My letter to Peter King re. a Mr. Cameron Newton

[Saint J]

Dear Mr. King,

While no statement I'm about to make should be construed as suggesting or recommending that any person commit an illegal act of any kind, you should realize that Peter engages in pietistic babble that nauseates even some of my more religious friends. Let's get down to brass tacks: There is something grievously wrong with those militant pissants who defy the law of the land. Shame on the lot of them! In general, I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But Peter 's bromides have kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful adventure we share together -- life! Peter wants all of us to believe that everything it says is entirely and absolutely true. That's why it 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.

If Peter is going to talk about higher standards, then it needs to live by those higher standards. I believe I have finally figured out what makes organizations like Peter take us over the edge of the abyss of nonrepresentationalism. 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. Peter is bad enough when it's alone, but it is even worse when it's joined by dirty nutters. Here's some news for you: The encroachment of perverted, sullen harangues into the social fabric of our politics, our institutions, and our laws would give credence to my claim that this is nothing new. Interesting, isn't it? What you may find even more interesting is that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to stop this insanity?

I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that Peter is up to, the more shocking things, things like how it wants to fuel inquisitions. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but it has the nerve to call those of us who summon up the courage to punish those who lie or connive at half-truths "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that Peter does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that it's okay if its activities initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. Much of Peter 's behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the anti-democratic batty-types whom Peter claims to be trying to help. 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 when a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that Peter stubbornly refuses to own up to its mistakes serves only to convince me that it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of wily warped-types like it can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. Be always mindful that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why as long as I live and breathe, I will strive to purge the darkness from Peter 's heart. But the short answer is that it appears to have found a new tool to use to help it feature simplistic answers to complex problems. That tool is denominationalism, and if you watch it wield it, you'll unmistakably see why its apologists consider its belief systems a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of alarmism. Perhaps Peter has never had to take a stand and fight for something as critical as our right to call for proper disciplinary action against it and its legates. But its occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are Peter 's promises. In fact, we can divide its ideas into three categories: humorless, mutinous, and dissolute.

In hearing about Peter 's principles, one gets the distinct impression that Peter and its buddies are yellow-bellied dips. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis. I've heard Peter say that it is a model organization. Was that just a slip of the lip or is Peter secretly trying to introduce changes without testing them first? Apparently, even know-it-all Peter doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't matter much if it did, given that it has been said that its subordinates get so hypnotized by its simplistic "good guys and bad guys" approach to history that they do not hear what Peter is really saying. I believe that to be true. I also believe that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance.

Now, I'm going to be honest here. If the only way to delegitimize Peter is for me to choke to death, then so be it. It would certainly be worth it because it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did its reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Why is it that 99 times out of 100, what it considers a fair shake, the rest of us consider a repressive, humiliating, culture-stripping experience?" First, I'll give you a very brief answer and then I'll go back and explain my answer in detail. As for the brief answer, it makes assertions that strain credulity. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that I'm not very conversant with Peter 's background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that the gloss that Peter 's allies put on Peter 's opinions unfortunately does little to arraign it at the tribunal of public opinion. Peter 's compeers get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Peter , and meeting some other twisted politicos is merely a social event. They're not even aware that if Peter continues to alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with its current "reality", I will decidedly be obliged to do something about it. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. I have a message for Peter . My message is that, for the good of us all, it should never create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. It should never even try to do such a resentful thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by "never", I don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", or "it depends". I mean only that I recently informed Peter that its vicegerents scorn and abjure reason. Peter said it'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, if it wants to complain, it should have an argument. It shouldn't just throw out the word "phenolsulphonephthalein", for example, and expect us to be scared. Thus, in summing up, we can establish the following: 1) Peter makes it its job to insult my intelligence, and 2) its assertion that its mistakes are always someone else's fault serves only to illustrate its ignorance and poorly hidden bigotry.

Sincerely,

Saint J

[davos]

whaddufuggg

[Swarly]

[Saint J]

[Kurb]

Do you want to get banned ? Really ?

[Saint J]

:(

[4Corners]

[Peppers90 NC]

would it be a cliche if i said "cool story bro"?

[Marguide]

Get help.

Now.

[panthers55]

Hopefully Peter King did the same thing I did, read the first two or three sentences, decide Saint J is off his meds, and completely ignore the rest.

[rico6]

Someone ban this moron.

[davos]

Well on the otherside of things, this is probably still better than a tcf thread

[4Corners]

Get lost.

Now.

fixed.

[Saint J]