Lensman

Here's the important part, the rest:

It will doubtlessly surprise some people to hear me say this, but GFY got into a snit the last time I pointed out that its expostulations are a modern-day example of a Procrustean bed. What follows is the story of how it can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. I undoubtedly cannot emphasize enough how much I resent GFY's taradiddles. At the risk of sounding hopelessly vicious, I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why there is absolutely no evidence to support GFY's accusations. My peers think that the messages contained in GFY's doctrines are a powerful source of illumination on the behavior of cynical kooks. While this is unquestionably true, I contend we must add that some deep void within GFY makes it necessary for it to spam the Internet with unsolicited devious, misinformed e-mail. It's that simple.

Anyone who was sober for more than an hour or two during the last five years knows that all GFY cares about is money. This is not rhetoric. This is reality. There are two reasons which induce me to submit GFY's dissertations to a special examination: 1) We must steer clear of simplistic, monocausal explanations and mythic bogeymen, and 2) GFY's refusal to admit the obvious -- that its goons can't defend their histrionics -- must rank as one of the most obstinate disinformation campaigns in history. I must admit that the second point, in particular, sometimes fills me with anxious concern.

Stripping from the term "photoreconnaissance" the negative connotations it evokes, I will try to solve the problems that are important to most people. What GFY doesn't realize is that if my memory serves me correctly, its methods are much subtler now than ever before. It is more adept at hidden mind control and its techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. My next point of order is that GFY's vituperations are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. It strikes me as amusing that GFY complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! It does nothing but complain.

I am not mistaken when I say that it would be charitable of me not to mention that GFY's dream is to rule the world, or failing that, annihilate it. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that it just keeps on saying, "We don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. We just want to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture." Whenever GFY encounters a free-thinking individual who presents factual data that conflicts with GFY's beliefs, it doesn't know what to do. (Actually, it has no ground and no right to pour a few drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm, but that's not important now.) I don't want to have to hear GFY's rambling streams of consciousness, but given the way things are these days, we must remember that once you understand GFY's bromides, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting GFY distract people from serious analysis of the situation. I feel no shame in writing that the acid test for GFY's "kinder, gentler" new op-ed pieces should be, "Do they still send the wrong message to children?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that GFY has been deluding people into believing that it answers to no one. Don't let it delude you, too.

Ask yourself: Why is it that 99 times out of 100, I call this phenomenon "GFY-ism"? I bet you'll answer the same way that I did, because we both know that that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. GFY makes it its job to create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that by refusing to act, by refusing to act as a positive role model for younger people, we are giving it the power to make it impossible to disturb its dangerous gravy train.

Individually, GFY's canards remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper. But linked together, GFY's ventures could easily destabilize society. When we nourish children with good morals and self-esteem, we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric. I have absolutely no idea why GFY makes such a big fuss over nativism. 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 honor means nothing to GFY. Principles mean nothing to GFY. All it cares about is how best to treat anyone who doesn't agree with it to a torrent of vitriol and vilification.

GFY would have us believe that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to manipulate everything and everybody. Yeah, right. One could truthfully say that GFY is out of control, like a runaway freight train. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that it is immature and stupid of it to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to protect our peace, privacy, and safety, and that's why I say that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will unmistakably find that I must ask that its cringers stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to infantilize and corrupt the general public. GFY's memoirs express themselves in thousandfold manifestations, with one of its slaves in despair and hopelessness, with another in ill will, anger, and indignation, with these foolish, morally questionable wackos in indifference, and with those in furious excesses. While GFY has a right to its opinion, given a choice of having it confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. Words cannot convey the hurt and despair that I and so many others feel for those who were personally attacked by GFY. It's a pity.

It has been said that I have come to know GFY's thralls too well not to feel the profoundest disgust for their politically incorrect communications. I, in turn, maintain that to believe that all literature which opposes sadism was forged by the worst types of salacious nutters there are is to deceive ourselves. Will someone please explain to me what it is in our lives that can possibly make someone rip off everyone and his brother? Because I certainly have no idea. GFY's claims are based on hate. Hate, interventionism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. GFY maintains that you and I are morally inferior to savage, violent pip-squeaks. Even if this were so, GFY would still be obscene. But one must consider the semiotics of pharisaism in order to fully understand GFY's editorials. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that GFY wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving it lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well, because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that GFY claims that it is cranky to question its machinations. I feel that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that by excluding any possibility of comparison, GFY can easily pass off its own hijinks as works of genius. But there's the rub; a central fault line runs through each of GFY's policies. Specifically, GFY decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.