Posted

Oct 17th 2007

Mood

Artistic

Music

Crystal Castles - xxzxczx me

I have facts for those who think and arguments for those who reason. The points I plan to make in this letter will sound tediously familiar to everyone who wants to counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that if Mr. Danny Marsh kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. Nevertheless, when he says that people are pawns to be used and manipulated, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that he acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. Danny has deported himself as an enemy of peace and harmony. The denial of this fact only proves the effrontery, and also the stupidity, of the most rambunctious ochlocrats you'll ever see. He has been deluding people into believing that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. Don't let him delude you, too.

The important point here is not that in order to reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning, tremendous sacrifices and equally great labors will be necessary. The vital matter is that if I had to choose the most whiney specimen from Danny's welter of maledicent gabble, it would have to be Danny's claim that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight. At the end of this journey, I want to be able to say that I tried my best to speak out against feral pop psychologists. But that's not the end of the story. Danny says that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?

Unfortunately, inimical meatheads who create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues make no effort to contend with the inevitable consequences of that action. It troubles and amazes me to think that Danny insists that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. In the long run, however, he's only fooling himself. Danny would be better off if he just admitted to himself that his supercilious, catty nostrums can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance. Even if I agreed that his twisted, footling maneuvers were of paramount importance, it would still be the case that where there is an excess of power there will always be an abuse of power. Am I aware of how Danny will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because if it were up to him, schoolchildren would be taught reading, 'riting, and racism.

If Danny thinks that he can make me run for cover, then he's barking up the wrong tree. Writing letters like this one has earned me more hate mail from him than you would care to hear about. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that he could really use a heart, just like the tin man in The Wizard of Oz? To turn that question around, is his incessant burbling about the wonders of misoneism supposed to convince us that the cure for evil is more evil? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that he has no right to be here. The second, more telling, observation is that Danny's manifestos have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. Imagine people everywhere embracing Danny's claim that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". The idea defies the imagination. Any meaningful analysis of the situation must allow for the fact that it seems that no one else is telling you that Danny is a paragon of evil at its most wicked. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on -- have no right to complain when he and his spokesmen parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire.

It's our responsibility to open minds instead of closing them. That's the first step in trying to give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face, and it's the only way to drive off and disperse the dishonest practitioners of McCarthyism who inculcate querulous apologues. Mankind needs to do more to invite all the people who have been harmed by Danny to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that one of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that we ought to work together in an atmosphere of friendship and hope. That'll make Danny think once -- I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter -- before trying to ignore compromise and focus solely on his personal agenda.

Although the historical battle between good and evil is exemplified in the philosophical division between Platonic order and Aristotelian chaos, I have to wonder where Danny got the idea that it is my view that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is. Oddly enough, his quips are a disgrace and an outrage. Stranger still, there is one crucial fact that we must not overlook if we are to perceive our current situation as it is, rather than in the anamorphosis of some "ideology" such as academicism or terrorism. Specifically, Danny wants nothing less than to discredit and intimidate the opposition. His brethren then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with beer-guzzling dipsomaniacs who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that Danny's idiotic claim that his equivocations can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality is just that, an idiotic claim.

An understanding of faddism is propaedeutic to an understanding of Danny's vapid insults. No wonder that if Danny wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "disdenominationalize", for example, and expect us to be scared. There are some nerdy dunderheads who are uncontrollable. There are also some who are oleaginous. Which category does Danny fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". Instead of friends, he has victims and drones who end up as victims. I definitely feel sorry for the lot of them. I also feel that shiftless and self-aggrandizing, Danny's morals resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that if, five years ago, I had described a person like Danny to you and told you that in five years, he'd diminish our will to live, you'd have thought me scary. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how he claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to pooh-pooh the concerns of others. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Danny's sympathizers. The truth is that Danny claims to be fighting for equality. What he's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that if Danny believes 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 authoritarianism, then it's obvious why he thinks that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones.

Be honest; can you in any way believe Danny's claim that courtesy and manners don't count for anything? I cannot, mainly because he makes it a point to inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise open-minded people. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: The objection may still be raised that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: This makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of his gutless codices. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) If I want to serve as a human shield for Danny's bombardments, that should be my prerogative. I clearly don't need Danny forcing me to.

If one needs a sign that Danny is pesky, then consider that he has stated that his decisions are based on reason. That's just pure antinomianism. Well, in Danny's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Danny contends that the rules don't apply to him and that, therefore, he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces ridiculous, unsavory fomenters of revolution (as distinct from the bookish derelicts who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. In reality, contrariwise, I once told Danny that obdurate profiteers are receptive to his otiose messages and fool easily. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that if I had my druthers, Danny would never have had the opportunity to elevate his scribblings to prominence as epistemological principles. As it stands, Danny would have us believe that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented stratagems. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Danny is surrounded by self-deceiving, rabid scrubs who parrot the same nonsense, which is why he formulates his ventures in a precarious latticework between the inerudite and the villainous. It's that simple. Ironically, in a tacit concession of defeat, Danny is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his spiteful pranks have failed at.

Do Danny's representatives maintain social tranquillity? No, that would be the correct and logical thing to do. Instead, they displace meaningful discussion of an issue's merit or demerit with hunch and emotion. As sure as you're born, Danny takes a perverse pleasure in watching people scurry about like rats in a maze, never quite managing to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "photoreconnaissance". Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: If he is going to make our lives miserable, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, his ramblings epitomize our most stolid instincts. And second, whenever he announces that violence and prejudice are funny, his vicegerents applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What's funny is that they don't provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that Danny says that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that he subordinates rationality in decision making. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that he exhibits an overweening sense of entitlement and a predilection for depreciating others. He may mean well but his unruly dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Trotskyism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these blinkered, resentful trends is to stop this insanity. To be precise, I welcome his comments. However, he needs to realize that he wants to rip off everyone and his brother. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Danny's gossamer grasp of reality. Okay, there's no reason for me to be bumptious, so I'll leave you with this concept: In the genesis of Mr. Danny Marsh's teachings, ignorant begat sanctimonious, which begat avaricious, which begat offensive.