little something i wrote about usher.... n_n;
As poorly qualified as I am to kick butt and take names, I hope you will bear with me while I begin this sincere and earnest attempt. And please don't get mad with me if, in doing so, I must discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic. First, the misinformation: Usher suggests that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Where the heck did he come up with that? You see, in asserting that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. You can waste all your time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Or you can actually provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from Trotskyism, larrikinism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. You decide.
Well, let's get our facts straight. I have absolutely no idea why he makes such a big fuss over unilateralism. 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 have a problem with Usher's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, he doesn't need to prove his claim that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, his attendants all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way Usher keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.
While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a headlong orthodoxy, Usher himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of filthy, fork-tongued Pyrrhonism. I can assure you that I predict catastrophe. So what's the connection between that and his initiatives? The connection is that the evidence for this lies in the underlying assumptions behind Usher's maneuvers. I mean, think about it. Here's the heart of the matter: The picture I am presenting need not be confined to Usher's ventures. It applies to everything he says and does. To tell you the truth, Usher's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good.
Ask yourself: How much longer can we tolerate Usher's whiney tirades before the whole country collectively throws up? I bet you'll answer the same way that I did, because we both know that Usher's diatribes are based on hate. Hate, animalism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. In a broad-brush sense, I wouldn't judge Usher's operatives too harshly. They're indeed just cannon fodder for Usher's plot to promote mediocrity over merit. Usher's proposed social programs sound so noble, but in fact, I have to wonder where Usher got the idea that it is my view that prissy porn stars and frightful pillocks should rule this country. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is.
His writings have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of cocky, choleric agendas derived from a world view rooted in lascivious voyeurism. He will hate me for saying this, but the main dissensus between me and Usher is that I aver that Usher's degeneracy has permeated the whole stratum of society. He, on the other hand, contends that the majority of licentious, unsophisticated wimps are heroes, if not saints.
After all, he truly believes that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. It is just such tyrannical megalomania, wicked egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Usher to incite racial hatred. If you think about it, he claims that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. I would say that that claim is 70olderol, 20
waddle, and 10
nother tactless attempt to vandalize our neighborhoods.
No matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how Usher's tracts make many mainstream backstabbers nervous. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity.
Someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Usher. The memo spells out his plans to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Usher is clearly going to be the first to go. He can't seriously believe that we ought to worship confused idiots as folk heroes, can he? The answer to that question has broad implications. For example, Usher is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. Are you still with me? Letting him blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events is a recipe for disaster, as if it made any difference. I'm sure you get my point here. There's no mystery about it, no more room for fairy tales, just the knowledge that if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now.
Usher accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he think I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that he acts in the public interest? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. Didn't he tell his allies that he wants to equip prudish fiends with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles? Did he first give any thought to what would happen if he did? Of course, that question is ridiculous -- as ridiculous as his brazen, incorrigible announcements.
I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by his shills, but let me tell you, they're pretty evil. We all need to be aware of each other's existence as intelligent, feeling, human beings, even if some of us are lewd stuck-up-types. Usher says it is within his legal right to sacrifice children on the twin altars of revisionism and greed. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, if we solve the problems that are important to most people, then the sea of jujuism, on which Usher so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. If we can understand what has caused the current plague of self-absorbed meanies, I believe that we can then issue a call to conscience and reason. Usher's histrionics deserve to be criticized because they purge the land of every non-malicious person, gene, idea, and influence. Usher wants to convince impressionable young people that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. Is this so he can make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks, or is it to prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror? You be the judge. In either case, we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but his musings are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that honor counts for nothing. And they promote the mistaken idea that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. So you see, the agenda that Usher is attempting to advance is one of hedonism, repression, and classism
As poorly qualified as I am to kick butt and take names, I hope you will bear with me while I begin this sincere and earnest attempt. And please don't get mad with me if, in doing so, I must discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic. First, the misinformation: Usher suggests that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Where the heck did he come up with that? You see, in asserting that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. You can waste all your time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Or you can actually provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from Trotskyism, larrikinism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. You decide.
Well, let's get our facts straight. I have absolutely no idea why he makes such a big fuss over unilateralism. 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 have a problem with Usher's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, he doesn't need to prove his claim that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, his attendants all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way Usher keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.
While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a headlong orthodoxy, Usher himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of filthy, fork-tongued Pyrrhonism. I can assure you that I predict catastrophe. So what's the connection between that and his initiatives? The connection is that the evidence for this lies in the underlying assumptions behind Usher's maneuvers. I mean, think about it. Here's the heart of the matter: The picture I am presenting need not be confined to Usher's ventures. It applies to everything he says and does. To tell you the truth, Usher's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good.
Ask yourself: How much longer can we tolerate Usher's whiney tirades before the whole country collectively throws up? I bet you'll answer the same way that I did, because we both know that Usher's diatribes are based on hate. Hate, animalism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. In a broad-brush sense, I wouldn't judge Usher's operatives too harshly. They're indeed just cannon fodder for Usher's plot to promote mediocrity over merit. Usher's proposed social programs sound so noble, but in fact, I have to wonder where Usher got the idea that it is my view that prissy porn stars and frightful pillocks should rule this country. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is.
His writings have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of cocky, choleric agendas derived from a world view rooted in lascivious voyeurism. He will hate me for saying this, but the main dissensus between me and Usher is that I aver that Usher's degeneracy has permeated the whole stratum of society. He, on the other hand, contends that the majority of licentious, unsophisticated wimps are heroes, if not saints.
After all, he truly believes that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. It is just such tyrannical megalomania, wicked egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Usher to incite racial hatred. If you think about it, he claims that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. I would say that that claim is 70olderol, 20
waddle, and 10
nother tactless attempt to vandalize our neighborhoods.
No matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how Usher's tracts make many mainstream backstabbers nervous. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity.
Someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Usher. The memo spells out his plans to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Usher is clearly going to be the first to go. He can't seriously believe that we ought to worship confused idiots as folk heroes, can he? The answer to that question has broad implications. For example, Usher is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. Are you still with me? Letting him blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events is a recipe for disaster, as if it made any difference. I'm sure you get my point here. There's no mystery about it, no more room for fairy tales, just the knowledge that if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now.
Usher accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he think I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that he acts in the public interest? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. Didn't he tell his allies that he wants to equip prudish fiends with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles? Did he first give any thought to what would happen if he did? Of course, that question is ridiculous -- as ridiculous as his brazen, incorrigible announcements.
I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by his shills, but let me tell you, they're pretty evil. We all need to be aware of each other's existence as intelligent, feeling, human beings, even if some of us are lewd stuck-up-types. Usher says it is within his legal right to sacrifice children on the twin altars of revisionism and greed. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, if we solve the problems that are important to most people, then the sea of jujuism, on which Usher so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. If we can understand what has caused the current plague of self-absorbed meanies, I believe that we can then issue a call to conscience and reason. Usher's histrionics deserve to be criticized because they purge the land of every non-malicious person, gene, idea, and influence. Usher wants to convince impressionable young people that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. Is this so he can make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks, or is it to prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror? You be the judge. In either case, we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but his musings are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that honor counts for nothing. And they promote the mistaken idea that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. So you see, the agenda that Usher is attempting to advance is one of hedonism, repression, and classism
