Complaint against finn - read and support

As you read this letter, you may feel confused at points. If you do, keep reading. The rationale underlying Finn's solutions is confusing. Fortunately, as you read the superfluity of examples about how Finn has been trying to break our country's national and patriotic backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke of international simplism, this letter will slowly begin to make sense. What follows is the story of how he can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. His operatives resist seeing that I am fed up to the back teeth with his unprofessional, incompetent claims. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to question authority. His most steadfast claim is that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, Finn is squarely in favor of Marxism and its propensity to shred the basic compact between the people and their government. This is so typical of Finn: he condemns bigotry and injustice except when it benefits him personally.

Finn works from the false assumption that most people actually want pestiferous losers to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Stated differently, his circulars are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of voyeurism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up. He will put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor by next weekend—not necessarily by direct action, but by convincing his accomplices to produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to bowdlerize all unfavorable descriptions of his modes of thought. To say merely that Finn doesn't perceive that anything is wrong with him is a vast understatement. Although saturnine sociopaths are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are rapidly increasing in size and fervor. You may not be aware of this, but his criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, Finn's criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in his "I think … I believe … I feel" game.

Finn believes that it is everyone's obligation to lead an active disinformation campaign. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed. He says that the rules don't apply to him. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"? Does anyone believe Finn's claim that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative? Come on, anyone? Like I thought, I like to speak of Finn as "disloyal". That's a reasonable term to use, I assert, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, he intends to create a new social class. Pugnacious adolescents, cruel underachievers, and brain-damaged thugs will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their cheerleaders.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, most members of our quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society are too impatient to realize the importance of commenting on Finn's initiatives. I wish only that a few more people could see that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to take the mechanisms, language, ideology, and phraseology for determining what is right and what is wrong out of the hands of Finn and his lapdogs and put them back in the hands of ordinary people. With him so forcefully making my blood curdle, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. If Finn's beliefs were intended as a joke, Finn forgot to include the punchline.

Almost every day, Finn outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's doubtlessly breathtaking to watch him. Will someone please explain to me what it is in our lives that can possibly make someone destroy our moral fiber? Because I certainly have no idea.

Our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight, we must brush away the cobwebs of expansionism. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to take the lemons that Finn is handing us and make lemonade.

Perhaps if Finn thought about it, he'd realize that what I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that he seems to assume that ageism brings one closer to nirvana. This is an assumption of the worst kind because it may seem difficult at first to challenge his misinformed assumptions about merit. It is. But I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his personal attacks. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that he has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his coalition of prudish, fastidious bludgers and offensive bloodsuckers loyal to him. Finn's principal myth is that we can trust him not to create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions. The truth is that Finn swims in a sea of narcissism, the waters of which roil with anger and resentment. Most of that anger and resentment is directed towards people like me who straighten out Finn's thinking.

Finn's litanies are merely a stalking horse. They mask his secret intention to lead us into an age of shoddiness—shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people. If we do nothing, Finn will keep on increasing society's cycle of hostility and violence. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering. If he gets his way, none of us will be able to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community. Therefore, we must not let him batten on the credulity of the ignorant. Because Finn's theories are sheer hypothesis—speculation with not even a scintilla of circumstantial evidence to support them—because he is more at home with lies than with the truth, and because he engages in pietistic babble that nauseates even some of my more religious friends, we can conclude that Finn's attempts to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion are much worse than mere antinomianism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation.

There is something grievously wrong with those devious rakes who contravene decency. Shame on the lot of them! This seems so obvious, I am amazed there is even any discussion about it. Some people believe that one day Finn's functionaries will extend the compass of democracy to obstreperous fast-buck artists. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that I have a message for Finn. My message is that, for the good of us all, he should never seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging his vaporings. He should never even try to do such an amateurish thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by "never" I don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", or "it depends". I mean only that Finn's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "Finn is entitled to subvert our country's legal system" and, "It's okay to turn meatheads loose against us good citizens". What they don't tell you, though, is that Finn's scare tactics are more than just jejune. They're a revolt against nature.

If there's a rule, and Finn keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? I mean, Finn's irrational, beer-guzzling reports are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Finn has been turning positions of leadership into positions of complacency. I like to say that he sees only one side of the issue. Finn never directly acknowledges such truisms but instead tries to turn them around to make it sound like I'm saying that what I call backwards louts are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. I guess that version better fits his style—or should I say, "agenda"? I suppose that's all I have to say in this letter. If there are any points on which you require explanation or further particulars I shall be glad to furnish such additional details as may be required.