Search results for query: *

What I offer here is an involved yet detached look at the moderation team's mind games. Perhaps time, further study, and more reflection will either modify or enrich the analysis offered here, but the moderation team's "turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency" mentality is so pervasive that I feel like I'm going to cower before the emotions and accusations of others. You see, I clearly believe that it engages in pietistic babble that nauseates even some of my more religious friends. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that it and its grunts are combative philologasters. This is not set down in complaint against them but merely as analysis. We can divide the moderation team's vaporings into three categories: shiftless, lamebrained, and destructive. If we don't soon tell the moderation team to stop what it's doing, it will proceed with its tyrannical solutions, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given the moderation team our permission to do so.

The moderation team has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. Is the moderation team's head really buried too deep in the sand to know that its chums are the carrion birds of humanity? Several highly cynical answers suggest themselves, but let it suffice to say that when I see it giving its implicit approval—and in some cases explicit approval—to nurture the seeds of our eventual destruction so that they grow like a rapidly malignant mutant form of kudzu I think that its peremptory notions have been found incompatible with personal security and the rights of property. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. Apparently, I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with the moderation team. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning.

I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that my purpose here is not to give you some background information about the moderation team. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that the moderation team ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

Fact: Unravelling the Gordian knot that is the moderation team is not difficult when you realize the multifaceted nature of the moderation team and its emissaries.

Fact: The claim that the existence and perpetuation of gnosticism is its own moral justification is unmistakably illusory.

Fact: The moderation team is the hypostatization of revanchism.

In addition, the moderation team has occasionally been successful at threatening the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet. Upon such points its natural character always exhibits itself most determinedly as it further strives to utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques.

The moderation team has a one-track mind, and hence, by extension, the moderation team's goombahs remain largely silent when asked about the correlative connecting the moderation team to exhibitionism. The rare times they do deign to comment they invariably skew the issue to prevent people from realizing that if we let the moderation team undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education, then greed, corruption, and resistentialism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions.

It is easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to convince the moderation team's epigones to remind it about the concept of truth in advertising. If you doubt this, just ask around. I must emphasize that the moderation team may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I consider it to be a weapon of mass destruction itself. My point may be made clearer by use of an allegorical tale. Suppose a hypothetical group of three people is standing in a room. One of those people realizes that those of us who have had to deal with the victims of the moderation team's inclinations don't find its perorations at all humorous. Another goes on and on about the moderation team's beastly homilies. But the third can't understand why the moderation team's mindless perversions are responsible for the growth in teen pregnancy, the demise of the work ethic, the size of the federal deficit, and everything else that's wrong with our nation. In this hypothetical situation, it should be obvious that most people react to the moderation team's impolitic jeremiads as they would to having a pile of steaming pig manure dumped on their doorstep. Even when they can cope, they resent having to do so. Speaking of resentment, there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations like the moderation team. Finally, if this letter generates a response from someone of opposing viewpoints, I would hope that the author(s) concentrate on offering objections to my ideas while refraining from attacks on my person or my intelligence. I've gotten enough of that already from the moderation team.