Having just been exposed to Deebye's doolally viewpoints, I ponder how best to express my disgust at Deebye's total lack of sensitivity and reasoning. Please note that many of the conclusions I'm about to draw are based on cogent and virtually incontrovertible evidence provided by a set of people who have suffered immensely on account of Deebye. If he can one day gain a respectable foothold for his unenlightened, inarticulate ipse dixits then the long descent into night is sure to follow. Do I want him to invent a new moral system that legitimizes his desire to toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, bread, and rational debate out the window? No, thank you very much; I would much rather communicate and teach. What if we collectively just told Deebye's apologists, "Sure, go ahead and create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions. Have fun!"? That would be worse than rude; it would send children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling to die for himself.
We've tolerated Deebye's besotted sottises long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to pave the way for people of every sex, race, and socioeconomic status to fulfill their own spiritual destiny. It's time to shout to the world that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But by making excessive use of foul language, Deebye is telegraphing his intentions to mulct us out of our lives' savings. Pardon my saying so, but before Deebye initiated a blackguardism flap to help promote his oligophrenic insinuations, people everywhere were expected to act honorably. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that Deebye must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why he is so desperate to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Deebye also realized that I was clearly appalled when I first learned that his lackeys want to make things worse. I'll go further: He says that stupid slubberdegullions should be given absolute authority to quash other people's opinions. If that's the limit of Deebye's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help him.
Deebye accuses me of being muddleheaded whenever I state that he exhibits a malicious mean streak whenever someone states that he is incapable of empathizing or identifying with others. 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 once told Deebye that his recent attempts to hasten the destruction of our civilization may be a propaedeutic for future attempts to trick us into trading freedom for serfdom. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this post, which serves only to show that I have in fact told Deebye that he should exercise greater judiciousness when extolling conformism. Unfortunately, there really wasn't anything to his response. I suppose Deebye just doesn't want to admit that the first lies that he told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; Deebye's lies will grow until they blot out the sun.
Deebye desperately wants us to believe that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by inerudite, twisted segregationists for the purpose of population reduction. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how I want to see all of us working together to make a cause célèbre out of exposing Deebye's epigrams for what they really are. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that Deebye has inadvertently provided us with an instructive example that I find useful in illustrating certain ideas. By remaking the map of the world into a Deebye-friendly checkerboard of puppet regimes and occupation governments, Deebye makes it clear that he obviously believes that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". He has apparently constructed a large superstructure of justifications for this a priori conclusion. I guess that shouldn't be too surprising given that one of Deebye's fans once said, "Deebye's blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that Deebye should take all the bull-pucky he's been throwing at us and fertilize his garden with it. Stated differently, several things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature.
You've heard me say that Deebye's supporters are all pertinacious, niddering monomaniacs. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image. Deebye's sound bites represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. I don't know what to do about the rise in Bourbonism I see all around me. Deebye's solution. not surprisingly, is to develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to knock some sense into him. This is one case in which the cure is doubtlessly worse than the disease.
We must understand that Deebye's magic-bullet explanations are thrasonical in their impact, bilious in their aspirations, irascible in their political deviousness, and disgraceful in their illiberal philosophies. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a "compassionate" Deebye. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that there are some disorganized ergophobics who are anti-democratic. There are also some who are featherbrained. Which category does Deebye fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".
While we do nothing, those who conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. If you think that every word that leaves Deebye's mouth is teeming with useful information then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Deebye wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance such as that those who have most injured and oppressed humanity, who have most deeply sinned against it, are, according to Deebye's standards and conscience, good people. Apparently, bad people are those who have noticed that Deebye's blind faith in Bonapartism leads him only to corruption. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.
Deebye has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which anyone who dares to hinder the power of sanctimonious philosophasters like him can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Then again, just because Deebye is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that the key to living a long and happy life is to tour the country promoting profligate antinomianism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews. Every time he utters or writes a statement that supports interdenominationalism—even indirectly—it sends a message that we can stop mandarinism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for pouty, unpleasant Chadbands. I indubitably aver that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because the irritating aspect of his inclinations will create a stir between tendentious pauteners and the rotten public at large, but primarily because his ability to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships that exist throughout our entire society is astounding. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am interested in facts, not in paregoric for his eulogists?
Deebye's solutions are a sociopolitical tragicomedy. On the one hand, they conduct business in a fatuitous, biased way, but on the other hand, they make Deebye's quips a key dynamic in modern corporatism by viscerally defining "histomorphologically" through the experience of loopy Jacobinism. The most entertaining part, though, is that the implications of this are obvious. To spell it out, though, if today we don't rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause, then tomorrow we'll have to put up with Deebye enabling grumpy rubes to punch above their weight.
There are three points I need to make here. First, Deebye's ribald, biggety strictures will earn him a prominent spot in the pantheon of Stalinism. Second, I have resisted taking legal action against Deebye, as others have advised me to do. And third, someone once said to me, "Deebye favors an unscrupulous 'Code of Conduct' that serves no purpose other than to sue people at random." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I don't see how he can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that Deebye's fantasy is to persuade many of his opponents to enter into a one-way "dialogue" with him. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of elitism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping Deebye brainwash the masses into submission, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that Deebye says that two wrongs make a right. Such verbal gems teach us that I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Deebye of planning to usher in the beginning of a manipulative new era of priggism. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that his detachment from, or denial of, the truth is not just a political tactic or say-anything-to-please character flaw. It reveals an elemental attitude that Deebye shares with the worst sorts of lubricious boneheads there are: silencing any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that he has increasingly been practicing. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this post, but Deebye's real enmity against us comes through in his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), which he uses to drain the national fisc.
We've tolerated Deebye's besotted sottises long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to pave the way for people of every sex, race, and socioeconomic status to fulfill their own spiritual destiny. It's time to shout to the world that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But by making excessive use of foul language, Deebye is telegraphing his intentions to mulct us out of our lives' savings. Pardon my saying so, but before Deebye initiated a blackguardism flap to help promote his oligophrenic insinuations, people everywhere were expected to act honorably. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that Deebye must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why he is so desperate to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Deebye also realized that I was clearly appalled when I first learned that his lackeys want to make things worse. I'll go further: He says that stupid slubberdegullions should be given absolute authority to quash other people's opinions. If that's the limit of Deebye's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help him.
Deebye accuses me of being muddleheaded whenever I state that he exhibits a malicious mean streak whenever someone states that he is incapable of empathizing or identifying with others. 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 once told Deebye that his recent attempts to hasten the destruction of our civilization may be a propaedeutic for future attempts to trick us into trading freedom for serfdom. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this post, which serves only to show that I have in fact told Deebye that he should exercise greater judiciousness when extolling conformism. Unfortunately, there really wasn't anything to his response. I suppose Deebye just doesn't want to admit that the first lies that he told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; Deebye's lies will grow until they blot out the sun.
Deebye desperately wants us to believe that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by inerudite, twisted segregationists for the purpose of population reduction. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how I want to see all of us working together to make a cause célèbre out of exposing Deebye's epigrams for what they really are. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that Deebye has inadvertently provided us with an instructive example that I find useful in illustrating certain ideas. By remaking the map of the world into a Deebye-friendly checkerboard of puppet regimes and occupation governments, Deebye makes it clear that he obviously believes that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". He has apparently constructed a large superstructure of justifications for this a priori conclusion. I guess that shouldn't be too surprising given that one of Deebye's fans once said, "Deebye's blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that Deebye should take all the bull-pucky he's been throwing at us and fertilize his garden with it. Stated differently, several things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature.
You've heard me say that Deebye's supporters are all pertinacious, niddering monomaniacs. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image. Deebye's sound bites represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. I don't know what to do about the rise in Bourbonism I see all around me. Deebye's solution. not surprisingly, is to develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to knock some sense into him. This is one case in which the cure is doubtlessly worse than the disease.
We must understand that Deebye's magic-bullet explanations are thrasonical in their impact, bilious in their aspirations, irascible in their political deviousness, and disgraceful in their illiberal philosophies. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a "compassionate" Deebye. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that there are some disorganized ergophobics who are anti-democratic. There are also some who are featherbrained. Which category does Deebye fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".
While we do nothing, those who conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. If you think that every word that leaves Deebye's mouth is teeming with useful information then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Deebye wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance such as that those who have most injured and oppressed humanity, who have most deeply sinned against it, are, according to Deebye's standards and conscience, good people. Apparently, bad people are those who have noticed that Deebye's blind faith in Bonapartism leads him only to corruption. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.
Deebye has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which anyone who dares to hinder the power of sanctimonious philosophasters like him can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Then again, just because Deebye is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that the key to living a long and happy life is to tour the country promoting profligate antinomianism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews. Every time he utters or writes a statement that supports interdenominationalism—even indirectly—it sends a message that we can stop mandarinism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for pouty, unpleasant Chadbands. I indubitably aver that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because the irritating aspect of his inclinations will create a stir between tendentious pauteners and the rotten public at large, but primarily because his ability to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships that exist throughout our entire society is astounding. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am interested in facts, not in paregoric for his eulogists?
Deebye's solutions are a sociopolitical tragicomedy. On the one hand, they conduct business in a fatuitous, biased way, but on the other hand, they make Deebye's quips a key dynamic in modern corporatism by viscerally defining "histomorphologically" through the experience of loopy Jacobinism. The most entertaining part, though, is that the implications of this are obvious. To spell it out, though, if today we don't rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause, then tomorrow we'll have to put up with Deebye enabling grumpy rubes to punch above their weight.
There are three points I need to make here. First, Deebye's ribald, biggety strictures will earn him a prominent spot in the pantheon of Stalinism. Second, I have resisted taking legal action against Deebye, as others have advised me to do. And third, someone once said to me, "Deebye favors an unscrupulous 'Code of Conduct' that serves no purpose other than to sue people at random." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I don't see how he can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that Deebye's fantasy is to persuade many of his opponents to enter into a one-way "dialogue" with him. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of elitism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping Deebye brainwash the masses into submission, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that Deebye says that two wrongs make a right. Such verbal gems teach us that I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Deebye of planning to usher in the beginning of a manipulative new era of priggism. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that his detachment from, or denial of, the truth is not just a political tactic or say-anything-to-please character flaw. It reveals an elemental attitude that Deebye shares with the worst sorts of lubricious boneheads there are: silencing any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that he has increasingly been practicing. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this post, but Deebye's real enmity against us comes through in his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), which he uses to drain the national fisc.
Quote:Considering the mods here are generally liberals who seem to have a soft spot for fascism and white supremacy (despite them saying otherwise), me being perma-banned at some point is probably not out of the question.