post what ever you feel like saying

[Syntaxvgm]

Did you write that all yourself?

Yes. That's 673 words a minute. I can type that. 

[Admire]

 

By now everyone should have heard about Peta and its mordacious, caustic propositions. In case you haven't heard or have even forgotten, allow me to refresh your memory. Whoa! Don't stampede for the exits! I promise I'll get to the main topic of this letter, Peta's belligerent catch-phrases, in just a few sentences. I simply feel it's important first to provide some additional context by mentioning that I stand by what I've written before, that if Peta wanted to, it could wipe out delicate ecosystems. It could unfurl the flag of allotheism. And it could infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating wretched information. We must not allow Peta to do any of these.

 

I guess what I really mean to say is that I, speaking as someone who is not an intrusive, querulous twaddler, am horrified by Peta's devotion to the idea of a benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite. Still, this is all light opera amid the shrill insanity of its parasitic ideals. Hey, it's not my fault that I recently informed Peta that its bootlickers take rights away from individuals whom only Peta perceives as indelicate. Peta said it'd “look further into the matter”—well, not too much further. After all, 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 Titoism or negativism. Specifically, Peta is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Peta is sciolism. Why? This can be answered most easily by stating that at this point in the letter I had planned to tell you that Peta is a perfect specimen of Insincere Pantywaistus, a species known for creating an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that its taradiddles are vulgar—and that's the polite word for what I actually think of them. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I argue that if anything will free us from the shackles of Peta's self-righteous comments, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Peta that given the public appetite for more accountability, any benefit that happens to be gained from its conscienceless ruderies is bound to be fugacious. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent Peta has tried to topple society. The other is whether or not Peta's agendas are niddering in theory and peccable in practice. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: The annunciations that Peta's loyalists are so proud of are woefully domineering.

 

It's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Peta. Not only is Peta more mingy and more wishy-washy than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but Peta's disquisitions manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: deprive individuals of the right to maintain social tranquillity. Phase two: put a clog on all attempts to limit its power. Peta likes to compare its imprecations to the venerable documents that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them.

 

I am sick of our illustrious “leaders” treading on eggshells so as not to upset Peta. Here's what I have to say to them: Peta claims that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says ill-natured things. Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. I believe I have finally figured out what makes organizations like Peta lead an active disinformation campaign. 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. By toning down its quips, many more people are exposed to Peta's laughable, horny message, convinced by its passion, and seduced by its simplistic answers to complex social problems.

 

Peta's goons suspect that Peta has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the contemptible cadgers around it. Sorry, guys, but the inconvenient truth is that it has been brought to my attention that even children are not safe from Peta's self-absorbed scare tactics. While this is certainly true, Peta says that it commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. Such statements are not just wrong; they're worse than wrong. They reinforce a dangerous and insidious but sadly common misunderstanding among many people. They disguise the fact that I would love to be a fly on the wall near where it and its camp meet. I'd love to hear how those petulant caitiffs come up with their bloody-minded schemes for causing people to betray one another and hate one another. Then, I'd finally be able to back up my claim that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to fight for our freedom of speech, we must remove the misunderstanding that it has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because documents written by Peta's habitués typically include the line, “Peta is a champion of liberty and individual expression”, in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that if Peta would, just once, demonstrate real and genuine concern for others, it might begin to realize that the irony is that its most audacious magic-bullet explanations are also its most loathsome. As the French say, “Les extremes se touchent.”

 

If I thought that Peta's words had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that Peta is completely versipellous. When it's among plebeians, Peta warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against hucksterism. But when Peta is safely surrounded by its idolators, it instructs them to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that if Peta were to undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that there is an alternative to lying down passively for the executioner. The alternative is to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. In particular, its recent attempt to perpetuate myths that glorify serfism is one more gambit in a chess game with no rules. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, some day, in the far, far future, it will realize that it is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to convince its epigones to rouse people's indignation at Peta. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how it is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because Peta's previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that its new changes will be even more abysmal because Peta's opinions have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply perverted. Now, not only are they both ugly and spleenful, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that Peta is more than biggety. It's mega-biggety. In fact, to understand just how biggety Peta is, you first need to realize that it manipulates public opinion through raw emotion, sexual desire, “family values”, comedy, music, entertainment, false religion, social engineering, journalistic propaganda, and junk science. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

 

I may be opening a Pandora's box by writing this, but if Peta truly believes that anyone who disagrees with it is ultimately jejune, then maybe it should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. So who's crazy? I, or all the snappish skites who warrant that the peak of fashion is to treat people like hidebound pettifoggers? Before you answer, let me point out that if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that Peta would throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future. And, as I predicted, it did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Peta could have made the same prediction.

 

There are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Peta announcing some crapulous thing every few weeks. Peta has announced a number of pea-brained ideas on how to run—or is that ruin?—everyone's life. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that it has no record of accomplishment? This isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: There is still hope for our society, real hope—not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the most puzzleheaded theologasters you'll ever see but the hope that makes you eager to direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Peta. People have pointed out to me that Peta is a stupid person's idea of a clever organization, but I still can't help but think that Peta's thesis is that power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. That's entirely pudibund, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that every time Peta tries, it gets increasingly successful in its attempts to censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought but for imagination as well.

 

Here's an eye-opener for you: Peta demands obeisance from its secret agents. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Peta forces them to remake the world to suit its own lascivious needs. Someone once said to me, “Peta broadens its appeal by seeking influence and adherents in the absenteeism movement.” This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. To paraphrase a line from Hamlet, “Fainéantism, thy name is Peta”.

 

Although Peta occasionally exhibits a passable simulacrum of rationality, I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, its older sottises were birdbrained enough. Its latest ones are truly beyond the pale. All of Peta's energy is expended in developing a credible pretext to forcibly silence its castigators. So what's the connection between that and its accusations? The connection is that if you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about Peta's latest quisquilious perceptions. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that I can't make heads or tails of Peta's mind games. I mean, does it want to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, or doesn't it? On a closing note, I hope that this letter, while incomplete, informal, and having no authority except its own inner strength and conviction, has clearly demonstrated to you that it's time for Peta to stop its systematic assault on religious freedom.

 

 

I have tons of labels for you.

[Syntaxvgm]

I have tons of labels for you.

You actually read that?  :lol:

[Trik'Stari]

All politicians are corrupt, greedy, and ultimately only interested in their own success.

 

Obama is a puppet

Hillary is a bitch lawyer (that count as a redundant statement?)

Bush was a puppet as well

Clinton was funny, but ultimately a puppet as well.

[Alec Harpers]

FART DONKEY

[Syntaxvgm]

All politicians are corrupt, greedy, and ultimately only interested in their own success.

 

Obama is a puppet

Hillary is a bitch lawyer (that count as a redundant statement?)

Bush was a puppet as well

Clinton was funny, but ultimately a puppet as well.

Ha yes Hillary is a bitch. 

You may have noticed that Hillary's rotten, detestable cat's-paws have been hunting the blogosphere in packs, swarming, intimidating, and spreading outright lies and propaganda while enforcing pressure on blog owners and administrators to generate alienation and withdrawal. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, every time Hillary tells her assistants that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. To put it crudely, she says that she wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, she always ends up humiliating, subjugating, and eventually eliminating everyone who wants to demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Hillary.

 

Purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Hillary's moralistic roorbacks. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how some day, in the far, far future, Hillary will realize that her campaigns are a masterpiece of brusque militarism. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how we are at war. Don't think we're not just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with Hillary's yellow-bellied capilotades. We're at war with her obdurate, meddlesome ruderies. And we're at war with her obtuse modes of thought. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that we must suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time.

 

If there is one truth in this world, it's that I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like Hillary want to deprive individuals of the right to rouse people's indignation at Hillary. 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 she keeps saying that she is a spokeswoman for God. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, I would be grateful if she would take a little time from her rigorous schedule to open minds instead of closing them. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens.

 

When was the last time you heard Hillary mention that without her caps-lock key or profanity thesaurus, she would have a difficult time expressing herself? Probably never. That's why she keeps insisting that she is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that if it were true, as Hillary claims, that we can stop gangsterism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for hectoring rantipoles, then I wouldn't be saying that every time Hillary spouts some nonsense about how all literature that opposes Marxism was forged by poxy anarchists, the effect is that her lieutenants become even more loyal to her. Sociologists call the phenomenon of increased devotion to an ethically bankrupt, mindless theory, at the very hour of its destruction by external evidence, “cognitive dissonance”. I call it proof that Hillary's plan is to progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom. Hillary's buddies are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes impinging upon our daily lives.

 

On a television program last night I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, “Hillary thumbs her nose at some of the very things I treasure.” That's exactly what I have so frequently argued, and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual. Although the themes in her diatribes are limited, she should think about how her invectives lead unruly con artists to persuade many of her castigators to enter into a one-way “dialogue” with her. If Hillary doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps she should just keep quiet. I am, of course, referring to a recent occurrence that is so well-known it requires no comment except to add that it is important to realize that she is bound to have a rude awakening when she finally realizes how few people approve of her condescending treacheries. But wait—as they say on late-night television infomercials—there's more: I was completely gobsmacked the first time I saw Hillary uprooting our very heritage and paving the way for her own inaniloquent value system. Since then, I've seen her do that so many times that I hardly bat an eyelid when someone tells me that Hillary has been causing a marked deterioration in our literature, amusements, and social conduct. It's time to even the score. I suggest that we begin by notifying people of the fact that Hillary's biggest lie is that she defends the real needs of the working class. Sure, she might be able to peddle that boatload of parisology to the hayseeds, but I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly give her the severe tongue-lashing she deserves. Nevertheless, I undoubtedly do have the will to change the world for the better. That's why I assert that the irony is that her most blinkered reinterpretations of historic events are also her most diversivolent. As the French say, “Les extremes se touchent.”

 

I wish I could say this nicely but I don't have much tolerance for hidebound polluters: Once one begins thinking about free speech, about quisquilious, wayward authoritarians who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own unprofessional beliefs, one realizes that Hillary and her countless imitators are unremittingly hostile towards those of us who shout back at Hillary's propaganda. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: Hillary's materialistic orations. In a manner of speaking, her agitprop machine is running at full throttle. But there's the rub; her view is that she has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the diabolic savages around her. If Hillary's domineering pickthanks, who are legion, had any moral or intellectual training, such a position would obviously be rendered revolting to their better feelings.

 

There is no place in this country where we are safe from Hillary's zealots, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. It would be great if we could lead us all toward a better, brighter future. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of careerism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to expand people's understanding of Hillary's impudent ideals. It's not necessary to go into too long of a description about how Hillary plans to prevent me from sleeping soundly at night as soon as our backs are turned. Suffice it to say that she always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to her. Nothing else matters—except maybe to pass off all sorts of niddering and obviously passive-aggressive stuff on others as a so-called “inner experience”. I tell you this because Hillary's ramblings all stem from one, simple, faulty premise, that her sneaky, rambunctious coalition of filthy, viperine dumbbells and lethargic maggots is a respected civil-rights organization.

 

The gloss that Hillary's spinmeisters put on Hillary's precepts unfortunately does little to shoo her away like the annoying bug that she is. When a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that Hillary stubbornly refuses to own up to her mistakes serves only to convince me that if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to debate the efficacy of her larcenous lamentations. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of propagandism, and there are those who are not. Hillary is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why she likes to cite poll results that “prove” that once she has approved of something it can't possibly be hate-filled. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of her pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. Keep that in mind the next time you catch Hillary turning our country into a puerile, unsavory cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime.

 

I wonder what would happen if Hillary really did hand over the country to cruel, lawless vexatious-types. There's a spooky thought. I am being absolutely serious when I say that she looks down upon the rest of us. From Hillary's perspective, we are blind so she must tell us what to see; we are deaf so she must tell us what to hear; and we are mute so she must tell us what to say. Such views may fool bookish boeotians, but I feel that Hillary's writings are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of chauvinism.

 

I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of Hillary's writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Hillary's writings to know that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly admonish Hillary not seven times, but seventy times seven. Nevertheless, I do have the will to purge the darkness from her heart. That's why I claim that Hillary has been doing “in-depth research” (whatever she thinks that means) to prove that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've “discovered” that for those of us who make our living trying to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives, it is important to consider that it is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by her sanctimonious monographs. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and develop a rational-empirical base for dialogue about her casus belli.

 

Although Hillary is ever learning she is never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The truth, in this context, is that Hillary has been trying to convince us that her vaporings prevent smallpox. That argument fails to take into account the reality that some of my acquaintances express the view that Hillary should stop bellyaching and start healing herself. Others express the view that Hillary would like us to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. I am prepared to offer a cheer and a half for each view; together, they paint a sufficiently complete picture of Hillary to warrant a full three cheers.

 

Hillary wants to shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage. Is this so she can do the devil's work, or is it to confuse, disorient, and disunify? You be the judge. In either case, her view is that egotism is the catholicon for all the world's ills. If Hillary's unscrupulous brethren had any moral or intellectual training, such a position would indubitably be rendered revolting to their better feelings. However much she may deny it, she exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up her obvious inferiority.

 

There is good reason to believe that I correctly predicted that Hillary would treat anyone who doesn't agree with her to a torrent of vitriol and vilification. Alas, I didn't think she'd do that so effectively—or so soon. Let's play a little game. Deduct one point from your I.Q. if you fell for her ridiculous claim that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. Deduct another point if you failed to notice that this is an exceptionally convincing illustration of the power wielded by Hillary and of the destructive way in which she uses that power. Let's remember that.

 

This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which I'll provide in a moment. But first, let me just say that Hillary is not your average philopolemical carouser. She's the deluxe model. As such, she's poised to lionize clumsy sideshow barkers by the next full moon. Hillary is doing some pretty mudslinging things. Or, to restate that without meiosis, she accuses me of being laughable whenever I state that it is sad to see her tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that I definitely dislike Hillary. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that Hillary yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Hillary, “attracting attention” usually implies “preparing the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror”.

 

Hillary might undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education in the coming days. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? One of her famuli keeps throwing “scientific” studies at me, claiming they prove that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to defile the air and water in the name of profit. The studies are full of “if”s, “possibly”s, “maybe”s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Hillary relies heavily on “useful idiots”, that is, people who unwittingly do Hillary's dirty work for her. Without her swarms of useful idiots, Hillary would not have been able to conceal the fact that if she can't be reasoned out of her prejudices, she must be laughed out of them. If she can't be argued out of her selfishness, she must be shamed out of it.

 

I believe it was Hegel who said, “Being shielded from the consequences of her bad judgment and bad behavior has made her careless”. I won't lie to you; I've tried to explain to Hillary's stinking cohorts that sexism is part of the catechism that must be intoned by all of the arrogant tyrants seeking entrée into Hillary's club. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that Hillary is just trying to pick a fight. That's why she says that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. I am not trying to save the world—I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to study the problem and recommend corrective action.

 

In my observations upon animalism, I have expressed no opinion thus far of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will note, however, though I still have nothing to propose, that Hillary maintains that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. This is complete—or at least, incomplete—baloney. For instance, Hillary fails to mention that whenever she's presented with the statement that I have a misty, inchoate suspicion that she will crush the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world some day, she spews out the hackneyed excuse that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to make excessive use of foul language. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that Hillary has been trying to conceal her plans to accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. Fortunately, the truth about her antihumanist bruta fulmina is spreading like a jungle fire. Soon, everyone will know that Hillary doesn't care about freedom as she can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to her.

 

Almost everyone will wholeheartedly agree that someone ought to ask Hillary point-blank why she should have been removed from the gene pool before she had a chance to contaminate it, but it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about her and about hypothetical solutions to our Hillary problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that she claims to have the perfect solution to all our problems. Alas, Hillary's solution involves plunging the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos. What bothers me about that is that someone has been giving her brain a very thorough washing, and now Hillary is trying to do the same to us. Hillary always cavils at my attempts to explain the Hillary Rodham Clinton factor in the equation of absolutism. That's probably because whenever Hillary is blamed for conspiring to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes, she blames her fans. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Hillary leach integrity and honor from our souls.

 

Implying that honor counts for nothing is no different from implying that no one is smart enough to see through Hillary's transparent lies. Both statements are ludicrous. As sure as you're born, Hillary's chums have repeatedly been caught bringing this battle to a fever pitch. I had expected better from her and her vaunted coven, but then again, Hillary's goal is to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests. How viperine is that? How peremptory? How cold-blooded?

 

Hillary generally tries to keep her distance from the wretched hoodwinkers who devalue me as a person. However, she sees nothing wrong with funding, assembling, and training obscene despots to hasten society's quiescence to moral pluralism and epistemological uncertainty. Ah the sweet, sweet smell of hypocrisy.

 

Okay, then, let's move onto the really good part of this letter, the part in which I get to tell you that by Hillary's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely a beggarly ruffian. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from hers. For instance, I avouch that Hillary cannot tolerate the world as it is. She needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Hillary does not merely make a big deal out of nothing. She does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically.

 

Certain facts are clear. For instance, if we are powerless to teach the worst sorts of harebrained mooncalves I've ever seen about tolerance, it is because we have allowed Hillary to make fogyism socially acceptable. At the end of this journey, I want to be able to say that I tried my best to expose the connections between the mad problems that face us and the key issues of commercialism and ultraism, by which I mean that it's debatable whether what she insists are original casus belli are nothing more than warmed-over versions of unilateralism. However, no one can disagree that Hillary appears to have found a new tool to use to help her extend her fifteen minutes of fame to fifteen months. That tool is etatism, and if you watch her wield it you'll certainly see why there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Hillary perverts hatred in order to force us to tailor our undertakings just to suit her grumpy whims, it becomes clear that when she was first found threatening national security, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Hillary is planning to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue, I'm really terrified.

 

Ostensibly, Hillary does not intend to bring irreligionism to this country in the name of anti-irreligionism but, in fact, I don't know if she is consciously and purposely evil or merely petulant. I do know, however, that Hillary's insensitive indiscretions are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Hillary has been using psychological tools to trick us into doing whatever she requires of us. Should we sit back and let her strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality, or should we recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others? That choice sure sounds like a no-brainer to me. Hillary has been deluding people into believing that she's a saintly figure—philanthropic, noble, and wise. Don't let her delude you, too.

 

If I didn't think Hillary would transform fear and its inculcation into the preeminent force ruling human existence, I wouldn't say that the central paradox of her imprecations, the twist that makes her writings so irresistible to base-minded passéists, is that these people truly believe that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. If she can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to take action. Our battle with Hillary is a battle between spiritualism and hedonism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that Hillary's machinations have earned her opprobrium, suspicion, resentment, and hatred. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does Hillary allege that her declamations prevent smallpox? Whatever the answer, if she continues to go to great lengths to conceal her true aims and mislead the public, I will be obliged to do something about her. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations.

 

Hillary has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to leave behind a wake of birdbrained reaction. On all of these occasions I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that I, speaking as someone who is not a treacherous knee-biter, have no idea why she makes such a big fuss over obscurantism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that you probably can't find one good reason why Hillary should create a soporific world of guilt and shame. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that griping about Hillary will not make her stop trying to place stumbling blocks in front of those of us who seek value and fulfilment in our personal and professional lives. But even if it did, she would just find some other way to do exactly the things she accuses jejune heinsbies of doing. This brings us to the dark underside of Hillary's activities, the side that's known to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. If an attempt to anesthetize the human spirit isn't ophidian, it certainly is mentally deficient.

 

Hillary's faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. In its annual report on materialistic incidents, the government concluded that it's easy for us to shake our heads at Hillary's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. It's easy for us to say, “Sanguinary chowderheads are receptive to Hillary's spleeny messages and fool easily.” The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because Hillary has already begun showing us a gross miscarriage of common judgment. I wish I were joking, but I'm not. What's more, Hillary is not only immoral but amoral.

 

We mustn't let Hillary excoriate attempts to bring questions of exclusivism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. I was thinking about how a stockpile of Hillary Rodham Clinton quotes favoring Comstockism could fill a junkyard. And then it hit me. You'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Hillary's plans to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to “go along to get along” and are rather reluctant to put an end to her evildoing. It is imperative that we inform such people that Hillary, already oppressive with her myopic, jealous convictions, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species—if separate species we be—for her reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that the one thing that's central to all of Hillary's disreputable ploys is a desire to start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people. I call this the New Philistinism. The old philistinism was concerned only with keeping us perennially behind the eight ball. Although that was bad enough, it's amazing to me that Hillary's pals actually feel that Hillary answers to no one. Not only must such people be mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration, but society as a whole should act as a unifying force to free people from the spell of fanaticism that Hillary has cast over them. Be patient; I won't ask you to take that on faith. Rather, I'll provide irrefragable proof that Hillary will not be punished for her anger. Hillary will be punished by her anger. There's also the possibility that she may be punished for perpetuating myths that glorify wowserism, but in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, I am not fooled by Hillary's nit-picky and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that there's a mordacious carper born every minute. Now I could go off on that point alone, but she has not yet been successful at creating new (and reinforcing existing) prejudices and misconceptions. Still, give her some time, and I'm sure she'll figure out how to do something at least that nocent, probably more so. In any event, Hillary snorts around like a truffle pig in search of proof that men are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras. I suspect that the only thing that Hillary will find from such a search is that she likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about “human rights” and the evils of triumphalism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, Hillary invariably instructs her eulogists to perpetrate acts of the most lazy character. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Hillary's brassbound platitudes.

 

On a similar note, Hillary's method (or school, or ideology—it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of “Hillary-ism”. It is a censorious and avowedly brain-damaged philosophy that aims to manipulate everything and everybody. Her memoirs are becoming increasingly tasteless. They have already begun to feed us ever-larger doses of Hillary's lies and crackpot assumptions. Now fast-forward a few years to a time in which they have enabled Hillary to create an intimidating, hostile, and demeaning environment. If you don't want such a time to come then help me oppugn Hillary's frightful manuscripts. Help me make pretentiousness unfashionable.

 

Hillary's mephitic allies continually demonstrate their blatant love of presenteeism. As those same allies like to say, “Better governance can be achieved by granting profitable concessions, permits, waivers, zoning variances, monopolies, and other such political machinations to Hillary's terrorist organization.” That's a verbatim quote that doesn't parse too well but does indicate that I aver that I have a workable strategy for convincing anal-retentive nutters to stop supporting Hillary and tolerating her jeremiads. Naturally, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I have already established that the world is full of people who fund, assemble, and train sex-crazed gumps to drive us into a state of apoplexy. We don't need any more people like that. What we need are people who are willing to appeal not to the contented and satisfied but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. We need people who understand that Hillary says that she should rob Peter to pay Paul because “it's the right thing to do”. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life.

 

The purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how temperamental and nutty Hillary has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how all she does is complain, complain, complain. No, scratch that. Let me instead make the much stronger claim that it's our responsibility to develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Hillary's illiterate schemes . That's the first step in directing our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measuring progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible, and it's the only way to make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence.

 

Hillary keeps saying that one hallmark of an advanced culture is the rejection of rationalism. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, her accomplices say, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Hillary's statements such as “We can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune” indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Easy as it may seem to name and shame Hillary's confreres for their gutless acts of statism, it is far more difficult to turn Hillary's salacious treatises to our advantage.

 

In a rather infamous speech, Hillary exclaimed that there should be publicly financed centers of cameralism. (I edited out the rest of what she said because, well, it didn't really say anything.) I am sick of our illustrious “leaders” treading on eggshells so as not to upset Hillary. Here's what I have to say to them: I'm not afraid of Hillary. However, I am concerned that she finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, I should note that some people have said that Hillary's comments are beastly with a side of beastly sauce. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that if we let Hillary mulct us out of our lives' savings, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.

 

There is really a loud dimension to Hillary's teachings. Or, if “loud” is too narrow of a term, perhaps you'd prefer “judgmental”. In any case, Hillary is an inspiration to ruthless protestors everywhere. They panegyrize her crusade to portray cynical losels as flag burners, and, more importantly, they don't realize that we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Hillary flout all of society's rules or, alternatively, whether we should remove the misunderstanding that she has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that Hillary has been trying for some time to sell the public on a scapegoatism-based government. Her sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: At birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. The emotional argument: A knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that Hillary labels anyone she doesn't like as “licentious”. That might well be a better description of her. Last but not least, my job now and for the immediate future—our job—is to transcend local prejudices.

[techswede]

 

--snip--

 

Your keyboard must be glowing with heat right now  :huh:

[JamGorby]

I guess I'll venture into the basement in the morning. If they're still breathing I suppose I could give them some water. 

[Trik'Stari]

 

Ha yes Hillary is a bitch. 

You may have noticed that Hillary's rotten, detestable cat's-paws have been hunting the blogosphere in packs, swarming, intimidating, and spreading outright lies and propaganda while enforcing pressure on blog owners and administrators to generate alienation and withdrawal. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, every time Hillary tells her assistants that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. To put it crudely, she says that she wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, she always ends up humiliating, subjugating, and eventually eliminating everyone who wants to demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Hillary.

 

Purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Hillary's moralistic roorbacks. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how some day, in the far, far future, Hillary will realize that her campaigns are a masterpiece of brusque militarism. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how we are at war. Don't think we're not just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with Hillary's yellow-bellied capilotades. We're at war with her obdurate, meddlesome ruderies. And we're at war with her obtuse modes of thought. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that we must suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time.

 

If there is one truth in this world, it's that I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like Hillary want to deprive individuals of the right to rouse people's indignation at Hillary. 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 she keeps saying that she is a spokeswoman for God. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, I would be grateful if she would take a little time from her rigorous schedule to open minds instead of closing them. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens.

 

When was the last time you heard Hillary mention that without her caps-lock key or profanity thesaurus, she would have a difficult time expressing herself? Probably never. That's why she keeps insisting that she is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that if it were true, as Hillary claims, that we can stop gangsterism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for hectoring rantipoles, then I wouldn't be saying that every time Hillary spouts some nonsense about how all literature that opposes Marxism was forged by poxy anarchists, the effect is that her lieutenants become even more loyal to her. Sociologists call the phenomenon of increased devotion to an ethically bankrupt, mindless theory, at the very hour of its destruction by external evidence, “cognitive dissonance”. I call it proof that Hillary's plan is to progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom. Hillary's buddies are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes impinging upon our daily lives.

 

On a television program last night I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, “Hillary thumbs her nose at some of the very things I treasure.” That's exactly what I have so frequently argued, and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual. Although the themes in her diatribes are limited, she should think about how her invectives lead unruly con artists to persuade many of her castigators to enter into a one-way “dialogue” with her. If Hillary doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps she should just keep quiet. I am, of course, referring to a recent occurrence that is so well-known it requires no comment except to add that it is important to realize that she is bound to have a rude awakening when she finally realizes how few people approve of her condescending treacheries. But wait—as they say on late-night television infomercials—there's more: I was completely gobsmacked the first time I saw Hillary uprooting our very heritage and paving the way for her own inaniloquent value system. Since then, I've seen her do that so many times that I hardly bat an eyelid when someone tells me that Hillary has been causing a marked deterioration in our literature, amusements, and social conduct. It's time to even the score. I suggest that we begin by notifying people of the fact that Hillary's biggest lie is that she defends the real needs of the working class. Sure, she might be able to peddle that boatload of parisology to the hayseeds, but I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly give her the severe tongue-lashing she deserves. Nevertheless, I undoubtedly do have the will to change the world for the better. That's why I assert that the irony is that her most blinkered reinterpretations of historic events are also her most diversivolent. As the French say, “Les extremes se touchent.”

 

I wish I could say this nicely but I don't have much tolerance for hidebound polluters: Once one begins thinking about free speech, about quisquilious, wayward authoritarians who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own unprofessional beliefs, one realizes that Hillary and her countless imitators are unremittingly hostile towards those of us who shout back at Hillary's propaganda. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: Hillary's materialistic orations. In a manner of speaking, her agitprop machine is running at full throttle. But there's the rub; her view is that she has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the diabolic savages around her. If Hillary's domineering pickthanks, who are legion, had any moral or intellectual training, such a position would obviously be rendered revolting to their better feelings.

 

There is no place in this country where we are safe from Hillary's zealots, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. It would be great if we could lead us all toward a better, brighter future. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of careerism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to expand people's understanding of Hillary's impudent ideals. It's not necessary to go into too long of a description about how Hillary plans to prevent me from sleeping soundly at night as soon as our backs are turned. Suffice it to say that she always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to her. Nothing else matters—except maybe to pass off all sorts of niddering and obviously passive-aggressive stuff on others as a so-called “inner experience”. I tell you this because Hillary's ramblings all stem from one, simple, faulty premise, that her sneaky, rambunctious coalition of filthy, viperine dumbbells and lethargic maggots is a respected civil-rights organization.

 

The gloss that Hillary's spinmeisters put on Hillary's precepts unfortunately does little to shoo her away like the annoying bug that she is. When a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that Hillary stubbornly refuses to own up to her mistakes serves only to convince me that if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to debate the efficacy of her larcenous lamentations. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of propagandism, and there are those who are not. Hillary is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why she likes to cite poll results that “prove” that once she has approved of something it can't possibly be hate-filled. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of her pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. Keep that in mind the next time you catch Hillary turning our country into a puerile, unsavory cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime.

 

I wonder what would happen if Hillary really did hand over the country to cruel, lawless vexatious-types. There's a spooky thought. I am being absolutely serious when I say that she looks down upon the rest of us. From Hillary's perspective, we are blind so she must tell us what to see; we are deaf so she must tell us what to hear; and we are mute so she must tell us what to say. Such views may fool bookish boeotians, but I feel that Hillary's writings are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of chauvinism.

 

I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of Hillary's writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Hillary's writings to know that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly admonish Hillary not seven times, but seventy times seven. Nevertheless, I do have the will to purge the darkness from her heart. That's why I claim that Hillary has been doing “in-depth research” (whatever she thinks that means) to prove that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've “discovered” that for those of us who make our living trying to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives, it is important to consider that it is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by her sanctimonious monographs. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and develop a rational-empirical base for dialogue about her casus belli.

 

Although Hillary is ever learning she is never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The truth, in this context, is that Hillary has been trying to convince us that her vaporings prevent smallpox. That argument fails to take into account the reality that some of my acquaintances express the view that Hillary should stop bellyaching and start healing herself. Others express the view that Hillary would like us to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage. I am prepared to offer a cheer and a half for each view; together, they paint a sufficiently complete picture of Hillary to warrant a full three cheers.

 

Hillary wants to shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage. Is this so she can do the devil's work, or is it to confuse, disorient, and disunify? You be the judge. In either case, her view is that egotism is the catholicon for all the world's ills. If Hillary's unscrupulous brethren had any moral or intellectual training, such a position would indubitably be rendered revolting to their better feelings. However much she may deny it, she exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up her obvious inferiority.

 

There is good reason to believe that I correctly predicted that Hillary would treat anyone who doesn't agree with her to a torrent of vitriol and vilification. Alas, I didn't think she'd do that so effectively—or so soon. Let's play a little game. Deduct one point from your I.Q. if you fell for her ridiculous claim that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. Deduct another point if you failed to notice that this is an exceptionally convincing illustration of the power wielded by Hillary and of the destructive way in which she uses that power. Let's remember that.

 

This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which I'll provide in a moment. But first, let me just say that Hillary is not your average philopolemical carouser. She's the deluxe model. As such, she's poised to lionize clumsy sideshow barkers by the next full moon. Hillary is doing some pretty mudslinging things. Or, to restate that without meiosis, she accuses me of being laughable whenever I state that it is sad to see her tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that I definitely dislike Hillary. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that Hillary yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Hillary, “attracting attention” usually implies “preparing the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror”.

 

Hillary might undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education in the coming days. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? One of her famuli keeps throwing “scientific” studies at me, claiming they prove that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to defile the air and water in the name of profit. The studies are full of “if”s, “possibly”s, “maybe”s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Hillary relies heavily on “useful idiots”, that is, people who unwittingly do Hillary's dirty work for her. Without her swarms of useful idiots, Hillary would not have been able to conceal the fact that if she can't be reasoned out of her prejudices, she must be laughed out of them. If she can't be argued out of her selfishness, she must be shamed out of it.

 

I believe it was Hegel who said, “Being shielded from the consequences of her bad judgment and bad behavior has made her careless”. I won't lie to you; I've tried to explain to Hillary's stinking cohorts that sexism is part of the catechism that must be intoned by all of the arrogant tyrants seeking entrée into Hillary's club. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that Hillary is just trying to pick a fight. That's why she says that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. I am not trying to save the world—I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to study the problem and recommend corrective action.

 

In my observations upon animalism, I have expressed no opinion thus far of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will note, however, though I still have nothing to propose, that Hillary maintains that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. This is complete—or at least, incomplete—baloney. For instance, Hillary fails to mention that whenever she's presented with the statement that I have a misty, inchoate suspicion that she will crush the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world some day, she spews out the hackneyed excuse that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to make excessive use of foul language. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that Hillary has been trying to conceal her plans to accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. Fortunately, the truth about her antihumanist bruta fulmina is spreading like a jungle fire. Soon, everyone will know that Hillary doesn't care about freedom as she can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to her.

 

Almost everyone will wholeheartedly agree that someone ought to ask Hillary point-blank why she should have been removed from the gene pool before she had a chance to contaminate it, but it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about her and about hypothetical solutions to our Hillary problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that she claims to have the perfect solution to all our problems. Alas, Hillary's solution involves plunging the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos. What bothers me about that is that someone has been giving her brain a very thorough washing, and now Hillary is trying to do the same to us. Hillary always cavils at my attempts to explain the Hillary Rodham Clinton factor in the equation of absolutism. That's probably because whenever Hillary is blamed for conspiring to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes, she blames her fans. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Hillary leach integrity and honor from our souls.

 

Implying that honor counts for nothing is no different from implying that no one is smart enough to see through Hillary's transparent lies. Both statements are ludicrous. As sure as you're born, Hillary's chums have repeatedly been caught bringing this battle to a fever pitch. I had expected better from her and her vaunted coven, but then again, Hillary's goal is to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests. How viperine is that? How peremptory? How cold-blooded?

 

Hillary generally tries to keep her distance from the wretched hoodwinkers who devalue me as a person. However, she sees nothing wrong with funding, assembling, and training obscene despots to hasten society's quiescence to moral pluralism and epistemological uncertainty. Ah the sweet, sweet smell of hypocrisy.

 

Okay, then, let's move onto the really good part of this letter, the part in which I get to tell you that by Hillary's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely a beggarly ruffian. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from hers. For instance, I avouch that Hillary cannot tolerate the world as it is. She needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Hillary does not merely make a big deal out of nothing. She does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically.

 

Certain facts are clear. For instance, if we are powerless to teach the worst sorts of harebrained mooncalves I've ever seen about tolerance, it is because we have allowed Hillary to make fogyism socially acceptable. At the end of this journey, I want to be able to say that I tried my best to expose the connections between the mad problems that face us and the key issues of commercialism and ultraism, by which I mean that it's debatable whether what she insists are original casus belli are nothing more than warmed-over versions of unilateralism. However, no one can disagree that Hillary appears to have found a new tool to use to help her extend her fifteen minutes of fame to fifteen months. That tool is etatism, and if you watch her wield it you'll certainly see why there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Hillary perverts hatred in order to force us to tailor our undertakings just to suit her grumpy whims, it becomes clear that when she was first found threatening national security, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Hillary is planning to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue, I'm really terrified.

 

Ostensibly, Hillary does not intend to bring irreligionism to this country in the name of anti-irreligionism but, in fact, I don't know if she is consciously and purposely evil or merely petulant. I do know, however, that Hillary's insensitive indiscretions are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Hillary has been using psychological tools to trick us into doing whatever she requires of us. Should we sit back and let her strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality, or should we recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others? That choice sure sounds like a no-brainer to me. Hillary has been deluding people into believing that she's a saintly figure—philanthropic, noble, and wise. Don't let her delude you, too.

 

If I didn't think Hillary would transform fear and its inculcation into the preeminent force ruling human existence, I wouldn't say that the central paradox of her imprecations, the twist that makes her writings so irresistible to base-minded passéists, is that these people truly believe that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. If she can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to take action. Our battle with Hillary is a battle between spiritualism and hedonism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that Hillary's machinations have earned her opprobrium, suspicion, resentment, and hatred. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does Hillary allege that her declamations prevent smallpox? Whatever the answer, if she continues to go to great lengths to conceal her true aims and mislead the public, I will be obliged to do something about her. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations.

 

Hillary has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to leave behind a wake of birdbrained reaction. On all of these occasions I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that I, speaking as someone who is not a treacherous knee-biter, have no idea why she makes such a big fuss over obscurantism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that you probably can't find one good reason why Hillary should create a soporific world of guilt and shame. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that griping about Hillary will not make her stop trying to place stumbling blocks in front of those of us who seek value and fulfilment in our personal and professional lives. But even if it did, she would just find some other way to do exactly the things she accuses jejune heinsbies of doing. This brings us to the dark underside of Hillary's activities, the side that's known to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. If an attempt to anesthetize the human spirit isn't ophidian, it certainly is mentally deficient.

 

Hillary's faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. In its annual report on materialistic incidents, the government concluded that it's easy for us to shake our heads at Hillary's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. It's easy for us to say, “Sanguinary chowderheads are receptive to Hillary's spleeny messages and fool easily.” The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because Hillary has already begun showing us a gross miscarriage of common judgment. I wish I were joking, but I'm not. What's more, Hillary is not only immoral but amoral.

 

We mustn't let Hillary excoriate attempts to bring questions of exclusivism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. I was thinking about how a stockpile of Hillary Rodham Clinton quotes favoring Comstockism could fill a junkyard. And then it hit me. You'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Hillary's plans to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to “go along to get along” and are rather reluctant to put an end to her evildoing. It is imperative that we inform such people that Hillary, already oppressive with her myopic, jealous convictions, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species—if separate species we be—for her reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that the one thing that's central to all of Hillary's disreputable ploys is a desire to start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people. I call this the New Philistinism. The old philistinism was concerned only with keeping us perennially behind the eight ball. Although that was bad enough, it's amazing to me that Hillary's pals actually feel that Hillary answers to no one. Not only must such people be mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration, but society as a whole should act as a unifying force to free people from the spell of fanaticism that Hillary has cast over them. Be patient; I won't ask you to take that on faith. Rather, I'll provide irrefragable proof that Hillary will not be punished for her anger. Hillary will be punished by her anger. There's also the possibility that she may be punished for perpetuating myths that glorify wowserism, but in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, I am not fooled by Hillary's nit-picky and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that there's a mordacious carper born every minute. Now I could go off on that point alone, but she has not yet been successful at creating new (and reinforcing existing) prejudices and misconceptions. Still, give her some time, and I'm sure she'll figure out how to do something at least that nocent, probably more so. In any event, Hillary snorts around like a truffle pig in search of proof that men are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras. I suspect that the only thing that Hillary will find from such a search is that she likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about “human rights” and the evils of triumphalism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, Hillary invariably instructs her eulogists to perpetrate acts of the most lazy character. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Hillary's brassbound platitudes.

 

On a similar note, Hillary's method (or school, or ideology—it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of “Hillary-ism”. It is a censorious and avowedly brain-damaged philosophy that aims to manipulate everything and everybody. Her memoirs are becoming increasingly tasteless. They have already begun to feed us ever-larger doses of Hillary's lies and crackpot assumptions. Now fast-forward a few years to a time in which they have enabled Hillary to create an intimidating, hostile, and demeaning environment. If you don't want such a time to come then help me oppugn Hillary's frightful manuscripts. Help me make pretentiousness unfashionable.

 

Hillary's mephitic allies continually demonstrate their blatant love of presenteeism. As those same allies like to say, “Better governance can be achieved by granting profitable concessions, permits, waivers, zoning variances, monopolies, and other such political machinations to Hillary's terrorist organization.” That's a verbatim quote that doesn't parse too well but does indicate that I aver that I have a workable strategy for convincing anal-retentive nutters to stop supporting Hillary and tolerating her jeremiads. Naturally, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I have already established that the world is full of people who fund, assemble, and train sex-crazed gumps to drive us into a state of apoplexy. We don't need any more people like that. What we need are people who are willing to appeal not to the contented and satisfied but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. We need people who understand that Hillary says that she should rob Peter to pay Paul because “it's the right thing to do”. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life.

 

The purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how temperamental and nutty Hillary has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how all she does is complain, complain, complain. No, scratch that. Let me instead make the much stronger claim that it's our responsibility to develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Hillary's illiterate schemes . That's the first step in directing our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measuring progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible, and it's the only way to make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence.

 

Hillary keeps saying that one hallmark of an advanced culture is the rejection of rationalism. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, her accomplices say, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Hillary's statements such as “We can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune” indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Easy as it may seem to name and shame Hillary's confreres for their gutless acts of statism, it is far more difficult to turn Hillary's salacious treatises to our advantage.

 

In a rather infamous speech, Hillary exclaimed that there should be publicly financed centers of cameralism. (I edited out the rest of what she said because, well, it didn't really say anything.) I am sick of our illustrious “leaders” treading on eggshells so as not to upset Hillary. Here's what I have to say to them: I'm not afraid of Hillary. However, I am concerned that she finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, I should note that some people have said that Hillary's comments are beastly with a side of beastly sauce. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that if we let Hillary mulct us out of our lives' savings, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.

 

There is really a loud dimension to Hillary's teachings. Or, if “loud” is too narrow of a term, perhaps you'd prefer “judgmental”. In any case, Hillary is an inspiration to ruthless protestors everywhere. They panegyrize her crusade to portray cynical losels as flag burners, and, more importantly, they don't realize that we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Hillary flout all of society's rules or, alternatively, whether we should remove the misunderstanding that she has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that Hillary has been trying for some time to sell the public on a scapegoatism-based government. Her sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: At birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. The emotional argument: A knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that Hillary labels anyone she doesn't like as “licentious”. That might well be a better description of her. Last but not least, my job now and for the immediate future—our job—is to transcend local prejudices.

 

How in the fuck do you do that lol? I can type that fast, but I couldn't think that fast lol

[Syntaxvgm]

How in the fuck do you do that lol? I can type that fast, but I couldn't think that fast lol

It just comes to me yah know? 

[Trik'Stari]

It just comes to me yah know? 

I guess lol. Like I said I can type pretty damned fast, usually it's just a lack of something to say that slows me down.

[Admire]

Lets take this shit from the beginning...Because there are alot of pretty words but almost no proof for your assertions.

 

This is not a defense of Obama.....Im quite dissatisfied with him but im far more left than he is so thats the problem in my case.

 

 

 

First, Barack is known for ascribing opinions to me that I don't even hold

This is not only a grotesque betrayal of the principles that Barack himself claims to uphold but a clear demonstration of how Barack maintains a “Big Brother” dossier of incriminating information about everyone he distrusts to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier?

 

The president of the united states knows you? I just love the fact that you are not only are on first name basis with him but that you also think that he is doing actual spying himself.

 

 

Whatever you decide, Barack is causing all sorts of problems for us. We must grasp these problems with both hands and deal with them in a forthright way.

 

So what are you saying? Barack Obama is the president of the united states at the moment....Its his last term and unless something big happens, there is no way you are going to impeach him...So what are you saying?

 

 

 

The more opposition to his allocutions he faces, the more appalling he becomes. The more appalling he becomes, the more opposition to his allocutions he faces

 

Wow....I really agree with that.

 

 

The more appalling he becomes, the more opposition to his allocutions he faces. Well, sure; those of us whose reason and honor have not been vitiated recognize that Barack has become so morally and ideologically degraded, so acclimated to Leninism and mammonism, that he wants to give what I call irritating, pusillanimous blaguers far more credibility than they deserve, but that doesn't change reality.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen....What we have here is our own little tiny glenn beck....How exciting. Leninism...how specific...do you even understand the difference between the different strains of socialism? Isn't ideologically degraded just a fancy way of saying "He believes in different things than me politically"?

 

o deny that he has for so long been nursing the wrongs he imagines the world had done him that Barack is determined to exact revenge by bringing this battle to a fever pitch is pea-brained nonsense and political irresponsibility.

 

This is code for: "Oh my god, the blacks are coming to get us because of slavery..."

 

 

 Given the tenor of our times, Barack wants to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. This desire is implanted in a part of his brain that's immune to reason or argument.

 

Another statement without any meaning and without any example. How is he capitalizing and how was this desire implanted?

 

 

Consequently, there's no chance that we can get him to see that as he matures emotionally he'll eventually grow out of his present way of thinking and come to realize that he's trapped in a vicious cycle.

 

How young do you think he is?

 

 

It is nonsense because he is a small part of a large movement that seeks to persecute the innocent and let the guilty go unpunished.

 

How?

 

 

And it is irresponsible because my long-term goal is to lead a jacquerie against him.

 

To anybody who doesn't know...:He is calling for an armed revolt to overthrow the president of the united states.

 

 

As you may have noticed, Barack's surrogates remain largely silent when asked about the correlative connecting Barack to philistinism.

 

How do you view him to be a philistine? and what surrogates?
 

 

 

The rare times they do deign to comment they invariably skew the issue to prevent people from realizing that most members of our quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society are too impatient to realize the importance of fighting Barack hammer and tong.

 

More revolution and socialism imagery.....at least we have consistency.

 

 

I wish only that a few more people could see that Barack has indicated that if we don't let him substitute pap for art then he'll be forced to establish rack-and-thumbscrew programs.

 

Weeeeee! Internment camps coming up.

 

 

 

That's like putting rabid attack dogs in silk suits. In other words, Barack has issued us a thinly veiled threat that's intended primarily to scare us away from the realization that his taradiddles are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called “lying”.
    If Barack's treacheries were intended as a joke, Barack forgot to include the punchline. He once tried to shout obscenities at passers-by. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you decidedly don't understand how Barack operates.

 

And I once heard that Barack Obama likes to punch puppies.....true story

 

 

 

I hope, however, that you at least understand that while he manufactures crises over aspheterism,

 

Im laughing myself sick......You believe that Obama believes in aspheterism? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

 

 

hahahahahahahahaha

 

 

Barack's gang has been spawning a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, cuckoo behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government.

 

Ahhh...great...so who are those people you are talking about?

 

 

He just reported that the Universe belongs to him by right.

 

Source?

 

 

Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Barack's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to develop mind-control technology.

No.....

 

 

Barack had previously claimed that he had no intention to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would convince others that nasty knuckle-draggers are the “chosen people"

 

Please explain

 

 

 

We all know what happened then. Now, Barack would have us believe he'd never ever instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with his allegations. Will he? Go figure.

Same shit as before...."Obama is making us feel bad about slavery".....don't know how he is doing that exactly.....

 

 

 

 

My view is that Barack uses highfalutin terms like “scleroticochorioiditis” and “phenomenalistic” to conceal his plans to turn over our country to tactless publishers of hate literature.

 

Glasshouses

 

 

Sorry...but that was as much crazy as I could handle..

[SSOB]

I want a joint right now...

[Admire]

You actually read that?  :lol:

 

Ofcourse....was this not part of the fun? To take it seriously?

[Syntaxvgm]

Lets take this shit from the beginning...Because there are alot of pretty words but almost no proof for your assertions.

 

This is not a defense of Obama.....Im quite dissatisfied with him but im far more left than he is so thats the problem in my case.

 

 

 

The president of the united states knows you? I just love the fact that you are not only are on first name basis with him but that you also think that he is doing actual spying himself.

 

 

So what are you saying? Barack Obama is the president of the united states at the moment....Its his last term and unless something big happens, there is no way you are going to impeach him...So what are you saying?

 

 

 

Wow....I really agree with that.

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen....What we have here is our own little tiny glenn beck....How exciting. Leninism...how specific...do you even understand the difference between the different strains of socialism? Isn't ideologically degraded just a fancy way of saying "He believes in different things than me politically"?

 

This is code for: "Oh my god, the blacks are coming to get us because of slavery..."

 

 

Another statement without any meaning and without any example. How is he capitalizing and how was this desire implanted?

 

 

How young do you think he is?

 

 

How?

 

 

To anybody who doesn't know...:He is calling for an armed revolt to overthrow the president of the united states.

 

 

How do you view him to be a philistine? and what surrogates?

 

 

 

More revolution and socialism imagery.....at least we have consistency.

 

 

Weeeeee! Internment camps coming up.

 

 

 

And I once heard that Barack Obama likes to punch puppies.....true story

 

 

 

Im laughing myself sick......You believe that Obama believes in aspheterism? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

 

 

hahahahahahahahaha

 

 

Ahhh...great...so who are those people you are talking about?

 

 

Source?

 

No.....

 

 

Please explain

 

 

Same shit as before...."Obama is making us feel bad about slavery".....don't know how he is doing that exactly.....

 

 

 

 

Glasshouses

 

 

Sorry...but that was as much crazy as I could handle..

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Syntaxvgm]

Ofcourse....was this not part of the fun? To take it seriously?

yah

[Admire]

yah

 

;-) Did you actually write it or did you find the crazy somewhere?

[Admire]

#Syntaxvgm

 

No comeback? Really? DISAPPOINTING

[Syntaxvgm]

#Syntaxvgm

 

No comeback? Really? DISAPPOINTING

No I was gone. It was a generator. 

[Admire]

No I was gone. It was a generator. 

 

LOL Brilliant! FIGHT THE MACHINES!

[Syntaxvgm]

LOL Brilliant! FIGHT THE MACHINES!

Fight fire with fire 

[Trik'Stari]

I'd rather fight the machines than socialists, at least machines have some logic and reason built in

[FlamingMetalHorse]

Horses are sexy.

[Owade73]

I crawled into a potato and found a lucky penny!

[Owade73]

This isn't mine but I couldn't find the person again soooooo

 

My overclocked 6.9GHz potato beats your crappy CPU by 312 petaflops.