[PLUG-TALK] That bastard, Russell Senior!
Russell Senior
seniorr at aracnet.com
Sat Dec 27 01:33:52 UTC 2003
Hey, Scott Pakin's automatic complaint generator is back online.
Here's a 10-paragraph example (remember, this is generated by a
computer program):
The furor over separatism has been an acutely frustrating cultural
phenomenon: pregnant with great possibility, touching on vital and
fascinating issues, yet initially formulated in a one-sided and
villainous manner that will make a big deal out of nothing in the
immediate years ahead. What's important to note, however, is that
Mr. Russell S Senior's pranks share many of the same
characteristics. Here's the story: Mr. Senior should think about how
his plaints lead flighty dunderheads to feature simplistic answers
to complex problems. If Mr. Senior doesn't want to think that hard,
perhaps he should just keep quiet. I don't mean to condemn anyone's
beliefs, but my purpose here is not to ring the bells of
truth. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that I wonder if he
really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true,
doesn't he? There aren't enough hours in the day to fully answer
that question, but consider this: Mr. Senior is thoroughly gung-ho
about extremism because he lacks more pressing soapbox
issues. Mr. Senior holds himself to low standards. Let me recap that
for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: As long as
the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Mr. Senior's
satraps don't really care that he will create a beachhead for
organized solecism because he possesses a hatred that defies all
logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away,
and that savagely possesses conniving, sanctimonious
unpatriotic-types with bookish and uncontrollable rage. The best
gauge of the value of my attitudes, the sincerity of my convictions,
and the force of my will is the hostility I receive from misinformed
freaks. Interestingly, Mr. Senior doesn't seem to care about that.
I fear that, over time, his revenge fantasies will be seen as
uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to snap his lackeys
out of their trance. When Mr. Senior is gone, all that will be left
from his legacy of hate is the hate itself. As long as I live, I
will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can
to discuss the programmatic foundations of Mr. Senior's
condescending epithets in detail. To those few who disagree with
some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. And for
those pesky big-mouths who want to hide behind the argument that his
associates are not spineless prevaricators, but rather, disreputable
lounge lizards, my question is simply this: What's the difference? I
shall return to this point in particular. I've already explained
why, but let me add that Mr. Senior's pleas will have consequences
-- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something
about that.
Mr. Senior would have us believe that he defends the real needs of
the working class. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But
Mr. Senior is surrounded by unscrupulous, flippant mob bosses who
parrot the same nonsense, which is why there is a format he should
follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence
and supporting facts. Before I continue, let me state that once you
understand his deeds, 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
Mr. Senior infiltrate the media with the express purpose of
disseminating libidinous information. He claims that the federal
government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and
more and more of our hard-won rights. That claim is preposterous
and, to use Mr. Senior's own language, overtly ill-bred. No history
can justify it.
Isn't it true that as depraved as it might sound, Mr. Senior's
rejoinders are an ethically bankrupt carnival of isolationism? If
that's not true, tell me why not. I frequently wish to tell
Mr. Senior that he often uses the phrase, "Studies show that...", to
introduce statements that wind up being chiefly about ideology,
hunch, or preference. But being a generally genteel person, however,
I always bite my tongue. Perhaps he has never had to take a stand
and fight for something as critical as our right to deal stiffly
with nefarious bimbos who monopolize the press. But I feel no more
personal hatred for him than I might feel for a herd of wild animals
or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose
souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. It's easy for
armchair philosophers to theorize about Mr. Senior and about
hypothetical solutions to our Mr. Senior problem. It's an entirely
more difficult matter, however, when one considers that to
Mr. Senior's mind, his artifices epitomize wholesome family
entertainment. So that means that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and
the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior,
right? No, not right. The truth is that what we have been imparting
to Mr. Senior -- or what he has been eliciting from us -- is a
half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and
tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.
Am I the only one who makes that observation? Of course not. But
perhaps I express it more directly, more candidly, and far less
euphemistically than most. If history follows its course, it should
be evident that Mr. Senior's weltanschauung is that we're supposed
to shut up and smile when he says careless-to-the-core, vindictive
things. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. The
question, therefore, must not be, "How insufferable can Mr. Senior
be?", but rather, "What does Mr. Senior hope to achieve by
repeatedly applying his lips to the posteriors of revolting
psychics?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because I
would never take a job working for Mr. Senior. Given his shiftless
anecdotes, who would want to?
Here's an idea: Instead of giving him the ability to subject us to
the mischievous yapping of ribald loudmouths, why don't we justify
condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of him and his
disgraceful crusades? If we do, we'll then be able to eschew
officious interdenominationalism. He may be sincere, but he is also
sincerely refractory.
It is imperative that all of us in this community search for
solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically
ultra-confused ones championed by pusillanimous radicals. This
cannot occur unless there is a true spirit of respect and an
appreciation of differences. Mr. Senior certainly believes that he
can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. What kind of
Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? The complete answer to that
question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question
in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in
future ones. For now, I'll just say that his legates often reverse
the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid
over the said, the obscure over the clear. That fact is simply
inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word
in the previous sentence. Even when Mr. Senior isn't lying, he's
using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off
facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in
a way that will enable him to unleash an unparalleled wave of
obstructionism.
One argument he makes is that my bitterness at him is merely the
latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced
anguish. That's just sheer arrant nonsense. The truth is that one of
his goons once said, "Society is screaming for Mr. Senior's
harangues." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include
that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you
that almost every day, Mr. Senior outreaches himself in setting new
records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's surely breathtaking
to watch him. Given his current mind-set, I will never give up. I
will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to
discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of
individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards
of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic.
More concretely, only through education can individuals gain the
independent tools they need to put the kibosh on Mr. Senior's
disquisitions. But the first step is to acknowledge that some people
say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that he is secretly
scheming to cause one-sided words to be entered into historical
fact. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But
the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at
it. Just look at the way that if the past is any indication of the
future, he will once again attempt to rob us of our lives, our
health, our honor, and our belongings. To do exactly the things
Mr. Senior accuses short-sighted, unprincipled yobbos of doing is
Mr. Senior's objective, and nit-picky favoritism is his method. He
continuously seeks adulation from his apologists, to put it
mildly. It is grossly misleading merely to claim that facts and
their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever
he dreams up. Am I aware of how Mr. Senior will react when he reads
that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because I have a New Year's
resolution for him: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the
immature conclusion that everything he says is entirely and totally
true. Because he should know better than to pander to our worst
fears, because he is incapable of empathizing or identifying with
others, and because he has a vested interest in making me die a slow
and painful death, we can conclude that Mr. Senior wants to get me
thrown in jail. He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated,
but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me
that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to
tell Mr. Senior how wrong he is. We were not put here to harm
others, or even instill the fear of harm, as Mr. Senior might
believe.
In other words, the law is not just a moral stance. It is the
consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. It is
irresponsible to accept everything at face value. That shouldn't
surprise you when you consider that I overheard one of his trained
seals say, "University professors must conform their theses and
conclusions to Mr. Senior's noxious prejudices if they want to
publish papers and advance their careers." This quotation
demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them"
dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use
language to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's
growing fears about obstreperous Philistines. As we all know, by
opting for the easy, short-term, feel-good path, Mr. Senior will put
the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in
their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon in a lustrum or
two. The salient point here is that from secret-handshake societies
meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his
forces have always found a way to till the feckless side of the
denominationalism garden. And that's it. What Mr. Russell S Senior
insists are original methods of interpretation are nothing more than
warmed-over versions of imperialism.
For your own amusement, see:
<http://www.pakin.org/complaint>
--
Russell Senior ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list