Reverend Bubba Flavel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,032
- Likes
- 0
Dear Volnation:
Mr. David Hart's ravings have been getting a lot of undeserved attention recently. To start, I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Mr. Hart that 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.
Mr. Hart always puts a fugleman in charge of passing off all sorts of slatternly and obviously insidious stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". That way, Mr. Hart can feign innocence, as he wasn't the one who did anything wrong. In fact, he can easily deny that his arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. When his unforgiving, ultra-brutish utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, Mr. Hart appears to be saying that desperadoism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society. For me, this ungrateful moonshine serves only to emphasize how several of Mr. Hart's hangers-on, who asked to remain nameless, informed me of Mr. Hart's secret plans to turn dweebs loose against us good citizens. Let's remember that.
Given the amount of misinformation that Mr. Hart is circulating, I must indubitably point out that his proposed social programs will have consequencesvery serious consequences. We ought to begin doing something about that. We ought to tell Mr. Hart what we all think of himand boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. We ought to spread the word that his idea of biased, virulent voyeurism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a slovenly bloodlust. It is, in every sense, a snotty and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to an ornery frenzy and then prompts them to commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge Mr. Hart's spleeny prevarications. Mr. Hart claims to have solutions to all of our problems. Usually, though, these supposed solutions ride on the backs of people who are poor, powerless, or who don't have the clout to cross-examine Mr. Hart's ignorant, predatory manifestos. It's these types of "solutions", therefore, that demonstrate how Mr. Hart thinks it's good that his activities exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not unrestrained philologasters. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: He accuses me of being malignant whenever I state that his essays contain a farrago of extraordinary claims with little or no evidence. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that Mr. Hart is a power-hungry, grumpy prophet of fascism. I use that label only when it's true. If you don't believe it is, then consider that Mr. Hart will probably never understand why he scares me so much. And he does scare me: His campaigns of malice and malignity are scary, his projects are scary, and most of all, he has stated that sinister, rapacious nabobs of nihilism make the best scoutmasters and schoolteachers. That's just pure onanism. Well, in Mr. Hart's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Mr. Hart justifies his short-sighted, uncouth morals 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 Mr. Hart's claim that his beliefs are our final line of defense against tyrrany then he will condemn innocent people to death.
In the strictest sense, discrediting legitimate voices in the Tartuffism debate is a mug's game. The only reason he does things like that is because he says he's going to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse one of these days. Good old Mr. Hart. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how rancorous they sound. There's a price to be paid for wooing over neurotic luftmenschen by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history, and, clearly, his den of thieves is running up a hefty bill. The precise cost to us is best described via the observation that Mr. Hart's comrades contend that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. This is precisely the non-equation that Mr. Hart is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that a central point of his belief systems is the notion that the world is crying out to labor beneath his firm but benevolent heel. Perhaps Mr. Hart should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that his goals are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I resolve our disputes without violence, Mr. Hart's invariant response is to make the pot of prætorianism overboil and scald the whole world.
A small child really couldn't understand that Mr. Hart's discourteous anecdotes are my biggest pet peeve. But any adult can easily grasp that I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to communicate and teach. Many people are convinced that the notion that one loses count of the number of times Mr. Hart has tried to deny the legitimacy of those who refute his arguments line-by-line and claim-by-claim is pervasive. I can't comment on that, but I can say that Mr. Hart's goombahs are merely ciphers. Mr. Hart is the one who decides whether or not to put an insane spin on important issues. Mr. Hart is the one who gives out the orders to place stumbling blocks in front of those of us who seek value and fulfilment in our personal and professional lives. And Mr. Hart is the one trying to conceal how I am not interested in debating him. One can't have a debate with someone who is so willingly ignorant of the most basic tenets of the subject being discussed.
Let's get reasonable; Mr. Hart promises his confidants that as soon as he's finished dissolving the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities, they'll all become rich beyond their wildest dreams. There's an obvious analogy here to the way that vultures eat a cadaver and from its rottenness insects and worms suck their food. The point is that there is historical precedent for Mr. Hart's ploys. Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, he has been pursuing a piteous agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever. Given how one oppugnant activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that we must understand that Mr. Hart's cop-outs are absolutely otiose. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. Imperialism doesn't work. So why does Mr. Hart cling to it? If you maintain that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication then you won't understand my answer no matter how carefully I explain it. You won't understand my answer if you allege that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. However, you have a chance at understanding my answer if you're open-minded enough to realize that the last time I heard Mr. Hart ramble on in his characteristically bibulous blather he said something about wanting to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that.
Mr. Hart's deflection and falsification of our highest culture tendencies will brand me as conscienceless. The reason is clear. Mr. Hart claims that censorship could benefit us. Well, I beg to differ. It's my hunch that whenever people fail to fall for his nocuous deceptions, Mr. Hart tries leading them to the slaughterhouse via the back entrance. If that ploy still doesn't work, he then sics his blood-drenched, murderous gestapo in all of its resplendent foulness upon them. It seems clear that he exudes the foul odor of Zendicism. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that any rational argument must acknowledge this. Mr. Hart's inconsiderate barbs, naturally, do not.
I myself am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I truly hope that Mr. Hart serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to get as many people as possible to line up behind the geek-tent barkers at the latest and greatest carnival of Trotskyism. Although he was likely following the dictates of his conscience when he decided to produce a large number of totally mendacious extravagancies, most flighty indecencies, and, above all, the most argumentative blasphemies against everything that I hold most sacred and most dear, the fact remains that it's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an obnoxious idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of David Hart". In it, I chronicle all of Mr. Hart's shell games from the antihumanist to the demented and conclude that the suggestion that Mr. Hart was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, Mr. Hart's apostles like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that whenever I turn around I see Mr. Hart taking advantage of human fallibility to declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. To deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of our own senses.
In effect, when Mr. Hart lies, it's consistent with his character, for he's a liar and the father of lies. Another reason that many people consider it consistent is that many people lie. However, Mr. Hart lies with such ease it's troubling. I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why a large percentage of his understrappers can be termed sniffish. My peers aver that I will renew my resolve to halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction. While this is unquestionably true, I insist we must add that we must unequivocally cast a ray of light on his hate-filled writings. Does that sound extremist? Is it too raving for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.
We must make a genuine contribution to human society in such a way that there is nothing Mr. Hart can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: How can we break Mr. Hart's hypnotic spell over loquacious palookas? A clue might be that 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 restore the temple of our civilization to the ancient truths. People tell me that his casus belli have proven to be a complete disaster in both theory and practice. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. Mr. Hart's attitudes have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of insensitive accusations derived from a world view rooted in sticky-fingered poststructuralism. That's it for this letter. I hope that typing it was not a complete waste of energy. Unfortunately, I do realize that my words will probably trigger no useful response in the flabby synapses of Mr. David Hart's brain. I just felt obligated to go through the motions because Mr. Hart doesn't reck one whit about how others might feel.
Mr. David Hart's ravings have been getting a lot of undeserved attention recently. To start, I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Mr. Hart that 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.
Mr. Hart always puts a fugleman in charge of passing off all sorts of slatternly and obviously insidious stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". That way, Mr. Hart can feign innocence, as he wasn't the one who did anything wrong. In fact, he can easily deny that his arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. When his unforgiving, ultra-brutish utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, Mr. Hart appears to be saying that desperadoism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society. For me, this ungrateful moonshine serves only to emphasize how several of Mr. Hart's hangers-on, who asked to remain nameless, informed me of Mr. Hart's secret plans to turn dweebs loose against us good citizens. Let's remember that.
Given the amount of misinformation that Mr. Hart is circulating, I must indubitably point out that his proposed social programs will have consequencesvery serious consequences. We ought to begin doing something about that. We ought to tell Mr. Hart what we all think of himand boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. We ought to spread the word that his idea of biased, virulent voyeurism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a slovenly bloodlust. It is, in every sense, a snotty and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to an ornery frenzy and then prompts them to commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge Mr. Hart's spleeny prevarications. Mr. Hart claims to have solutions to all of our problems. Usually, though, these supposed solutions ride on the backs of people who are poor, powerless, or who don't have the clout to cross-examine Mr. Hart's ignorant, predatory manifestos. It's these types of "solutions", therefore, that demonstrate how Mr. Hart thinks it's good that his activities exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not unrestrained philologasters. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: He accuses me of being malignant whenever I state that his essays contain a farrago of extraordinary claims with little or no evidence. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that Mr. Hart is a power-hungry, grumpy prophet of fascism. I use that label only when it's true. If you don't believe it is, then consider that Mr. Hart will probably never understand why he scares me so much. And he does scare me: His campaigns of malice and malignity are scary, his projects are scary, and most of all, he has stated that sinister, rapacious nabobs of nihilism make the best scoutmasters and schoolteachers. That's just pure onanism. Well, in Mr. Hart's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Mr. Hart justifies his short-sighted, uncouth morals 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 Mr. Hart's claim that his beliefs are our final line of defense against tyrrany then he will condemn innocent people to death.
In the strictest sense, discrediting legitimate voices in the Tartuffism debate is a mug's game. The only reason he does things like that is because he says he's going to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse one of these days. Good old Mr. Hart. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how rancorous they sound. There's a price to be paid for wooing over neurotic luftmenschen by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history, and, clearly, his den of thieves is running up a hefty bill. The precise cost to us is best described via the observation that Mr. Hart's comrades contend that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. This is precisely the non-equation that Mr. Hart is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that a central point of his belief systems is the notion that the world is crying out to labor beneath his firm but benevolent heel. Perhaps Mr. Hart should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that his goals are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I resolve our disputes without violence, Mr. Hart's invariant response is to make the pot of prætorianism overboil and scald the whole world.
A small child really couldn't understand that Mr. Hart's discourteous anecdotes are my biggest pet peeve. But any adult can easily grasp that I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to communicate and teach. Many people are convinced that the notion that one loses count of the number of times Mr. Hart has tried to deny the legitimacy of those who refute his arguments line-by-line and claim-by-claim is pervasive. I can't comment on that, but I can say that Mr. Hart's goombahs are merely ciphers. Mr. Hart is the one who decides whether or not to put an insane spin on important issues. Mr. Hart is the one who gives out the orders to place stumbling blocks in front of those of us who seek value and fulfilment in our personal and professional lives. And Mr. Hart is the one trying to conceal how I am not interested in debating him. One can't have a debate with someone who is so willingly ignorant of the most basic tenets of the subject being discussed.
Let's get reasonable; Mr. Hart promises his confidants that as soon as he's finished dissolving the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities, they'll all become rich beyond their wildest dreams. There's an obvious analogy here to the way that vultures eat a cadaver and from its rottenness insects and worms suck their food. The point is that there is historical precedent for Mr. Hart's ploys. Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, he has been pursuing a piteous agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever. Given how one oppugnant activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that we must understand that Mr. Hart's cop-outs are absolutely otiose. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. Imperialism doesn't work. So why does Mr. Hart cling to it? If you maintain that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication then you won't understand my answer no matter how carefully I explain it. You won't understand my answer if you allege that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. However, you have a chance at understanding my answer if you're open-minded enough to realize that the last time I heard Mr. Hart ramble on in his characteristically bibulous blather he said something about wanting to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that.
Mr. Hart's deflection and falsification of our highest culture tendencies will brand me as conscienceless. The reason is clear. Mr. Hart claims that censorship could benefit us. Well, I beg to differ. It's my hunch that whenever people fail to fall for his nocuous deceptions, Mr. Hart tries leading them to the slaughterhouse via the back entrance. If that ploy still doesn't work, he then sics his blood-drenched, murderous gestapo in all of its resplendent foulness upon them. It seems clear that he exudes the foul odor of Zendicism. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that any rational argument must acknowledge this. Mr. Hart's inconsiderate barbs, naturally, do not.
I myself am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I truly hope that Mr. Hart serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to get as many people as possible to line up behind the geek-tent barkers at the latest and greatest carnival of Trotskyism. Although he was likely following the dictates of his conscience when he decided to produce a large number of totally mendacious extravagancies, most flighty indecencies, and, above all, the most argumentative blasphemies against everything that I hold most sacred and most dear, the fact remains that it's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an obnoxious idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of David Hart". In it, I chronicle all of Mr. Hart's shell games from the antihumanist to the demented and conclude that the suggestion that Mr. Hart was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, Mr. Hart's apostles like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that whenever I turn around I see Mr. Hart taking advantage of human fallibility to declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. To deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of our own senses.
In effect, when Mr. Hart lies, it's consistent with his character, for he's a liar and the father of lies. Another reason that many people consider it consistent is that many people lie. However, Mr. Hart lies with such ease it's troubling. I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why a large percentage of his understrappers can be termed sniffish. My peers aver that I will renew my resolve to halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction. While this is unquestionably true, I insist we must add that we must unequivocally cast a ray of light on his hate-filled writings. Does that sound extremist? Is it too raving for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.
We must make a genuine contribution to human society in such a way that there is nothing Mr. Hart can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: How can we break Mr. Hart's hypnotic spell over loquacious palookas? A clue might be that 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 restore the temple of our civilization to the ancient truths. People tell me that his casus belli have proven to be a complete disaster in both theory and practice. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. Mr. Hart's attitudes have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of insensitive accusations derived from a world view rooted in sticky-fingered poststructuralism. That's it for this letter. I hope that typing it was not a complete waste of energy. Unfortunately, I do realize that my words will probably trigger no useful response in the flabby synapses of Mr. David Hart's brain. I just felt obligated to go through the motions because Mr. Hart doesn't reck one whit about how others might feel.
