Subject: Re: Bleeding Hearts Pee My Gland
Date: 12 Sep 1997 06:35:47 GMT
From: Big Nasty <email@example.com>
Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services
!!!firstname.lastname@example.org (TarlaStar) wrote:
>You know, I've had just about all I can stand of Princess Di and
>Mother Theresa. I'm just more than a little irritated with these
>sanctimonious, knee-jerk assholes who think that because PD and MT did
>charity work that they are somehow "better" than you or I. Fuck that
>shit. It's absolute nonsense.
>I seriously doubt there's a single one of us who hasn't helped someone
>in need, someone that we actually know, someone that we know will
>actually appreciate our help and use it to make things better in their
>How many of us have lent money to a friend even when we knew it would
>make things tough for us? Are we to be considered less sterling
>individuals because we give to someone we know instead of someone we
>don't know? Is agape supposed to be somehow BETTER than fraternos?
>How many times have we opened our homes to people we know can't afford
>a hotel room, fed them, and acted as though it was our joy to be able
>to give instead of knowing that we would have extra work and maybe
>live on short rations, but doing it anyway?
>Lurch is a nasty ole misanthrope, but I know if I came through
>Georgia, I could stay at his place and get a meal as well. He'd
>probably entertain me with tales and wouldn't expect me to accept
>Jesus as my personal savior in order to receive his kindness. I don't
>think Princess Diana or Mother Theresa would do that. I don't think
>that personal interaction and individual kindness or charity is any
>less important or valuable than that given to nameless masses. In
>other words, Lurch is every bit as good as Mother Theresa in my eyes.
>In fact, he's better. He is kind without having to have Jesus as his
>excuse or reward.
>And so it is with many of us. We take care of other's children, we
>give away clothes and furniture to friends, we buy someone lunch when
>we know they can't afford to pay but when they need to feel loved
>most. We give people a ride when they need it. We make actual impact
>on the lives of people we actually value.
>How very little it took for Diana to become a saint. She shook hands
>with an AIDS patient. How many of us have actually lost someone we
>loved and cared about to AIDS? I wonder how many AIDS patients Diana
>spent the night with, listening for the breathing, and slapping them
>on the back out of fear they'd choke to death on their own phlegm,
>knowing that if this person died, there would never be anyone like
>them to take their place? I wonder how many of us have done far more
>than shake hands with our dying friends and felt offended as hell that
>she could be "sainted" for doing so very little?
>And Mother Theresa was evil incarnate. She epitomized the backward,
>superstitious, lower-than-man female. She promoted an evil religion
>and got herself enough power-through-piety to be able to make it look
>legitimate. She promoted overpopulation in a country where more than a
>single birth per woman should be a crime. And she took money from
>theives and murderers, but I don't know why I'm surprised. The
>Catholic church has been in bed with crime almost since the beginning.
>Am I supposed to feel like less a human being because I didn't give up
>control over my own life? Is is somehow intrinsically a good thing to
>live among the poor, sick, and filthy? Frankly, I think that's like
>antelopes running into the lion's den. That's what we're SUPPOSED to
>try to escape.
>Nameless charity doesn't provide any feeling of obligation on the part
>of the recipient. That's a bad thing, not a good one. It means that
>they can continue to take charity without ever worrying about repaying
>it. Organizations that give food without asking for labor demean
>individuals rather than uplift them. It says, "You're so pathetic,
>that we don't even expect you to earn food like the rest of us." That
>has a way of reinforcing one's feelings of worthlessness, not
>diminishing them. Organizations that expect labor for food are more
>successful at getting people off the streets and contributing to
>society again than those which do not.
>Mother Theresa kept people in Limbo. She did not offer training or ask
>labor for food. She did not offer her interpersonal love, but rather,
>her superstition. She did not cure illness, or offer euthanasia to the
>terminal, but rather held them in a state of less misery than actually
>dying in the streets, but never actually DOING them any real good.
>The truth is, we are better than they were. MT and PD never had to
>worry about being thrown out into the streets. They had the Catholic
>Church and the British People to take care of them. They've never had
>to sweat the bills, or wonder if their kids would get fed all month.
>Some of us worried about going on welfare instead of being on welfare
>all of our lives like MT and PD. Some of us have had those fears...and
>we STILL gave to others. To hell with those bitches.
>Reverend Mutha Tarla Star of the Little Sisters of the Perpetually
>Juicy; a Proud jism schism of the Church of the SubGenius.
>Worshipping Juicy Retardo and "Connie" Dobbs since 1986.
"-show me a Hero, and I'll show ya a Potential Points-Shaver."
The YER AN ASSHOLE Artform:
this is a phenomenon wherein people with nothing better to do go
hunting for someone to hold in everyone else's face as an example of what
thoughtless dirty guilty bastards they are.
Elton John is an example of this phenomenon - when his shitty music
can no longer cut it he goes in for this kinda shit - and ya wonder why
he identifies with the Fairy Princess?
Oscar Wilde would laugh his fuggin guts out - but he had a Touch of
Now let's hear from ya fucked up Elton lovers (oy)
-stupid is good.