View Single Post
Old 11-08-10   #14
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Dark Messiah's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,950
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 5,894
What would I do without Prof. 'Cum Guzzling" Pahu to provide me with a nonstop source of stentorian canards to complain about? You may be disappointed to hear that my concrete suggestions on how to weaken the critical links in Prof. Pahu's nexus of unbalanced cynicism are sprinkled throughout this letter like raisins in a pudding, not grouped together in a single block of text at the end. This was a conscious decision I made based on the observation that I don't know what bothers me most about Prof. Pahu. Is it his specious arguments, his illogical reasoning, his obscurantist claims, his unreasonable speculations, or any of the many forms of pseudoscholarship we see in his ruses? In any case, if Prof. Pahu were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that I can reword my point as follows. Prof. Pahu has shown he's not afraid to be loathsome. Of course, there is a lot of debate on this subject but the best scholars avouch that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Prof. Pahu provides none.

Prof. Pahu's accomplices aver that negativism is a wonderful thing. This is precisely the non-equation that Prof. Pahu is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if you want truth, you have to struggle for it. This letter represents my struggle, my attempt at announcing that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Prof. Pahu before he can work hand-in-glove with stroppy louts. It is also my soapbox for informing the community at large that I will do my best to build a better world, a cleaner world, a safer world, and a saner world. So what's the connection between that and his "compromises"? The connection is that Prof. Pahu's platitudes represent the most disgusting form of moral turpitude conceivable. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how if he can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to shatter the adage that he is a man of morality, achievements, and noble qualities, one who often sacrifices his own reputation or safety in order to pursue that which is right and those things that truly matter.

That's just one side of the coin. The other side is that if anything, once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that every time Prof. Pahu tries, he gets increasingly successful in his attempts to cover up his criminal ineptitude. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought but for imagination as well. By excluding any possibility of comparison, Prof. Pahu can easily pass off his own intimations as works of genius. In that context, one could say that in order to convince us that he is a spokesman for God, Prof. Pahu often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.

You can sum up Prof. Pahu's sermons in one word: snotty. Prof. Pahu may not be that officious but he sure is paltry. Although it is regrettable that his loyalists have abdicated reason in this debate and allowed themselves to become captive of his lies, distortions, and hysteria, it is also true that Prof. Pahu regards the exception as the rule, the criminal as the hero, the loser as the winner, and the winner as the oppressor. This is a perverse paradox, the implications of which are too dissolute to dwell on short of saying that I'm not afraid of Prof. Pahu. However, I am concerned that he is like a stray pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Prof. Pahu and a pigeon is that Prof. Pahu intends to eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights. That's why Prof. Pahu complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.

The great irony is that Prof. Pahu accuses me of being rotten whenever I state that we must do away with the misconception that particularism forms the core of any utopian society. 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 Prof. Pahu's squadristi are quick to point out that because Prof. Pahu is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, he is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Prof. Pahu is a victim of his own success—a success that enables Prof. Pahu to shatter other people's lives and dreams. Did it ever occur to him that his treatises are enmeshed in priggism? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: Society must soon decide either to rake him over the coals for fueling inquisitions or else to let Prof. Pahu twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that Prof. Pahu has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his band loyal to him. His principal myth is that he can override nature. The truth is that Prof. Pahu loves generating drama and conflict. That's why he repeatedly insists that skin color means more than skill, and gender is more impressive than genius. It's also why he believes in anesthetizing the human spirit.

This is not to say that Prof. Pahu gets his cause-and-effect relationships all mixed up. It is merely to point out that Prof. Pahu's claim that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. He thinks it's good that his commentaries exhibit cruelty to animals. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: He has long been denigrating and discarding all of Western culture. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Prof. Pahu ever manages to peddle the snake oil of empty-headed, superstitious jingoism, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning. Please forgive the following sermon, but it can't be avoided in this discussion: It may seem at first that he should exercise greater judiciousness when extolling mandarinism. When we descend to details, however, we see that Prof. Pahu is like a jellyfish in that you can't see his stings coming. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don't mind, though, I'll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, he keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that you and I are inferior to adversarial stirrers. The purpose of this deception may be to develop mind-control technology. Or maybe the purpose is to eliminate those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny. Oh what a tangled web Prof. Pahu weaves when first he practices to deceive.

Efforts to operate in the gray area between legitimate activity and fastidious oligarchism are not vestiges of a former era. They are the beginnings of a phenomenon which, if permitted to expand unchecked, will justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of Prof. Pahu's heart. Prof. Pahu is not your average drossy utopian. He's the deluxe model. As such, he's poised to rot out the foundations of our religious, moral, and political values sooner than you think. It has been said that being forced to listen to Prof. Pahu yap on and on about cameralism is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt. I believe that to be true. I also believe that he believes that it is everyone's obligation to force us to do things or take stands against our will. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed.

Prof. Pahu's myrmidons get so hypnotized by his simplistic "good guys and bad guys" approach to history that they do not hear what he is really saying. In other words—and let's say this plainly, clearly, and soberly so that no one can misinterpret his true intentions—part of the myth that he perpetuates is that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications, but that's a story for another time. For now, I want to focus on the way that one does not have to make bribery legal and part of business as usual in order to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought. It is a scary person who believes otherwise. Sure, the things Prof. Pahu does are wrong, haughty, peremptory, indecent—you name it. But he keeps insisting that it is pouty to question his ravings. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that Prof. Pahu has no innate compass for judging what is proper behavior and what is unacceptable. Be patient; I won't ask you to take that on faith. Rather, I'll provide irrefragable proof that when one examines the ramifications of letting Prof. Pahu demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that his rancorous nostrums can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance.

For the most part, Prof. Pahu's excuses are wrong for the same reason that drug use, adultery, lust, murder, and lying are wrong. Still, Prof. Pahu had previously claimed that he had no intention to substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would dominate or intimidate others. We all know what happened then. Now, Prof. Pahu would have us believe he'd never ever convince people that their peers are already riding the "Cum Guzzling' Pahu bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too. Will he? Go figure. My view is that Prof. Pahu would have us believe that human life is expendable. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

Prof. Pahu's diatribes are extensive and frequent and are laden with orchidaceous words like 'parthenogenetic' and 'microcinematographic'. Now take that to the next level: At the heart of the problem is Prof. Pahu's obliviousness to history, his moral cowardice masked in bold rhetoric, and his overwhelmingly shallow political posturing. End of story. Actually, I should add that he fervently believes that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. This shows that he is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that Prof. Pahu's secret police have been seen institutionalizing alarmism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. Prof. Pahu claimed he would take responsibility for this politically incorrect behavior, but in fact he did nothing to fix matters or punish the culprits. This proves that Prof. Pahu indubitably intends to draw unsuspecting drug addicts into the orbit of unmannerly, soporific swindlers. The direful sequence of that result, so flagrantly misguided and merciless in itself, is that detestable madmen will shame the poor into blaming themselves for losing the birth lottery in the coming days. Last but not least, Prof. "Cum Guzzling' Pahu's inerudite opinions cater to the lowest common denominator.
is Offline   Reply With Quote