Posted by
cal, 1 year ago:
Welcome to iamcal.com - tell us who you are in this topic and if we like you you'll gain access to the rest of the site.
Posted by
syl, 1 year ago:
What do you think of this article?
memeburn.com/2010/09/how-se...
Posted by
syl, 1 year ago:
...
It's too long getting to the point.
Posted by
che, 1 year ago:
the opposite of Brock's NLP then.
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to express my concerns about Brock and, more specifically, his taradiddles regarding headlong big-labor bosses. What follows is a set of observations I have made about ultra-quixotic wheeler-dealers. The sole point of agreement between myself and dangerous-to-the-core, tasteless nobodies is that I can guarantee the readers of this letter that time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Brock can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, infiltrate and then dominate and control the mass media. He is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because Brock's previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that his new changes will be even more high-handed because Brock says that he should drain our hope and enthusiasm because "it's the right thing to do". You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.
I don't want to make any hard and final judgments, but Brock's rantings are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I solve our problems over a negotiating table instead of resorting to the battlefield, his invariant response is to make conditions far worse than could ever have been the case without his batty efforts. Brock's communications are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, Brock claims that the ideas of "freedom" and "poststructuralism" are Siamese twins. I contend that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves although I should add that Brock's acolytes are merely ciphers. Brock is the one who decides whether or not to dispense outright misinformation and flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories. Brock is the one who gives out the orders to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. And Brock is the one trying to conceal how he claims that he's a moral exemplar. You should realize that absolutely no empirical evidence obtained by scientific means exists to support that claim. Alas, that doesn't stop Brock from basing racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion.
We can't just sit around and do nothing. You might claim I'm telling you this because I like to beat up on Brock. Really, that isn't my principal reason. I don't especially need to beat up on him because he is already despised by decent and knowledgeable people almost everywhere. I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to his reportages. But I will say one thing: His worshippers were recently seen leaving a generation of people planted in the mud of a malevolent world to begin a new life in the shadows of nepotism. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's Brock's policy. Now that this letter has come to an end, let me remind you that it was intended to provide an accurate, even-handed, and balanced discussion of Brock and his accusations. Please do not contact me with insults, death threats, or the like because I will ignore them. If you disagree with my arguments or can provide further information about Brock, please contact me and I will endeavor to make any necessary corrections to this letter.
Additional:
Over the past few weeks, I've learned to look past Brock's demonic conjectures. I've learned to look past some of the sex-crazed things Brock has said. I've even learned to look past his attempts to use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. But I cannot stay silent about Brock's incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in I'll announce something to the effect of how Brock claims to be supportive of my plan to acknowledge that his use of callow litterbugs is indubitably pathetic. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll shower uncouth, self-serving worrywarts with undeserved encomia. Not only that, but it's easy enough to hate Brock any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Brock is up to, things that ought to make a real Brock-hater out of you. First off, he is not just corrupt but proud of it. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that I have a hard time reasoning with people who remain calm when they see Brock conditioning the public to accept violence as normal and desirable. Let me close where I began: Brock aims at nothing less than the complete overthrow of capitalism, representational government, and democracy.
Posted by
syl, 1 year ago:
oh ffs
Posted by
Brock, 1 year ago:
It seems Doc (I suspect) has got hold of some US politicians ramblings and applied the 'Find/Replace'...
Posted by
Miki, 1 year ago:
excellent
this place needs more life
It is not likely that I shall say anything new here. If I do, it will be of only minor significance. Nevertheless, Cal Henderson makes it sound like he's some perfect angel of unstained ethical standards. Let us note first of all that Cal is not at all apologetic for the harm his co-conspirators have caused. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: What is this loquacious fascination Cal has with statism? A clue might be that even people who disagree about values can agree that Cal attempts to sound intelligent by cramming as many big words into a sentence as possible, whether they are used correctly or not. No, scratch that. Let me instead make the much stronger claim that Cal's narrow mind cannot embrace that feeling of pure philanthropy that first prompted people to begin the debate about Cal's tracts. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that I know some pouty vagrants who actually believe that Cal has the authority to issue licenses for practicing pharisaism. Incredible? Those same people have told me that he can walk on water. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that there are three fairly obvious problems with Cal's orations, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to take advantage of a rare opportunity to champion the force of goodness against the greed of obstinate crackpots. First, Cal's worshippers are too impuissant to stand up to him. Second, Cal's disciples believe that those rights and protections which give us voice in a democratic society are the cause of antidisestablishmentarianism and social chaos and must be thwarted or dismantled. And third, Cal's complaints are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk"—an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well—because if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that the cure for evil is more evil. In fact, that's exactly what Cal does as part of his quest to support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery.
Cal plans to entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of the ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice of stultiloquent perjurers within a short period of time. I'd like to see him try to get away with such a plan; that should be good for a laugh. You see, most people have already observed that it may seem excessive to note that Cal's secret agents merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap. Alas, I usually get a lot of blank stares from people when I say something like that. What I mean is that Cal's opinion is that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that as Cal matures emotionally he'll eventually grow out of his present way of thinking and come to realize that if he were to misdirect our efforts into fighting each other rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of uncivilized, money-grubbing snobbism, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that I want to see all of us working together to stop Cal's encroachments on our heritage. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that Cal had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, he gave us philistinism, revanchism, and simplism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since if society were a beer bottle—something, I believe, that Cal holds in high regard—he would indeed be the nauseating bit at the bottom that only the homeless like to drink.
We must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Cal crush national and spiritual values out of existence and substitute the slaphappy and neo-choleric machinery of academicism or, alternatively, whether we should get people to sign a petition to limit his ability to cause trouble. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that Cal has long wanted to prevent anyone from stating publicly that we may never learn the answers to some of the more vexing questions surrounding his motives. Why do I bring that up? Because by studying his repression of ideas in its extreme, unambiguous form one may more clearly understand why Cal has stated that he has his moral compass in tact. I find such declaratory statements quite telling. They tell me that we must hold Cal to account for planting the seeds of nepotism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds. Only then can a society free of his power-drunk pranks blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that he hates you—yes, you, because you, like me, want to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum.
Cal, do you feel no shame for what you've done? Although he would like us to believe that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion", he has given us neither good reason nor credible evidence to believe that. Cal's hariolations, on the other hand, give us good reason to believe that unless you define success using the sort of loosey-goosey standards by which Cal abides you'll realize that true measures of success involve dispensing justice. Success is getting the world to see that Cal doesn't simply want people to believe that the most valuable skill one can have is the ability to lie convincingly. He wants this belief drummed into people's heads from birth. He wants it to be accepted as an axiom, an assumed part of the nature of reality. Only then will Cal truly be able to get away with impaling us on the pike of opportunism.
This is a suitable place in the letter to explain how Cal throws a tantrum every time he doesn't get what he wants. Unfortunately, I'll have to skip that rather intersting discussion because I have bigger fish to fry. In particular, I need to tell you that someone once said to me, "Cal's shell games are a heartless orgy of radicalism." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. He has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. Cal can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches his nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of interventionism and how our country's security, prestige, and financial interests are best served by war and the ever-present threat of war. As you listen to Cal's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that I find his intimations to be plebeian at best. This is equivalent to saying that his pronouncements are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, if we were to let him get away with sending children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling to die for himself, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice.
I know that I'm emotional now, but Cal uses stoicism to deprive people of dignity and autonomy. That's the large elephant in the room that nobody talks about. Nevertheless, I indeed contend that people really ought to start talking about it because then they'd realize that my long-term goal is to improve the lot of humankind. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Cal. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that Cal wants me to stop trying to fight him hammer and tong. Instead, he'd rather I waver between the alluring promises of a damnable "new morality" and the sound dictation of my own conscience. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.
Let me clue you in on a little something: Cal insists that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of improvident stereotypes. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. I would like to put forth the possibility that the cliches of his blandishments are well-known to us all. From this anecdotal evidence I would argue that Cal coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his holier-than-thou attitudes sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.
In the end, the most telling thing is that Cal's faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. I was entirely gobsmacked the first time I saw Cal resorting to ad hominem attacks on me and my family. Since then, I've seen him do that so many times that I hardly bat an eyelid when someone tells me that Cal may unwittingly take us all back to the Stone Age. I say "unwittingly" because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology—a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why Cal is frightened that we might open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them. That's why he's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that it is appalling to me that he has managed to trade facts for fantasy, truth for myths, academics for collective socialization, and individual thinking for group manipulation. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that Cal likes to launch into nonsensical non sequiturs.)
The largest problem, however, is that Cal says that everything will be hunky-dory if we let him prey on people's fear of political and economic instability. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power. It may seem difficult at first to study the impact of his greed, stupidity, hubris, and outright corruption on society. It is. But he says that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery!
Relative to just a few years ago, the most repressive fribbles you'll ever see are nearly ten times as likely to believe that all it takes to start a rabbit farm is a magician's magic hat. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by Cal to gain a virtual stranglehold on many facets of our educational system. I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to oppose our human vices wherever they may be found—arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. I don't mean to scare you, but Cal's casus belli all stem from one, simple, faulty premise—that he possesses infinite wisdom. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Cal Henderson and put the kibosh on Cal's epigrams.
Posted by
Brock, 1 year ago:
Ha! now Cal gets the fuckover. That'll learn him.
Posted by
Brock, 1 year ago:
In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Cal Henderson and put the kibosh on Cal's epigrams.
Hee. Epigrams. Is that where your doorbells rings and some foaming and twitching person carrying a strobe light is there to give you a message while they try not to bite off their own tongue?
Posted by
winli, 1 year ago:
Fan Chung-yen said, not pleased, not to have compassion.
ed hardy jeansChinese society from the Song to 2000, is now fast, I dare not say all of China not as ancient, but at least we have to learn self-cultivation of Fan Tao,
ed hardy kleidung Dankan win or lose, live happily, or someday you for China which teams they lost to weak teams in Asia and the terminal one of a branch,
ed hardy schuhewho would give you the Medal of it?
In my last letter, I claimed that until recently, winli's imprecations have gone unnoticed and unanalyzed, and that claim is even more true now. Wait! Before you dismiss me as vapid, hear me out.
How many of winli's foot soldiers are content to sit around doing absolutely nothing to contribute to the world around them? I'd hazard to guess that the number is pretty high. Although the dialectics of unbridled praxis will rot our minds with the hallucinatory drug of racism when you least expect it, a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of winli's whiney hypnopompic insights. So let winli call me lazy. I call it officious.
Although winli has unfairly depicted me and those who share my beliefs as clowns and twerps, we are neither. Yes, the general public is finally starting to become aware of its duplicity and complicity, but it seems that no one else is telling you that winli's attendants acquiesce with bovine stolidity when it instructs them to build a totalitarian death machine. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, winli has, shall we say, questionable priorities. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the snippy manner in which it has been trying to arrest and detain its adversaries indefinitely without charge, without trial, and without access to legal counsel.
If I seem a bit irascible, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with winli on its own level. Winli's criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, its criticisms are based solely on its emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in winli's "I think … I believe … I feel" game.
Winli believes that it's a moral exemplar only because it has a need to believe that. This is not rhetoric. This is reality. Every so often, winli tries pigeonholing people into predetermined categories. Whenever it gets caught doing so it raises a terrific hullabaloo calculated to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals.
To confiscate other people's rightful earnings is an injustice. Winli's drones believe that truth is merely a social construct. I say to them, "Prove it"—not that they'll be able to, of course, but because we must challenge winli to defend its mottos or else to change them. If we fail then all of our sacrifices and all of the dreams and sacrifices of our ancestors will have been in vain. The key is to realize that if you think that you and I are objects for winli to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings, then think again. I myself was entirely gobsmacked the first time I saw winli carrying our once-proud nation deeper into savagery and depravity. Since then, I've seen it do that so many times that I hardly bat an eyelid when someone tells me that winli and I disagree about our civic duties. I profess that we must do our utmost to fight it hammer and tong. Winli, on the other hand, believes that it is a perpetual victim of injustice.
Please, please, please help me suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate. Without your help, winli will really teach laughable concepts to children. It's winli's deep-seated belief that all it takes to start a rabbit farm is a magician's magic hat. Sure, it might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that winli is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that it's morally obligated to condition the public—or, more precisely, brainwash the public—into believing that it is omnipotent. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how gutless winli is. You can't do it. Not only that, but one loses count of the number of times it has tried to inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress—and winli knows it.
Winli wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving it lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how there are two observations that one can make here. The first is that winli's entourage is an open-door asylum for unreasonable perjurers. The second observation is that the elasticity of winli's interpretation of the Bible shields it from having to take a stand for anything morally correct yet politically (spiritually?) unpopular. These shards of empirical evidence suggest that it's infantile for winli to obfuscate the issue so that one can't see what ought to be totally obvious to all. Or perhaps I should say, it's malodorous.
So, winli, maybe the problem is not with effete oafs, but with you. If winli thinks that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications then maybe it should lay off the wacky tobacky. It has been said that winli's conjectures do not come without a price. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it unquestionably implies that winli's projects are a masterpiece of brown-nosing particularism. I'll go further: I consider winli's assertions antithetical to my principles as a person concerned for the good of all. No joke.
Winli expresses insufficient concern about the ozone layer, the Bhopal tragedy, and lesbian theater. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, but you get the general drift. I don't object to winli's exegeses because bookish recidivists often prove their point by relying on untenable conjecture and unverifiable hearsay. I object because it has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever it thinks that means) to prove that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that winli is typical of sinister mouthpieces for disagreeable, lawless terrorism in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its monographs. To reiterate the main message of this letter, winli's an inquination upon all that is pure, holy, and good.
Hey GemZ_1989, thats a good one post, thanks for sharing!
Mail Order Brides Russian Brides
Hey Henry34, that's not a proper sentence, thanks for being a tit!
Mail Order Russians