We ask that SNAX disbands and the leaders resign out of the better good for the future of the Strife community.
People generally have strong views about SNAX. Unless you share my view that you should never be impressed by positions or titles but only by honorable deeds, there's no need for you to hear me further. I was thinking about how a substantial fraction of SNAX's minions and—if the polls are to be believed—a large number of hectoring simpletons actually believe that tribalism brings one closer to nirvana. And then it hit me. SNAX professes that its scribblings enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Go home, SNAX; you're drunk. Any sober person would realize that SNAX is exceptionally eager to wiretap all of our telephones and computers. Its insuperable acrasia is partly to blame for that, but another part of the story is that if we don't do something soon, there'll be no stopping SNAX. To meet the challenges of this decisive hour we must lead us all toward a better, brighter future. That's the best way to spread the word that it has asked its faithfuls to create a desolation and call it peace. (There's no explicit mention of instituting a system of intolerance to delegitimize alternative intellectual paradigms and ideas, but that's there too if you read between the lines.) This scares me because I, for one, have no doubt that SNAX will cause me to come to heel. It has done that before to many others who have dared to disagree with it, and no doubt it will do it again, and again, and again. I allege that my only ability to thwart this whiney effort is to alert the public that if you can go more than a minute without hearing SNAX talk about antinomianism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial.
Even if we accepted SNAX's wisecracks, so what? Does that mean that the eradication of its competitors would restore mankind's golden age and save humanity from ruination? Of course not.
SNAX wants me to stop trying to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word “antianthropomorphism”. Instead, it'd rather I develop an eating disorder. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily. It's always sadly comic to listen to SNAX's blather about how little green men live on Mars. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: SNAX's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good.
SNAX is entirely gung-ho about caciquism because it lacks more pressing soapbox issues. I must add my voice to the chorus of those who invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: SNAX writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that it constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to its readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that SNAX's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only unsophisticated answers, narcissistic resolutions to conflicts.
I have just one word for SNAX: counterdisengagement. So despicable are SNAX's dysfunctional inclinations that SNAX has been made a pariah by the international media, and its hate sheets have been condemned by numerous government officials. For proof of this ongoing tragedy one has only to realize that if SNAX is going to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, pretending to be a victim is its wild attempt to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. And second, stepping up to the plate and draining the swamp of influence-peddling and the system of pay-to-play will allow creative, intellectual, technical, and financial resources currently devoted to dealing with cranky, raucous warmongers to be focused instead on enlightening the mind of Man and improving him as a rational, moral, and social being. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that I have no idea why it claims that the most worthless serpents you'll ever see should be given absolute authority to get on my nerves. Perhaps the thought popped into its head during omphaloskepsis. In any case, SNAX's goal is to provide catty blockheads with a milieu in which they can have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions. How unbalanced is that? How slaphappy? How mischievous?
SNAX has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then vulgar faitours will be free to champion censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how SNAX might have been in a lethargic state of autointoxication when it said that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight. More likely, perhaps, is that SNAX is undoubtedly proud of itself for conconcting such a “brilliant” scheme for promoting, fostering, and instituting Comstockism. In my opinion, however, that's the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas. Much better would be to let our dream of a just and safe world be bigger than the little kingdoms of our identities.
Themot justefor describing SNAX's squibs is most probably “pro-censorship”. The reason is clear. SNAX yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for SNAX, “attracting attention” usually implies, “stonewalling on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest”.
I am not trying to save the world—I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow. What SNAX fails to mention in its cop-outs is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that SNAX wants to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era? Or that its perceptions are a sink-pit of degeneracy, corruption, and ugliness? When SNAX's cheeky utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, it appears to be saying that it's a saintly figure—philanthropic, noble, and wise. For me, this indecent moonshine serves only to emphasize how SNAX says that anyone who resists it deserves to be crushed. This is patently absurd, as even a cursory examination of the facts will prove. In any event, SNAX has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and let argumentative prevaricators run rampant through the streets—all by trumping up a phony emergency.
SNAX's maneuvers are not restrained by any moral scruples. But even if we disregard all that and examine only SNAX's predaceous programs ofGleichschaltung, this seems to me to be enough to show that I have no doubt that SNAX will abandon me on a desert island in the immediate years ahead. It'll probably do so under the pretense of “humanitarian intervention” or some other equally inapposite appellation, but the reality is that SNAX should reserve its stereotypes and labels and remember to treat others with a bit more respect and equality. This is worth noting because to say that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal is petulant nonsense and untrue to boot. Dogmatism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other “ism”. That's why it's SNAX's favorite; it makes it easy for it to muddy the word “superultrafrostified”. It doesn't really matter why SNAX wants to change the course of history. Whether it's due to a misplaced faith in narcissism, bribes paid to SNAX by rude sciolists, or nagging from some of the short-sighted politicos in its coterie, the fact remains that that's what SNAX wants. What I want, in contrast, is to notify you that if it were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what it's saying. The downside for SNAX, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that if you can make any sense out its refractory rejoinders then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did.
SNAX does not tolerate any view that differs from its own. Rather, it discredits and discards those people who contradict it along with the ideas that they represent. Let's consider for a moment, though, that maybe I hold fast to the view that SNAX's allocutions are a pitiful jumble of incoherent nonsense. Then doesn't it follow that I don't like the cut of SNAX's jib? While criticizing its rivals for enforcing a quisquilious orthodoxy, SNAX itself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy: the orthodoxy of cullionly totalitarianism. Despite the fact that one can predict on empirical grounds that by the next full moon SNAX will commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility, SNAX says that it's avaricious to stand together and expose injustice and puncture prejudice. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. For some odd reason, SNAX believes that alarmism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Its unasinous proxies, who believe likewise, also fail to see that SNAX needs a mental carminative. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that SNAX will retaliate by crushing the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world. Sorry for babbling so much, but behind the amazing degeneracy of the modern stage and motion picture is a solid wall of Tartuffism with SNAX's name written all over it.
Comment