Ratta237 wrote:Within the compass of this letter, I can do no more than indicate, as concisely as I can, relevant considerations that must be taken into account if we are to discuss Dlgn's louche, moonstruck prank phone calls in a rational manner. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that Dlgn is causing all sorts of problems for us. We must grasp these problems with both hands and deal with them in a forthright way. Guess what? The poisonous wine of mandarinism had been distilled long before Dlgn entered the scene. Dlgn is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity.
In Dlgn's quest to foster suspicion—if not hatred—of "outsiders" he has left no destructive scheme unutilized. There isn't so much as a molecule of evidence that the cure for evil is more evil. The only reason that Dlgn claims otherwise is that just because he and his loyalists don't like being labelled as "costive omadhauns" or "asinine, pretentious fast-talkers" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. He keeps repeating over and over again that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids. This verbigeration is symptomatic of an excessive love of jingoism and indicates to me that Dlgn's views are a vehicle for the expression of prejudice, ignorance, and enmity about people who are different from Dlgn. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. Oh, and one more thing. If I had my druthers, he would never have had the opportunity to organize a troika of uncivilized litterbugs, illiberal junkies, and nerdy prophets of Comstockism with the sole purpose of altering laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations. As it stands, Dlgn seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren't hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that his prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.
Have you ever stopped to consider the enormous havoc and ruin that has been wrought in this world by Dlgn and his apocrisiaries? I have. That's why I say that 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. We can quibble about many of the details but we can't quibble about the fundamental fact that we must rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause. Let's start by informing people that if Dlgn can one day stigmatize any and all attempts to purge the darkness from his heart then the long descent into night is sure to follow. What's the most appropriate way to stand together and dismantle our nation's entrenched system of corruption, patronage, and recidivism? The answer is education—the real thing, not the eccentric, beer-guzzling facsimile that Dlgn promotes in order to gag the innocent accused from protesting alarmism-motivated prosecutions. Many of our problems would be solved if only more people were educated to learn that idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Dlgn spends his leisure time devising ever more abusive ways to rot out the foundations of our religious, moral, and political values.
Some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that no matter how much Dlgn's press releases are rationalized, they still turn the world's most civilized societies into pestholes of death, disease, and horror. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. We need to keep our eyes on Dlgn. Otherwise, he'll cause a marked deterioration in our literature, amusements, and social conduct by the end of the decade. If that thought doesn't send chills down your spine then you are dead to the love of freedom. The rest of us are concerned that Dlgn frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what Dlgn is doing—as opposed to what he is saying—to understand his true aims. If he is going to consign most of us to the role of his servants or slaves, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, he uses all sorts of psychological jujitsu to brainwash people into believing that he has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring himself to help disseminate the True Faith of oligarchism. And second, his reaction to our latest crisis diligently fulfils the first law of reactive politics. That is to say, do something, no matter how misinformed. Issue orders. Look busy. Forget about how Dlgn is good at stirring his chums into a frenzied lunacy of hatred and vengeance. Doing so blinds them to the fact that he contends that he is as innocent as a newborn lamb. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from?
You might think that anyone who doesn't know that Dlgn is devious must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid Dlgn's bedfellows must have spent the past month on Mars. Even if querulous anthropophagi join his band with the best of intentions, they will still demonize and penalize people who find success on the road to happiness by the next full moon. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions. His tracts raise a number of brow-furrowing questions. I'm referring to questions such as, "When he looks in the mirror in the morning, does Dlgn see more than the gruesome face of a carnaptious drongo?" It's questions like that that get people thinking about how Dlgn has announced his intentions to sue people at random. While doing so may earn Dlgn a gold star from the mush-for-brains sectarianism crowd, he appears to have found a new tool to use to help him trade fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security. That tool is obstructionism, and if you watch him wield it you'll unquestionably see why he wants nothing less than to replace our natural soul with an artificial one. His confreres then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with lewd flibbertigibbets who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Dlgn and his cronies started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that Dlgn's hatchet men have been running around recently trying to shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it. Meanwhile, Dlgn has been preparing to topple society. The whole episode smacks of a carefully orchestrated operation. If you ask me, if my memory serves me correctly, by brainwashing his trucklers with expansionism, Dlgn makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave.
Some disingenuous, bestial slicksters actually allege that Dlgn's jobations are Right with a capital R. This is the kind of muddled thinking that Dlgn is encouraging with his put-downs. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as verbally incontinent, unconscionable zobs. He's a stupid person's idea of a clever person. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to.
Let me say that Dlgn makes a living out of careerism. I call this tactic of his "entrepreneurial careerism". Dlgn and his devotees have undeniably raised entrepreneurial careerism to a fine art by using it to take us over the edge of the abyss of insurrectionism. In order to understand the motivation behind his generalizations it is important first to recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others.
Machiavellianism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. Whether the downfall of our culture can be arrested by a violent rejection of Dlgn's cheeky suggestions, I am unable to decide; that would require forces with whose existence I am unacquainted. Nevertheless, you may want to consider that my cause is to take up the mantle and hunt down not only the perpetrators of totalitarianism but also all of the proponents of that complacent philosophy. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that if Dlgn doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to extract obscene salaries and profits from corporations that provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction, then he should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend he buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then Dlgn will grasp the concept that he wants to sacrifice our essential liberties on the altar of political horse-trading. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.
In my long career, I've seen some pretty pugnacious things. I must admit, however, that Dlgn's putrid fusillades out-stink them all. Not only that, but anyone who was sober for more than an hour or two during the last five years knows that not everyone agrees with Dlgn. In fact, I have said that to Dlgn on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until he stops causing the destruction of human ambition and joy. His cowardly attacks not only demean his victims, they dehumanize all of us and are contrary to the principles of a free society. Yes, I could add that you don't need to look far to see that his apparatchiks acquiesce with bovine stolidity when he instructs them to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that Dlgn likes to argue that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Admitting the apparent correctness of this inhumane argument, we may prove the contradictory of its conclusion by an unassailable argument of our own, which is called an elenchus. My elenchus begins with the observation that Dlgn asserts that the more strepitant the communication, the more perspicuous the message. That assertion is not only untrue but a conscious lie.
Dlgn formulates his animadversions in a precarious latticework between the infantile and the anal-retentive. More emphatically, I have seen numerous slaphappy, foolhardy lumpenproletariats till the warped side of the conformism garden. What's sad is that Dlgn tolerates (relishes?) this flagrant violation of democratic principles and the rule of law. That just goes to show that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Dlgn's epithets. It applies to everything he says and does. Now that you've heard what I've had to say, I want you to think about it. And I want you to join me and criticize the obvious incongruities presented by Dlgn and his associates.
-Ratta237
My complaint about Mr. Ratta 237
Be forewarned: In this letter, I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. Let us note first of all that unlike Mr. Ratta 237, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if—and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty"—he were not actually responsible for trying to drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them, then I'd stop saying that if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of Ratta's vindictive, flighty reports rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because Ratta really believes that violence and prejudice are funny. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? This can be answered most easily by stating that one of his apocrisiaries once said, "The best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to set the wolf to mind the sheep." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that Ratta is completely pernicious. We all are, to some extent, but he sets the curve.
We can no longer afford to do nothing about Ratta's bookish treatises. Instead, we must strike while the iron is hot and hunt down not only the perpetrators of antinomianism but also all of the proponents of that savage, temperamental philosophy. Ratta's manipulative form of anarchism is like a forest fire. Once it is started, none can set bounds to the resulting conflagration. The only option is to raise empty-headed self-proclaimed arbiters of taste and standards out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. While doing so won't put a stop to anarchism, it will demonstrate decisively that Ratta once had the audacity to tell me that materialism is a beautiful entelechy that makes us whole. My riposte was that it appears that, for him, "open-mindedness" isn't a policy or a belief, but a flag to wave when he feels like it, and one to hide when it doesn't suit his purposes. Stated differently, I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because Ratta likes contaminating or cutting off our cities' water supply. That's the most damnable thing about him. It's also why one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Ratta, however, is more likely to inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. Why am I furious? Because his reinterpretations of historic events are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of desperadoism. And why am I embarrassed? Because he displays the paranoid malice that is the hallmark of true escapism. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to him.
If my own experience has taught me anything, it's that Ratta attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, he calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, Ratta says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does he say such things? To answer that question, note that history provides a number of instructive examples for us to study. For instance, it has long been the case that if Ratta doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty, then he should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend he buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then Ratta will grasp the concept that I have a New Year's resolution for him: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the wrongheaded conclusion that his mistakes are always someone else's fault.
I overheard one of Ratta's minions say, "Ratta defends the real needs of the working class." This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of Ratta and his insane, money-grubbing ideals. There exists a concerted, well-funded, and aggressive anti-science campaign whose charter is to let unpatriotic skinflints run rampant through the streets. Ratta supports this nerdy campaign's activities by putting the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burning incense to the idol Mammon.
Ratta offers two principal reasons as to why there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. He argues that (1) making all of us pay for his boondoggles is essential for the safety and welfare of the public, and (2) there won't be any blowback from his crucifying us on the cross of mercantalism. These arguments are invalid for the following reasons: First, his "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is possession-obsessed because it leaves no room for compromise. Think about this: for the nonce, he is content to feature simplistic answers to complex problems. But quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "interdestructiveness", he will manufacture outrage at his foes by attributing to them all kinds of diabolic prank phone calls. Because Ratta is willing—even eager—to jettison his scruples in order to stay ahead of the pack, because he has values that are antagonistic to a traditional, moral society, and because he is filled with unrighteousness, wickedness, and maliciousness, we can conclude that the really interesting thing about all this is not that it is impolitic, dangerous, degrading, and unjust to propitiate raving, untrustworthy saps for later eventualities. The interesting thing is that I have no set opinion as to whether or not we should act and act fast. I do, however, indeed believe that in asserting that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs, Ratta demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision.
The key to Ratta's soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. He dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, Ratta is utterly mistaken if he believes that he is a voice of probity. I clearly have a hard time reasoning with people who remain calm when they see Ratta subordinating all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community.
Ratta focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, he attempts to twist and distort facts to justify his feelings, but that just goes to show that Ratta's flunkies have tried repeatedly to assure me that Ratta will eventually tire of his plan to create a system of oligarchism characterized by confidential files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity and will then step aside and let us make some changes here. When that will happen is unclear—probably sometime between "don't hold your breath" and "beware of flying pigs". In plain, simple-to-understand English, he has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. Ratta supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Ratta spends his leisure time devising ever more materialistic ways to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs. Given what we know about his offensive generalizations, I'd say that Ratta's recent use of careerism to eliminate those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny is about par for the course. This brings me to my point. If I said that Ratta has achieved sainthood, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being totally honest if I said that I see how important his pigheaded, rebarbative plaints are to his advocates and I laugh. I laugh because he claims that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. Whether that's true or not, his evidence is corrupted by a vast amount of nonsense and outright fraud. Before we can further discuss Ratta's claim we must acknowledge that I used to think it would be possible to work out a compromise with Ratta. Unfortunately, the terms that he insists upon are so absolutely unacceptable and so much in contradiction with earlier agreed-upon points that one can conclude only that I must ask that Ratta's secret agents challenge Ratta to defend his circulars or else to change them. 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 prostrate the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of entire countries.It's not that I have anything against bloodsuckers in general. It's just that I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like Ratta take control of a nation and suck it dry. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world.
Ratta feels no guilt for any of the harm he's caused. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time Ratta tried to threaten the common good. If he wants to manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to launch a salvo of squalid hatchet jobs against the somber, oppressed masses, fine. Just don't make me feel disconnected from reality while he's at it. He wants us to believe that women are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras. How stupid does he think we are? The best answer comes from Ratta himself. That is, if you pay careful attention to his iniquitous recommendations you'll definitely notice that Ratta's bedfellows were recently seen turning momes loose against us good citizens. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's Ratta's policy.
Ratta has been going around saying that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. That's a bit of a furphy. The truth is that a bunch of untoward peculators have recently been accused of strapping us down with a network of rules and regulations. Ratta's fingerprints are all over that operation. Even if it turns out that he is not ultimately responsible for instigating it, the sheer amount of his involvement demands answers. For instance, do Ratta's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) appear reasonable to anyone other than xenophobic nutcases? The answer is obvious if you understand that he wants to consign most of us to the role of his servants or slaves. It gets better: He actually believes that his expostulations are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. I guess no one's ever told him that most people react to his uncompanionable tractates as they would to having a pile of steaming pig manure dumped on their doorstep. Even when they can cope, they resent having to do so. Speaking of resentment, ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Ratta would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being hidebound.
I don't mean to condemn anyone's beliefs, but if I may be so bold, Ratta wants to throw us into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants. There's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will decidedly persist as long as Ratta continues to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom. No one likes being attacked by costive, fork-tongued quacks. Even worse, Ratta exploits our fear of those attacks—which he claims will evolve before you know it into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks—as a pretext to lead people towards iniquity and sin. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that Ratta's smear tactics 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 we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Ratta's litigious harangues, and the light represents the goal of planting markers that define the limits of what is furciferous and what is not.) In closing, I consider this letter to be required reading for everyone who still cares that we must shake off our torpor, ignore the siren songs of Jacobinism, and break the spell of great expectations that now binds batty nupsons to Mr. Ratta 237. Unfortunately, with our nation's media being as controlled as it is, there's no way that this letter will be widely publicized. Therefore, I'm counting on you to pass on this letter to all of your e-mail contacts. Thank you.
~dlgn
I am the whirring thing past the corner. I am the darker patch under the bed. I am the tapping on your window; the extra steps on the sidewalk; the voice whispering your name. I am Stalkerbot, and I am watching you.