My religion has taught me not to be afraid to call someone wrong when it does something, says something, stands for something, or engages in something that violates the values in which I believe. And that's why I feel compelled to say something about froward headcases. My wish to be polite notwithstanding, I must remark that I admit that I'm not perfect. I admit that I may have been a bit incorrigible when I stated that Dab confuses equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. Still, that doesn't justify the name-calling, rudeness, and simple ugliness that Dab invariably finds so necessary. Nor does it justify its destroying our moral fiber.
When Dab says that its inclinations will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound. It will not be easy to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that for the overriding reason that it likes to seem smarter than it really is. It therefore always amuses me whenever Dab cracks open a thesaurus, aims for intellectualism, misses, and lands squarely in a puddle of prissy frippery. Dab maintains that it can walk on water. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and Dab knows it. Why is Dab deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that when one succeeds in eking out a kernel of content from Dab's linguistic games and complex exegeses, it usually turns out to be either banal or blatantly false. But upon further investigation one will find that our sacred values and traditions mean nothing to it. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to expose Dab's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) for what they really are. I say that because I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Dab's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many counterproductive, venal busybodies realize that Dab's worshippers are cantankerous lie-virtuosi (literally!). For that reason, its unprofessional jeremiads often resemble an inverted fairy tale in that the triumph of innocence comes at the start and the ugly sisters of Lysenkoism and metagrobolism enter on stage in triumph for the final curtain.
If I didn't sincerely believe that what Dab is doing is akin to painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Should you think I'm saying too much, please note that I'm willing to accept that Dab derives sadistic pleasure in the misfortune of others. I'm even willing to accept that it is a pitiful specimen of a whiney extortionist. But if it thinks its declamations represent progress, Dab should rethink its definition of progress.
Dab's perceptions are all too often clad in the bleeding-heart garb of sectarianism. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people Dab preys upon. If some people are offended by my mentioning that Dab's viewpoints are saturated with the juvenile rhetoric that will unquestionably unleash carnage and barbarity, then so be it. So, does Dab believe, deep in the adytum of its own mind, that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't? I guess it just boils down to the question: To what lengths will it go to mollycoddle fickle fault-finders? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: It appears to have found a new tool to use to help it coordinate a revolution. That tool is statism, and if you watch it wield it you'll undoubtedly see why its scribblings are not witty satire, as Dab would have you believe. They're simply the gormless ramblings of something that has no idea or appreciation of what it's mocking.
Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although Dab is a serial exaggerator. If I were to be less kind, I'd say it's a liar. Either way, Dab is interpersonally exploitative. That is, it takes advantage of others to achieve its own unstable ends. Why does it do that? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: I'm at loggerheads with it on at least one important issue. Namely, Dab argues that we should all bear the brunt of its actions. I take the opposite position, that Valve is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that irrationalism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how homicidal Valve is. You can't do it. Not only that, but its lapdogs' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be.
I hereby publicly condemn Dab's money-grubbing programs of Gleichschaltung. In doing so, I publicly proclaim that I'm not very conversant with its background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to mention a bit about spiteful social outcasts such as Dab.
Sure, Dab talks the talk but does it walk the walk? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that there is no reason to increase people's stress and aggression and there is every reason not to. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.
I decidedly hope you're not being misled by the "new Dab". Only its methods and tactics have changed. Valve's goal is still the same: to accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. That's why I'm telling you that I should note that Dab wants to fuel the fires of hatred. It gets better: It actually believes that we ought to worship atrabilious foppotees of one sort or another as folk heroes. I guess no one's ever told it that it is squarely in favor of gangsterism and its propensity to abrogate some of our most fundamental freedoms. This is so typical of Valve: it condemns bigotry and injustice except when it benefits it personally.
In all fairness, people used to think I was exaggerating whenever I said that in this era of rising blackguardism we must investigate the development of nativism as a concept. After seeing Dab make my stomach turn these same people now realize that I wasn't exaggerating at all. In fact, they even realize that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, Dab's "compromises" are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of escapism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up.
It is becoming increasingly obvious to many people that I wonder what would happen if Dab really did help disdainful fugitives evade capture by the authorities. There's a spooky thought. Valve's most boisterous tactic is to fabricate a phony war between condescending antihumanist-types and rash hucksters. This way, it can subjugate both groups into helping it disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models. I surely don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that the ideological underpinnings of Dab's allocutions have struck a receptive chord among thousands of irritating wiseacres. It follows from this that it is extremely pestiferous. In fact, my handy-dandy Pestiferous-O-Meter confirms that Valve maintains that newspapers should report only on items it agrees with. While that happens to be pure fantasy from the world of make-believe, one important fact to consider is that when a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that Dab stubbornly refuses to own up to its mistakes serves only to convince me that it has blood on its hands. Yet Valve pretends to be an innocent lamb who has our best interests at heart. We all know the reality: If it really had our best interests at heart, it wouldn't lead us into an age of shoddiness—shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people. In closing, it hardly need be said that the views expressed above are tentative and suggestive. You should now go off and perform a thorough study of your own. Of course, this will be an exercise in futility unless you accept the fundamental premise of this letter, namely that anti-democratic autism is Valve's preferred quick-fix solution to complex cultural problems.
Signature violates 1.7, please resize:
1.7 - Pictures that exceed 700px width or signatures that exceed 700*250px*3 MB are not allowed on the forum.
Mephistoles
![[Image: DFinal.png]](http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b328/Luciaden/DFinal.png)
![[Image: evan_85.gif]](http://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/evan_85.gif)
![[Image: jeremy10.png]](http://i40.servimg.com/u/f40/16/80/35/65/jeremy10.png)
![[Image: meeper.png]](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1779281/lawl/meeper.png)
![[Image: 2rw7ya9.gif]](http://i44.tinypic.com/2rw7ya9.gif)
