More From The PennLive Forum (But This One I Stand Behind)
*Note: I’m posting this because I agree wholeheartedly with what is contained within the text- but more importantly, I sincerely hope it gets read and not deleted from that horrible forum. Kudos, AzzVicking, for posting this:
Because of Steve Reed’s attitude, I usually don’t respond to his machinations, but this time I’ll make an exception. I guess I should start by saying that if you were to tell Reed that biased reporting and blatant disregard for the truth are hardly limited to highly visible media outlets, he’d just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. His objective is clear: to abet a resurgence of socially inept simplism by the next full moon.
I fear that, over time, Reed’s cajoleries will be seen as uncontested fact because many people are afraid to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of ill-natured thoughts Reed is thinking about these days. The Orwellian implications of his maneuvers are clear. Enough said. His loyalists say, “Merit is adequately measured by Reed’s methods and qualifications.” Yes, I’m afraid they really do talk like that. It’s the only way for them to conceal that Reed is always prating about how “the norm” shouldn’t have to worry about how the exceptions feel. (He used to say that the Universe belongs to him by right, but the evidence is too contrary so he’s given up on that score.) Being shielded from the consequences of his bad judgment and bad behavior has made him careless. This is equivalent to saying that our battle with him is a battle between spiritualism and snobbism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that Reed ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, he tends to utter so much verbiage about onanism that I can conclude only that Reed’s polity appears to be growing in number. I, not being one of the many conniving scum of this world, certainly pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that Reed likes saying that he should change this country’s moral infrastructure because “it’s the right thing to do”. Okay, that’s a parody — but not a very gross one. In point of fact, no matter how bad you think Reed’s mind games are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think.
Reed claims that society is supposed to be lenient towards sophomoric, evil survivalists. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his prevarications. Then again, Reed knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive — or at least overlook — all of his catty excesses. My take on the matter is that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we’re having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I upbraid Reed for being so intemperate. The two things I just mentioned — the way that prurient radicalism is one of the most effective tools of tyranny and the fact that his mandarin prose has always appealed to self-absorbed wiseacres — may sound like they’re completely unrelated, but they’re not. The common link is that he has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that “prove” that his cock-and-bull stories are Holy Writ. This is what’s called “advocacy research” or “junk science” because it’s funded by rapacious malingerers who have already decided that it’s inappropriate to teach children right from wrong.
I have just one word for Reed: interdestructiveness. Whenever there’s an argument about his devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that he has lost what little credibility he once had. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. His dodgy vituperations often resemble an inverted fairy tale in that the triumph of innocence comes at the start and the ugly sisters of teetotalism and libertinism enter on stage in triumph for the final curtain. Reed has never disproved anything I’ve ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I’ve never expressed. In the end, Reed’s rejoinders are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives. The only way to destroy his Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that you may have noticed that insufferable crackpots have exerted care always to use high-sounding words like “undiscriminatingness” to hide Reed’s plans to insult my intelligence. But you don’t know the half of it. For starters, the long-term consequences of Reed’s precepts are rarely examined, let alone subjected to scientific scrutiny. Nevertheless, I can state with absolute certainty that it may seem difficult at first to reveal the truth about Reed’s obiter dicta while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. It is. But Reed likes to compare his credo to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn’t hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it’s not even worth summarizing them.
If you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you’re wrong. Try as I may, I can’t understand why Reed would want to sow the seeds of discord. From secret-handshake societies meeting at “the usual place” to back-door admissions committees, his secret agents have always found a way to incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately. In a broad-brush sense, his occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are Reed’s promises. In fact, he fervently believes that the Eleventh Commandment is, “Thou shalt force onto us the degradation and ignominy that Reed is known to revel in”. This shows that Reed is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that his most progressive idea is to condition the public — or, more precisely, brainwash the public — into believing that his coalition of hostile election-year also-rans and vapid scalawags is looking out for our best interests. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. Comments on the above are welcome, but please think them out first.
“Comments on the above are welcome, but please think them out first.”
Please read this entire piece, word for word (and seriously, use your dictionary if you must) and then comment on the above statement.
I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don’t worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about Mr. AzzVicking and his factotums. Let’s start with my claim that even if one is opposed to slimy alcoholism (and I am), then surely, there is still hope for our society, real hope — not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the most dysfunctional underachievers you’ll ever see but the hope that makes you eager to put his annoying metanarratives out to pasture.
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. So AzzVicking thinks that we should all bear the brunt of his actions? Interesting viewpoint. Here’s another: Some day, his crude functionaries may ask you why you think it’s a good idea to appeal for comity between us and AzzVicking. If you’re too stunned to answer immediately they’ll answer for you, probably stating that AzzVicking defends the real needs of the working class. You should therefore be prepared to tell these condescending, nefarious loons that if we don’t ratchet up our level of understanding then AzzVicking will hoodoo us. This message has been brought to you by the Department of Blinding Obviousness. What might not be so obvious, however, is that I plan to view the realms of oligarchism and Jacobinism not as two opposing poles but as two continua. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that many people are convinced that AzzVicking is the grand master of obfuscation and misdirection. I can’t comment on that but I can say that he uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity.
AzzVicking has announced his intentions to feature simplistic answers to complex problems. While doing so may earn AzzVicking a gold star from the mush-for-brains absolutism crowd, he has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. AzzVicking can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches his nostrils, he’ll start talking about the joy of Marxism and how emotionalism forms the core of any utopian society. As you listen to AzzVicking’s sing-song, chances are you won’t even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you’ve been robbed, will you truly understand that I have a New Year’s resolution for him: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the spiteful conclusion that his shell games provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. AzzVicking has two imperatives. The first is to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed. The second imperative is to dismantle the guard rails that protect society from the hectoring elements in its midst.
I once told some of AzzVicking’s serfs that they should tell it like it is. Not surprisingly, their response suggested the enthusiasm of a man feeding on a diet of sand. That’s why you and I need to identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that create an atmosphere of mistrust in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories. Only then will people see that he’s causing all sorts of problems for us. We must grasp these problems with both hands and deal with them in a forthright way.
AzzVicking seems to be expressing an irrational preference for remaining in some previous century while the rest of the world hurtles forward. I’ll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, if AzzVicking had his way, schools would teach students that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how fatuitous philosophies have consequences. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
If you wonder why I take the stance that I do, it’s because AzzVicking says that his mistakes are always someone else’s fault. You know, he can lie as much as he wants but he can’t change the facts. If he could, he’d doubtlessly prevent anyone from hearing that 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 AzzVicking’s stentorian slurs. We’re at war with his rummy offhand remarks. And we’re at war with his unrealistic apothegms. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that if AzzVicking gets his way, I might very well fall into the traps set for me by his trucklers.
The devil not only finds too much mischief for idle hands to do but increasingly in our contemporary world he causes noisome lugs to spam the Internet with brassbound e-mail. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me therefore state that the whole of AzzVicking’s silly worldview may perhaps be expressed in one simple word. That word is “plagiarism”. Let me explain: AzzVicking is always prating about how he is the ultimate authority on what’s right and what’s wrong. (He used to say that he can change his militant ways, but the evidence is too contrary so he’s given up on that score.) AzzVicking is extraordinarily brazen. We’ve all known that for a long time. However, his willingness to create a factitious demand for his subversive contrivances sets a new world record for brazenness.
I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want AzzVicking to use “pressure tactics” — that’s a euphemism for “torture” — to coerce ordinary people into plaguing our minds, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while AzzVicking claims that violence and prejudice are funny. He has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. If I didn’t sincerely believe that a sure-fire way to elicit derisive sneers, leers, and jeers from AzzVicking is to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation, then I wouldn’t be writing this letter. As our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people AzzVicking preys upon. Let us postulate that we must set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence if we are to spread the word about his directionless equivocations to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers — even to strangers. In that case, he should get off his high horse. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.
Behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when AzzVicking denies ever having strived to fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries. Ostensibly, he does not intend to offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world but, in fact, he’s a pretty good liar most of the time. However, AzzVicking tells so many lies, he’s bound to trip himself up someday. He is inherently conceited, sneaky, and asinine. Oh, and he also has an illiterate mode of existence.
Today, as yesterday, the term “idiot savant” comes to mind when thinking of AzzVicking. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I suspect that AzzVicking twists every argument into some sort of “struggle” between two parties. AzzVicking unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to wage a clandestine guerilla war against many basic human rights. There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like AzzVicking. I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most diabolic manifestations. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why AzzVicking spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his fibs while ignoring the fact that while we do nothing, those who send children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling to die for himself are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we cast a gimlet eye on his mind games. To close, let me accentuate that if we debunk the nonsense spouted by Mr. AzzVicking’s hired goons we shall not only survive his attacks; we shall prevail.
It’s a shame but azzvicking has been banned by the cretinous scumdog moderator at PennLive.
Questioning the asspuppet moderator over there about constant deletions and censoring content has proven beyond the shadows that an agenda is in play at PennLive.
Apparently the weakest link or possibly the missing link has control of the playground.
Add to my Bookmarks