Konda

I have some very startling, very radical -- some might say licentious -- insights into GFY's latest commentaries. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. History has once again proved me right. Disguised in this drollery is an important message: Responsibility is an alien concept to GFY, so to speak. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. Admittedly, that's about as likely as Elvis materializing in my room tonight and singing Heartbreak Hotel. Still, the possibility does help one realize that my goal is to get GFY to realize that it loves the truth only as long as it doesn't conflict with its plaints. Of course, if it insists on remaining an ignorant, uninformed, and ill-informed snollygoster, that's its prerogative.

That fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Admittedly, GFY wants its cowardice and irresponsibility to be regarded as prudence. But that's because while GFY has been beating the drums of Pyrrhonism, I've been trying to ratchet up our level of understanding. In doing so, I've learned that some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of its faction quite adamantly feel that GFY's modes of thought are Holy Writ. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could maintain such a thing but then again, GFY somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says discourteous things. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization.

GFY obviously didn't have to pass an intelligence test to get to where it is today because its knowledge of how things work is completely off the mark. First of all, anyone who was sober for more than an hour or two during the last five years knows that it is incumbent upon all of us to confront its fairy tales head-on. But there's the rub; it is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens its creature comforts, it throws principle to the wind.

Just like dirty clothes on the floor and cluttered closets, GFY's mess won't go away if we simply look the other way. Use lethal violence as a source of humor if you like, GFY, because I simply don't care. To restate the obvious: GFY has been trying for some time to sell the public on an officialism-based government. Its sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: GFY is omnipotent. The emotional argument: Solipsism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that GFY believes that it is a model organization. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.

I'm willing to accept that GFY's apologues epitomize all that is vapid in the world. I'm even willing to accept that it's so accustomed to lying about everything that it doesn't even stop to consider the consequences of its lies. But it tries to make us think the way it wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. I, for one, suspect that the choice we face as a nation is whether to run our country ourselves or let irascible individuals run it for us. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that it likes to seem smarter than it really is. It therefore always amuses me whenever GFY cracks open a thesaurus, aims for intellectualism, misses, and lands squarely in a puddle of abhorrent frippery. One of the enduring effects of GFY's cop-outs is the way they will destabilize society.

Some day, in the far, far future, GFY will realize that it, in its hubris, has decided that it has the right to create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how GFY counts paltry criminal masterminds as its friends. Unfortunately for it, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that the pressures and stresses that GFY's hatchet men undergo lead them to canonize the most stultiloquent autism enthusiasts I've ever seen as nomological emblems of propriety. For that reason, it should stop calling me a vitriolic, mingy slimeball. Although I've been called worse things by better organizations, there are some hopeless lackluster-types who are caustic. There are also some who are censorious. Which category does GFY fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

Quite simply, for GFY, antipluralism is doubtlessly the name of the game. And I can say that with a clear conscience because GFY always looks the other way when one of its operatives gets it in his head to welsh on all classes of agreements. Apparently, the principle laid down by Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois during the French Reign of Terror still holds true today: Tout est permis à quiconque agit dans le sens de la révolution. Guess what? GFY's trucklers insist that GFY acts in the public interest. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because GFY has allowed itself to become a spokesman for the same point of view shared by counter-productive polemics, self-pitying layabouts, and amateurish rakes while masquerading as an outspoken radical bucking the system.

Any meaningful analysis of the situation must allow for the fact that I act based on what I think is right, not who I think is right. That's why I try always to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. It's also why I say that many overweening flag burners are taken in by its attestation that it has a "special" perspective on opportunism that carries with it a "special" right to use terms of opprobrium such as "ornery, mad freeloaders" and "unreasonable power brokers" to castigate whomever it opposes. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that I find much to disagree with in GFY's traducements. I have no problem with the idea that GFY's expostulations are characterized by a preachy arrogance unbefitting to something that knows so little. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to the worst kinds of longiloquent freaks I've ever seen. What I do have a problem with are GFY's stentorian, lecherous values.

Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: GFY insists that laws are meant to be broken. Sorry, GFY, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." However deep one delves into the citations and footnotes of GFY's strictures, and however poised and "mainstream" its co-conspirators appear once challenged, there is no way to forget that it has been trying to convince us that everyone who doesn't share its beliefs is a dastardly, homophobic headcase deserving of death and damnation. This pathetic attempt to foster and intensify its drug-drenched drama of immorality deserves no comment other than to say that you may be worried that GFY will project a stream of self-indulgent images of death, sex, disaster, material goods, celebrities, and other fixtures in a mock-Olympian firmament before you know it. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I assert that there is because GFY's backers are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is GFY, who wants nothing less than to advertise "magical" diets and bogus weight-loss pills.

GFY is not the only one who needs to reassess its assumptions. Think about stuck-up simpletons. They too should realize that by allowing GFY to resort to underhanded tactics, we are allowing it to play puppet master. It is imperative that all of us in this community insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward ethnocentrism. This cannot occur unless there is a true spirit of respect and an appreciation of differences. To end on a more positive note: GFY's writings carry multiple connotations, ranging from the quasi-nerdy (they confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition) to the indelicate (they utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to promote mediocrity over merit).