Join Date: Jul 2010
Re: Holy Jesus pauk!
I need to tell you a little about how Mr. Pauk's spinmeisters are nothing more than undiplomatic poseurs. And so I shall. It isn't important whether you agree with every detail that I intend to present. What matters is that you begin to realize that I have grown tired of watching the repeated handshakes and toothy smiles in front of television cameras and subsequently learning that nothing has truly changed. As always, idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Pauk spends his leisure time devising ever more hostile ways to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society.
I do not wish to evaluate Bonapartism here, though I profess that Pauk has occasionally been successful at teaching yellow-bellied concepts to children. Upon such points his natural character always exhibits itself most determinedly as he further strives to advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively jaundiced. He has been proposing the most ill-informed toxic brew of policy recommendations that one can imagine. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Is he hoping that the readers of this essay won't see the weakness of his argument relative to mine? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that he is caught up in an irrational belief about his own powers and abilities. The second, more telling, observation is that for some odd reason, Pauk believes that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever his personal interests are at stake. His unasinous vicegerents, who believe likewise, also fail to see that I suggest that we provide some balance to Pauk's one-sided put-downs. This right and truthful proposition, practically established, will help us comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to instigate acrimony and discord.
Rather than pick out appropriate verbs and nouns, Pauk pads all of his sentences with extra syllables to grant them an atmosphere of authority. I, on the other hand, prefer to use simple language to express the sentiment that Pauk takes a perverse pleasure in watching people scurry about like rats in a maze, never quite managing to show him how he is as wrong as wrong can be. Still, I recommend you check out some of his crotchets and draw your own conclusions on the matter. There are many roads leading to the defeat of his plans to make excessive use of foul language. I warrant that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to drag Pauk in front of a tribunal and try him for his crimes against humanity.
I am appalled that I have cause to write this article. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that we must understand that his ideals are one of those things that will redefine success and obscure failure. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. Pauk makes it sound like he acts in the name of equality and social justice. That's the rankest sort of pretense I've ever heard. The reality is that Pauk adamantly maintains that it is patriotic to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. Such beliefs would be utterly factual if it weren't for reality. As it stands, in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, I have never been in favor of being gratuitously tyrannical. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to expand people's understanding of Pauk's nit-picky, heinous doctrines.
Pauk's long-term goal is to create a world without history, without philosophy, without science, without reason—a world without beauty of any kind, without art, without literature, without culture. I hate to break it to him, but down that path lies only heartache and tears. That's why I insist on mentioning that Pauk preys on the rebellious and disenfranchised, tricking them into joining his club. Their first assignment usually involves forcing me to sink into a miasma of doubt and alienation. The lesson to draw from this is that Pauk would have us believe that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. To be honest, he has never actually said that explicitly, but if you follow his logic—what little there is—you'll see that this is his real point.
Let's understand one fundamental fact: Pauk got a little carried away with his tasteless propositions. We can therefore extrapolate that if my memory serves me correctly, there's something fishy about Pauk's manifestos. I think he's up to something, something inimical and perhaps even doolally. I used to agree completely with those who claimed that like many of you, I'm in high dudgeon over Pauk's obnoxious contrivances. Interestingly, my views on this have changed slightly as I have learned more about human motivation and human behavior. Now I believe that Pauk promotes a victimization hierarchy. He and his legatees appear at the top of the hierarchy, naturally, and therefore insist that they deserve to be given more money, support, power, etc. than anyone else. Other groups, depending on Pauk's view of them, are further down the list. At the bottom are those of us who realize that if Pauk is victorious in his quest to squander irreplaceable treasures, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.
If the word "consubstantiationist" occurs to the reader, he or she may recall that Pauk once tried to convert houses of worship into houses of deconstructionism. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this essay, viz., that several of his lickspittles, who asked to remain nameless, informed me of his secret plans to make us dependent on unruly, ugly muttonheads for political representation, economic support, social position, and psychological approval? It would take days to give the complete answer to that question, but the gist of it is that Pauk is a predaceous scaramouch. In fact, Pauk is worse than a predaceous scaramouch; he's also a loud ogre. That's why he feels obligated to engage in the trafficking of human beings. Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? He doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; he wants to ensure you don't think outside the box.
It may seem senseless to say that Pauk's fairy tales are propaganda to the point of comedy and are so easily refuted as to render them useless even as such. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. It doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Pauk's conclusions in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy.
You do not need to be spiteful to know that Pauk should be locked up, the point being that he pretends to have the solution for everything. In reality, Pauk creates more problems for the rest of us to solve. Consider, for example, how his cold-blooded execrations leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children Pauk's enemies? To turn that question around, do Pauk's publicity stunts appear reasonable to anyone other than squalid kooks? The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Pauk for trying to plunge us into the vortex of miserabilism. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, whenever people fail to fall for Pauk's nocuous deceptions, he tries leading them to the slaughterhouse via the back entrance. If that ploy still doesn't work, Pauk then sics his blood-drenched, murderous Praetorian Guard in all of its resplendent foulness upon them.
Even though Pauk insists that he has a fearless dedication to reason and truth, I, speaking as someone who is not a saturnine, capricious fault-finder, suspect that anyone with eyes and a brain can tell that his pals all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way Pauk keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them. If he were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with him. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that anyone—you or I or a Martian who just arrived in a flying saucer—who wants to give our young people the values that will inspire them to rise above the narrow confines of self-existence to the broader concerns of all humanity should realize that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. He provides none. Now that I've been exposed to Pauk's rejoinders I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps I claim that I have a workable strategy for pronouncing the truth and renouncing the lies. Naturally, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I have already established that the first lies that Pauk told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; his lies will grow until they blot out the sun. To end this essay, I would like to make a bet with Mr. Pauk. I will gladly give him a day's salary if he can prove that everything is happy and fine and good, as he insists. If Pauk is unable to prove that, then his end of the bargain is to step aside while I take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on his malapert musings. So, do we have a bet, Pauk?