Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   As the Scooter Libby trial gets underway, Huffington Post wants you to know that they're really tired of talking about Bush's flawed case for attacking Iraq   ( divider line
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

267 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jan 2007 at 10:15 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook

23 Comments     (+0 »)
2007-01-25 10:17:47 AM  
Arianna needs to huff on my post.

That is all.
2007-01-25 10:27:29 AM  
It's true. Now we need to talk about Bush's flawed plans for securing Iraq.
2007-01-25 10:29:26 AM  
Obviously. Libby committing perjury had nothing to do with Bush's case for attacking Iraq. He was lying about getting a blowjob.
2007-01-25 10:38:58 AM  
Ms. Arianna Huffington thinks that things have never been better. Unfortunately for her, she's wrong. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that certain facts are clear. For instance, if she can one day prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. I can assure you that her worshippers actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these kinds of unconscionable, oppressive dossers are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world before long. In reality, of course, Huffington thinks I'm trying to say that she is omnipotent. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Huffington's head. Woe to the uninformed thought police who acquire public acceptance of her anal-retentive ventures! We must enable all people to achieve their potential as human beings. By "we", I mean all the hundreds of thousands who fundamentally long for the same thing, without, as individuals, finding the words to describe outwardly what they inwardly visualize.

I want to unify our community. Huffington, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. Ask her about any of her advocates who take us over the edge of the abyss of solipsism, and the rebarbative protestor will say, "I never meant they should go that far." Yeah, right. The truth is that Huffington's lies come in many forms. Some of her lies are in the form of exegeses. Others are in the form of squibs. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.

It is probably safe to assume that crime unpunished is crime rewarded. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that her press releases are more than just unambitious. They're a revolt against nature. When I say that double standards are always foolhardy, I don't just mean that she wants to deliver an additional blow to dignity and self-worth, that she wants to engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts, or that she wants to shred the basic compact between the people and their government. Sure, Huffington sincerely wants all that, but she also wants much more. She wants to push the State towards greater influence, self-preservation, and totalitarianism and away from civic engagement, constituent choice, and independent thought. The net effect of her obiter dicta will be a generation of kids who are unable to read, write, or distinguish good from evil. Now, that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me corroborate it by saying that Huffington's methods are much subtler now than ever before. Huffington is more adept at hidden mind control and her techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. She maintains that either the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to her demands or that it's okay for her to indulge her every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Huffington denies any other possibility.

If you think about it you'll see that Huffington's semi-intelligible sound bites are merely a distraction. They're just something to generate more op-ed pieces, more news conferences for media talking heads, and more punditry from people like me. Meanwhile, Huffington's pals are continuing their quiet work of advancing Huffington's real goal, which is to break down age-old institutions and customs. Is there, or is there not, a headstrong plot to turn misers loose against us good citizens, organized through the years by huffy, hate-filled hoodlums? The answer to this all-important question is that not only has the plot existed, but it is now on the verge of complete fulfilment. Huffington's pranks are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, the key to Huffington's soul is her longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. She dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, I really dislike Huffington. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that Huffington's perspective is that her objectives enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. My perspective, in contrast, is that Huffington's reinterpretations of historic events are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, if you want to hide something from Huffington, you just have to put it in a book. The dominant characteristic of Huffington's virulent paroxysms is not that they suborn adversarial traitors to manipulate everything and everybody, but that, in the bargain, they fight with spiritual weapons that are as coldhearted as they are stingy.

Though I don't doubt the depth of Huffington's sentiments, it's rather the form of her expressions that I find both ethically bankrupt and boisterous. Huffington is too directionless to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that if she is going to talk about higher standards, then she needs to live by those higher standards. She wants to advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively cankered. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. Huffington should not condemn innocent people to death. Not now, not ever. For your information, her criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, Huffington's criticisms are based solely on her emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in her "I think ... I believe ... I feel" game.

I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that one of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that in public, Huffington vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, Huffington never fails to provide unbalanced conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread. Given a choice of having her force us to bow down low before egocentric crybabies or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day.

I have reason to believe that Huffington is about to impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that wanting to needle and wheedle scary Huns into Huffington's gang without any of the obvious repercussions is like wanting a one-sided coin. No joke. If I may be so bold, my conscience compels me to strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature. More than that, I can't possibly believe her claim that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet because Huffington's bedfellows' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. The impact of Huffington's mischievous allegations 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 we must place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Huffington and her drugged-out cult followers. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own tactless cop-outs.

I can definitely suggest how Huffington ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Huffington herself. I wish that some of her expositors would ask themselves, "Why am I helping her convince impressionable young people that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day?" If one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that in a recent essay, she stated that she acts in the name of equality and social justice. Since the arguments she made in the rest of her essay are based in part on that assumption, she should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but if she thinks her metanarratives represent progress, Huffington should rethink her definition of progress. Does Huffington have trouble living with herself, knowing that she has values that are antagonistic to a traditional, moral society? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. She has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and cater to the basest instincts of unpatriotic, amateurish scallawags -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. I want to keep this brief: Huffington insists that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but no one likes being attacked by satanic quacks. Even worse, Huffington exploits our fear of those attacks -- which she claims will evolve by next weekend into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to make people weak and dependent. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that Huffington's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of fogyism and you'll see a foul Philistine hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of vigilantism in a self-serving attempt to procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that Huffington's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

You may have noticed that I don't want my community tainted with such blatant anarchism. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, Huffington wants to legitimate irresponsibility, laziness, and infidelity. Why she wants that, I don't know, but that's what she wants. In a similar vein, if she wants to identify political and religious groups that are her political enemies and re-label them as "grungy paper-pushers" in order to justify operations against them, let her wear the opprobrium of that decision. It's not easy for me to say this, but Huffington's beliefs serve only to safeguard her own power and privilege. There, I said it. Now I can continue with my previous point, which is that Huffington's analects are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. And they promote the mistaken idea that courtesy and manners don't count for anything.

Given the tenor of our times, Huffington has never gotten ahead because of her hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of Huffington's successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. Her equivocations have paid off: Already, she has had some success in her efforts to do everything possible to keep insensitive, aberrent peddlers of snake-oil remedies irascible and pouty. Like a lion after tasting the blood of human victims, she will abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular. If we let Huffington violate values so important to our sense of community, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. If you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will surely find that there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of Pyrrhonism, and there are those who are not. Huffington is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will obviously persist as long as Huffington continues to impose ideology, control thought, and punish virtually any behavior she disapproves of. Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: Huffington is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when merciless survivalists increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigoddess like Huffington. And fear of unprincipled stroppy-types like Huffington who marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of the worst sorts of gutless tax cheats there are. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that even if Ms. Arianna Huffington's flimflams were thoroughly successful in making a few people feel better, they would still be demeaning to everyone else.
2007-01-25 10:40:13 AM  

Do you happen to come in Cliff's Notes version? ;)
2007-01-25 10:43:34 AM  

heh. you said taint.
2007-01-25 10:47:29 AM  
The "Ladies" in the prison Libby will inevitably report to will like a guy with the nickname "Scooter".
2007-01-25 10:54:02 AM  
In response to Goetz's opus on Ms. Huffington, I would like to respond:

Nuh uh. Yo Mama!
2007-01-25 10:54:04 AM  

Jeez. Lay off the caffeine, okay Charlie?
2007-01-25 10:59:03 AM  
When I used to hear about illiterate students graduating from school, I often wondered how that was possible. But after encountering some of Goetz's more antihumanist activities, I now realize that not only is it possible for people to graduate without having learned fundamental skills such as reading and writing, but that it's possible for these same people to believe that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. Let me cut to the chase: I can say one thing about Goetz. He understands better than any of us that psychological impact is paramount -- not facts, not anybody's principles, not right and wrong. I'm not suggesting that we behave likewise. I'm suggesting only that Goetz is certifiably vengeful. That's self-evident, and even Goetz would probably agree with me on that. Even so, one of his assistants once said, "Everyone who doesn't share Goetz's beliefs is a sordid casuist deserving of death and damnation." 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 Goetz's contrivances symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Goetz's idea of voluble, unsavory barbarism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of an aberrant blood-lust. It is, in every sense, a demonic and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a hopeless frenzy and then prompts them to lay the foundation for some serious mischief.

This seems so obvious, I am amazed there is even any discussion about it. There's a little-known truth that isn't readily acknowledged by dastardly, revolting barmpots: If one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, the first lies that Goetz 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. Isn't it true that Goetz is the lineal descendant of the perverts who nailed Jesus to the cross? If that's not true, tell me why not.

Because of Goetz's obsession with racism, he is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every pusillanimous ideology finds expression in Goetz. To say anything else would be a lie. By any objective standard, Goetz's ebullitions are totally vitriolic. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. To Hell with Goetz! I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.
2007-01-25 11:06:02 AM  
But what does Ariana say about Scientology?
2007-01-25 11:15:28 AM  
The art to good writing is to say more with less. Your writ is bursting at the seems with, well, much ado about nuttin.
2007-01-25 11:59:13 AM  
Goetz I want to unify our community.

Congratulations. We are all in unanimous agreement that it would be a waste of time to fight our way through your dense verbiage. Heck, you even unified us with the conservates on this point.

Nice job.
2007-01-25 12:04:45 PM  

Ok, so what's the link to the unreadable screed auto-generator?

I know about

Where do you and Goetz get your stuff?
2007-01-25 12:09:17 PM  
damn who spewed the Tolstoy all over the thread?
2007-01-25 12:17:29 PM  
bigevildan and Goetz

fark, I want my five minutes back.
2007-01-25 12:18:40 PM  
The art to good writing is to say more with less.

From my perspective, it seems art is fading fast.
2007-01-25 12:20:02 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2007-01-25 12:51:07 PM  
Remarkably good use of the automatic complaint generator, Goetz. Here's a metaphorical gold star from me.
2007-01-25 1:06:54 PM  
is it long post day on fark today?
2007-01-25 1:32:26 PM  
Calm down people.
It's not Tolstoy, it's

/This has been a test of the vaginal sand alert system....
2007-01-25 2:50:56 PM  
Goetz: Ms. Arianna Huffington thinks that things have never been better.

Mr. Goetz T Farker has recently made a number of people very angry, including me. However, as anger serves no function in a successful rebuttal, I will simply state objectively that Goetz prefers to see problems talked to death instead of solved. If you disagree with my claim that Goetz makes so many laughably snooty statements, it boggles the mind to think about them, then read no further. What he is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly stuck-up activity.

This raises the question: What meaningless self-inflicted psychological trauma is Goetz going through now? I could give you the answer now, but it would be more productive for me first to inform you that Goetz can't possibly believe that he has answers to everything. He's tyrannical, but he's not that tyrannical. He has, at times, called me "villainous" or "impertinent". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to spread classism all over the globe like pigeon droppings over Trafalgar Square. Goetz wants all of us to believe that hanging out with maledicent ideologues is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media.

In case you don't know, after hearing about Goetz's vitriolic attempts to introduce disease, ignorance, squalor, idleness, and want into affluent neighborhoods, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level. Given Goetz's propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like Goetz establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. The simple, regrettable truth is that every time he tries, Goetz gets increasingly successful in his attempts to stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. If he makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to hold him responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses.

That doesn't necessarily mean that I've never encountered anything as insufferable as Goetz's reports, although it might. Rather, it means that if Goetz's theatrics get any more wretched, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. Goetz's lousy hariolations exploit the masses. Goetz then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Relative to just a few years ago, shiftless spongers are nearly ten times as likely to believe that he acts in the name of equality and social justice. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by Goetz to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of his own base nature.

For better or for worse, I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: Goetz's antics are somewhere between a scam and a sham. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me help people break free of Goetz's cycle of oppression. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because Goetz likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what he is pushing is both juvenile and malodorous. Goetz doesn't want us to know about his plans to blow the whole situation way out of proportion. Otherwise, we might do something about that.

I, speaking as someone who is not a shabby ragamuffin, would like to comment on Goetz's attempt to associate Lysenkoism with larrikinism. There is no association. I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to create a world in which factionalism, ruffianism, and faddism are all but forgotten. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, our national media is controlled by ignorant tax cheats. That's why you probably haven't heard that like a verbal magician, Goetz knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. In a rather infamous speech, Goetz exclaimed that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. (I edited out the rest of what he said because, well, it didn't really say anything.)

Goetz is trying hard to convince a substantial number of uncouth Machiavellians to poke someone's eyes out. He presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite insidious backstabbers to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that I hold Goetz's probity in question. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does Goetz maintain that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding? I've never really gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Goetz. But what is clear is that I need your help if I'm ever to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding his out-of-touch expositions. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. The biggest difference between me and Goetz is that Goetz wants to replace our natural soul with an artificial one. I, on the other hand, want to tell him where he can stick it. This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: prætorianism. Call me a cynic, but I wouldn't judge his brethren too harshly. They're definitely just cannon fodder for Goetz's plot to impugn the patriotism of his opponents.

Can you really blame me for suggesting that Goetz's methods of interpretation are an integument of lexiphanicism? Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that if I didn't sincerely believe that Goetz's cat's-paws mistake incoherence for sense and think profound anything that is pretentious or anal-retentive, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Goetz should think about how his words lead bestial mattoids to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. If Goetz doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. He dreams of a time when he'll be free to understate the negative impact of frotteurism. That's the way he's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't draw an accurate portrait of his ideological alignment.

More prosaically, we must halt the adulation heaped upon psychotic careless-types if we are ever to take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on his raving squibs. 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 certainly pursue because I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of Goetz's saturnine communications and ornery biases. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that Goetz has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, his vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Goetz's vows of equality did little more than convince people that I should note that Goetz wants to twist the history, sociology, and anthropology disseminated by our mass media and in our children's textbooks. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to preserve the peace. I once had a nightmare in which Goetz was free to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that I suspect that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Goetz, in contrast, believes that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Goetz is clearly going to be the first to go. Goetz is more dangerous than other impractical, horny twits because the spoiled, pampered offspring of the cosseted upper class actually believe Goetz when he says that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish.

Goetz must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why he is so desperate to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Goetz also realized that his occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are Goetz's promises. In fact, if I have a bias, it is only against illiberal hostes generis humani who promote Bonapartism's traits as normative values to be embraced. Given Goetz's record of shady dealings, we can say that you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart his plans to lure the irrational into his favoritism movement. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to derail his disorganized little schemes. It is imperative that we inform such people that even Goetz's cringers are afraid that Goetz will instill a general ennui some day. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that Goetz's inclinations stink to high heaven. Of that I am certain, because if I said that if Goetz kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being absolutely honest if I said that he asserts that children should belong to the state. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. And there you have it. Mr. Goetz T Farker is intentionally being intransigent.
2007-01-25 4:06:42 PM  
I sense my own irremediable inferiority and it smells like napalm.

/and it burns.
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.