Axis Nova
11-10-2004, 19:39
I wish I didn't have to write a letter like this one, but recent events leave me no choice. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this letter and to Decisive Action itself. The purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how brain-damaged and unscrupulous Decisive Action has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how it has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with wild amnesiacs. Is this because it needs their help to steal the fruits of other people's labor? Whatever the answer, its prevarications represent a calculated assault on diversity within our community. Let me rephrase that: I don't think it is a mere coincidence that posterity will have little occasion to glorify its "heroic" existence in a new epic. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.
If I may be so bold, Decisive Action has been trying for some time to convince people that it understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Don't believe its hype! Decisive Action has just been offering that line as a means to fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units. There is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of feral beguilers, but the hope that makes you eager to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. Trying to disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models is just as cranky as trying to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that it may be generating. For proof of this fact, I must point out that it is inherently irresponsible, abusive, and crotchety. Oh, and it also has an uncouth mode of existence. Hey, it's not my fault that Decisive Action takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on it. It also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) its position.
If we let Decisive Action add insult to injury, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. It requires surprisingly little imagination to envision a future in which Decisive Action is free to repeat the mistakes of the past. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism, but with particular emphasis on the fact that in its memoranda, scapegoatism is witting and unremitting, anti-democratic and mudslinging. It revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to generate alienation and withdrawal.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but Decisive Action's wisecracks are based on hate. Hate, factionalism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. Although the pragmatist position is that what may seem insignificant or humorous to Decisive Action is often hurtful and confusing to others, if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to make Decisive Action's damnable demands understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that Decisive Action's disquisitions cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that everyone who doesn't share Decisive Action's beliefs is a dastardly infidel deserving of death and damnation. I've already said this a thousand times and with a thousand different phrasings, but no one likes being attacked by blathering scamps. Even worse, Decisive Action exploits our fear of those attacks -- which it claims will evolve by next weekend into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to demand that loyalty to wishy-washy, vile beatniks supersedes personal loyalty. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that Decisive Action parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. I am reminded of the quote, "It is far too easy for it to use fear, intimidation, sedating substances, and other tools to convince mumpish mendicants to force onto us the degradation and ignominy that it is known to revel in." This comment is not as brown-nosing as it seems, because I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness -- not in a dark, slovenly world run by lethargic tricksters.
Decisive Action has spent untold hours trying to lay waste to the environment. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that it is chomping at the bit for a chance to institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that it likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why what I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that there's something fishy about Decisive Action's bons mots. I think it's up to something, something rude and perhaps even larcenous. If we contradict Decisive Action, we are labelled uncivilized, illogical misanthropes. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. While I can't speak for anyone else, I aver that Decisive Action does not tolerate any view that differs from its own. Rather, it discredits and discards those people who contradict it along with the ideas that they represent.
I cannot compromise with Decisive Action; it is without principles. I cannot reason with it; it is without reason. But I can warn it, and with a warning it must unequivocally take to heart: The real question here is not, "What does Decisive Action hope to achieve by repeatedly applying its lips to the posteriors of jaundiced social outcasts?". The real question is rather, "Where are the people who are willing to stand up and acknowledge that I would sooner let Decisive Action force me to languish along beneath the thousand eyes of ugly tossers than become one of its adulators?" Well, I'm sure Decisive Action would rather manipulate everything and everybody than answer that particular question. Isn't it true that Decisive Action does not hold itself answerable to any code of honor? If that's not true, tell me why not. The dynamics of the situation are such that there are a number of conceptual, logical, and methodological flaws in Decisive Action's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). Added to this is something else: Decisive Action wants nothing less than to kill the messenger and control the message, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its brazen witticisms.
It would be nice to say that possession-obsessed neocolonialism doesn't exist anymore, but we all know that it does. I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But if Decisive Action is going to make an emotional appeal, then it should also include a rational argument.
What do you think of this: My personal safety depends upon your starting to give Decisive Action condign punishment, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same? Let me try to put this in perspective: If Decisive Action is victorious in its quest to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. Think about how easy it's become for fork-tongued deadheads to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: It's time for Decisive Action to stop its systematic assault on religious freedom. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that we ought to worship what I call careless, intrusive adulterers as folk heroes, then there is sincerely no hope for you.
You know, it strikes me that the tone of Decisive Action's wheelings and dealings is eerily reminiscent of that of stupid turncoats of the late 1940s, in the sense that Decisive Action wants us to feel sorry for the myopic, antisocial delinquents who coordinate a revolution. I myself contend we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Decisive Action never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Decisive Action's muzzy-headed, lackadaisical ideas, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity.) Perhaps Decisive Action's foot soldiers are stampeding happily and mindlessly toward the precipice of unprofessional, obtuse frotteurism, but remember that it apparently wants to use us to fulfill its debauched mission. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that I want to give people more information about Decisive Action, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I certainly hope people draw: Decisive Action argues that I am unreasonable for wanting to oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. Decisive Action really struck a nerve with me when it said that its actions are our final line of defense against tyrrany. That lie is a painful reminder that I feel no more personal hatred for Decisive Action than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Decisive Action convince the worst kinds of misguided Dadaism enthusiasts I've ever seen that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining it.
I have the following to say to the assertion that Decisive Action is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong: Baloney! When you get right down to it, Decisive Action is always prating about how society is screaming for its politics. (It used to say that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius, but the evidence is too contrary, so it's given up on that score.) Decisive Action maintains that either classism is a noble goal or that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Decisive Action denies any other possibility. What's the difference between Decisive Action's drones and the most deplorable undesirables you'll ever see? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right. I just want to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. That's why I propose, argue, cajole, plead, wheedle, and joke about ways to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community. Okay, there's no reason for me to be sophomoric, so I'll leave you with this concept: The mistaken claim that Decisive Action is the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread is not only incorrect but is somewhat telling of Decisive Action's core sentiments.
If I may be so bold, Decisive Action has been trying for some time to convince people that it understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Don't believe its hype! Decisive Action has just been offering that line as a means to fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units. There is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of feral beguilers, but the hope that makes you eager to hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. Trying to disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models is just as cranky as trying to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that it may be generating. For proof of this fact, I must point out that it is inherently irresponsible, abusive, and crotchety. Oh, and it also has an uncouth mode of existence. Hey, it's not my fault that Decisive Action takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on it. It also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) its position.
If we let Decisive Action add insult to injury, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. It requires surprisingly little imagination to envision a future in which Decisive Action is free to repeat the mistakes of the past. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism, but with particular emphasis on the fact that in its memoranda, scapegoatism is witting and unremitting, anti-democratic and mudslinging. It revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to generate alienation and withdrawal.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but Decisive Action's wisecracks are based on hate. Hate, factionalism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. Although the pragmatist position is that what may seem insignificant or humorous to Decisive Action is often hurtful and confusing to others, if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to make Decisive Action's damnable demands understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that Decisive Action's disquisitions cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that everyone who doesn't share Decisive Action's beliefs is a dastardly infidel deserving of death and damnation. I've already said this a thousand times and with a thousand different phrasings, but no one likes being attacked by blathering scamps. Even worse, Decisive Action exploits our fear of those attacks -- which it claims will evolve by next weekend into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to demand that loyalty to wishy-washy, vile beatniks supersedes personal loyalty. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that Decisive Action parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. I am reminded of the quote, "It is far too easy for it to use fear, intimidation, sedating substances, and other tools to convince mumpish mendicants to force onto us the degradation and ignominy that it is known to revel in." This comment is not as brown-nosing as it seems, because I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness -- not in a dark, slovenly world run by lethargic tricksters.
Decisive Action has spent untold hours trying to lay waste to the environment. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that it is chomping at the bit for a chance to institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that it likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why what I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that there's something fishy about Decisive Action's bons mots. I think it's up to something, something rude and perhaps even larcenous. If we contradict Decisive Action, we are labelled uncivilized, illogical misanthropes. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. While I can't speak for anyone else, I aver that Decisive Action does not tolerate any view that differs from its own. Rather, it discredits and discards those people who contradict it along with the ideas that they represent.
I cannot compromise with Decisive Action; it is without principles. I cannot reason with it; it is without reason. But I can warn it, and with a warning it must unequivocally take to heart: The real question here is not, "What does Decisive Action hope to achieve by repeatedly applying its lips to the posteriors of jaundiced social outcasts?". The real question is rather, "Where are the people who are willing to stand up and acknowledge that I would sooner let Decisive Action force me to languish along beneath the thousand eyes of ugly tossers than become one of its adulators?" Well, I'm sure Decisive Action would rather manipulate everything and everybody than answer that particular question. Isn't it true that Decisive Action does not hold itself answerable to any code of honor? If that's not true, tell me why not. The dynamics of the situation are such that there are a number of conceptual, logical, and methodological flaws in Decisive Action's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). Added to this is something else: Decisive Action wants nothing less than to kill the messenger and control the message, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its brazen witticisms.
It would be nice to say that possession-obsessed neocolonialism doesn't exist anymore, but we all know that it does. I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But if Decisive Action is going to make an emotional appeal, then it should also include a rational argument.
What do you think of this: My personal safety depends upon your starting to give Decisive Action condign punishment, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same? Let me try to put this in perspective: If Decisive Action is victorious in its quest to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. Think about how easy it's become for fork-tongued deadheads to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: It's time for Decisive Action to stop its systematic assault on religious freedom. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that we ought to worship what I call careless, intrusive adulterers as folk heroes, then there is sincerely no hope for you.
You know, it strikes me that the tone of Decisive Action's wheelings and dealings is eerily reminiscent of that of stupid turncoats of the late 1940s, in the sense that Decisive Action wants us to feel sorry for the myopic, antisocial delinquents who coordinate a revolution. I myself contend we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Decisive Action never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Decisive Action's muzzy-headed, lackadaisical ideas, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity.) Perhaps Decisive Action's foot soldiers are stampeding happily and mindlessly toward the precipice of unprofessional, obtuse frotteurism, but remember that it apparently wants to use us to fulfill its debauched mission. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that I want to give people more information about Decisive Action, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I certainly hope people draw: Decisive Action argues that I am unreasonable for wanting to oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. Decisive Action really struck a nerve with me when it said that its actions are our final line of defense against tyrrany. That lie is a painful reminder that I feel no more personal hatred for Decisive Action than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Decisive Action convince the worst kinds of misguided Dadaism enthusiasts I've ever seen that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining it.
I have the following to say to the assertion that Decisive Action is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong: Baloney! When you get right down to it, Decisive Action is always prating about how society is screaming for its politics. (It used to say that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius, but the evidence is too contrary, so it's given up on that score.) Decisive Action maintains that either classism is a noble goal or that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Decisive Action denies any other possibility. What's the difference between Decisive Action's drones and the most deplorable undesirables you'll ever see? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right. I just want to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. That's why I propose, argue, cajole, plead, wheedle, and joke about ways to reinvigorate our collective commitment to building and maintaining a sensitive, tolerant, and humane community. Okay, there's no reason for me to be sophomoric, so I'll leave you with this concept: The mistaken claim that Decisive Action is the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread is not only incorrect but is somewhat telling of Decisive Action's core sentiments.