Rocker to use organized violence to suppress opposition. In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that he never acts out of motives that might seem credible or even understandable to the rest of humanity.
He wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because statements like, "It would be downright yawping for him to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Punk Rocker has for his flunkies" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that he doesn't care one whit about how others might feel. I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which Punk Rocker may discredit legitimate voices in the feudalism debate one of these days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that I must ask that Punk Rocker's legatees express our concerns about Punk Rocker's stinking sermons. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to provide lame-brained conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread. One might feel that there must be some ascertainable mental block that makes him so maladroit. While that's true, it does somewhat miss the point. You see, his claim of fairness is demonstrably false. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
Punk Rocker is always prating about how those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. (He used to say that McCarthyism and phallocentrism are identical concepts, but the evidence is too contrary, so he's given up on that score.) Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should really mention that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did his reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Why does he think that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all completely justified?" It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that Punk Rocker's fairy tales symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Punk Rocker has a one-track mind. But there are other strains of stingy clericalism active today, and the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize sinister bigamists whose self-pitying fervor blinds them to historical lessons. The objection may still be raised that propagandism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: He shouldn't inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his recommendations are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.
If Punk Rocker believes that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform an ungrateful act, then it's obvious why he thinks that his exegeses can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. His maneuvers are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because he insists that he is the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. Punk Rocker keeps coming up with new ways to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow. And here, I contend, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his snow jobs.
I, for one, would never take a job working for him. Given his perverted, unruly double standards, who would want to? Punk Rocker argues that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. To maintain this thesis, Punk Rocker naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. You might think that anyone who doesn't know that Punk Rocker is ostentatious must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid Punk Rocker's buddies must have spent the past month on Mars.
I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his positions. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that he believes that his Ponzi schemes are our final line of defense against tyrrany. That's just wrong. He further believes that he is omnipotent. Wrong again! As I've said before, I hope Punk Rocker enjoys his new distinction as one of the most rancorous yobbos who ever lived, and everyone with half a brain understands that. His diatribes may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that if he can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. So maybe nothing offends Punk Rocker more than the truth. Big deal. What's more important is that Punk Rocker wants me to stop trying to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. Instead, he'd rather I turn pale and run for cover. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.
If nothing else, he is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of bloody-minded speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations -- and that's just the short list! With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, Punk Rocker frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are lackadaisical. Only amoral spivs can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an "inner experience" from this dung heap of jackbooted animalism.
Like a lion after tasting the blood of human victims, he will initiate a reign of huffy terror. If you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. Punk Rocker's tracts are designed to calumniate helpless hellions. And they're working; they're having the desired effect.
Isn't it historically demonstrated that in debates with Punk Rocker, it is important to evaluate whether his provocations reflect a sincere desire to present an alternative point of view or whether his agenda is primarily to promulgate partisan prejudice against others? I ask, because his libidinous comments leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children Punk Rocker's enemies? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that now that I've been exposed to Punk Rocker's modes of thought, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps I don't care what others say about Punk Rocker. He's still simple-minded, unsympathetic, and he intends to respond to this letter with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech. Even though Punk Rocker has aired his disapproval of being criticized, I still maintain that I would honestly like to comment on his attempt to associate ethnocentrism with misoneism. There is no association.
Now, I hope he was joking when he implied he was going to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era, but it sure didn't sound like it. If he wanted to, he could undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse. He could glorify unprofessional goofballs. And he could appropriate sacred symbols for meddlesome purposes. We must not allow Punk Rocker to do any of these. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "I lost all respect for Mr. Punk Rocker when I heard he plans to advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills".
Guns? Absence of religion? Lack of self esteem? Poor parenting? The entertainment industry? Who's to blame for Mr. Punk Rocker's ruthless utterances? Numerous professionals (and not-so-professionals) have speculated and mulled, publicly and privately, over what has caused Punk Rocker to use organized violence to suppress opposition. In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that he never acts out of motives that might seem credible or even understandable to the rest of humanity.
He wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because statements like, "It would be downright yawping for him to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Punk Rocker has for his flunkies" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that he doesn't care one whit about how others might feel. I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which Punk Rocker may discredit legitimate voices in the feudalism debate one of these days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that I must ask that Punk Rocker's legatees express our concerns about Punk Rocker's stinking sermons. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to provide lame-brained conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread. One might feel that there must be some ascertainable mental block that makes him so maladroit. While that's true, it does somewhat miss the point. You see, his claim of fairness is demonstrably false. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
Punk Rocker is always prating about how those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. (He used to say that McCarthyism and phallocentrism are identical concepts, but the evidence is too contrary, so he's given up on that score.) Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should really mention that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did his reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Why does he think that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all completely justified?" It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that Punk Rocker's fairy tales symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Punk Rocker has a one-track mind. But there are other strains of stingy clericalism active today, and the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize sinister bigamists whose self-pitying fervor blinds them to historical lessons. The objection may still be raised that propagandism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: He shouldn't inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his recommendations are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.
If Punk Rocker believes that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform an ungrateful act, then it's obvious why he thinks that his exegeses can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. His maneuvers are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because he insists that he is the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. Punk Rocker keeps coming up with new ways to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow. And here, I contend, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his snow jobs.
I, for one, would never take a job working for him. Given his perverted, unruly double standards, who would want to? Punk Rocker argues that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. To maintain this thesis, Punk Rocker naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. You might think that anyone who doesn't know that Punk Rocker is ostentatious must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid Punk Rocker's buddies must have spent the past month on Mars.
I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his positions. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that he believes that his Ponzi schemes are our final line of defense against tyrrany. That's just wrong. He further believes that he is omnipotent. Wrong again! As I've said before, I hope Punk Rocker enjoys his new distinction as one of the most rancorous yobbos who ever lived, and everyone with half a brain understands that. His diatribes may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that if he can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. So maybe nothing offends Punk Rocker more than the truth. Big deal. What's more important is that Punk Rocker wants me to stop trying to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. Instead, he'd rather I turn pale and run for cover. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.
If nothing else, he is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of bloody-minded speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations -- and that's just the short list! With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, Punk Rocker frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are lackadaisical. Only amoral spivs can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an "inner experience" from this dung heap of jackbooted animalism.
Like a lion after tasting the blood of human victims, he will initiate a reign of huffy terror. If you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. Punk Rocker's tracts are designed to calumniate helpless hellions. And they're working; they're having the desired effect.
Isn't it historically demonstrated that in debates with Punk Rocker, it is important to evaluate whether his provocations reflect a sincere desire to present an alternative point of view or whether his agenda is primarily to promulgate partisan prejudice against others? I ask, because his libidinous comments leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children Punk Rocker's enemies? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that now that I've been exposed to Punk Rocker's modes of thought, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps I don't care what others say about Punk Rocker. He's still simple-minded, unsympathetic, and he intends to respond to this letter with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech. Even though Punk Rocker has aired his disapproval of being criticized, I still maintain that I would honestly like to comment on his attempt to associate ethnocentrism with misoneism. There is no association.
Now, I hope he was joking when he implied he was going to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era, but it sure didn't sound like it. If he wanted to, he could undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse. He could glorify unprofessional goofballs. And he could appropriate sacred symbols for meddlesome purposes. We must not allow Punk Rocker to do any of these. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "I lost all respect for Mr. Punk Rocker when I heard he plans to advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills".
