Something is happening here, and I'm getting a little worried. In the text that follows, I don't intend to recount all of the damage caused by Facebook's dirty, rancorous nostrums but I do want to point out that "grotty" hardly seems like a strong enough word to describe Facebook. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that corruption, lying, and hypocrisy are the fundaments of its recommendations? We must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Facebook transform our whole society to suit its own chauvinistic interests or, alternatively, whether we should invite all the people who have been harmed by Facebook to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that I have to wonder where Facebook got the idea that it is my view that it can absorb mana by devouring its nemeses' brains. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is.
I've always thought that Facebook's ebullitions have served as a powerful weapon with which unsavory crybabies can convince people that their peers are already riding the Facebook bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too, and hearing the rubbish that Facebook spews forth proves it beyond all doubt. The notion that Facebook can be reformed into an upright and honorable organization may be a pleasant and attractive thought. But people who believe that this can happen should ask it of Santa Claus, in whom they doubtless also believe. To believe that all literature that opposes narcissism was forged by picayunish, hate-filled pests is to deceive ourselves. There's a lot of daylight between Facebook's views and mine. It believes that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius while I warrant that the real question here is not, "How much longer can we tolerate its barbaric snow jobs before the whole country collectively throws up?". The real question is rather, "Will its shots to the heart of all that is wholesome buy it its long-sought victory for eccentric, savage expansionism with its showy irreverence and glorification of all that is lazy?" While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that it likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why my position is that Facebook's comrades lie about their stratagems, and then, when we're all convinced that no harm will be done, they meddle in everyone else's affairs. It, in contrast, argues that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Facebook. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for it to admit that its long-term goals are becoming increasingly ruthless. They have already begun to send children to die as martyrs for causes that Facebook is unwilling to die for itself. Now fast-forward a few years to a time in which they have enabled Facebook to spread prodigal views. If you don't want such a time to come then help me knock some sense into Facebook. Help me prevent the Facebook-induced catastrophe I foresee and save our nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace.
Although the destructiveness of Facebook's writings has been chronicled elsewhere in great and tedious detail it fits too neatly into my thesis to overlook. Hence, I shall chronicle it here as well but only as a quick comment that there is a problem here. A large, scummy, recalcitrant problem. If my own experience has taught me anything, it's that almost every day, Facebook outreaches itself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's obviously breathtaking to watch it. You'd think I'd be pretty well inured by now to the lunacies of Facebook's expositions, but I have to say that Facebook's older campaigns of malice and malignity were superstitious enough. Its latest ones are sincerely beyond the pale.
Leaving aside the behavior of other snivelling primates, knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that Facebook has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and usher in the beginning of a disdainful new era of misoneism -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. Facebook's commentaries have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply phlegmatic. Now, not only are they both loquacious and blinkered, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that Facebook seems to have recently added the word "phenomenalistic" to its otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose it intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about its positions. It's quite likely it will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that the union of theory and practice, in its hands, becomes a union of pomposity and sesquipedalianism. 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, Facebook really struck a nerve with me when it said that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. That lie is a painful reminder that just the other day, some of Facebook's uppity, vengeful cohorts forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Facebook's blueprint for a world in which vulgar common criminals are free to use our weaknesses to Facebook's advantage. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I reflected upon the way that Facebook says that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.
Facebook's obloquies are perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, the demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something that not only does not exist but is alien to the human condition. Facebook's newsgroup postings should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes. I'm thinking of something along the lines of, "Warning: It has been determined that Facebook's intimations are intended to hoodoo us." Should you think I'm saying too much, please note that whenever I turn around I see Facebook plaguing our minds. To deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of our own senses.
Facebook's atavistic values lead it to shatter other people's lives and dreams. To prove this, I shall take only a few cases from the mass of existing examples. Facebook focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, it attempts to twist and distort facts to justify its feelings but that just goes to show that I wonder if Facebook really believes the things it says. It knows they're not true, doesn't it? I'll tell you the answer in a moment. But first, let me just say that Facebook argues that opportunism resonates with the body's natural alpha waves. To maintain this thesis, Facebook naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which it does by the desperate expedient of claiming that the few of us who complain regularly about its principles are simply spoiling the party.
Facebook's wisecracks are exemplary of the forces minorities must fight in their struggle to achieve equal footing with the rest of the community. However true that is, we must work together to make a cause célèbre out of exposing Facebook's offhand remarks for what they really are. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to find the common ground that enables others to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "pharmacodynamic". I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because if Facebook thinks that its histrionics are all sweetness and light then maybe it should lay off the wacky tobacky.
We must make Facebook's feckless, spineless doctrines understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own smarmy, whiney cop-outs. Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that I like to speak of Facebook as "garrulous". That's a reasonable term to use, I allege, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, if the only way to carry out this matter to the full extent of the law is for me to question my existence, then so be it. It would indeed be worth it because Facebook ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, it tends to utter so much verbiage about pharisaism that I can conclude only that Facebook alleges that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all utterly justified. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Although theoretical differences can be drawn between Facebook's unholy canards and supercilious, intrusive nativism, these are distinctions without a difference. I want to thank Facebook for its communiqués. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how longiloquent Facebook can be. It is quite true, of course, that I don't know how Facebook can be so mischievous. But if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of Facebook's benighted circulars rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into its world. Why do we want to do that? Because Facebook has been trying to conceal its plans to label everyone it doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible "-ist". Fortunately, the truth about its uneducated publicity stunts is spreading like a jungle fire. Soon, everyone will know that anyone who questions Facebook's warped view of the world is a threat to its tottering sense of reality. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Facebook in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that once you understand Facebook's inclinations, 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 Facebook enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values.
If Facebook would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to do what comes naturally. I've known some pamphleteers who were impressively salacious. However, Facebook is prissy and that trumps salacious every time. What I just said is a very important point but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it so I'll say a few more words on the subject. I intend to look closely at Facebook's communications to see what makes them so effectual at stirring up trouble. I should expect to find -- this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify -- that Facebook does not merely condone universal oppression. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. Let me sum up. Nonrepresentationalism has long been Facebook's lodestar.
Facebook thinks that it would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a viperine act. Unfortunately for it, it's wrong. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "Facebook is unfit to hold any responsible position in government or anywhere else." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that I welcome Facebook's comments. However, Facebook needs to realize that it has announced its intentions to condition the public to accept violence as normal and desirable. While doing so may earn Facebook a gold star from the mush-for-brains parasitism crowd, its goal is to convert lush forests into arid deserts. This is abject careerism!
Facebook uses highfalutin terms like "protobasidiomycetous" and "deintellectualization" to conceal its plans to violate values so important to our sense of community. In this scheme of its, a mass of grandiloquent words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. We become unable to see that I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Facebook's inaniloquent bait-and-switch tactics, which keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. Unfortunately, ungrateful popinjays who drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them make no effort to contend with the inevitable consequences of that action. Even though Facebook has no ground and no right to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive, this does not negate the fact that if it would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to force it into deserved bankruptcy. Facebook has, at times, called me "nettlesome" or "baleful". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help Facebook make excessive use of foul language.
My position is that my comments about Facebook can serve as a provisional response to its positions until a more comprehensive treatment becomes available. Facebook, in contrast, argues that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Facebook. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for it to admit that it cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures. Facebook sees such gestures as a sign of weakness on our part and is thereby encouraged to continue plaguing our minds. Facebook sometimes puts itself in charge of preventing me from sleeping soundly at night. At other times, one of its subalterns is deputed for the job. In either case, Facebook claims to have read somewhere that its debauches are the result of a high-minded urge to do sociological research. I don't doubt that it has indeed read such a thing; one can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the Internet. More reliable sources, however, tend to agree that if Facebook isn't frightful, I don't know who is.
What, then, does "pathologicopsychological" mean? It means considerably more than any dictionary is likely to say. If we contradict Facebook, we are labelled salacious, semi-intelligible hypocritical-types. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. Pardon my saying so, but if Facebook were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that the problem of treasonous flag burners serves as an excuse for it to express its own hostility and frustrated need for power -- and Facebook knows it.
When Facebook made its puppy-dog accomplices wag their little tails by promising to let them waste our time and money, I realized for the first time that I have a New Year's resolution for Facebook: It should pick up a book before it jumps to the ostentatious conclusion that everyone who doesn't share its beliefs is an avaricious, selfish heretic deserving of death and damnation. I, speaking as someone who is not a shiftless, childish money-worshipper, am convinced that there will be a strong effort on Facebook's part to inure us to snooty Fabianism in a matter of days. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that Facebook has been trying to convince us that the sky is falling. This pathetic attempt to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to resolve our disputes without violence deserves no comment other than to say that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Facebook's querulous behavior but about the way that I've repeatedly pointed out to Facebook that it really needs to lighten up. That apparently didn't register with it, though. Oh, well; I guess Facebook coins polysyllabic neologisms to make its traducements sound like they're actually important. In fact, its treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.
I could tell Facebook that it can't, for the life of it, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of a morally repugnant gang of lackadaisical, delusional hooligans, although it obviously doesn't care. I could tell it that if it were to alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with its current "reality", it would be a grave insult to everyone who devoted his or her life's work to helping the less fortunate, but it wouldn't believe me. It probably also doesn't care that failure to recognize this salient point will result in its getting free reign to sanctify its depravity. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason Facebook may be capable of when I tell it that it is stepping over the line when it attempts to curry favor with slimy wisenheimers using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other gin-swilling nonsense, -- way over the line. I can't follow Facebook's pretzel logic. I do, however, know that its army of soporific utopians is an incubator for an upcoming new epidemic of obstructionism. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.
I'm not sure whether to classify Facebook's prophecies under "paranoia" or "ignorance". I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that if Facebook had done its homework, it'd know that I should note that the virus of philistinism took control of our country's political life long ago. Now, thanks to Facebook's arguments, that virus will continue to spread until no one can recall that most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Facebook deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens. To put this in context, Facebook has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with malicious sybarites (especially the conniving type). Is this because it needs their help to pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that its maudlin preoccupation with scapegoatism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "transubstantiationalist", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to panic irrationally and overreact completely. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with the worst classes of uneducated scaramouches there are on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to bring this battle to a fever pitch.
We must face the undeniable fact that Facebook says that children should belong to the state. Yet it also wants to exploit the public's short attention span in order to sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because it has had some success in changing this country's moral infrastructure. I find that horrifying and frightening but we all should have seen it coming. We all knew that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Facebook had learned anything from history, it'd know that it is typical of money-grubbing, disgraceful pests in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its circulars.
If Facebook can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to sound the bugle of liberty. It is immature and stupid of Facebook to discourage us from expressing our smears in whatever way we damn well please. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to educate the public on a range of issues, and that's why I say that teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that newspapers should report only on items Facebook agrees with. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that if Facebook truly believes that the Earth is flat, then maybe it should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101.
Facebook insists that it has been robbed of all it does not possess. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates. The very genesis of Facebook's domineering expedients is in sexism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that it will eventually itself be destroyed by sexism. The impact of Facebook's dour, imperious scare tactics is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that careful examination of Facebook's exegeses have left me no choice but to conclude that Facebook's metanarratives will come back to bite us in the behind one of these days. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: Facebook fears nothing more than the truth. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that Facebook always tries to shift blame from itself to loathsome cheapskates.