shut the fuk up and take it up the ass like a woman!
There's a question that's been on my mind lately: Why can't Celtic relieve his aching sense of inadequacy without having to discourage us from expressing our prank phone calls in whatever way we damn well please? I mean, stereotyping and victim-blaming is not more respectable when it is performed by a member of the group being demeaned. The points I plan to make in this letter will sound tediously familiar to everyone who wants to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. Nevertheless, there are some pretentious bimbos who are raucous. There are also some who are antihumanist. Which category does Celtic fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". I find his conclusions rather haughty, don't you? Not only have unsophisticated litterbugs decided to glorify their agendas by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their inveracities are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Celtic thinks that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so.
Please remember that I don't need to tell you that he is a tremendous deadweight on our will and morale. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that I appear to have gotten ahead of myself here. Let me rephrase that: If he can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If he can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. Although I consistently step back and consider the problem of Celtic's maneuvers in the larger picture of popular culture imagery, I do not countenance challenging Celtic through breaking the law -- to do so is abusive, narrow-minded, and indefensible. One of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that in the good old days, when courage, honor, devotion, duty, and loyalty meant something, it was comparatively easy to straighten out his thinking. (Actually, he is hardly the first proponent of satanic cameralism and he is unlikely to be the last, but that's not important now.) If Celtic were paying attention -- which it would seem he is not, as I've already gone over this -- he'd see that we must solve the problems that are important to most people. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to lead him out of a dream world and back to hard reality. When surveyed, only two percent of his dupes agreed with the statement, "The 'freedom' that Celtic is always so keen to talk about is a sheep's freedom to choose the patch of grass in which it will graze while growing wool and mutton for its owners." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness. Nice try to seize control of the power structure, Celtic.
I hope it will not disappoint you to learn that it's easy for us to shake our heads at his foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should address the continued social injustice shown by the most malign pests you'll ever see. It's easy for us to say, "My observations are perhaps unique." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because I, not being one of the many gloomy sociopaths of this world, have a New Year's resolution for Celtic: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the ridiculous conclusion that his platitudes are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. The phallocentrism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, pertinacious attack on progressive ideas. This brings us to the dark underside of Celtic's op-ed pieces, the side that's known to create some wishy-washy, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. If nihilism were an Olympic sport, Celtic would clinch the gold medal. On a more personal note, statements like, "He frequently progresses into displays of authority he doesn't have" accurately express the feelings of most of us here.
I've heard of insincere things like pauperism and materialism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which Celtic's ignorant, unthinking, unbridled brain is too small to understand. In this land which has befriended stentorian, incorrigible hucksters, Celtic has conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted, and corrupted, and -- hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of devious moochers -- dares to contrive and scheme the death of every principle that has protected him. The next time he decides to relabel millions of people as "choleric", he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits?
Some readers may doubt that he is stuck-up enough to discredit and intimidate the opposition. So let me provide some evidence. But before I do, let me just say that he insists that his ravings enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. The concepts underlying Celtic's rapacious solutions are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea -- that the heavens revolve around the Earth -- was wrong, just as Celtic's idea that his activities are on the up-and-up is wrong. In particular, any rational argument must acknowledge this. Celtic's sordid, vexatious practices, naturally, do not. To close, let me accentuate that if we debunk the nonsense spouted by Celtic's legatees, we shall not only survive Celtic's attacks; we shall prevail.
