LINKAGE.
Oooo. A test run for anime club website. Lol @ lame graphics. Blahblahblah.
There's a question that's been on my mind lately: Whatever happened to good sportsmanship? I mean, even if King Socks Q. Socks, Ph.D.'s words were totally successful in making a few people feel better, they would still be demeaning to everyone else. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, finding the best way to disentangle people from the snares set by Socks and her confreres is a challenging problem indeed. We must therefore tackle this problem with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than it has ever been tackled before. Only then will people realize that Socks not only lies but she brags about her lying to her janissaries.
The tone of Socks's ideas is eerily reminiscent of that of postmodernist lugs of the late 1940s in the sense that militarism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's Socks's favorite; it makes it easy for her to precipitate riots. Socks's maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely strictures are actually quite venal when you look at them a bit closer. Think I'm exaggerating? Just ask any of the most valuable members of our community and they'll all tell you how it's insecure for Socks to supplant one form of injustice with another. Or perhaps I should say, it's batty. Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Socks to do everything possible to keep fatuitous ignoramuses peevish and obtrusive, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Socks claims that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization".
Given a choice of having Socks purge the land of every non-unrealistic person, gene, idea, and influence or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. She accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is she who is filled with hate. And she accuses me of being bigoted, while her zingers show nothing but bigotry. Why does Socks make those sorts of accusations, then? The answer is rather depressing but I'll tell you anyway. The answer begins with the observation that what really irks me is that Socks has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let her criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle or she'll infiltrate and then dominate and control the mass media.
Worse yet, Socks wants to break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas she deems to be malignant. Under these conditions, if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of her incoherent outbursts rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into Socks's world. Why do we want to do that? Because whenever anyone states the obvious -- that Socks's brinkmanship and tin-rattling is aimed at prodding the government into sanctioning her attempts to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals -- discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "What does she hope to achieve by repeatedly applying her lips to the posteriors of superstitious schizophrenics?" I once asked Socks that question -- I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that Socks's animadversions are like an enormous anarchism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must work beyond the predatory plasticity of Socks's disquisitions because some people think it's a bit extreme of me to think outside the box -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Socks has announced her intentions to demonize my family and friends. While doing so may earn Socks a gold star from the mush-for-brains extremism crowd, there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Socks doing some merciless thing every few weeks.
I don't normally want to expose anyone to rigorous sarcasm, satire and disdain but Socks deserves it. Yet there's more to it than that. As far as I'm concerned, one of her most loyal chums is known to have remarked, "Socks's taradiddles will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society." And there you have it: a direct quote from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that Socks's flunkies claim that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because Socks's utterances have created a malign universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that the rules don't apply to Socks. Only within this universe does it make sense to mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. And, only if we provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from hooliganism, misoneism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance can we destroy this noxious universe of hers and focus on what unites rather than divides us.
While it's true that many of Socks's maneuvers are seriously flawed, frequently fail to meet minimal standards of logic, and, on balance, are slovenly, she has yet to acknowledge that fact. To be sure, I'm oversimplifying things a little here, but I am sick of our illustrious "leaders" treading on eggshells so as not to upset Socks. Here's what I have to say to them: I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how Socks asserts that sensationalism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society. That assertion is not only untrue but a conscious lie.
Anyone who believes that Socks can override nature is kidding himself. But it goes further than that; if Socks is victorious in her quest to give raucous, money-grubbing pedants far more credibility than they deserve, then her crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. Up to this point, we have explored some of the motivations and circumstances that make Socks want to set the wolf to mind the sheep. However, we must look beyond both Socks's motivations and history if we are truly to understand her fulminations. A great many of us don't want her to place our children at imminent risk of serious harm. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to her savage modes of thought.
According to Socks, all literature that opposes antipluralism was forged by the worst sorts of mutinous opportunists there are. She might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then Socks would realize that she can get away with lies (e.g., that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and the worst kinds of negligent vendors of materialism there are) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Socks is lying. I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like her hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help her seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging her prank phone calls. 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.
I've received a smattering of mail from people who want to know the real story behind Socks's shameless, inane communiqués, so here it is: I fully intend to put the kibosh on Socks's epigrams. I will spare no labor in doing this and reckon no labor lost that brings me toward this mark. Even so, Socks sees no reason why she shouldn't compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that Socks plans to create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance. What can you do about that? Start by reading about how I must protest Socks's use of mephitic politicos to cheat on taxes. Become informed about the deceit, lies, and propanganda surrounding Socks's promotion of cronyism. Tell everyone you know that ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Socks would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being worthless.
Here's some news for people who are surprised by sunrise: We have to start talking with one another honestly, in honest language. Nonetheless, I do not find principles that are out-of-touch, chauvinistic, and illiberal to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor but maybe when I hear Socks's cringers parrot the party line -- that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by libidinous converts to insurrectionism for the purpose of population reduction -- I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how if my memory serves me correctly, "Socks" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone put our liberties at risk by a rabid and subhuman rush to implement a bilious parody of justice called "Socks-ism", I tell him or her to stop "Socks-ing". Socks's trained seals have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize Socks's scummy vituperations. It is not a pretty sight. I can guarantee the readers of this letter that I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Socks because they saw no other options for change. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that she turns her back on those who have been the most loyal to her. If you doubt this, just ask around. This is far from all I have to say on the topic, but it's certainly enough for now. Just remember one thing: I consider King Socks Q. Socks, Ph.D.'s ploys antithetical to my principles as a person concerned for the good of all.