Xàbia Shrimper
Co-founder of ShrimperZone
What I am about to say is strictly off the record. On that understanding, I shall give you candidly and without circumlocution the best estimate of our present plight that I have been able to make. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Southend United's particularly parasitic form of sectarianism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of chthonic politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. The original purpose of deconstructionism was to exert more and more control over other individuals. But even if we disregard all that and examine only Southend United's disaffected scare tactics, this seems to me to be enough to show that Southend United hates people who have huge supplies of the things it lacks. What it lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that Southend United's revenge fantasies do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress. Southend United will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let it propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright onanism. At least putting up with another Southend United hissy fit is easier than convincing Southend United's brethren that Southend United says that society is screaming for its orations. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.
Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should tell you that Southend United's method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Southend United-ism". It is a contumelious and avowedly unprofessional philosophy that aims to demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous. Southend United does not want to judge people based solely on hearsay because it is brainless, morally questionable, crass, and merciless (though, granted, Southend United is all of the aforementioned), but rather because Southend United presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. It is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors vapid riffraff. And here we have the ultimate irony, because it always gives noncommittal answers to questions. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that all of the foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude to understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by Southend United and its comrades to mock, ridicule, deprecate, and rebuke people for their religious beliefs. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that it claims that it is a martyr for freedom and a victim of Trotskyism. I, not being one of the many humorless vendors of antipluralism of this world, would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another unbalanced attempt to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. Here's an idea: Instead of giving Southend United the ability to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering, why don't we exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage? If we do, we'll then be able to denounce those who claim that men are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, few people realize that that statement can be most easily defended, since it is not quantitative, but qualitative.
I thank you.
WS
Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should tell you that Southend United's method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Southend United-ism". It is a contumelious and avowedly unprofessional philosophy that aims to demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous. Southend United does not want to judge people based solely on hearsay because it is brainless, morally questionable, crass, and merciless (though, granted, Southend United is all of the aforementioned), but rather because Southend United presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. It is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors vapid riffraff. And here we have the ultimate irony, because it always gives noncommittal answers to questions. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that all of the foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude to understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by Southend United and its comrades to mock, ridicule, deprecate, and rebuke people for their religious beliefs. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that it claims that it is a martyr for freedom and a victim of Trotskyism. I, not being one of the many humorless vendors of antipluralism of this world, would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another unbalanced attempt to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. Here's an idea: Instead of giving Southend United the ability to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering, why don't we exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage? If we do, we'll then be able to denounce those who claim that men are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, few people realize that that statement can be most easily defended, since it is not quantitative, but qualitative.
I thank you.
WS