My complaint about "Gordon Mohr"

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Jeff Bone (
Date: Thu Aug 24 2000 - 10:58:04 PDT

[ Wow, thanks Rob! Truly a labor-saving innovation! ;-) -jb ]

This is to voice my dissatisfaction with Gordon Mohr's grievances. With this
letter, I hope to reinforce notions of positive self esteem. But first, I would
like to make the following introductory remark: It's easy enough to hate Mohr any
day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very
specific things that Mohr is up to, things that ought to make a real Mohr-hater
out of you. First off, his zingers will have consequences -- very serious
consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. Some people say
that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that he is secretly scheming to
censor any incomplicitous inclinations. And I must agree; one needs much more
evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to
look at it. Just look at the way that he can fool some of the people all of the
time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But Mohr can't fool all of
the people all of the time. I'm willing to accept that there is an inherent
contradiction between his vindictive recalcitrant form of barbarism and basic
human rights. I'm even willing to accept that in this volatile political moment,
we must cautiously guard against the dangers of self-pitying McCarthyism. But I
don't care what others say about him. He's still hypersensitive, frightful, and
he intends to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. My purpose here is
not to empower the oppressed to control their own lives. Well, okay, it is. But
I should point out that Mohr respects nothing and no one. But let's not lose
sight of the larger, more important issue here: Mohr's puerile goals.

Though I don't doubt the depth of his sentiments, it's rather the form of his
expressions that I find both crotchety and asinine. As I noted at the beginning
of this letter, Mohr would have us believe that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal
virtues. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Mohr is surrounded by
virulent nymphomaniacs who parrot the same nonsense, which is why he constantly
insists that censorship could benefit us. But he contradicts himself when he says
that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. He says that his vices are the
only true virtues. What he means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign
to influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity
that is predominantly feckless.

I have always assumed that Mohr has come very, very close to making me wander
around in a quagmire of self-pity and depression, but the fact of the matter is
that isolationism doesn't work. So why does Mohr cling to it? Let me give you a
hint: If there's an untold story here, it's that many people respond to Mohr's
cruel doctrines in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They
watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do
anything about them. That's why I insist we give the needy a helping hand, as
opposed to an elbow in the face. Do bleeding-heart urban guerrillas like Mohr
actually have lives, or do they exist solely to force me to burst into tears?
While there is no evidence that by balancing the theoretical untruth and nonsense
of his claims with the reality of this phenomenon, we can see that his consistent
lack of regard for others will sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need
quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "roentgenographically", it is
clear that every time he gets caught trying to fuel inquisitions, he promises
he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his cronies always jump in and explain
that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does, because, as they feel,
revanchism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational

Even if his facts were reliable, they were gathered selectively and then
manipulated towards favored conclusions. At the risk of sounding hopelessly
mischievous, you don't have to say anything specifically about Mohr for him to
start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should tell you
things that he doesn't want you to know. A trip to your local library would
reveal that he somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (an open party with
unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage
the crowd), distortions (the federal government should take more and more of our
hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights), and misplaced
idealism (we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of
democracy). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than
you can say "unextinguishableness". Let's consider for a moment, though, that
maybe Mohr should just face the facts. Then doesn't it follow that for his own
sake, Mohr should not stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the
beautiful? As pretentious as his conjectures are, from secret-handshake societies
meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his lackeys have
always found a way to set the wolf to mind the sheep.

Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, Mohr? He owes us an apology. If you
don't believe me, see for yourself. This is particularly interesting when you
consider that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about
his doctrinaire exegeses. For starters, let's say that "denominationalism" is
"that which makes Mohr yearn to defuse or undermine incisive critiques of his
insecure behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of
institutional restraint."

Even his henchmen couldn't deal with the full impact of his assertions. That's
why they created "Mohr-ism," which is just an anal-retentive excuse to undermine
the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. He has a
staggering number of self-aggrandizing assistants. One way to lower their
numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that his
helpers believe that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of
"insiders". Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those
who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to grant people the freedom to pursue
any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest.

Might I suggest that he search for a hobby? It seems Mohr has entirely too much
time on his hands, given how often he tries to force women to live by restrictive
standards not applicable to men. If you think that merit is adequately measured
by his methods and qualifications, then you're suffering from very serious
nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Mohr wants you to see and
failing to observe many other things of much greater importance.

On a completely different tack, he would have us believe that he has achieved
sainthood. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few
random pages from any book on the subject. Mohr claims to have turned over a new
leaf shortly after getting caught trying to expose and neutralize his enemies
rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. This claim is an outright lie
that is still being circulated by Mohr's toadies. The truth is that Mohr claims
that society is supposed to be lenient towards drugged-out imprudent lummoxes.
That claim is preposterous and, to use Mohr's own language, overtly
self-centered. No history can justify it. I fear that, over time, his excuses
will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to transform our
culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence.

Although the proper definition of "anthropomorphization" is hotly disputed, it's
silly for Mohr to resort to underhanded tactics. Or perhaps I should say, it's
gin-swilling. He must think that being directionless entitles one to caricature
and stereotype people from other cultures. Who else but Mohr would have the brass
to convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime,
disappointment, and destruction? No one. And where does that brass come from?
It comes from a sure knowledge that he can retreat into his "victim" status if
anyone calls him to account.

In theory, he has no moral qualities whatsoever. But in reality, I've heard of
shameless things like factionalism and Maoism. But I've also heard of things like
nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of
themselves -- ideas which his ignorant, unthinking, whiney brain is too small to
understand. Lastly, the surest way for Gordon Mohr's supporters to succeed is
for them to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 24 2000 - 11:04:31 PDT