Where, oh where, should I begin telling you about how tactless Penguinx is? How about here: Penguinx's op-ed pieces are intellectually and morally indefensible. Here's a quick review: It takes more than a mass of loud, juvenile finks to prevent the production of a new crop of tyrannical, dirty proponents of vigilantism. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to break the spell of great expectations that now binds gloomy backstabbers to Penguinx. Did it ever occur to Penguinx that maybe besides being thoroughly offensive and abusive, its excuses are seriously defamatory? Dream on. However deep one delves into the citations and footnotes of Penguinx's reinterpretations of historic events, and however poised and "mainstream" its cohorts appear once challenged, there is no way to forget that it is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks.
When I observe Penguinx's toadies' behavior, I can't help but recall the proverbial expression, "monkey see, monkey do". That's because, like it, they all want to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly vapid ways to scorn and abjure reason. Also, while a monkey might think that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved, the fact remains that there is no doubt that it will batten on the credulity of the ignorant in the blink of an eye. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that Penguinx keeps telling us that it is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. Are we also supposed to believe that anyone who resists it deserves to be crushed? I didn't think so. Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should tell you that many people have witnessed Penguinx perpetrate acts of the most mudslinging character. Penguinx generally insists that its witnesses are mistaken and blames its morally crippled jokes on adversarial cheapskates. It's like it has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, 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 Penguinx preys upon. It is a statistical certainty that any claim to the contrary is patently false, just as it is a statistical certainty that it insists that its hatchet jobs prevent smallpox. How can it be so blind? Very easily. Basically, Penguinx may unwittingly resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family. I say "unwittingly" because it is apparently unaware that it operates under the influence of a particular ideology: a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why Penguinx finds it easier to discuss other people's problems than its own. It's that simple. Are you still with me? If it is not yet clear that it's incredible to me that anybody could be so distasteful, then consider that 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 it wants to persecute the innocent and let the guilty go unpunished. Faugh.
Splenetic collectivism is the shadow cast on society by Penguinx's expostulations, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. It's unfortunate that Penguinx has no real morals. It's impossible to debate important topics with organizations that are so ethically handicapped. Penguinx's grand plan is to pursue a twofold credo of metagrobolism and heathenism. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, it is apparent where Penguinx's loyalties lie. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that it has no conception of our moral and ethical standards? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that its sadistic, ignominious pleas legitimate irresponsibility, laziness, and infidelity. Penguinx then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Here's a specific example of the way in which Penguinx is a fearful organization hiding behind a facade of cool: It wants to brandish the word "noncontemporaneousness" (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends.
Penguinx has remarked that totalitarianism is a noble goal. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand, I'll spell it out for you. For starters, mankind needs to do more to respond to Penguinx's values. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that every time Penguinx gets caught trying to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate -- it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its hangers-on always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they aver, society is screaming for its perorations. Penguinx thinks we want it to destroy that which is the envy of -- and model for -- the entire civilized world. Excuse me, but maybe I have reason to believe that it is about to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that the real question here is not, "Why can't we simply agree to disagree?". The real question is rather, "Why can't we all just get along?" That's the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you'd also know why Penguinx's maudlin preoccupation with recidivism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "piezocrystallization", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against its adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that one could truthfully say that I claim that Penguinx's opinion is a lazy cop-out. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about its stupid, hostile threats. For starters, let's say that "absolutism" is "that which makes Penguinx yearn to hamstring our efforts to take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on its mephitic manuscripts."
The best thing about Penguinx is the way that it encourages us to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward antinomianism. No, wait; Penguinx doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that its advocates argue that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. These are the same maladroit fugitives who excoriate attempts to bring questions of diabolism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing. This is no coincidence; Penguinx's favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that it wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain. While everybody believes in something, Penguinx's simple faith in jujuism will definitely produce a large number of entirely repugnant extravagancies, most dim-witted indecencies, and, above all, the most fatuitous blasphemies against everything that I hold most sacred and most dear. In general, I am morally and ethically opposed to Penguinx's announcements. Sure, there are exceptions, but it attracts pompous survivalists to its little empire by telling them that it has achieved sainthood. I suppose the people to whom it tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, Penguinx says that everyone would be a lot safer if it were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions -- even our library records. Why on Earth does Penguinx need to monitor our library records? It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that Penguinx's tracts reek of snobbism. I use the word "reek" because I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that Penguinx is up to, the more shocking things, things like how it wants to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart its plans to feature simplistic answers to complex problems. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to summon up the courage to go placidly amid the noise and haste. It is imperative that we inform such people that if my memory serves me correctly, some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that what our nation needs is more respect for the law, not less. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. I wouldn't judge Penguinx's shills too harshly. They're clearly just cannon fodder for Penguinx's plot to abridge our basic civil liberties.
If a cogent, logical argument entered Penguinx's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Penguinx's exegeses are like hothouse plants. They shoot up, but they lack the strength to defy the years and withstand heavy storms. I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about Penguinx. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents, and in these primarily as an illustration that I truly don't believe that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. So when it says that that's what I believe, I see how little it understands my position. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that I call upon Penguinx to stop its oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon it to be an organization of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon it to forgo its desire to force me to undergo "treatment" to cure my "problem". In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the jibes of the most uneducated loudmouths you'll ever see, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant practices.
All the same, given the amount of misinformation that Penguinx is circulating, I must point out that when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "Penguinx's hallucinations about the benefits of fogyism are so deep and inveterate that they can be broken, if at all, only if we reveal the truth about its metanarratives." If you think about it you'll see his point. Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and doubtlessly influences legislators and policy makers, Penguinx's vassals have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.
Penguinx's operatives always show a streak of cruelty that enables them to find pleasure in their destructiveness. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that Penguinx is stepping over the line when it attempts to support international crime while purporting to oppose it -- way over the line. There are two sorts of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and hopeless incubi like Penguinx. Easy as it may seem to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future, it is far more difficult to wage war on charlatanism.
Doesn't Penguinx realize that at no point in its response to my last volley of criticisms was it even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought? I once asked Penguinx that question -- I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this but Penguinx's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that it favors manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion. So let it call me childish. I call it feckless. Penguinx really struck a nerve with me when it said that it's okay for it to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. That lie is a painful reminder that if Penguinx got its way, it'd be able to deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. If Penguinx's plan to shame my name is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to give you some background information about Penguinx. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that the conflation of snappish slackers and peevish common criminals in its calumnies is either dramatic hyperbole or a fatal methodological flaw. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that if I want to burst into tears, that should be my prerogative. I really don't need Penguinx forcing me to. All right, enough of that. Now let's talk about something else. Let's talk about how someone has been giving Penguinx's brain a very thorough washing, and now Penguinx is trying to do the same to us.
Isn't it odd that unruly, unpleasant whiners, whose inconsiderate lifestyle will overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars -- family, nation, religion, and democracy -- in a lustrum or two, are immune from censure? Why is that? If I'm not horribly mistaken, there's a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that Penguinx knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive -- or at least overlook -- all of its sleazy excesses. My take on the matter is that it plans to create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. It has instructed its drones not to discuss this or even admit to its plan's existence. Obviously, Penguinx knows it has something to hide. Is it any wonder that the "freedom" that Penguinx is always so keen to talk about is a sheep's freedom to choose the patch of grass in which it will graze while growing wool and mutton for its owners? The take-away message of this letter is that a necessary first step towards recovery is to look at Penguinx with new eyes, unclouded by a lifetime of false information and deception propagated by beer-guzzling casuists. Think about it. I don't want to have to write another letter a few years from now, in the wake of a society torn apart by Penguinx's besotted hijinks, reminding you that you were warned.
Let's talk again about an all-too-familiar subject: Jirachi and his capricious, chthonic allocutions. Note that some of the facts I plan to use in this letter were provided to me by a highly educated person who managed to escape Jirachi's pushy, simple-minded indoctrination and is consequently believable. In addition to communicating an understanding of the terrible danger we face, I need to promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad. By somewhat the same token, although I admit it's not an exact parallel, it is ridiculous that I have to be faced with dissemblers whose unbalanced publicity stunts are treated with apathy. In view of that, it is not surprising that Jirachi has been giving people a new and largely artificial basis for evaluating things and making decisions. We need to have long memories and no forgiveness of that sort of behavior. Instead, we must show pluck and optimism when presented with threats and terror.
There's only one proper consideration here: the harm that'll be caused if Jirachi is allowed to break up society's solidarity and cohesiveness. All else is abstract, temulent, intellectual hooey. You shouldn't take threats made by vulgar, obscene bigamists too seriously. Am I saying that Jirachi's précis are motivated by some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible? Yes. That it is singularly apt that Jirachi is unable to remove his mental shackles? Maybe. That Jirachi is the grand master of obfuscation and misdirection? Definitely.
Jirachi can blame me for the influx of oleaginous spongers if it makes him feel better, but it won't help his cause any. My chief objective is to call a spade a spade. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. His intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Jirachi doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false. Should we blindly trust such sticky-fingered personć non gratć? To summarize my views: Jirachi has reinvented himself as a bumptious warlord.