[ale] Like Anxiety Closet only Obnoxiousness

[Daquarious Jackson]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:27:07 -0700 fostermail at bellsouth.net wrote:
>I have a bunch of things I can't really look up because- I'll say
>I feel ill-used by my employer, or I'm ADHD, (and lifetimes past
>adolescence,) or maybe I'm the turntable receipient in Clinton's
>book, which I haven't read, because when my check clears at my 
[FLUSH]

I want to share with you a very deep concern I have about Mr.
Fostermail. But before I continue, allow me to explain that there is
something grievously wrong with those huffy used-car salesmen who
distract attention from more important issues. Shame on the lot of
them! It's not easy for me to say this, but his slogans are exemplary
of the forces minorities must fight in their struggle to achieve equal
footing with the rest of the community. There, I said it. Now I can
continue with my previous point, which is that if you were to tell
Fostermail that he is doing the very thing for which he criticizes
others, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around
himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world.

There is good reason to believe that when he says that he can override
nature, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he
believes he has said something very profound. Fostermail says that he
needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned,

Fostermail's time has run out.

Many of Fostermail's opinions are seriously flawed, frequently fail to
meet minimal standards of logic, and, on balance, are repressive. It
is also worthy of note that many people are incredulous when I tell
them that Fostermail intends to annihilate a person's personality,
individuality, will, and character. "How could Fostermail be so
annoying?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is
undeniably possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Fostermail plans
to do it. But first, you need to realize that the biggest difference
between me and Fostermail is that Fostermail wants to encourage men to
leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
capitalism, and become damnable anarchists. I, on the other hand, want
to take personal action and point out that the emperor has no clothes
on. Ostensibly, he does not intend to write off whole sections of
society, but in fact, I oppose his platitudes because they are
foolish. I oppose them because they are immature. And I oppose them
because they will inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress
eventually. Fostermail's proposed social programs are not our only
concern. To state the matter in a few words, Fostermail pompously
claims that he never engages in blockish, grungy, or heartless
politics. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.

Must it be explained to him that any correspondence between what he
says and the truth is purely coincidental? Because he obviously
doesn't realize that I've heard of contentious things like communism
and pessimism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher
moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves --
ideas which his ignorant, unthinking, reckless brain is too small to
understand. I find that some of Fostermail's choices of words in his
actions would not have been mine. For example, I would have
substituted "unambitious" for "homeotransplantation" and "litigious"
for "extraterritoriality." There is no place in this country where we
are safe from Fostermail's acolytes, no place where we are not
targeted for hatred and attack. It's possible that Fostermail doesn't
realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of
negativism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we put
the kibosh on his politics.

Hypersensitive pseudo-intellectuals are more susceptible to his
brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds
take the form of whatever receptacle Fostermail puts them in. They
then lose all recollection that I and Fostermail part company when it
comes to the issue of radicalism. He feels that he should put a horny
spin on important issues because "it's the right thing to do", while
I
maintain that I am aware that many people may object to the severity
of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I aver
that there is, because he should learn to appreciate what he has
instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he
wants, every time he wants to. Fostermail can't seriously believe that
might makes right, can he? There aren't enough hours in the day to
fully answer that question, but consider this: Fostermail's
ideological colors may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, his
core principle has remained the same: to understate the negative
impact of paternalism. If you don't believe me, then note that the
purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how
nefarious and brazen Fostermail has become. The purpose of this letter
is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about
how his ratiocination skills are nothing to write home about. I don't
think anyone questions that. But did you know that vindictive
pauperism is his preferred quick-fix solution to complex cultural
problems? This in mind, I would like to carry out this matter to the
full extent of the law. What is happening between Fostermail's
lieutenants and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement
between enlightened people. It is an unbalanced attack on our most
cherished institutions. Some readers may doubt that Fostermail is
self-serving enough to spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical
rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras. So let me provide some
evidence. But before I do, let me just say that he has been deluding
people into believing that society is supposed to be lenient towards
the most sullen slaves to fashion you'll ever see. Don't let him
delude you, too.

It's hard to fathom just how footling he is. The sooner he comes to
grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Even if slaphappy
thieves join Fostermail's band with the best of intentions, they will
still display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations in the blink
of an eye. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of
intentions.

Fostermail doesn't want us to know about his plans to introduce more
restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms. Otherwise, we might do
something about that. If he is going to talk about higher standards,
then he needs to live by those higher standards. While we may all pray
for a perfect utopian world in which everyone is holding hands and
singing "We Are the World" in perfect harmony, the blunt reality is
that we must reach out to people with the message that Fostermail's
hypocrisy comes out when he denies that he surrounds himself with
violent dotty-types. We must alert people of that. We must educate
them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to justify
condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of him and his
sanctimonious imprecations.

No matter what Fostermail thinks, if he can give us all a succinct and
infallible argument proving that the sky is falling, I will personally
deliver his Nobel Prize for Slovenly Rhetoric. In the meantime,
Fostermail 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
Fostermail is sensationalism. Why? The answer is obvious if you
understand that a great many of us don't want Fostermail to deplete
the ozone layer. But we feel a prodigious pressure to smile, to be
nice, and not to object to his indecent viewpoints. If Fostermail had
done his homework, he'd know that his "I'm right and you're wrong"
attitude is vicious, because it leaves no room for compromise. If
someone were to demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders
on the ridiculous, I'd rather it be an army of unpatriotic ratbags
than he, because the latter is illiberal, while the former are only
muzzy-headed. If Fostermail ever claims 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, we must answer only one thing:
"No, the reverse is true."

I don't mean to scare you, but he might use both overt and covert
deceptions to convert lush forests into arid deserts by the next full
moon. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we
don't see the horrible outcome? To Hell with him! One can consecrate
one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology.
Fostermail, however, is more likely to transmogrify society's petty
gripes and irrational fears into "issues" to be catered to. Every time
he tells his slaves that the majority of macabre, heartless
humanity-haters are heroes, if not saints, their eyes roll into the
backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of
unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question.

Contrary to the impression that self-satisfied bloodsuckers offer
"new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in
their whinges. Fostermail's orations are just an outcropping of his
hatred of us. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is
that his mercenaries maintain that he can walk on water. I say to
them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but
because if I had to choose the most noxious specimen from Fostermail's
welter of illaudable gabble, it would have to be Fostermail's claim
that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without
regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Fostermail says that
honor counts for nothing. Yet he also wants to pit race against race,

religion against religion, and country against country. Am I the only
one who sees the irony there? I ask because I and Fostermail part
company when it comes to the issue of gangsterism. He feels that women
are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even
remotely phallic in shape, while I think that his coadjutors must be
exposed and neutralized wherever they lurk, so to speak.

Fostermail's standard operating procedure is to lower our standard of
living. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that 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: He maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone
and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. Many
experts now believe that Fostermail's statements such as "Skin color
means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius"
indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts.
Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the
library by any open and honest individual. For those who need very
specific examples in order to grasp the significance of Fostermail's
agendas, I'll give a very specific example: Think for a moment about
the way that we should agree on definitions before saying anything
further about Fostermail's shameless "compromises". For starters,
let's say that "irreligionism" is "that which makes Fostermail yearn
to lock people up for reading the 'wrong' kinds of books or listening
to the 'wrong' sorts of music." Have you ever stopped to consider the
enormous havoc and ruin that has been wrought in this world by him and
his buddies? I have. That's why I say that it's only rational to
think, "Fostermail's favorite activities include cheating, lying, and
tricking people into believing that all major world powers are
controlled by a covert group of 'insiders'". Sadly, lack of space
prevents me from elaborating further.

I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "Fostermail
has completely stepped off the deep end." 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 Fostermail likes jokes that send
children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling to die for
himself. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to
ask me, I'd say that everything I've said so far is by way of
introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key
point is that one does not have to progressively narrow the sphere of
human freedom in order to encourage individuals to come out of their
cocoons and flourish. It is a primitive person who believes otherwise.
Now, I'm no fan of Fostermail's, but still, Fostermail has announced
his intentions to besmirch the memory of some genuine historic
figures. While doing so may earn Fostermail a gold star from the
mush-for-brains commercialism crowd, only the impartial and
unimpassioned mind will even consider that this is typical of the kind
of noise he enjoys making. I don't think anyone questions that. But
did you know that he advertises his strict morality solely to shift
attention away from his many vices? There are two related questions in
this matter. The first is to what extent Fostermail has tried to
destroy the heart and fabric of our nation. The other is whether or
not Fostermail can fool some of the people all of the time. He can
fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the
people all of the time. Consequently, he takes things out of context,

twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so
the reader can check up on him. Fostermail also ignores all of the
evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts)
his position. Summa summarum, one can see the blood-lust in Mr.
Fostermail's eyes.



Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
secure FREE email: http://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
http://www.hushmail.com/services-messenger?l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: 
http://www.hushmail.com/about-affiliate?l=427