Imperatriz Natasha.
Solapando solares soldos militares, justaconquista dos fazendeiros da guerra, vadifendendo a Nação contra-toda inimizade alheia. Os bebedores dos líquidos sacrificais, Manto-colorindo o ambiente, cetro-poder que comunica com O Invisível, são o outro lado da moeda do Direito dos poderiosos. Esses toma-confiscam o regalígio dos possuitores da carnimatança técnica. Para desgrafrimento dos (des)possuitores de qualquer regalígio de tributaridade, seja de sacra-invisibilidade, ou de regalígio de morte e força.
Tal unifusão, do bronze da luta e da cor do saber, inicomeçou a Históricisão do Tempo, quando inseriu a exteriforça na socio(i)munidade: O Esta-D(o)ireito de violendade. O matadouro e filoverdade unefunde o Ser (sistema aberto realtrocando vidanergia) ao penSERmento. A dominiência do explolianados. Pacência do povolhador, condemetidos à subdiência do Esta-D(o)ireito de carnimatança técnica e do esotecimento religontológico respectiordenamente dos fazendeiros da guerra e dos bebedores dos líquidos sacrificais.
Tente configualiazar tão linguatória fleumatextual até beiratocar o extrelimidade da Loucudez, entenfundindo Palavra e Realidade numa-só Maldição. Lewis Moore Rosa palavreando Dumezil.
2 comentários:
uma só palavra: cruzes!
Let's talk about Denis's excuses. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. 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. If you don't think that Denis's wheelings and dealings mean delays in getting things processed, errors in handling requests, inefficiency, and many more years of error from keeping an old system alive, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. By seeking to spoon-feed us his pabulum, Denis reveals his ignorance about negativism's polyvocality. He probably also doesn't realize that you may have noticed that he is off his trolley. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because if I may be so bold, he maintains that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that according to him, fogyism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. He might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then Denis would realize that in asserting that it's okay to strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision.
This much is clear: To believe that Denis is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose is to deceive ourselves. As I understand it, you shouldn't let him intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Denis. He promises that if we give him and his faithfuls additional powers, he'll guard us from the most untrustworthy traitors I've ever seen. My question, however is, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- Who will guard the guards?
This screams of the old belief that the most inerudite extremists you'll ever see are merely ghastly deadheads. To a lesser degree and on a smaller scale, if we don't soon tell Denis to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his snippy, slovenly projects, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given Denis our permission to do so. When we build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty, we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric. Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That's the function of education: To teach students how to upbraid him for being so hopeless.
Denis yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Denis, "attract attention" usually implies "undermine liberty in the name of liberty". His mottos are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant simplism. And if that seems like a modest claim, I disagree. It's the most radical claim of all. If you want to clear up these muddied waters with some reality, then tell everyone you know the truth, that I don't care what others say about him. Denis's still disgraceful, scornful, and he intends to malign and traduce me. I've never bothered Denis. Yet Denis wants to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. Whatever happened to "live and let live"?
I have always assumed that Denis's vicegerents get so hypnotized by his simplistic "good guys and bad guys" approach to history that they do not hear what he is really saying, but the fact of the matter is that if history follows its course, it should be evident that mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for him. If we feel helpless, Denis is energized and ramps up his efforts to violate values so important to our sense of community. This seems so obvious, I am amazed there is even any discussion about it. There's only one proper consideration here: the harm that'll be caused if Denis's allowed to subvert time-tested societal norms. All else is abstract, fork-tongued, intellectual hooey. It will be objected, to be sure, that Denis doesn't honestly want to evade responsibility. At first glance, this may seem to be true, but when you think about it further, you'll indeed conclude that if I am correctly informed, his comments are devoid of any intellectual substance. In any case, if my own experience has taught me anything, it's that Denis's fulminations may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into longiloquent, illaudable misoneism.
Even so, Denis claims that his pleas are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. All right, enough of that. Now let's talk about something else. Let's talk about how I recently informed him that his hatchet men cover up his criminal ineptitude. Denis said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, he is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally chauvinistic calumnies.
Denis's agitprop machine is running at full throttle. We can therefore extrapolate that we must hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse if we are ever to prevent the production of a new crop of demented scatterbrains. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must obviously pursue because anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that Denis's drones are merely ciphers. Denis is the one who decides whether or not to make bargains with the devil. Denis is the one who gives out the orders to reopen wounds that seem scarcely healed. And Denis is the one trying to conceal how his claim that the ideas of "freedom" and "fascism" are Siamese twins is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. Irrespective of one's feelings on the subject, a colleague recently informed me that a bunch of whiney lugs and others in Denis's amen corner are about to create division in the name of diversity. I have no reason to doubt that story because what was morally wrong five years ago is just as wrong today. I, for one, challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. Many people have witnessed Denis subject human beings to indignities. Denis generally insists that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his myopic remarks on mentally deficient yutzes. It's like he has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, Denis's grand plan is to make excessive use of foul language. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Denis is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Denis is cronyism. Why? To rephrase that question, why can't we simply agree to disagree? No, don't guess; this isn't audience participation day. I'll just tell you. But before I do, you should note that Denis attracts mutinous egotists to his camp by telling them that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, if the people generally are relying on false information sown by complacent televangelists, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. Like I said, Denis occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being postmodernist twisted-types. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Denis habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that he plans to play the blame game. He has instructed his satraps not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Denis knows he has something to hide.
One could imagine that some good might come from letting Denis teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. But the only one whose imagination is vivid enough is Denis. Believe it or not, I really want to believe that he is a decent, honest person. Unfortunately, as is often the case, what I want to believe proves to be fantasy. The truth is that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of Denis". In it, I chronicle all of Denis's revenge fantasies, from the abhorrent to the officious, and conclude that I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that when Denis says that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, that's just a load of spucatum tauri.
Denis's bait-and-switch tactics share a number of characteristics. They reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. They infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating poxy information. And they replace Robert's Rules of Order with "facilitated consensus building" at all important meetings. Put together, these characteristics imply that if Denis doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to calumniate helpless card sharks, then he should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend he buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then, Denis will grasp the concept that his obnoxious attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Denis, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent him from making good on his word to reward mediocrity. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by his stooges, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about snivelling lackwits. On the other hand, I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I decidedly hope that Denis serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to cause one-sided accusations to be entered into historical fact.
Denis keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. The purpose of this deception may be to construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat. Or maybe the purpose is to irritate an incredible number of people. Oh what a tangled web Denis weaves when first he practices to deceive. With this letter, I hope I have made my views crystal-clear: Denis would sooner get a lobotomy than do something good for others.
Postar um comentário