- Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:42 pm
#153613
If you believe nothing else that I've written about Rokkr, you can believe this: We should deal summarily with impetuous bums. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) It has been proven time and time again that those of us whose reason and honor have not been vitiated recognize that the law of parsimony suggests that there's a distinction to be made here. That's not something that we learn in school—though it should be. That's not something that we emote about while watching movies and TV shows—though it should be. What it is is something that tells us loudly and clearly that Rokkr has called people like me untrustworthy schmucks, naive, reprehensible chawbacons, and pushy wisenheimers so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. Rokkr definitely continues to employ such insults because he's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that Rokkr contends that the laws of nature don't apply to him and that, therefore, truth is merely a social construct. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces debauched slimeballs (as distinct from the antisocial Zoilists who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that the moon is made of green cheese. In reality, contrariwise, Rokkr repeats the term "establishmentarianism" over and over again in everything he writes. Is this repetition part of some new drinking game, or is Rokkr merely trying to confuse us into believing that the rigors that his victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement? You see, Rokkr's dream is to throw us into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Then, just to twist the knife a little, he'll fight with spiritual weapons that are as out-of-touch as they are pudibund.
I may be beating a dead horse here, but I do want to point out that Rokkr parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly like a weathercock. Many people who follow his execrations have come to the erroneous conclusion that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. The stark truth of the matter is that if Rokkr had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" he wouldn't be so keen to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that it is immature and stupid of him to instigate acrimony and discord. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to hold him to account for casting dissent as treason and criticism as espionage, and that's why I say that he sometimes puts himself in charge of taking credit for others' accomplishments. At other times, one of his helots is deputed for the job. In either case, everything Rokkr writes is unreadably desultory. To say anything else would be a lie.
I once read an article about how Rokkr wants nothing less than to suppress all news that portrays him in a bad light. It was the powerful and long-lingering momentum of the impressions received on that occasion, more than any other circumstance, that gave definite form and resolution to my purpose of acting as a positive role model for younger people. If he were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that there is no place in this country where we are safe from his backers, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. Even Rokkr's confidants couldn't deal with the full impact of Rokkr's capilotades. That's why they created "Rokkr-ism," which is just an incompetent excuse to steal our birthrights. Although we are being insidiously, conspiratorially, and treasonously led by deception, by bribery, by coercion, and by fear to do the entire country a grave disservice, it is also true that in a Rokkr-led society, people who oppugn Rokkr's inerudite machinations will be suppressed, vilified, hated, imprisoned, exiled, and killed. This is a perverse paradox, the implications of which are too prudish to dwell on short of saying that I contend that we should let Rokkr prattle on about how the cure for evil is more evil. At this point, such exsufflicate jibber jabber is harmless enough, albeit a little unsettling. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate how there's a lot of daylight between Rokkr's views and mine. He believes that revanchism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society while I suspect that he believes that his god is more caring and compassionate than your god, and to prove it, Rokkr's god wants him to accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. Yeah, that makes sense. Next, Rokkr will be telling us that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive.
The time has arrived to make a choice between freedom and slavery, revolt and submission, liberty and subservience. We must choose wisely, knowing that if we punish those who lie or connive at half-truths, we can live as truly free and empowered human beings. If, however, we let Rokkr take rights away from individuals whom only Rokkr perceives as shambolic, we become little more than fearful, broken dogs condemned to exist in a world of bilious metagrobolism. Now, perhaps you think I'm imagining things. Perhaps you think that he really isn't going to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. Well, I wish it were just my imagination. But you know, I'm at loggerheads with him on at least one important issue. Namely, Rokkr argues that the peak of fashion is to shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage. I take the opposite position, that Rokkr claims to have donated a lot of money to charity over the past few years. I suspect that the nullibicity of those donations would become apparent if one were to audit Rokkr's books—unless, of course, "charity" includes Rokkr-run organizations that shove angst-laden authoritarianism down our collective throats. In that case, I'd say that if we fail in our task of getting the Rokkr Wolf312 monkey off our backs and off other people's backs as well, then he will welsh on all sorts of agreements.
Part of the myth that Rokkr perpetuates is that women are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras. Let's be sure that I've made myself absolutely clear: Rokkr writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that he constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to his readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that I undeniably feel that Rokkr has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none or he wouldn't create a regime of profligate Stalinism.
Rokkr says that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a bloodthirsty prevaricator deserving of death and damnation. Yet he also wants to don the mantel of anarchism and introduce, cultivate, and encourage moral rot. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because his grand plan is to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Rokkr maintains that he defends the real needs of the working class. This is a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth in it. What's more, difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to take a no-nonsense approach to dealing with obstreperous sandbaggers.
Although the dialectics of disrespectful praxis will understate the negative impact of negativism sooner than you think, Rokkr has not yet been successful at abridging our basic civil liberties. Still, give him some time, and I'm sure he'll figure out how to do something at least that sordid, probably more so. In any event, we are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Rokkr does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why Rokkr's blackshirts are merely ciphers. Rokkr is the one who decides whether or not to manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to harvest what others have sown. Rokkr is the one who gives out the orders to use hedonism as a weapon for systematic political cleansing of the population. And Rokkr is the one trying to conceal how he is trying hard to convince a substantial number of backwards, haughty carpetbaggers to sap people's moral stamina. He presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite power-hungry, boisterous slackers to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how another point worth thinking about is that Rokkr's pleas are a mockery of all that is fair and equitable. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also end Rokkr's control over the minds and souls of countless people.
Many people lie. However, Rokkr lies with such ease it's troubling. According to the laws of probability, it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of his sound bites in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must improve the world. Rokkr criticizes me for expanding people's understanding of his sick-minded obiter dicta. If he wants to play critic, he should possess real and substantial knowledge about whatever it is he's criticizing. He shouldn't simply assume that his bunco games are our final line of defense against tyrrany.
I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that Rokkr is driving under the influence of sensationalism. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that Rokkr should not develop mind-control technology. Not now, not ever. As far as I can tell, by refusing to act, by refusing to reinforce notions of positive self-esteem, we are giving him the power to step on other people's toes. I don't need to tell you that Rokkr's bedfellows would sooner ally with evil than oppose it. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that Rokkr wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that he wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If Rokkr really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that I believe in "live and let live". Rokkr, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his prank phone calls but endorsement of them. It's because of such treasonous demands that I feel that I honestly have no appetite for apotheosizing annoying falsifiers. Many sticky-fingered dipsomaniacs, however, do. That's why I want them all to read this letter and others like it and discover for themselves that whenever people fail to fall for Rokkr's nocuous deceptions, he tries leading them to the slaughterhouse via the back entrance. If that ploy still doesn't work, Rokkr then sics his blood-drenched, murderous phalanx of uninformed gutter-bloods in all of its resplendent foulness upon them. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.
~dlgn
Rokkrwolf312 wrote:Looks like a rant generator or a thesaurus to me.Most people probably think they already know all they need to know about Mr. Rokkr Wolf312, but I have some new information to bring to light. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that it would be charitable of me not to mention that Rokkr indulges in various forms of verbal savagery to conceal the fact that I see myself as a crusader against a monolithic, exclusionary media that largely neglects to report on Rokkr's attempts to cover up his criminal ineptitude. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity so I will instead maintain that his homicidal ideation is ample reason for the rest of us to consider stopping the Huns at the gate. Stated differently, I have a hard time reasoning with people who remain calm when they see Rokkr fleecing people out of their life's savings. Rokkr's put-downs all stem from one, simple, faulty premise, that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. If we let Rokkr silence any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that he has increasingly been practicing, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to act honorably.
If you believe nothing else that I've written about Rokkr, you can believe this: We should deal summarily with impetuous bums. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) It has been proven time and time again that those of us whose reason and honor have not been vitiated recognize that the law of parsimony suggests that there's a distinction to be made here. That's not something that we learn in school—though it should be. That's not something that we emote about while watching movies and TV shows—though it should be. What it is is something that tells us loudly and clearly that Rokkr has called people like me untrustworthy schmucks, naive, reprehensible chawbacons, and pushy wisenheimers so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. Rokkr definitely continues to employ such insults because he's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that Rokkr contends that the laws of nature don't apply to him and that, therefore, truth is merely a social construct. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces debauched slimeballs (as distinct from the antisocial Zoilists who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that the moon is made of green cheese. In reality, contrariwise, Rokkr repeats the term "establishmentarianism" over and over again in everything he writes. Is this repetition part of some new drinking game, or is Rokkr merely trying to confuse us into believing that the rigors that his victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement? You see, Rokkr's dream is to throw us into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. Then, just to twist the knife a little, he'll fight with spiritual weapons that are as out-of-touch as they are pudibund.
I may be beating a dead horse here, but I do want to point out that Rokkr parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly like a weathercock. Many people who follow his execrations have come to the erroneous conclusion that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. The stark truth of the matter is that if Rokkr had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" he wouldn't be so keen to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that it is immature and stupid of him to instigate acrimony and discord. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to hold him to account for casting dissent as treason and criticism as espionage, and that's why I say that he sometimes puts himself in charge of taking credit for others' accomplishments. At other times, one of his helots is deputed for the job. In either case, everything Rokkr writes is unreadably desultory. To say anything else would be a lie.
I once read an article about how Rokkr wants nothing less than to suppress all news that portrays him in a bad light. It was the powerful and long-lingering momentum of the impressions received on that occasion, more than any other circumstance, that gave definite form and resolution to my purpose of acting as a positive role model for younger people. If he were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that there is no place in this country where we are safe from his backers, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. Even Rokkr's confidants couldn't deal with the full impact of Rokkr's capilotades. That's why they created "Rokkr-ism," which is just an incompetent excuse to steal our birthrights. Although we are being insidiously, conspiratorially, and treasonously led by deception, by bribery, by coercion, and by fear to do the entire country a grave disservice, it is also true that in a Rokkr-led society, people who oppugn Rokkr's inerudite machinations will be suppressed, vilified, hated, imprisoned, exiled, and killed. This is a perverse paradox, the implications of which are too prudish to dwell on short of saying that I contend that we should let Rokkr prattle on about how the cure for evil is more evil. At this point, such exsufflicate jibber jabber is harmless enough, albeit a little unsettling. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate how there's a lot of daylight between Rokkr's views and mine. He believes that revanchism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society while I suspect that he believes that his god is more caring and compassionate than your god, and to prove it, Rokkr's god wants him to accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. Yeah, that makes sense. Next, Rokkr will be telling us that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive.
The time has arrived to make a choice between freedom and slavery, revolt and submission, liberty and subservience. We must choose wisely, knowing that if we punish those who lie or connive at half-truths, we can live as truly free and empowered human beings. If, however, we let Rokkr take rights away from individuals whom only Rokkr perceives as shambolic, we become little more than fearful, broken dogs condemned to exist in a world of bilious metagrobolism. Now, perhaps you think I'm imagining things. Perhaps you think that he really isn't going to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot. Well, I wish it were just my imagination. But you know, I'm at loggerheads with him on at least one important issue. Namely, Rokkr argues that the peak of fashion is to shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage. I take the opposite position, that Rokkr claims to have donated a lot of money to charity over the past few years. I suspect that the nullibicity of those donations would become apparent if one were to audit Rokkr's books—unless, of course, "charity" includes Rokkr-run organizations that shove angst-laden authoritarianism down our collective throats. In that case, I'd say that if we fail in our task of getting the Rokkr Wolf312 monkey off our backs and off other people's backs as well, then he will welsh on all sorts of agreements.
Part of the myth that Rokkr perpetuates is that women are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras. Let's be sure that I've made myself absolutely clear: Rokkr writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that he constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to his readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that I undeniably feel that Rokkr has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none or he wouldn't create a regime of profligate Stalinism.
Rokkr says that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a bloodthirsty prevaricator deserving of death and damnation. Yet he also wants to don the mantel of anarchism and introduce, cultivate, and encourage moral rot. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because his grand plan is to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Rokkr maintains that he defends the real needs of the working class. This is a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth in it. What's more, difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to take a no-nonsense approach to dealing with obstreperous sandbaggers.
Although the dialectics of disrespectful praxis will understate the negative impact of negativism sooner than you think, Rokkr has not yet been successful at abridging our basic civil liberties. Still, give him some time, and I'm sure he'll figure out how to do something at least that sordid, probably more so. In any event, we are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Rokkr does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why Rokkr's blackshirts are merely ciphers. Rokkr is the one who decides whether or not to manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to harvest what others have sown. Rokkr is the one who gives out the orders to use hedonism as a weapon for systematic political cleansing of the population. And Rokkr is the one trying to conceal how he is trying hard to convince a substantial number of backwards, haughty carpetbaggers to sap people's moral stamina. He presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite power-hungry, boisterous slackers to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how another point worth thinking about is that Rokkr's pleas are a mockery of all that is fair and equitable. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also end Rokkr's control over the minds and souls of countless people.
Many people lie. However, Rokkr lies with such ease it's troubling. According to the laws of probability, it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of his sound bites in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must improve the world. Rokkr criticizes me for expanding people's understanding of his sick-minded obiter dicta. If he wants to play critic, he should possess real and substantial knowledge about whatever it is he's criticizing. He shouldn't simply assume that his bunco games are our final line of defense against tyrrany.
I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that Rokkr is driving under the influence of sensationalism. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that Rokkr should not develop mind-control technology. Not now, not ever. As far as I can tell, by refusing to act, by refusing to reinforce notions of positive self-esteem, we are giving him the power to step on other people's toes. I don't need to tell you that Rokkr's bedfellows would sooner ally with evil than oppose it. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that Rokkr wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that he wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If Rokkr really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that I believe in "live and let live". Rokkr, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his prank phone calls but endorsement of them. It's because of such treasonous demands that I feel that I honestly have no appetite for apotheosizing annoying falsifiers. Many sticky-fingered dipsomaniacs, however, do. That's why I want them all to read this letter and others like it and discover for themselves that whenever people fail to fall for Rokkr's nocuous deceptions, he tries leading them to the slaughterhouse via the back entrance. If that ploy still doesn't work, Rokkr then sics his blood-drenched, murderous phalanx of uninformed gutter-bloods in all of its resplendent foulness upon them. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.
~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.
.
