a tale of two laundries

Submitted by the Grand Infide of Kaffiristan (Australia), Nov 27, 2010 at 06:02

These people are trying to sell something. The product is poor quality - but because they don't know any better - they try to present it as top quality. So, as all sellers of products do - they make up for poor quality with a lot of spin. The poorer the quality goods - the better the spin needs to be in order to get people to at least consider it.

Let's take the washing powder analogy again. People need to wash their clothes daily - because otherwise - he clothes start to look a little tacky and after a few days - no matter how clean we try to keep them - they'll start to smell. So let's start the analogy - the clothes represent the human psyche. The psyche needs 'cleaning' - or re-integration (achieving wholeness, enlightenment , whatever you want to call it) - on a daily basis - in just the way clothes need cleaning daily. It's not a theoretical thing. Clothes cleaning can't be achieved so well when we leave this world.

So we've had various brands of washing powders down through the ages - promoted by various company managers. Let's give them some names - there's brand C, brand J, brand H, brand B , brand S, brand W and several others. Most of these have worked very effectively in various parts of the world. Some more so than others

. Lately, a different type of washing powder has come on the scene due to a misguided 'free trade' concept foisted on people by lunatic government wanting to perform social experiments. Let's call this new brand - brand M.

Brand M's only ever been used in one part of the world and because it has been used in that part of the world for so long - the users of that brand think that it must be suitable for clothes everywhere. At one stage they did have the chance to use Brand C and Brand J in those regions.

Maybe it was the hot weather - who knows - but for some reason the users of brand M decided to read the fine print on the packet. The fine print stated that once users started to use brand M - they must always use brand M - otherwise some terrible chemical reaction would occur and their nice clothes would be destroyed.

Furthermore - the fine print said that if the users knew of anyone who used brand M - but then stopped using it - they should be killed. Similarly, if they knew of people who used other brands - for example brands C and brand J - then these people should be given the oppirtunity to start using brand M - but if they refused then they'd either have to start paying higher prices in the grocery store if they wanted to continue to use their own brands.

In many cases where this too was refused - users of brand M conspired to kill Brand C and brand J users. Brand M users find it impossible to conceive that non-brand M users can have clean clothes at all . As far as they are concerned - only brand M will clean clothes. Unfortunately for them this not the case as all non-brand M users clearly see that clothes washed in brand M are dull and lifeless, lacking vibrancy and colour. In fact some brand M users DO see that other brands give far superiour results - but are too frightened to admit it to their fellow brnd M users.

There has been no research in the product development labs at brand M headquarters for at least 1400 years. In fact - brand M was based on a smattering of the very early formulas of brand J, a little bit of brand C - and much on some other primitive brands that have long since gone out of business. Meanwhile the other brands have poured enormous resources into developing their brands - new enzymes, bio-active molecules, bleaches etc etc

One big problem that brand M users have is when they start to move into new areas where brand C,J, B , S, W and others are being used. They still insist in believing that what is written on the sides of their packets has to be true. This is despite seeing all the clean clothes all around them in their new environment.

Many of the claims on packets of brand M are absurd - but devoted brand M users refuse to see it. Their focus becomes not on getting clean clothes at all - but just on following the instructions on the packet!. Take for instance the instruction that in order to get clean clothes - brand M users have to face the company headquarters in the Middle East 5 times a day. And tell themselves that the first managing director of brand M - a strange man with many vices who died 14 centuries ago - should be loved above all other people.

One of the most insidious instructions is that brand M should be pushed by any means in the brand M user's new area - in order to stop people using other brands. Apparently the instructions in fine print on brand M packets actually state that the rather clear and unambiguous instructions on packets of brands C & J are 'corrupted'.

Another very strange claim on brand M packets is that the third most important building in the brand M chain is actually the headquarters of brand J. Apparently early users of brand M made the claim that the initial managing director of brand M flew on a winged horse 1000kms in a few seconds to brand J's 1500 year old headquarters. So therefore - brand M users have some sort of claim to brand J's historic headquarters. Yes - the logic is totally absurd - but nevertheless these are the instructions on the brand M package. The fact that brand M users expect users of other brands to listen to this claim and similar claims and not burst out laughing - is even more astonishing than the claims themselves.

But users of other brands hide their laughter as brand M users are well known for trashing other brand user's laundries, set fire to supermarkets and knock down clothes lines under the cover of darkness.

What all users of all brands must realise is that clothes cannot be cleaned properly without using water. Unfortunately the real nature of water has become totally lost to users of brand M - except perhaps to a few who are seen as heretics. This is because the real nature of water and what it is for is never described in the disjointed instructions of the brand M package.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".