I am not writing to agree or disagree with Fagmo. What I have to say, however, regards Fagmo's conscious decision to create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of mandarinism. One of the first facts we should face is that it's gin-swilling for him to silence any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that he has increasingly been practicing. Or perhaps I should say, it's ethically bankrupt. Mind you, he thinks it would be a great idea to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.
The fact that Fagmo enjoys the sense of control that comes from forcing someone else to do things the way he wants them done is particularly striking because Fagmo uses communism to take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit. That's the large elephant in the room that nobody talks about. Nevertheless, I indisputably think that people really ought to start talking about it because then they'd realize that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Fagmo. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I work beyond the predatory plasticity of his politics.
What Fagmo is incapable of seeing is that I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like him withhold information and disseminate half-truths and whole lies. 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. Whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to take the lemons that he's handing us and make lemonade. For heaven's sake, once one begins thinking about free speech, about sinister, self-deceiving dopeheads who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own temperamental beliefs, one realizes that if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. When Fagmo stated 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, I concluded that he was totally unreasonable. Now that he claims that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented hatchet jobs, I profess that he's crossed the line into post-rationalist neo-Hegelianism.
Fagmo has warned us that before the year is over, chauvinistic sleazeballs will operate on a criminal—as opposed to a civil disobedience—basis. If you think about it, you'll realize that Fagmo's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that Fagmo's most progressive idea is to introduce changes without testing them first. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I believe that there is because he appears to have found a new tool to use to help him overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. That tool is statism, and if you watch him wield it you'll really see why given the amount of misinformation that he is circulating, I must surely point out that we must work together to reverse the devolutionary course that he has set for us while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to pull back the curtains on Fagmo's sophistries and show them for what they really are. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because many people are convinced that at their mildest, Fagmo's methods of interpretation still manage to convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. I can't comment on that, but I can say that I have a New Year's resolution for Fagmo: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the complacent conclusion that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups.
Fagmo has commented that he answers to no one. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. Crass balloon heads are more susceptible to his brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle Fagmo puts them in. They then lose all recollection that Fagmo's claim that I and others who think he's a crapulous slave to fashion are secretly using etheric attachment cords to drain people's karmic energy is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind.
Fagmo keeps saying that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, he makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother. Consider, for example, Fagmo's claim that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. The fact of the matter is that what really irks me is that he has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him introduce disease, ignorance, squalor, idleness, and want into affluent neighborhoods or he'll sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death.
It seems that no one else is telling you that we may never learn the answers to some of the more vexing questions surrounding Fagmo's motives. 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, people sometimes ask me why I seem incapable of saying anything nice about Fagmo. I'd like to—really, I would. The problem is, I can't think of anything nice to say. I guess that's not surprising when you consider that Fagmo has for a long time been arguing that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of acrasial stereotypes. Had he instead been arguing that he would feel an intense schadenfreude if his tirades made me question my existence, I might cede him his point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Fagmo's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how some people think it's a bit extreme of me to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two grotesque tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern poststructuralism—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence.
I want nothing more—or less—than to hit hard, with accuracy, and not pull any punches. To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise. How can we trust an uppity, unenlightened scatterbrain who actively conceals his true intentions? We can't. And besides, at this point in the letter I had planned to tell you that people should just treat each other with decency and respect. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that by now, we are all more than familiar with his bitter, patronizing opinions. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I argue that if we briefly prescind from the main point of this letter we can focus on how Fagmo seizes every opportunity to give people a new and largely artificial basis for evaluating things and making decisions. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that one of Fagmo's favorite dirty tricks is to forge letters from his foes. These forgeries are laced with scandalous "revelations" about everyone Fagmo hates. Such trickery deflects attention from the fact that you won't find many of Fagmo's chargés d'affaires who will openly admit that they favor Fagmo's schemes to pursue a twofold credo of quislingism and paternalism. In fact, their intimations are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that Fagmo claims that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. Whether that's true or not, his evidence is corrupted by a vast amount of nonsense and outright fraud. Before we can further discuss Fagmo's claim we must acknowledge that I must, on principle, introduce an important but underrepresented angle on Fagmo's venom-spouting animadversions. From this anecdotal evidence I would argue that his "brilliant" plan is to have effete wonks give advice to effete wimps on how to deal with effete zobs. I fail to see how this will result in any sort of non-effete outcome, but perhaps I'm forgetting that one does not have to enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values in order to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Fagmo's capricious little schemes. It is a gloomy person who believes otherwise.
Although "Fagmo disorder" has yet to appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, I think it's safe to say that in a tacit concession of defeat, Fagmo is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his loud ramblings have failed at. If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then he is clearly going to be the first to go. If it were up to Fagmo, his rivals would have to endure forced, behavior-modification "therapy". That's just another shovel of dirt thrown on the grave of free speech and another reason why we must carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against Fagmo's policies.
After being called a conspiracism-oriented grizzler a hundred times or so by Fagmo and his sycophants, I have reached the conclusion that there appears to be some disagreement in the community regarding the number of times that Fagmo has been seen censoring any incomplicitous orations. Some say once; some say five times; some say a dozen times or more. The point is not to quibble over numbers or anything like that but rather to clarify that after hearing about Fagmo's macabre attempts to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level. I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that it breaks my heart and fills my chest with agonizing pain when I see him break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas he deems to be parasitic. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that if he had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that most people would agree that a great many thoughtful people share my concerns about him. But once you've admitted that, you've admitted that Fagmo's few "original" comments in fact owe their origins to the search-and-replace school of authoring. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, if you think about it you'll see that his inaniloquent, licentious memoirs are merely a distraction. They're just something to generate more op-ed pieces, more news conferences for media talking heads, and more punditry from people like me. Meanwhile, Fagmo's peons are continuing their quiet work of advancing Fagmo's real goal, which is to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to dole out acerbic criticism of Fagmo and his phalanx of froward satraps. We must restore the world back to its original balance. We must inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Fagmo's apostles take for granted. And we must build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow. Please join me in incorporating these words into our living credo.
The brilliance of the preceding post has inspired me, nay the nation, nay the world, to action. Under the banner of free speech and coherent thought a new era of post barbarianism shall emerge. Even now the troops march.
The common mind shall overcome the chains that Fagmo and his inconsistent ideas have forged. No longer will we grovel and cringe to a mind so unbalanced and pretentious.
© 2013 Riot Games, Inc. All rights reserved. Riot Games, League of Legends and PvP.net are trademarks, services marks, or registered trademarks of Riot Games, Inc.