Use the complaints generator against the leader above you.

[Peter Quill]

Here's the website, if you're too lazy.

Here's an example:

The following are simply some random thoughts that have been rattling about my head of late and that I'd like to let out—a little house cleaning, if you will. I would like to start by discussing Pres. Dimitri Valko's ventures, mainly because they scare me. The thing I'm the most frightened about is that Pres. Valko can't possibly believe that one hallmark of an advanced culture is the rejection of rationalism. He's raffish but he's not that raffish. Having said that, let me add that he avers that he opposes pertinacious worrywarts who dig a grave in which to bury liberty and freedom. That's nothing more than ear candy. It's designed to gently stroke listeners, to get them to purr like kittens. The reality is that Pres. Valko must be surrounded by some sort of reality-distortion field. Why else would his bedfellows warrant that his furciferous schemes will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams? If it weren't for all that reality distortion they'd instead be observing that Pres. Valko says that he is clean and bright and pure inside. At least we can't accuse him of hiding his prejudices, I suppose. Of course, it would nice if Pres. Valko were also to confess that I am more than merely surprised by his willingness to discredit legitimate voices in the jingoism debate. I'm shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren't enough, Pres. Valko seems to be involved in a number of illegal or borderline-illegal activities. For him and his stooges, tax evasion and financial chicanery are scarcely outside the norm. Even financial fraud and thievery seem to be okay. What's next? Distracting people from making a serious analysis of the situation? I can say only that Pres. Valko says that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, “They're not in here!â€?

Pres. Valko says that unstable, illaudable quacksalvers should be given absolute authority to hurt others physically or emotionally. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. Am I angry? You bet. He says that he's above everyone else. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely pesky and inattentive lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Pres. Valko's epigones.

When I was a child my clergyman told me, “Pres. Valko considers it his calling to preach the gospel of solecism to every living creature.†If you think about it you'll see his point. In a way, I'm glad I've experienced firsthand just how cocky he can be. It's one thing to read about Pres. Valko's leaching integrity and honor from our souls, but it's quite another to be subjected personally to his attempts to make me suffer endless humiliation.

For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that I keep telling Pres. Valko that he likes to launch into nonsensical non sequiturs. Sure, a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, but perhaps if I'm persistent, Pres. Valko will eventually realize that I have a very bad feeling in the pit of my stomach that he will foster and intensify his drug-drenched drama of immorality in the immediate years ahead. Be patient; I won't ask you to take that on faith. Rather, I'll provide irrefragable proof that Pres. Valko's vade mecum of dirty tricks is filled with a collection of scare words such as “disadvantageousness†and “ultraphotomicrograph†that have no substance beyond, I suppose, “casting a chill over free speech and inquiry and the spirit of democracyâ€. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, Pres. Valko coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his capilotades sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.

Pres. Valko is not the only one who needs to reassess his assumptions. Think about ophidian widdifuls (especially the insensate type). They too should realize that Pres. Valko likes to compare his jibes to the venerable documents that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. His declamations are the perfect exemplification of the entire panoply of venom-spouting, snooty views held by unpatriotic nihilarians. This is equivalent to saying that I personally want to live my life as I see fit. I can't do that while Pres. Valko still has the ability to tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. He sees the world as somewhat anarchic, a game of catch-as-catch-can in which the sneakiest zobs nab the biggest prizes. Let me conclude by expressing the hope that by reading this letter you have learned the life lesson, “Always study the problem and recommend corrective action.â€

Edited January 24, 2016 by Dylan Pascua

[Stormrideron]

In this letter, I'm not going to argue that ignorant and highly emotional persons are frequently swayed by Sir Dylan Pascua 's bombast and fustian. Nor am I going to argue that an unsavory mentality and a puzzleheaded sense of collaborationism create fertile soil for despicable idiots to do everything possible to keep inconsiderate protestors procacious and superficial. I'm not going to argue those factors because they're irrelevant. Instead, I will say only that his servitors have the power to defy the rules of logic whenever they feel like it. Unfortunately, this letter won't be able to address all of the points I'd like to make. With all of the dishonest elisions, bombastic flourishes, and pompous posturing, I can't possibly tackle all of his coldhearted allocutions in a single go. To put it another way, we'll be covering 190-proof Dylan Pascua here. You don't drink it; you sip it. Let's begin our investigation with the observation that Dylan drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that we must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of unreasonable thoughts Dylan is thinking about these days.

 

Many of the things that Dylan's toadies write make absolutely no sense. For example, what do they mean by, “We can trust Dylan not to promote a politics of defeat and demoralization, of pessimism and selfishness?†Maybe reading that sentence backwards reveals a hidden message, or maybe it's simply the case that he's an inhumane, oppressive voluptuary. Consequently, attempting to respond to his disquisitions with logic is futile. A more productive response is to observe that I would love to be a fly on the wall near where Dylan and his imperium meet. I'd love to hear how those lusk passéists come up with their morally crippled schemes for ascribing opinions to me that I don't even hold. Then, I'd finally be able to back up my claim that Dylan was once confronted by someone who wanted to cultivate people's minds and refine their judgment. He responded by reducing meaningful political discussions to “my team versus your team†identity-based politics. Such a disproportionate response suggests a psyche in action, the mindset of a person who has nursed resentments for many years within the artificial haven of a homogeneous band of the worst classes of nutty desperados there are. That's all I have time now to write. If you want to get more insight into Sir Dylan Pascua 's mentality, though, then study the details of his philosophies. Try to see the big picture: It will amaze you. It will take your breath away. And it will convince you that whenever Dylan wants to kill the goose bearing the golden egg, he merely yanks his intimates' puppet strings and gets them to manufacture and compile daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against Dylan.

[Jack Mcfloyd]

I sit in sad repose as I put pen to paper concerning an issue I find most deeply disturbing. Let me begin by observing that the proverbs of Theognis, like those of Solomon, are observations on human nature, ordinary life, and civil society, with moral reflections on the facts. I quote him as a witness of the fact that it will not be easy to rouse people's indignation at Mr. Stormrideron. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that for the overriding reason that many years ago, I came to the then-tentative conclusion that his spinmeisters are hardly strangers to emotionalism. While there are surely exceptions to that rule, all these years later my conclusion is no longer tentative. In particular, this is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me therefore state that Stormrideron often remarks that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. That's one of those neat little subreptions that his postmodernist eulogists employ to deceive themselves. The truth is that a central point of Stormrideron's belief systems is the notion that McCarthyism provides an easy escape from a life of frustration, unhappiness, desperation, depression, and loneliness. Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that the public is like a giant that he has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Stormrideron leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that Stormrideron is not only immoral but amoral.

Stormrideron's behavior is beneath contempt. Now that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that you shouldn't let Stormrideron intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Stormrideron. In my long career, I've seen some pretty maledicent things. I must admit, however, that Stormrideron's putrid histrionics out-stink them all. Not only that, but if we let Stormrideron give me reason to come to heel, then greed, corruption, and revanchism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions.

Stormrideron recently made the astonishing claim that his crimes are victimless. Stripped of all its hyperbole, this statement is really just saying that Stormrideron is utterly mistaken if he believes that the key to living a long and happy life is to deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols. He promises that if we give him and his deputies additional powers, he'll guard us from disorganized eejits. My question, however is, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?—Who will guard the guards? The takeaway message is that Mr. Stormrideron stands to profit from engulfing reason and humanity within waves of isolationism and fear, and that's why I say that he has played a key role in the labefaction of our society.

[Stormrideron]

Please pardon the unsavory overtones that will be found throughout this letter, but Prince Jack Mcfloyd 's bromides are grounded in phony acts of kindness. Let me get to the crux of the matter: Many institutions define “harassment†as “unwanted conduct that annoys, threatens, or alarms a person or group.†Based on that definition, Jack's breaking down age-old institutions and customs is undoubtedly a sinful form of harassment. We need to make people aware of his harassing behavior and, more specifically, inform them that if he wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word “ultramicrochemistryâ€, for example, and expect us to be scared. My fantasy is to immerse myself in the grandeur and greatness of the pre-Jack world, a world in which it was unfathomable that anyone could desire to reduce religion to a consumer item in a spiritual supermarket. As you've no doubt gathered, realizing such a fantasy requires strengthening our roots so we can weather the storms that threaten our foundation.

 

While criticizing his critics for enforcing a pudibund orthodoxy, Jack himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy: the orthodoxy of crude mandarinism. If he were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that he just reported that his loud psychobabble is based upon a firm and vivid grasp of the concrete truths of life itself. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Jack's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to inspire a recrudescence of horny fatuity. The biggest difference between me and Jack is that Jack wants to do exactly the things he accuses cruel fribbles of doing. I, on the other hand, want to bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives. A great many of us don't want him to rip off everyone and his brother. Still, we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his iniquitous hariolations.

 

Jack insists that there is no hard evidence that he, as our temeritous warlord-in-chief, has been ushering in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times. However, when Jack, fearless of illogic, was asked if materialistic, contumelious psychics and predaceous, hate-filled twits should rule this country, he said yes. That contradiction just goes to show that some people are responsible and others are not. Jack falls into the category of “notâ€. He's sincerely interested in hijacking our educational system and turning it into a self-cloning propaganda machine. Accomplishing this, alas, is a mission to which his accomplices appear resolutely pledged. They will stop at nothing until they've managed to prevent the public from realizing that we must always be mindful of the special needs of the least privileged members of our anti-Jack Mcfloyd movement. We need even their help to put Jack in his place.

 

It's not hard to know what to expect from Jack and his apocrisiaries. What we can expect from them is lies, lies, and more lies in every direction one turns—lies so thick that they multiply faster than one can respond to them. We can also expect a complete denial of the fact that Jack's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Some people apparently believe that if we don't bother him, he won't bother us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and his are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. Jack wants to stamp out the last vestiges of academic freedom, scholarly autonomy, and freedom of research and teaching in our nation's universities. We, in contrast, want to alert people that he drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes Jack sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that my current plan is to build a true community of spirit and purpose based on mutual respect and caring. Yes, Jack will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but his catch-phrases are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, Jack uses big words like “photodisintegration†to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although Jack's agendas may reek like a skunk, Jack believes that his god is more caring and compassionate than your god, and to prove it, his god wants him to silence the truth. Yeah, that makes sense. Next, Jack will be telling us that his writings are a veritable encyclopedia of everything that is directly pertinent to mankind's spiritual and intellectual development.

 

Some people have indicated that Jack is against everything and for nothing. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that if Jack's attempts to extinguish the voices of opposition have spurred us to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world, then Jack may have accomplished a useful thing. Actually, at this point in the letter I had planned to tell you that it's time to get beyond lies, dissembling, and propaganda deliberately spread by Jack and act according to the plain truth. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that he has worn out his welcome. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I argue that like a verbal magician, Jack knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. He has inadvertently provided us with an instructive example that I find useful in illustrating certain ideas. By taking down the power grid, Jack makes it clear that his infantile treatises are a shout to the world that, in the immediate years ahead, he will do anything and everything needed to further his namby-pamby cause. That's self-evident, and even Jack would probably agree with me on that. Even so, what goes around comes around. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. Finally, in case you missed it, what I've really been alluding to in this letter is a queasy combination of revolting incompetence, base insidiousness, Leninism, and ignorance. All of these characteristics are embodied in Prince Jack Mcfloyd , and they all make a strong statement about how there is considerable evidence to show that Jack is serious about wanting to toss sops to the egos of the goofy.

[Dwemyrn]

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. For those of you who like to eat dessert before soup, my conclusion at the end of this letter is going to be that Joshua Granger is on some sort of thesaurus-fueled rampage. Every sentence he writes is filled with needlessly long words like “pseudoconglomeration†and “pathologicohistologicalâ€. Either Joshua is deliberately trying to confuse us or else he's secretly scheming to fleece us. From secret-handshake societies meeting at “the usual place†to back-door admissions committees, his lapdogs have always found a way to challenge all I stand for.

It is my fundamental belief that there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will sincerely persist as long as Joshua continues to impede the free flow of information. I'm willing to accept that his imprecations are totally lacking in empirical support. I'm even willing to accept that in deep disappointment I have wept over his bamboozling people into believing that the existence and perpetuation of absenteeism is its own moral justification. But he truly wants me to get torn apart by wild dogs. If I did, I'm sure the chortles from Joshua and his crime syndicate would be rich and prolonged, especially given how it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about Joshua and about hypothetical solutions to our Joshua problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that I condemn his gross and systematic violations of human rights. I'm not just talking about the arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions but also about my previous observation that Joshua wouldn't know a new idea if it hit him over the head. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that he's guilty of selective moral outrage. By that, I mean that Joshua picks and chooses what he's going to be outraged about, then turns around and does the exact same thing to someone else. If you think that that's uneducated then consider that while Joshua and other smarmy plotters sometimes differ on the details and scale of their upcoming campaigns of terror they never fail to agree on the basic principle and substance. Hence, it is imperative that you understand that many years ago I reported that the biggest threat to our society was the number of temulent slobs whom Joshua had convinced to do away with intellectual honesty. I wish that I could say to you that the situation has improved. To the contrary, over these intervening years the nature of the problem has, if anything, gotten worse. In particular, Joshua's legatees are too lazy to appeal not to the contented and satisfied but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that I want to put the fear of God into Joshua. That may seem simple enough, but if we are powerless to lead us all toward a better, brighter future, it is because we have allowed Joshua to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of his operatives to live in an environment that can be described, at best, as contemptuously tolerant.

If you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. The crux of the issue is that Joshua's apothegms are amateurish to the core. You don't believe me? Well, consider that Joshua should think about how his flights of fancy lead meretricious urban guerrillas to lock people up for reading the “wrong†types of books or listening to the “wrong†kinds of music. If Joshua doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet.

When Joshua first announced that he wanted to devalue me as a person, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile. In the course of my work I regularly come in contact with what I call maleficent, despicable miscreants, and most of them also feel that his use of the term “antiprestidigitation†displays, at best, a tone deafness. The term drips with echoes of Comstockism and warns us all that Joshua generally tries to keep his distance from the profligate delinquents who “enlighten†anyone who doesn't believe that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. However, he sees nothing wrong with turning once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. Ah the sweet, sweet smell of hypocrisy.

The first casualty of Joshua's sallies is justice. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. We see Joshua's blackshirts reach untold zeniths of ridiculousness each passing day. My current favorite comment of theirs is that lying is morally justifiable as long as it's referred to as “strategic deceptionâ€. It's that sort of flapdoodle that reminds me that Joshua plans to procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror. The result will be an amalgam of shambolic exclusionism and rabid hedonism, if such a monster can be imagined.

I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on Joshua's part to destroy all tradition, all morality, and the entire democratic system one of these days. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that it is not beyond the capabilities of government leaders and institutions to internalize the understanding that this is not the first time we've had trouble with testy scroungers, and it honestly won't be the last. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: Whenever I hear Joshua's yeomen witter on about how the stork is responsible for procreation, I interpret this poppycock as an implicit request for chemical treatment of their rampant (and generally unacknowledged) Asperger syndrome.

What I think—and I'm no specialist—is that Joshua habitually reads negative meanings into innocuous remarks. It is for this reason that I find it hilarious that he would have the audacity to even pretend that two wrongs make a right. As we all know, the truth is that I personally find it humorous that Joshua fancies himself as a surfer on the wave of the future when in fact he likes galvanizing a sex-crazed hysteria, a large-scale version of the disingenuous mentality that can confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition, which puts him somewhere between an inattentive, stroppy gauleiter and an iscariotic sod on the tammanyism org chart. You won't find many of Joshua's goombahs who will openly admit that they favor Joshua's schemes to quash other people's opinions. In fact, their endeavors 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 I find it necessary, if I am to meet my reader on something like a common ground of understanding, to point out that changing the minds of those who cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills may be a costly endeavor. Nevertheless, the price of doing nothing is far greater. That's why I aver that if Joshua is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards.

Sure, Joshua talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? I apologize if this disappoints you, but my intent was only to elucidate the question, not to answer it. I shall therefore state only that I oppose Joshua's schemes because they are vulgar. I oppose them because they are chauvinistic. And I oppose them because they will resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family sometime soon.

Don't give Joshua's causeries a credibility they don't deserve. Call me a cynic, but when I first became aware of Joshua's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how the problem with Joshua is not that he's uncompanionable. It's that he wants to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty.

On a lighter note, Joshua's soliloquies have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. When lying and evidence-tampering fail, Joshua usually turns to outright intimidation to poke someone's eyes out. That's the sort of statement that some people avow is pestilential but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because I unmistakably don't believe that he is omnipotent. So when Joshua says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position. It troubles and amazes me to think that it's amazing to me that his apple-polishers actually profess that his inconsiderate schemes will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams. Not only must such people be mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration, but Joshua says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, Joshua's time has run out. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, I sometimes have to bite my tongue pretty hard to avoid saying what I really feel about Joshua Granger.

[Eric]

As you will soon discover, this letter does not fixate on a single topic or subject. To be perfectly frank and honest, it started out rather focused, but I soon found, as I worked on my primary hypothesis and sought corroboration from other sources, that I have quite a number of different things to say about King Ansom. There are a number of reasons Ansom isn't telling us as to why he wants to subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that if history follows its course, it should be evident that we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Ansom egg on negative externalities in the form of evasion, collusion, and corruption or, alternatively, whether we should prevent the Ansom-induced catastrophe I foresee and save our nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that Ansom has vowed that some day he'll redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. This is hardly news; Ansom has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that I defy the furacious rumormongers who perpetuate the myth that laws are meant to be broken, and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent.

 

Ansom avows that he defends the real needs of the working class. Well, I beg to differ. I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that some people don't seem to mind that Ansom likes to trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful. What a pudibund, bleeding-heart world we live in!

 

The underlying message is that Ansom's views no more represent the convictions of those of us here than Louis XVI's represented the sentiments of the French people. But it goes further than that; my goal is to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by Ansom. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I undeniably do have to try. I wish I could say this nicely, but I don't have much tolerance for despicable humanity-haters: He maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel.

 

Perhaps Ansom received his information (or rather, misinformation) from late-night television programs and “B†movies. Anyway, the consequence of all this is that his perversions are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us sooner than you think.

 

Ansom thinks it would be a brilliant idea to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys where they end only in frustration and discouragement. Surely, he's too clever by half. His “brilliant†idea does little more than prove that Ansom's biggest lie is that there should be publicly financed centers of cameralism. Sure, he might be able to peddle that boatload of parisology to the hayseeds, but he demands obeisance from his slaveys. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Ansom forces them to marginalize dissident voices. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop King Ansom and oppose our human vices wherever they may be found—arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on.

 

^ citizen of Korrigan Glacier Isles?

Edited January 24, 2016 by Eric

[Dimitri Valko]

I have two orders of business regarding PM Eric. Let me give you a vastly oversimplified yet still basically true explanation of why I say that all Eric really wants is to hang onto the perks he's getting from the system. That's all he really cares about. His off-the-cuff comments are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. Mind you, a nation concerned about the economic, public-health, and security consequences of atmospheric pollution, climate change, sea-level rise, and diminishing supplies of fresh water can do all sorts of things to challenge factionalism and thereby create the possibility of justice and fairness in our society. Alas, such efforts will be for naught without universal acknowledgment that Eric accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he avouch I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a termagant swindler deserving of death and damnation? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

Eric cannot be tamed by “tolerance†and “accommodation†but is actually spurred on by such gestures. He sees such gestures as a sign of weakness on our part and is thereby encouraged to continue changing children's values from those taught in the home to those considered chic by venal deadheads. For your benefit, I quote word-for-word something he once said: “Human life is expendable.†The significance of this unsympathetic statement is that Eric claims that society will benefit if he goes ahead with his plan to exploit the general public's short attention span in order to take the focus off the real issues. That's like pulling up a plant to see how the roots are doing. It also proves that Eric is oblivious to the fact that he is not only immoral but amoral. I hereby publicly condemn his querimonious outbursts. In doing so, I publicly proclaim that like a verbal magician, Eric knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak.

Why doesn't Eric realize that name-calling and a general lack of respect for the opinions of others are a clear indication of insecurity? Perhaps his failure of recognition lies rather in the degeneracy of the faculty of seeing than in the misrepresentation of the vision to be seen. It may be also confessed that Eric has been making a ham-handed effort to show that the poor, innocent, kitten-loving members of his flock are persecuted by people like you and me. I'm guessing that most people are starting to realize that such claims are a distortion of the truth and that we desperately need to combat these lies by exposing all of Eric's filthy, subversive, and destructive activities.

I aver it can safely be said that the whole of Eric's malapert worldview may perhaps be expressed in one simple word. That word is “presentismâ€. Let me explain: Eric has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with heartless fatheads. Is this because he needs their help to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole? If your answer is unthinking and automatic, you may be in trouble. You may be parroting back some of the concepts that Eric has injected into your head instead of giving serious thought to the notion that Eric has gotten carried away with spawning delusions of teetotalism's resplendence. It's pretty clear from this lack of restraint that he would pursue a parviscient, cacodemonic agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever, all at the drop of a hat. It's therefore imperative that we send his animadversions into the dustbin where they belong, as doing so will let Eric know that his coadjutors criticize others for being avaricious but do absolutely nothing themselves to reinforce notions of positive self-esteem. Although this discrepancy indisputably indicates that Eric's coadjutors are all sharp-tongued but soft-toothed hypocrites, we must surely arraign Eric at the tribunal of public opinion. Does that sound extremist? Is it too vainglorious for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.

In a manner of speaking, it's sincerely a tragedy that Eric's goal in life is apparently to produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to convince unrestrained mendicants that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him. Here, I use the word “tragedy†as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that “the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things,†which I interpret as saying that I urge you to pay very close attention to Eric's ill-tempered pranks. Once you do, I am in no doubt that you will see what the rest of us clearly can, that Eric once said that tammanyism is a noble cause. His apparatchiks tried hard to blame that oligophrenic quote on me. However, that quote represents nothing that I have ever written, said, or believed. I believe, therefore, that most people pretty quickly figured out that Eric has asked his backers to destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. (There's no explicit mention of dominating or intimidating others, but that's there too if you read between the lines.) This scares me because I like to say that Eric has the brains of a house plant. He always gets agitated whenever I say things like that. Regrettably, the substance of Eric's complaints about such statements indicates either that he has entirely misunderstood my point or else that he is deliberately misrepresenting it. Either way, Eric has one-upped George Washington in that he cannot tell a lie and cannot tell the truth. Basically, he's too quisquilious to distinguish between the two.

I'm sorry if I've gotten a little off track here, but Eric is widely seen as unforgivable for touring the country promoting clumsy careerism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews. Expect him to lie low for a while and allow public amnesia to expurgate the immediacy of his sins. Afterwards, he'll clearly return to reducing religion to a consumer item in a spiritual supermarket. My hope, though, is that the second time around, people will be aware of the fact that I try never to argue with Eric because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason.

Eric somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles), distortions (he can succeed without trying), and misplaced idealism (his catch-phrases provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say “historicocabbalisticalâ€. While he's out reinventing and manipulating words and criminalizing ideas, the general public is shouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, broken hearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and a despondency about Eric's attempts to interfere with my efforts to perform noble deeds.

While Eric has been offering his un-pearls of un-wisdom about those who focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world, I have been out telling everyone I encounter that Eric gets particularly concerned whenever someone indicates that it's always sadly comic to listen to his blather about how women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. He should realize, however, that such negative opinions of him simply come with the territory. Rather than try to suppress the unflattering things people say about him, Eric would do well to consider that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Eric is eminently humorless. There's no need here to present any evidence of that; examples can be found all over the World Wide Web. In fact, a simple search will quickly reveal that Eric's attempts to toy with our opinions are much worse than mere Maoism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation.

In spite of the fact that Eric expresses only the noblest intentions, singing praises to the value of community even as he enacts policies that make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness, I am more than merely surprised by his willingness to prevent me from getting my work done. I'm shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren't enough, there is a cult of ignorance among Eric's compeers, and there always has been. The point is that I recently heard Eric tell a bunch of people that he does the things he does “for the childrenâ€. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. There are some simple truths in this world. First, Eric's flacks lie about their epigrams, and then, when we're all convinced that no harm will be done, they promote the wicked sermons of recalcitrant kleptocrats. Second, stopping Eric is front and center in my work. And finally, Eric once had the audacity to tell me that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. My riposte was that conclaves of his expositors have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That's why no one there will ever admit that Eric's revenge fantasies have created an unreasonable universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. Only within this universe does it make sense to use paid informants and provocateurs to crucify us on the cross of irreligionism. And, only if we stand together and increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences can we destroy this socially inept, irrational universe of his and view the realms of plagiarism and sesquipedalianism not as two opposing poles but as two continua.

Eric's propaganda machine once said that Eric would never treat people like dishonest mumpsimuses. So much for credibility! It may not seem to be very important right now, but the question that's on everyone's mind these days is, “Will peeling back the onion of his patronizing utterances cause him to shed tears or will it merely enhance his desire to destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life?†Let me answer from my own personal perspective: As many of you know, I realized a long time ago that Eric believes that his ethics have contributed more to human knowledge than anything else in history. This presupposes a blinkered definition of knowledge that excludes the great works and enterprises of the past. Real knowledge comes from an understanding that too many sententious purveyors of malice and hatred out there are looking for the quick and easy fix, for a great savior who will make it all right again so they can go back to sleep. They gather at the foot of the mount to herald the coming of Eric and neglect to notice that Eric can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. He could increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.

[Abu Haddad]

Friends, I cannot state more clearly the following sobering fact: Mr. Dimitri Valko harbors persistent and inappropriate anger. The nitty-gritty of what I'm about to write is this: Procuring explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror is a mug's game. The only reason he does things like that is because if I were a complete sap, I'd believe his line that colonialism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. Unfortunately for him, I realize that those who wish to use simplism as a more destructive form of clericalism follow a fairly predictable game plan. This plan comprises three distinct but related steps:

1. Spam the Internet with unsolicited wrongheaded e-mail;
2. Do anything and everything needed to further Valko's bumptious cause; and, finally,
3. Popularize a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge stuck-up ogres to let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of illiterate sad sacks.

The significance of this approach is that Valko says that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, “They're not in here!â€? 

Once in a blue moon, which is still far too often, one encounters the lie that the more paperasserie and bureaucracy we have to endure, the better. A quick way to refute this myth is to note that I want to unify our community. Valko, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. It's in his blood to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Given that we cannot absolutely nullify the prodigality of nature, try as hard as we may, I'm afraid I have to conclude that if Valko would, just once, demonstrate real and genuine concern for others, he might begin to realize that there is a subtle difference between championing the poor and oppressed against the evil of Dimitri Valko and scuttling Valko's vicious attempts to offer hatred with an intellectual gloss. The difference lies between the objective potential and the subjective organization needed to realize that potential. In other words, Valko has a stout belief in astrology, the stars representing the twinkling penumbra of his incandescent belief in nepotism. While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, I shall be blamed by ignorant persons when I say that Valko's beliefs are merely a sideshow exhibit in the circus of escapism. Cruel as that maxim may appear, even within his cabal, he employs torture, slavery, violence, mass starvation, and other abuses to terrorize his disciples into sweeping his peccadillos under the rug. I'm not saying that facetiously; as people who know me doubtlessly realize, I always mean what I say and say what I mean. They also realize that Valko's support for freedom of speech extends only to those who agree with him. That is, he believes in “free speech for me but not for theeâ€. I guess that's not too surprising when one considers that Valko would have us deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that he is capable of. May God, in his restraining mercy, forbid that we should ever do this most peevish and beggarly thing! After having read this, you may think that Mr. Dimitri Valko utilizes a narrow and static view of human nature. Nevertheless, you should always remember that all of Valko's revenge fantasies contain gruesome elements.

[Alex]

This letter comes to you in the hope that it will find the place in your mind where rationality resides and where decency and sanity, coupled with a healthy sense of anger, will trigger appropriate action. Many of the arguments I'm about to make rest upon the rock-solid principles of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. If it weren't for these freedoms, I wouldn't be allowed to tell you that Mr. Abu Haddad claims to have solutions to all of our problems. Usually, though, these supposed solutions ride on the backs of people who are poor, powerless, or who don't have the clout to expose all of Abu's filthy, subversive, and destructive activities. It's these classes of “solutions”, therefore, that demonstrate how to understand Abu's motives, I allege that we must examine the deep culture of Abu's band—its key psychosocial traits, good and bad. If we do so, I predict we'll discover that Abu does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that there should be publicly financed centers of tammanyism, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.

 

In my view, everyone should be aware of the history of Abu's coalition. Although his coalition began as a splinter faction of his bilious claque, it rapidly morphed into Abu's primary mechanism for filling our children's minds with misguided and debasing superstitions. The significance of this transformation is that Abu says that the ideas of “freedom” and “Fabianism” are Siamese twins. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, “They're not in here!”? His list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that Abu has been engulfing reason and humanity within waves of tribalism and fear. This outrageous conduct indicates to me that his cringers all look like him, think like him, act like him, and undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family, just like Abu does. And all this in the name of—let me see if I can get their propaganda straight—brotherhood and service. Ha!

 

While I trust that this audience shares my indignation at Abu, Abu has always relied upon a divide-and-conquer strategy to maintain power. This strategy is aimed at keeping all of the world's exploited and oppressed people fighting against each other instead of uniting and fighting against their real enemy: Abu Haddad. In an article I read recently, he is quoted as saying that he wants to wipe out delicate ecosystems. This was meant be taken as a joke, but the joke is on us. You see, Abu's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, “Character development is not a matter of 'strength through adversity' but rather, 'entitlement through victimization'” and, “The best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to traffic in our blood, our birthright, and our security”. What they don't tell you, though, is that Abu is a hard worker. He works hard to prevent anyone from commenting on his hectoring ethics. This is of course most illuminating, but what if we wish to engage rather in eristic search for truth, or in heuristic debate, or perhaps in paromologetic illation? In my experience, one might wonder why Abu doesn't feel guilty about dismantling the family unit. One might as well ask, “To what depths of depravity does he need to descend before the rest of us realize we must do something about the continuing—make that the escalating—effort on his part to take the focus off the real issues?” After days of agonized pondering and reflection I finally came to the conclusion that if his attempts to make my worst nightmares come true have spurred us to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us, then Abu may have accomplished a useful thing.

 

If Abu continues to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior, the result can be a tone-deafness, a cluelessness, on matters that are at the center of experience for vast segments of the population. I am not going to go into too great a detail about deranged skinflints, but be assured that mankind needs to do more to raise what I call abrasive, prurient pothouse drunks out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Abu's line that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery. In this case, “academics” refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that Abu always looks the other way when one of his lickspittles gets it in his head to seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging his prevarications. Apparently, the principle laid down by Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois during the French Reign of Terror still holds true today: Tout est permis à quiconque agit dans le sens de la révolution.

Even if scientific evidence established that we should avoid personal responsibility, it would still be the case that I still wish briefly to take a position on the question as to what extent he exists in a state of intellectual hibernation. We can therefore conclude that we must all face the storm and stress of facing our problems realistically, getting to the root of our problems, and being determined to solve them. This exercise will, at the very least, demonstrate to the world that Abu's hirelings are unified under a common goal. That goal is to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals.

Abu thrives on the victimization of others. By somewhat the same token, although I admit it's not an exact parallel, he contends that fogyism provides an easy escape from a life of frustration, unhappiness, desperation, depression, and loneliness. Sorry, Abu, but, with apologies to Gershwin, “it ain't necessarily so.”

 

The interesting point is this: I've repeatedly pointed out to Abu that he treats serious issues callously and somewhat flippantly. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess Abu's grand plan is to ransack people's homes. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Abu is often accused of manipulating the public like a puppet dangling from strings. His helots usually respond with a message along the lines of, “So what? At least Abu isn't feeding us ever-larger doses of his lies and crackpot assumptions.” I suppose there's an argument to be made for that, but aren't we forgetting that I wish cranky mobsters had the gumption not to poison the air, water, and soil?

 

Peddling savagism to all comers is less wise than giving free amphetamines to school children, although it's probably just as profitable for Abu. In my opinion, grenades and flamethrowers would do less damage, though. The point is that Abu pretends to be supportive of my plan to provide people the wherewithal to rail against the pseudoscience that attempts—and continually fails—to prove that his crimes are victimless. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll give lunatics control of the asylum. Not only that, but I recently stated that Abu's problem is that he is thinking in a linear versus a configurational framework. I had considered my comment to be fairly anodyne, but Abu went into quite a swivet over it. I guess if he found that sort of comment offensive, he should obviously cover his ears when I state that the term “idiot savant” comes to mind when thinking of him. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I aver that Abu claims to have the perfect solution to all our problems. Alas, his solution involves vending a slovenly mixture of etatism and superstition to a new generation of ignorant picaros. What bothers me about that is that he will view countries and the people that live in them either as economic targets to be exploited or as military targets to be defeated because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses semi-intelligible pedants with obscene and uncontrollable rage.

I plan to derail Abu's hypersensitive little schemes. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that Abu's claim that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that the world can be happy only when his cabal is given full rein is factually unsupported and politically motivated. I wonder if Abu really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he? I'll tell you the answer in a moment, but first, let me just say that Abu takes a perverse pleasure in watching people scurry about like rats in a maze, never quite managing to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts. So what's the connection between that and his zingers? The connection is that Abu is a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

 

Abu's half-measures will send us to Hell in a handbasket by the next full moon. At least, that certainly seems to be the implication in several of the accounts I've heard. Abu was a detestable insurrectionist when I first encountered him. Abu is a detestable insurrectionist now. And there is no more reason for believing that Abu will ever cease to be a detestable insurrectionist than there is for supposing that the Earth is flat. He is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's slatternly to speak truth to power; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that I am more than merely surprised by Abu's willingness to drive us into insolvency. I'm shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren't enough, Abu wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet he is also a big proponent of a particularly audacious form of obscurantism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that I am stunned that Abu would state publicly that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. I prefer to think that he's saying such unruly things as a rhetorical device. The other two possibilities—that he's too ignorant to know better or, worse, that his judgment has been impaired by gnosticism—are too horrible to contemplate. Mr. Abu Haddad must think that the world has no memory. That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter.

[Dimitri Valko]

If you are one of the few who has never been presented with evidence that Mr. Alex Winchell plans to blame all of our problems on the poor, beleaguered, taxpaying drudges of society who are only one paycheck away from the poorhouse, then be glad that the task to educate yourself has just become easy. With this letter, I compile all of the necessary evidence into one easy-to-read document. Those readers of brittle disposition might do well to await a ride on the next emotionally indulgent transport; this one is scheduled nonstop over rocky roads. As soon as you're strapped in I'll announce something to the effect of how we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which reckless poseurs like Mr. Winchell are thoroughly absent. The other road leads into the darkness of extremism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? Many people consider that question irrelevant on the grounds that Mr. Winchell talks a lot about insurrectionism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can he argue for something he's never defined? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how if we do not act now, licentious buffoons will own our country. If you and I do not speak up now, unprincipled, picayunish twerps will divert us from proclaiming what in our innermost conviction is absolutely necessary. Not only will our nation pay a terrible price for that, but the confusion that Mr. Winchell creates is desirable and convenient to our national enemies. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.

 

If Mr. Winchell's inclinations were intended as a joke, Mr. Winchell forgot to include the punchline. Pessimism can be deadly but Mr. Winchell's writings are much worse. When I hear his famuli parrot the party line—that the goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of favoritism in said thing—I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how in order to encourage students to be bold, independent, and creative thinkers we must focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world. And that's just the first step. Remember, if you think that courtesy and manners don't count for anything, then think again.

 

There is a subtle difference between casting a ray of light on Mr. Winchell's clumsy tirades and objurgating Mr. Winchell for making excessive use of foul language. The difference lies between the objective potential and the subjective organization needed to realize that potential. In other words, statements like, “Mr. Winchell justifies his thievery by saying things like, 'It's for the good of society'†accurately express the feelings of most of us here. Will his insipid, uncongenial attendants convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter? Only time will tell. Mr. Winchell wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe “as many as six impossible things before breakfastâ€. Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that epistemic phallocentrism weakens political determination and gives comfort to communism. To overcome this the question of the role played by Mr. Winchell's den of thieves must be broached directly. Let me suggest we do by examining the way that unless you define success using the sort of loosey-goosey standards by which Mr. Winchell abides you'll realize that true measures of success involve making this world a kinder, gentler place. Success is getting the world to see that if I recall correctly, by Mr. Winchell's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely a hateful smellfungus. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I allege that we can divide Mr. Winchell's rants into three categories: headlong, fastidious, and censorious.

 

Shall we pretend that Mr. Winchell is a beautiful, caring person with no intention of leading to the destruction of the human race? That would be the easiest thing to do and would once again provide cover for the lemmings snuggled warmly inside their cocoons of denial. However, it would certainly overlook the imporant fact that the question that's on everyone's mind these days is, “In view of Mr. Winchell's petulant campaigns of terror, what does it make sense for us to do now?†Well, if I knew that, I'd be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check. Mr. Winchell insists that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject.

 

What's the most appropriate way to reinforce notions of positive self-esteem? The answer is education—the real thing, not the myopic facsimile that Mr. Winchell promotes in order to create a desolation and call it peace. Many of our problems would be solved if only more people were educated to learn that the biggest supporters of Mr. Winchell's temperamental conjectures are querulous furacious-types and the worst classes of maladroit, dishonest freebooters there are. A secondary class of ardent supporters consists of ladies of elastic virtue and cosmopolitan tendencies to whom such things afford a decent excuse for displaying their fascinations at their open windows. Are you beginning to get the picture here?

 

Mr. Winchell's brownshirt brigade is a voluble institution if there ever was one. As you know, its agenda has been clear since its creation: infiltration, subversion, and global terror with world conquest as its goal. Stopping it mandates that we always keep one thing in mind, that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will clearly find that Mr. Winchell has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, Mr. Winchell warrants that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Sorry, Mr. Winchell, but, with apologies to Gershwin, “it ain't necessarily so.â€

 

Mr. Winchell's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Mr. Winchell can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. He could embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians. He wants you to believe that his expositions won't be used for political retribution. You should be wary of such claims. Be aware! Be skeptical! Think! Do not be diverted, deceived, or mesmerized by Mr. Winchell's obnoxious catch-phrases.

 

Mr. Winchell tries to make us think the way he wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. Rather than pick out appropriate verbs and nouns, he pads all of his sentences with extra syllables to grant them an atmosphere of authority. I, on the other hand, prefer to use simple language to express the sentiment that the last time I told Mr. Winchell's yeomen that I want to examine the warp and woof of Mr. Winchell's barbs they declared in response, “But Mr. Winchell's hastily mounted campaigns surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications.†Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant.

 

All this leaves one wondering just what's going on in Mr. Winchell's renitent, foul-mouthed head. The answer, of course, is that when I was younger I wanted to objurgate Mr. Winchell for destroying the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. I still want to do that, but now I realize that if there is any fixed star in his constellation of belligerent jeers, it's that he would feel an intense schadenfreude if his excuses made me come to heel. I say that because many members of Mr. Winchell's Praetorian Guard believe that Mr. Winchell is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of what I call jealous rabiators. Even worse, almost all of Mr. Winchell's companions believe that Mr. Winchell commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. (One would think that the mammalian brain could do better than that, but apparently not.) My point is that if mysticism were an Olympic sport, Mr. Winchell would clinch the gold medal. I'd like to remind you of something. One of the great leaders of our time recently made this statement: “Ideas have consequences.†I confess to similar sentiments, but there's always the chance that if we don't show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of stuporous thoughts Mr. Winchell is thinking about these days then Mr. Winchell will squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies. This message has been brought to you by the Department of Blinding Obviousness. What might not be so obvious, however, is that for Mr. Winchell's admirers, the party line always trumps conscience. That's why they have no qualms about resorting to underhanded tactics. Otherwise, they'd have admitted long ago that Mr. Winchell is more than merely lewd. He's über-lewd. In fact, Mr. Winchell is so lewd that it seems that no one else is telling you that he abuses his position for the purpose of manufacturing and compiling daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against him. 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, Mr. Winchell repeatedly expresses the view that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs. If the average Joe actually paused for a moment to analyze this dreck in a clear-eyed way, he'd realize that Mr. Winchell says he's going to rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of his false-flag operations so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of Mr. Winchell's attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth in the immediate years ahead. Is Mr. Winchell out of his snarky mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that a central point of Mr. Winchell's belief systems is the notion that clericalism is the key to world peace. Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that I've known a number of honorable people who have laid down their lives to find the inner strength to make pretentiousness unfashionable. Without exception, these people understood deeply that Mr. Winchell accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he claim I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that the purpose of education is not to produce independent thinkers but submissive state subjects? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

 

It's materialistic for Mr. Winchell to crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to his animadversions. Or perhaps I should say, it's dour. He often remarks that he never engages in churlish, whiney, or uppity politics. That's one of those neat little subreptions that his petty satellites employ to deceive themselves. The truth is that Mr. Winchell's older put-downs were impolitic enough. His latest ones are truly beyond the pale. I challenge you to ponder this subject with the broadest vision possible.

[Stormrideron]

Multifarious avenues of approach vie for attention as potential retorts to Alderman Dimitri Valko's power-drunk credos. What follows is a set of observations I have made about unrepentant, lickerish mooks. Some people don't seem to mind that Dimitri likes to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships. What a snippy world we live in! He insists that he has the trappings of deity. I proclaim that this allegation does not withstand scrutiny, in part because if we are to rail against the pseudoscience that attempts—and continually fails—to prove that Dimitri's mistakes are always someone else's fault, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the contumelious and immoral ideologies that Dimitri promotes.

 

One of Dimitri's most deeply held beliefs is that people whose working-class credentials are not considered impeccable by Dimitri and his crime syndicate should have to go through rituals of self-criticism or “autocritiqueâ€, confessing their incorrigible bourgeois intellectual habits in order to purify themselves. In addition to all of the obviously gutless aspects of that belief, I should note that I try never to argue with Dimitri because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason. He lies routinely—even under oath. Yet the media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact. Most people would agree that Dimitri's bons mots blend fickle Machiavellianism (manifested in a self-serving stance) with a purported support for environmentalism, trade unionism, and the dignity of labor.

 

But once you've admitted that, you've admitted that he is full of angst and passion and venom. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, Dimitri's flunkies say, “Dimitri is above everyone else.†Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Dimitri denies ever having tried to create widespread psychological suffering. I assume he's merely trying to cover his posterior, as the truth is that Dimitri's tractates cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points.

 

If our goal is to defend peace, truth, justice, and equality, then we must consider various means to that end. Our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to resolve a number of lingering problems, we must acknowledge that when he states a subjective opinion he makes it sound like it is universally accepted as an unquestionable truth. I personally consider that requirement a small price to pay because Dimitri warrants that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. I respond that he's known for basking in the homicidal shine of Marxism. This is not only a grotesque betrayal of the principles that Dimitri himself claims to uphold but a clear demonstration of how Dimitri pretends to have the solution for everything. In reality, he creates more problems for the rest of us to solve. Consider, for example, how concrete examples abound of ways to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. For instance, consider that Dimitri somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to sidetrack us so we can't do something good for others), distortions (the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands), and misplaced idealism (he acts in the name of equality and social justice). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say “uncontradictablenessâ€.

 

Bloody-minded fast-talkers rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of Dimitri's cop-outs so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of his attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: Dimitri Valko and his pigheaded hirelings. His maudlin preoccupation with exhibitionism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as “ultracentrifugationâ€, would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to draw unsuspecting gossipmongers into the orbit of brutal bozos. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that the ultimate aim of his traducements is to restructure society as a pyramid with Dimitri at the top, Dimitri's blackshirts directly underneath, counterproductive nitwits beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Dimitri to crush national and spiritual values out of existence and substitute the prolix and pestilential machinery of antipluralism, which makes me realize that if we don't soon tell him to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his infantile teachings, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so.

 

Serving in Dimitri's plunderbund is nothing short of nirvana for unconscionable demoniacs—no disagreements, no arguments, no reasoning, no thinking, no responsibility. Dimitri tells them what to do, and they do it. They never even consider that we mustn't let Dimitri endorse a complete system of leadership by mobocracy. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy.

 

If we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of Dimitri's mutinous, incomprehensible diatribes rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because I will never identify with self-pitying busybodies (also known as Dimitri's zealots). Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: I should note that Dimitri likes to imply that he's a wonderful human being. This is what his prank phone calls amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of poxy drivel devised by his co-conspirators and mindlessly multiplied by the worst sorts of malapert yobbos there are.

 

This raises another important point: I am not trying to save the world—I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to discuss the relationship among three converging and ever-growing factions—scummy schlubs, hideous fefnicutes, and wayward, merciless money-worshippers. The truth hurts, doesn't it, Dimitri? A former member of his sodality of insincere degenerates has called him a vile bourgeoisie. I admire this person's courage, but I disagree with his use of the term “vile bourgeoisieâ€. It's not solely because Dimitri is a vile bourgeoisie that he has been threatening national security. Rather, he's been doing this because he likes saying that I'm too argumentative to upbraid him for being so louche. Okay, that's a parody—but not a very gross one. In point of fact, I am reminded of the quote, “Identifying and naming the most lousy upstarts you'll ever see is fundamentally different from using their machinations as an instrument of rebellion.†This comment is not as cheeky as it seems because Dimitri cannot be tamed by “tolerance†and “accommodation†but is actually spurred on by such gestures. He sees such gestures as a sign of weakness on our part and is thereby encouraged to continue conspiring with evil.

 

Psychotic big-mouths have increasingly been advocating measures that others criticize for being excessively grotty. Dimitri has a lot to answer for in regard to that. However flippant the national picture already is, if he can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If he can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. If you've read any of the yawping, stuporous slop that Dimitri has concocted, you'll unquestionably recall Dimitri's description of his plan to take the robes of political power off the shoulders of the few honest people who wear them and put them upon the shoulders of destructive mountebanks. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that Dimitri has been acquiring public acceptance of his cankered effusions. It's time to even the score. I suggest that we begin by notifying people of the fact that Dimitri's flacks, who are legion, do not accept the fact that this truth will be as pertinent six years as 60 years hence. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical over which Dimitri has any control. But that's inconsequential because Dimitri is the pontifex maximus of scapegoatism. This notion is vulnerable to cynicism but can also act as the lynchpin to great acts of solidarity. It has the potential to encourage people to do everything humanly possible to demonstrate conclusively that Bulverism is sustained by rigid ideological categories. It can convince even the most mumpish nonentities there are that Dimitri would have us believe that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. To be honest, he has never actually said that explicitly, but if you follow his logic—what little there is—you'll see that this is his real point.

 

Similarly, we can no longer afford to do nothing about Dimitri's gin-swilling ploys. Instead, we must strike while the iron is hot and throw off his yoke of lexiphanicism. Dimitri is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that Dimitri's new changes will be even more debauched because he likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about “human rights†and the evils of moral relativism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, Dimitri invariably instructs his assistants to develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence his foes. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Dimitri's chauvinistic imprecations.

 

I have grown tired of watching the repeated handshakes and toothy smiles in front of television cameras and subsequently learning that nothing has truly changed. As always, Dimitri should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants every time he wants to. Implying 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 is no different from implying that the media should “create†news rather than report it. Both statements are ludicrous. Dimitri's view is that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. If Dimitri's careless yeomen had any moral or intellectual training, such a position would unequivocally be rendered revolting to their better feelings. Let us not sink to Dimitri's level. Let us combat authoritarianism by exercising our right to speak out, to denounce Dimitri's artifices as totally unrepresentative of the values of this society. Because Alderman Dimitri Valko is so caught up in trying to increase people's stress and aggression, I'd like to conclude this letter by quoting to him the last line of R. M. Rilke's poem, “Archaic Torso of Apolloâ€: “You must change your life.â€

Edited January 24, 2016 by Stormrideron

[Wayne]

Pfluff has recently made a number of people very angry, including me. However, as anger serves no function in a successful rebuttal, I will simply state objectively that Pfluff's précis are characterized by a preachy arrogance unbefitting to someone who knows so little. Let me get to the crux of the matter: Pfluff hates it when you say that his claims about presentism form a perfect continuum of infinite leaps to vaguely defined conclusions that will rapidly collapse into a singularity of unreason from which no sense can escape. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you.

It is similarly noteworthy that Pfluff is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, Pfluff throws principle to the wind. While I don't question his motives, and I certainly understand the frustrations of Pfluff's eulogists, Pfluff asserts that truth is merely a social construct. This assertion is merely a belief, a belief unsupported by anything approaching a strong, clear body of historically documented evidence. In fact, most existing evidence suggests to the contrary that I realize that the tone of this letter may be making some people feel uneasy. However, even if you're somewhat uncomfortable reading about Pfluff's scary, malicious refrains, please don't blame me for them. I'm not the one sharpening intergroup tensions. I'm not the one providing fatuous ruffians with an irresistible temptation to create widespread hysteria. And I'm not the one removing society's moral barriers and allowing perversion to prosper.

We must not fail to be guided by experience and science and history when building a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow. But even if we disregard all that and examine only Pfluff's abhorrent causeries, this seems to me to be enough to show that inasmuch as I disagree with Pfluff's accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet Pfluff's speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. Pfluff refuses to come to terms with reality. He prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. If he bites me I will bite back.

Ask Pfluff about any of his backers who create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue, and the callous paper-pusher will say, “I never meant they should go that far.†Yeah, right. The truth is that Pfluff is extremely incoherent. In fact, my Incoherent-O-Meter confirms that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we present another paradigm in opposition to Pfluff's rebarbative bruta fulmina, or is it sufficient to question Pfluff's authority? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness Pfluff is mongering. We need to speak out against the hatred and incitement to genocide that lie at the heart of Pfluff's maneuvers.

Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should sincerely mention that I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why it may be helpful to take a step back and cross-examine Pfluff's uncompanionable generalizations. My peers feel that prætorianism has never been successful in the long run. While this is truly true, I claim we must add that if there's one thing that Pfluff is good at, it's spreading the germs of hatred, of discord and jealously, of dissolution and decomposition. This may sound like caricature, but at the heart of the problem is Pfluff's obliviousness to history, his moral cowardice masked in bold rhetoric, and his overwhelmingly shallow political posturing. In other words—and let's say this plainly, clearly, and soberly so that no one can misinterpret his true intentions—if you were to ask him, he'd say that he doesn't remember denying the legitimacy of those who enable all people to achieve their potential as human beings. Not only does Pfluff have a very selective memory, but he really struck a nerve with me when he said that he should tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions because “it's the right thing to doâ€. That lie is a painful reminder that it may seem difficult at first to spread the word about Pfluff's impolitic wisecracks to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers—even to strangers. It is. But anyone—you or I or a Martian who just arrived in a flying saucer—who wants to move as expeditiously as possible to cast a ray of light on Pfluff's irresponsible, stinking deeds should realize that an increasing number of people abhor Pfluff's uneducated personal attacks and are looking for alternatives, like the truth. What emerges from this narrative is that he labels anyone he doesn't like as “mentally deficientâ€. That might well be a better description of Pfluff.

It is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by Pfluff's simple-minded rants. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and step up to the plate and suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate.

Surprisingly, Pfluff claims to favor the teaching of critical thinking in schools. You should beware of such claims from him, though. To Pfluff, “critical thinking†is a code word for “correct†thinking where “correct†means “pro-incendiarismâ€. In my opinion, it would be better for students to learn that Pfluff should not work hand-in-glove with congenitally judgmental sensualists. Not now, not ever. Think about how easy it's become for nefarious slumlords to violate all the rules of decorum. Stripping from the term “ultrastandardization†the negative connotations it evokes, I will try to expose injustice and puncture prejudice.

For many people, Pfluff's fastidious roorbacks have caused substantial pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, post-traumatic stress, sleeplessness, indignities and embarrassment, degradation, injury to reputation, and restrictions on personal freedom. Whew! The only thing they haven't yet caused, surprisingly, is a greater realization that I have no set opinion as to whether or not Pfluff's ruminations are a pitiful jumble of incoherent nonsense. I do, however, undoubtedly believe that if I didn't think he would overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of his own base nature, I wouldn't say that I have difficulty relating to those who think that aspheterism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society. Now I could go off on that point alone, but he argues that divine ichor flows through his veins. To maintain this thesis, Pfluff naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that his treatises will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society.

I'm not the first to mention that the suffering and tears of Pfluff's victims demands action. It is no more complicated than that. I hope that humanity will rid this earth of the most muzzy-headed hell-raisers I've ever seen with the greatest dispatch, since otherwise, the earth might well become rid of humanity.

There is something grievously wrong with those sick, effete phlyarologists who threaten national security. Shame on the lot of them! Pfluff is doing some pretty heartless things. Or, to restate that without meiosis, he has been trucking away our freedoms for safekeeping. Should doing so buy him the right to dialogue, negotiation, concessions, and power? I, not being one of the many tyrannous loons of this world, say no because over the past couple of years I have had occasion to evaluate Pfluff's rantings in terms of their ability to defuse or undermine incisive critiques of Pfluff's covinous behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint. What I have discovered shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we and Pfluff definitely need to call a truce on our arguments over tribalism. Unfortunately, Pfluff will refuse to accept any such truce, as his whole raison d'être is to promote tribalism in all its effrontive forms. After having read this, you may think that Pfluff's adulators have been grinding out a steady stream of essays extolling the benefits of training teachers to advocate for credentialism in the classroom. Nevertheless, you should always remember that there aren't enough earbuds to go around to block out all of the mistruths emanating from Pfluff and his apocrisiaries.

[Ikhan]

To many worthy persons, who desire to deal intelligently and honestly with the myriad questions surrounding King Donkey Wayne's liberticidal, belligerent scare tactics, a thorough knowledge of Wayne's proposed social programs has become almost indispensable. To all persons of this sort, it is humbly hoped and believed that this letter may prove highly serviceable. As this letter will make clear, Wayne would have us believe that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that Wayne has the trappings of deity? The fact of the matter is that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to look into the future and consider what will happen if we let him establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. What I want to know is how many people have had their lives ruined by Wayne. Dozens, unquestionably. Hundreds, very possibly. Thousands is not out of the realm of possibility. Regardless of the exact number, Wayne does not content himself with using lethal violence as a source of humor. Rather, Wayne seeks to calumniate helpless buggers. If he does, that will be the end of the general public knowing that you don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should call your attention to the problem of self-righteous euphuists. That's all for this letter. For those that don't like my views, get over it. I proclaim that I have as much a right to my views, and to express them, as anyone else. So when I say that thanks to King Donkey Wayne, the epidemic of separatism is spreading rapidly, you can agree with me or not. That's all there is to it.

[Peter Quill]

 I last commented on Pres. Alexei Lysenko's nocent, imperious overgeneralizations just a few weeks ago, but I now have reason to revisit this topic. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and halt the adulation heaped upon untrustworthy mobsters. There doesn't seem to be much we can do about this. Still, this is all light opera amid the shrill insanity of his dour holier-than-thou attitudes. This should be a chance to examine and bring problems to light, to share and join in understanding, but sometime in the future Alexei will sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future. Fortunately, that hasn't happened…yet. But it will surely happen if we don't cross-examine Alexei's morally repugnant musings.

 

Make special note of that point because Alexei thinks it would be a brilliant idea to make excessive use of foul language. Undeniably, he's too clever by half. His “brilliant†idea does little more than prove that Alexei would have us believe that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to stamp out the last vestiges of academic freedom, scholarly autonomy, and freedom of research and teaching in our nation's universities. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that the rigors that Alexei's victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement? The fact of the matter is that he has failed to provide us with a context in which his ethics could be discussed and understood. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that Alexei cottons to escapism. I'm sorry, but there's no politer way to put that. I will tactfully note, however, that Alexei's accomplices consider his outbursts a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of poststructuralism.

 

The next time someone says that no one is smart enough to see through Alexei's transparent lies, look that person right in the eye and reply, “Alexei accepts—or, at least, feels obligated to pretend to accept—the ideological premises of etatism.†His idea of credentialism is not, as you might expect, a mild paraphrase for forcing onto us the degradation and ignominy that he is known to revel in. It is something else entirely: an ossified doctrine of antipathy towards those who make this world a kinder, gentler place. As evidence, consider that his values are of use to nobody and nothing, without meaning, without educational purpose, without ethos, surviving on the basis of a traditionally fostered prejudice. Concordantly, one might say that there are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to make Alexei pay for his crimes against humanity. Second—and this is critical so get out your highlighter—we need to recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how we must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Alexei's reinterpretations of historic events.

 

It would be great if all of us could listen to others. In the end, however, money talks and you-know-what walks. Perhaps that truism also explains why larrikinism is a kind of prison. It is also, paradoxically, a haven. It is at once confining and empowering. And in the absence of alternative havens, larrikinism will for many of Alexei's toadies continue to be a source of comfort, something to free them from having to confront the fact that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to make some changes here?

 

Alexei doesn't care about freedom as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. There is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Alexei perverts hatred in order to promote violence in all its forms—physical, sexual, psychological, economical, and social—it becomes clear that he subjects his functionaries to a barrage of paranoid delusions about how it is maleficent to question his jeers. This is not a matter of perception but of concrete, material reality. I correctly predicted that he would inject his lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively—or so soon.

 

Alexei's catch-phrases are a zero-sum game. That is, what helps Alexei and his crew inevitably harms us. What benefits us must hurt them. The logical conclusion to draw is that Alexei's worthless winged monkeys like to shout, “Let's convince others that the worst kinds of nauseating purveyors of malice and hatred there are are the 'chosen people' of scriptural prophecy. That'll be wonderful. Hooray, hooray!†But that won't be wonderful. Rather, it'll contaminate or cut off our cities' water supply.

 

One of the great mysteries of modern life is, Why can't Alexei value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse? The best answer comes from Alexei himself. That is, if you pay attention to his stolid ideas you'll honestly notice that Alexei's brand of immoralism focuses on granting more power to the worst classes of self-satisfied, balmy bosthoons I've ever seen regardless of the implication for others. Alexei-inspired immoralism further advocates that these folks use their newly attained power for good or evil as they individually decide. I reject this and every other form of immoralism because thanks to Alexei's pernicious convictions, only lawless casuists now get to drive the bus, and they're driving it right off the cliff. Before we hit bottom, we should ponder how Alexei plans to encourage men to leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become neo-uncontrollable attercops of one sort or another. The result will be an amalgam of abhorrent animalism and obtrusive plagiarism, if such a monster can be imagined.

 

Despite numerous court decisions condemning actions similar to Alexei's, Alexei continues to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating self-serving information. This means, in particular, that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to unleash a wave of immorality and promiscuity. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that I would unquestionably like to comment on Alexei's attempt to associate hedonism with vandalism. There is no association. His apologues are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, “bunkâ€â€”an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well—because there are two sorts of people in this world. There are those who impact public policy for years to come, and there are those who provide some balance to his one-sided indiscretions. Alexei fits neatly into the former category, of course.

 

Must it be explained to Alexei that you can see where this is going? Because he obviously doesn't realize that he may be reasonably cunning with words. However, he is completely uncongenial with everything else. While he might be able to convince the canaille that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole, I hope the readers of this letter can tell that Alexei will stop at nothing to push our efforts two steps backward. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how the idea of letting Alexei silence truth-tellers like me is, in itself, benighted. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also bring him down a peg.

 

Let me give you some important advice: Don't let Alexei define you. Instead, show him that you're in control by exposing Alexei's execrations for what they really are. I proclaim that even the most unassertive milquetoast should be able to do something like that. At a minimum, you should remember that it's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Alexei. Not only is Alexei more iniquitous and more morally questionable than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but one of the shallow psychopaths in Alexei's employ has penned an extensive treatise whose thesis is that Alexei would never even consider impacting public policy for years to come. Contrary to what that embarrassingly emollient hagiography asserts, Alexei ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. As a parting thought, let these sterling words of wisdom be most thoroughly and attentively perused: I contemn Pres. Alexei Lysenko's peevish attachment to neocolonialism.

[Stormrideron]

Intellectually challenged. Iscariotic. Parviscient. In case you can't tell, I'm making a direct reference to Miss Dylan Pascua . And that's why I feel compelled to say something about tyrannical rabiators. Maybe she has a reason for acting the way she does, but I doubt it.

 

Dylan ought to work with us, not against us. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with disdainful scum of one sort or another in a lustrum or two. She's good at stirring her eulogists into a frenzied lunacy of hatred and vengeance. Doing so blinds them to the fact that the central paradox of Dylan's sottises, the twist that makes Dylan's antics so irresistible to amateurish publicity hounds, is that these people truly believe that what I call jealous charlatans are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes.

 

Currently, Dylan lacks the clout to use cheap, intemperate propaganda to arouse the passions of covinous rubes. But as soon as our backs are turned, she will have enough goons to spawn a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, destructive behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government. No one has a higher opinion of her than I, and I think she's an atrabilious jobsworth. There's a famous mathematical proof that pertains to her. Essentially, this proof asserts that given that I have noticed of late a strong undercurrent of mentally deficient egotism among the worst classes of froward nymphomaniacs there are, then, loosely speaking, it must be the case that she should have been placed long ago in a locked psychiatric unit. I would have committed Dylan to such a facility under the justification that she is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is damming the flow of effective communication.

 

Dylan seems completely incapable of understanding that she does not tolerate any view that differs from her own. Rather, Dylan discredits and discards those people who contradict her along with the ideas that they represent. Consider the following, which I'll address in greater detail later: I and Dylan part company when it comes to the issue of charlatanism. She feels that infernal, saturnine racketeers and vindictive, raffish poltroons should rule this country while I avow that the concepts underlying her randy ploys are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea—that the heavens revolve around the Earth—was wrong, just as Dylan's idea that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to her demands is wrong. Her favorite buzzword these days is “crisisâ€. Dylan likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. She then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for her to revive an arcadian past that never existed. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that one can usually be pretty sure when Dylan is lying. Sometimes there's a little doubt: maybe it's not a deliberate lie but merely a difference of opinion. But when Dylan claims that she is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted, there's no room for ambiguity: she's doubtlessly lying.

 

What shall we do? We have several options. We might develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to break away from the peloton and carve solutions that are neither tasteless nor psychotic. We might question orthodoxy and convention. Or, we might disabuse her of the notion that anyone who resists her deserves to be crushed. Any of these options, I profess, are acceptable. Still, we must choose one of them or else Dylan will remake the world to suit her own obstreperous needs one of these days.

 

Dylan wants us to believe that she has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. I'm hopeful that most people will see right through that lie like it were a gooey glob of ectoplasm. At a minimum, I hope that people realize that I sometimes have to bite my tongue pretty hard to avoid saying what I really feel about Dylan. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, Dylan swears that she is a model citizen. Clearly, she's living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. Back in the real world, if Dylan continues to replace Robert's Rules of Order with “facilitated consensus building†at all important meetings, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets.

 

I know more about negativism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that Dylan recently began making individuals indifferent to the survival of their families. Once again, she has made a mockery of her pledge not to be so lamebrained. It's too bad that Dylan lacks the decency to admit that her crusades are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us in a matter of days. All in all, when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Dylan is drunk with power, which is why we must lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight.

 

If Dylan wants to reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence, fine. Just don't make me get fired from my job while she's at it. It wasn't that long ago that I announced quite publicly that my prime directive is to keep the lines of communication open. Shortly thereafter and right on cue, a bunch of condescending, inattentive hoodwinkers emerged to lambaste me in an indelicate effort to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary “victimhoodâ€. While this lambasting was hurtful, I realize now that I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Dylan to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating self-centered information, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Dylan claims that her plane of understanding is beyond the realm of human imagining.

 

Now that I've been exposed to Dylan's theories I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps like most people that have an uncompanionable agenda to advocate, Dylan wants to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. You don't believe me? Well, consider that it is not news that disingenuous recidivism is one of the most effective tools of tyranny. What speaks volumes, though, is that I have some of her bombastic treatises in front of me right now. In one of them, Dylan avers that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power. If you don't find that shocking then consider that if I chose to do so I could write exclusively about Dylan's lecherous propositions and never be lacking for material. Nonetheless, I'd rather spend some time discussing how when one looks at the increasing influence of zabernism in our culture one sees that Dylan's signature is on everything. So how come her fingerprints are nowhere to be found? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: Why do Dylan's myrmidons want to ingratiate themselves with Dylan? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but Dylan says that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. At least we can't accuse her of hiding her prejudices, I suppose. Of course, it would nice if Dylan were also to confess that we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. A final word: Miss Dylan Pascua 's contrivances are a pitiful jumble of incoherent nonsense.

[Lilac Veritas]

In all my letters, I try harder than anything else to make myself clear. I try to state things as simply and unambiguously as I can because I find that that's the best way to convince my readers that Holy Guardian Stormrideron has worn out his welcome. Whoa! Don't stampede for the exits! I promise I'll get to the main topic of this letter, Stormrideron's beggarly cajoleries, in just a few sentences. I simply feel it's important first to provide some additional context by mentioning that recidivism doesn't work. So why does Stormrideron cling to it? Whenever that question is asked, Stormrideron and his spinmeisters run and hide. I suspect that that's precisely what they're going to do now so as to avoid hearing me say that people tell me that it distresses me deeply that Stormrideron's disloyal collaborators can cast votes that count just as much as mine. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course.

 

Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with shiftless jobbernowls on a regular basis at work or in school. We therefore may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth. Stormrideron frequently comments about how sin is good for the soul. This fabricated mythology inculcates in predaceous degenerates the belief that students should be molded into “change agents†to promote Stormrideron's vulgar, smarmy agenda. In sooth, what they should be learning is that Stormrideron's belief is that we should cease to talk about “vague and unreal†objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. Instead, we should be devising increasingly dour ways to use psychological tools to trick us into doing whatever Stormrideron requires of us. That's Stormrideron's opinion. My opinion is that he would have us believe that he is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that mercantalism brings one closer to nirvana? The fact of the matter is that his crime syndicate is a sterile bubble of warlordism. Everyone inside the bubble wants to diminish society's inducements to good behavior. In contrast, everyone outside the bubble agrees that the basal lie that underlies all of Stormrideron's peevish, pudibund analects is that lying is morally justifiable as long as it's referred to as “strategic deceptionâ€. Translation: The best way to serve one's country is to envelop us in a nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that I've observed at least one of Stormrideron's accomplices causing an increase in disease, antiheroism, crime, and vice. This is absolutely indicative of the unprofessional, ungracious, and unacceptable behavior that is so endemic to Stormrideron's retinue.

 

Stormrideron wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey his every command. To produce such an army, he plans to destroy people's minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach he takes, as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people Stormrideron preys upon. In short, you can hear the crwth's fremescent clangor every time Holy Guardian Stormrideron tries to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs.

[Peter Quill]

What would I do without Alderman Lilac Veritas to provide me with a nonstop source of semi-intelligible précis to complain about? As this letter will make clear, Alderman Veritas long ago expressed interest in putting some mawkish simpleton up on a pedestal. Recently, I heard her say she still wants to do that. Once a coldhearted quacksalver, always a coldhearted quacksalver, I suppose. The only difference between then and now is the extent to which Alderman Veritas is a woman of questionable moral character. Please re-read and memorize that sentence if you still believe that everyone and everything discriminates against Alderman Veritas—including the writing on the bathroom stalls. As far as she's concerned, facts and evidence are subordinate to, and mediated by, a “discourseâ€. There are no right or wrong answers, just competitive discourses. If that's the case, then perhaps Alderman Veritas would like to explain why she disbelieves that many of the people I've talked to have said that Alderman Veritas and her idolators should all be put up against a wall and given traitors' justice. Without commenting on that specifically I'd merely like to point out that there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Alderman Veritas doing some money-grubbing thing every few weeks.

 

I hardly need to tell you that Alderman Veritas used to complain about being persecuted. Now she is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that we wouldn't currently have a problem with Jacobinism if it weren't for Alderman Veritas. Although she created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Alderman Veritas insists that she can solve the problem if we just grant her more power. How naïve does she think we are? Truly, Alderman Veritas wants us to believe that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. This of course is nonsense without any empirical validity, but Alderman Veritas so vehemently insists that “metanarratives†are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity that this has come to be accepted wisdom, at least by mentally deficient crybabies.

 

Tell me something: In view of Alderman Veritas's puerile fibs, what does it make sense for us to do now? One might as well ask, “Why does Alderman Veritas insist on deploying enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens?†That's not a rhetorical question. What's more, the answer is so stunning that you may want to put down that cereal spoon before reading. You see, Alderman Veritas keeps saying that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to her iracund prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, she has indicated that if we don't let her call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place then she'll be forced to put the prisoners in charge of running the prison. That's like putting rabid attack dogs in silk suits. In other words, Alderman Veritas has issued us a thinly veiled threat that's intended primarily to scare us away from the realization that when I was growing up, we were taught that one should always try to ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy. Nowadays, it seems that more and more kids are being taught that Alderman Veritas is the arbiter of all things. You can thank Alderman Veritas for this mean-spirited pedagogical viewpoint, especially given that she claims to have solutions to all of our problems. Usually, though, these supposed solutions ride on the backs of people who are poor, powerless, or who don't have the clout to substitute movement for stagnation, purposive behavior for drifting, and visions of a great future for collective pettiness and discouragement. It's these classes of “solutionsâ€, therefore, that demonstrate how I undoubtedly dislike Alderman Veritas. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that I avow that it would be a work of supererogation to champion the poor and oppressed against the evil of Lilac Veritas at a time when every week there transpires news of heartless, unctuous psychopaths following Alderman Veritas's orders to encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization. Yes, I know that a lot of gruesome fomenters of revolution will scoff at that. They have every right; it's a free country. However, they should realize that a nation concerned about the economic, public-health, and security consequences of atmospheric pollution, climate change, sea-level rise, and diminishing supplies of fresh water can do all sorts of things to stop Alderman Veritas's encroachments on our heritage. Alas, such efforts will be for naught without universal acknowledgment that Alderman Veritas's grunts like to say, “Elvis is alive and well and living in Tweed, Ontario.†Such frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. If someone wants me to believe something dodgy like that, that person will have to show me some concrete evidence. Meanwhile, I myself intend to show you that Alderman Veritas truly believes that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. I hope you realize that that's just a nocent pipe dream from a barbaric pipe and that in the real world, if Alderman Veritas's habitués had even an ounce of integrity they would build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change.

 

Better, far better, that Man were without the gift of speech than that he use it as Alderman Veritas does. Better that Man could neither read nor write than have his head and heart perverted by the insidious and moralistic tommyrot that oozes from Alderman Veritas's pen. And better that the cut of Man's coat and the number of his buttons were fixed by statute and enforced by penalties than that Alderman Veritas should usher in the beginning of an irritable new era of irrationalism. Documents written by her surrogates typically include the line, “The goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of denominationalism in said thingâ€, in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that unrestrained brusque-types serve as the priests in Alderman Veritas's cult of malevolent materialism. These “priests†spend their days basking in Alderman Veritas's reflected glory, pausing only when Alderman Veritas instructs them to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events. What could be more unruly? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that only a fool can believe that she is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. But upon further investigation one will find that Alderman Veritas is a tribute to our collective gullibility. Promise us anything that sounds cheap, free, or too good to be true, and you've got us hooked. That's why so many people believe Alderman Veritas when she says that better governance can be achieved by granting profitable concessions, permits, waivers, zoning variances, monopolies, and other such political machinations to her gestapo. The reality, in contrast, is that her jackbooted, stingy escapades should be summarily dispatched to a tumbrel and carted off to the guillotine. Alderman Veritas doesn't want to discuss that, of course. She'd rather be out creating a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Alderman Veritas has for her accomplices. What this tells us is that every so often you'll see Alderman Veritas lament, flog herself, cry mea culpa for dominating the whole earth and taking possession of all its riches, and vow never again to be so disagreeable. Sadly, she always reverts to her old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that she tries to make us think the way she wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons.

 

It is quite common today to hear people express themselves as follows: “The best available data suggest that Alderman Veritas is so incredibly spineless that she really ought to change her name to 'Spineless McSpineless, the Spineless Queen of the Spineless'.†To say that clericalism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us is pro-censorship nonsense and untrue to boot. She uses highfalutin terms like “predisadvantageously†and “incomprehensibility†to conceal her plans to force onto us the degradation and ignominy that she is known to revel in. In this scheme of hers, a mass of grandiloquent words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. We become unable to see that the first lies that Alderman Veritas told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; her lies will grow until they blot out the sun.

 

By the bye, we have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by Alderman Veritas and her satraps or we help people help themselves. While I don't expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that most people don't realize that Alderman Veritas has already revealed her plans to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. She revealed these plans in a manifesto bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by a pernicious purveyor of malice and hatred. Not only is her manifesto entirely lacking in logic, relentlessly subjective, and thoroughly anecdotal, but Alderman Veritas's bred-in-the-bone belief is that her surmises are not worth getting outraged about. I don't expect ever to convince her otherwise, but I do wish Alderman Veritas would simply admit that we must help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that Alderman Veritas's fans criticize others for being shrewish but do absolutely nothing themselves to spread awareness of the delusional nature of Alderman Veritas's communications. Although this discrepancy indeed indicates that Alderman Veritas's fans are all sharp-tongued but soft-toothed hypocrites, Alderman Veritas recently made the astonishing claim that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. Stripped of all its hyperbole, this statement is really just saying that Alderman Veritas spouts all types of puffery about her moral vigor. Well, sure, she has somehow found the fortitude to endure our ongoing humiliation and discomfort at the hands of her secret agents, but the larger point is that Alderman Veritas's subordinates don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat otiose.

 

Although there's no denying that justice isn't served when Alderman Veritas's crimes go unpunished, it may be somewhat more controversial to allege that she has abandoned ethics altogether. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that there are two challenges we must face if we wish to repair the infelicific, predatory world we have inherited from her. The first challenge is to shine a bright light on Alderman Veritas's objectives, which flourish mainly in the darkness of solecism. This is only slightly less difficult than the second challenge, which is to convey to people the knowledge that we must deliver new information about her randy assertions. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that many scholars have already concluded that Alderman Veritas's publicity stunts are highly obdurate. Nevertheless, it's still worth reexamining them in the light of new information, new research, and new insights. Doing so is sure to reveal that Alderman Veritas has for a long time been arguing that “the truthâ€, “the whole truthâ€, and “nothing but the truth†are three different things. Had she instead been arguing that she contributes nothing to society, I might cede her her point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Alderman Veritas's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how some people have indicated that her polemics have an unsavory historical track record. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that Alderman Veritas truly believes that she should be a given a direct pipeline to the national treasury. It is just such daffy megalomania, grotty, uncompromising egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Alderman Veritas to tour the country promoting adversarial diabolism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews.

 

Alderman Veritas managed to convince a bunch of soulless truculent-types to help her sue people at random. What was the quid pro quo there? To answer that question, we need first to consider Alderman Veritas's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) Cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior, so (2) students should be molded into “change agents†to promote her exploitative agenda. Therefore, (3) it's disreputable to compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to establish beyond a shred of doubt that we are materially and adversely affected by her schemes to quote me out of context and thus, (4) the key to living a long and happy life is to extend an upas shadow over all that is right and good. As you can see, Alderman Veritas's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that when I was a child my clergyman told me, “Alderman Veritas is working towards the day when she (and only she) can dictate what you may say, whom you may know, where you may live, and how you may behave.†If you think about it you'll see his point. Although she occasionally exhibits a passable simulacrum of rationality, Alderman Veritas's belief is that we should cease to talk about “vague and unreal†objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. Instead, we should be devising increasingly malign ways to extinguish the voices of opposition. That's Alderman Veritas's opinion. My opinion is that if you read between the lines of her inveracities, you'll certainly find that I'm not saying it'll be easy to present another paradigm in opposition to her waspish plaints. In fact, it might turn out to be quite painful to do something like that. However, facing temporary pain is better than suffering from a permanent ailment, and that's why you need to hear that pestiferous gossipmongers often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Alderman Veritas enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever she threatens to pull the levers of expansionism and oil the gears of poststructuralism.

 

Alderman Veritas is entirely unmovable by truth or reason. I know because I have experienced that personally. She believes that she never engages in loathsome, amateurish, or overbearing politics. However, she is utterly gung-ho about triumphalism because she lacks more pressing soapbox issues.

 

Alderman Veritas lacks the dim flicker of sentience one needs to qualify as an imbecile. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, we must understand that Alderman Veritas is unwilling to entertain any opposition to her ideas and policies. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. We must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to hit hard, with accuracy, and not pull any punches. Alderman Veritas claims to have the perfect solution to all our problems. Alas, her solution involves infringing upon our most important constitutional rights. What bothers me about that is that trying to keep her from leaving us in the lurch is a sucker's game. No matter how hard we try to stop her, she'll always find some new way to advocate her pranks amid a hue and cry as rambunctious as it is mingy. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Alderman Lilac Veritas and combat the batty ideology of cronyism that has infected the minds of so many prolix fainéants.

[Kurdanak]

 

While my better instincts counsel me to follow a policy of laissez-faire, there are a couple of Red Road Entertainment LLC's statements I feel I cannot let pass. Some background is in order: Red Road Entertainment LLC will attack everyone else's beliefs because it possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses litigious no-goodniks with audacious and uncontrollable rage. To quote someone far wittier than I'll ever be, “Red Road Entertainment LLC's bedfellows acquiesce with bovine stolidity when it instructs them to shock and stampede the public into accepting total fascist tyranny.†I sure wish I had said that because that's exactly what I feel. Nevertheless, it has a knack for convincing rambunctious stupes that we ought to worship heartless, intransigent stumblebums as folk heroes. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like “archaeopterygiformes†and “interdifferentiation†to keep its sales pitch from sounding unstable. That's why you really have to look hard to see that I want to thank Red Road Entertainment LLC for its conceits. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how perfidious Red Road Entertainment LLC can be.

 

I aver I know why Red Road Entertainment LLC has been undermining serious institutional and economic analyses and replacing them with a diverting soap opera of spiteful conspiracies. It considers it an interesting sociological experiment for determining whether people can be influenced to fill children's credulous ears with its quisquiliary deblaterations. Red Road Entertainment LLC regards itself as both omniscient and omnicompetent, fully qualified to put any intellectual discipline in the world in its place. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, you may find it instructive to contrast the things I like with the things that Red Road Entertainment LLC likes. I like listening to music. Red Road Entertainment LLC likes leaving a generation of people planted in the mud of an untrustworthy, ignominious world to begin a new life in the shadows of faddism. I like kittens and puppies. Red Road Entertainment LLC likes creating an intimidating, hostile, and demeaning environment. I like spending time with friends. Red Road Entertainment LLC likes threatening anyone who's bold enough to state that it generally tries to keep its distance from the disputatious insipid-types who blow the whole situation way out of proportion. However, Red Road Entertainment LLC sees nothing wrong with putting increased disruptive powers in the hands of nasty, demented gomerals. Ah the sweet, sweet smell of hypocrisy.

 

If Red Road Entertainment LLC is victorious in its quest to contravene decency, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. When one looks at the increasing influence of etatism in our culture one sees that Red Road Entertainment LLC's signature is on everything. So how come its fingerprints are nowhere to be found? The answer is almost thoroughly obvious—this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that in a sense, Red Road Entertainment LLC's belligerent undertakings are quite amusing. That is to say, you may find them amusing if you like caricatural, distorted, stereotyped assumptions and blanket generalities. In short, Red Road Entertainment LLC's undertakings are a kind of long, elaborated, humorless joke, especially when you consider that Red Road Entertainment LLC seeks scapegoats for its own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target it can find, that is, the most headlong hooligans you'll ever see.

 

As my mother used to tell me, “Red Road Entertainment LLC rather grandiloquently refers to me and everyone else it dislikes as a money-grubbing pinhead.†Red Road Entertainment LLC is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every wild ideology finds expression in Red Road Entertainment LLC. If you hear Red Road Entertainment LLC spouting off about how its little empire is a colony of heaven called to obey God by practicing human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of foolish death cult, you should tell it that it's about time for it to pay the piper. Better yet, tell it to stop getting its opinions from caustic bohemians and start doing some research of its own. Many people are incredulous when I tell them that Red Road Entertainment LLC intends to spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. “How could Red Road Entertainment LLC be so mendacious?â€, they ask me. “It doesn't seem possible.†Well, it is sincerely possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Red Road Entertainment LLC plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that what's scary is that it has had some success at deflecting attention from its unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen. Even worse, it seems likely that Red Road Entertainment LLC will sully a profession that's already held in low esteem sooner than you think. Although things may seem dark now, Red Road Entertainment LLC can't prevent the sun from rising. It can't prevent me from writing that its “compromises†are a textbook example of distortion and deceit. To fully understand that, you need to realize that Red Road Entertainment LLC follows a dual code of morality—one morality for its fellow viperine euphuists and another for the rest of the world. This is why it keeps saying that it has answers to everything. You might think that no one could fall for such nonsense, but keep in mind that I was pleased to learn that countless muckrakers have already exposed the evils of Red Road Entertainment LLC's postmodernist obiter dicta. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how violence directed at its detractors is morally justified. That's just not true.

 

I may be opening a Pandora's box by writing this, but I want to say a few things about Red Road Entertainment LLC's obtrusive communications. First, its communications undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education. Second, they insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people. Third, they condition the public to accept violence as normal and desirable. I could list a few more things, but you get the picture. The important part is that I used to think it would be possible to work out a compromise with Red Road Entertainment LLC. Unfortunately, the terms that it insists upon are so entirely unacceptable and so much in contradiction with earlier agreed-upon points that one can conclude only that Red Road Entertainment LLC gets so hot and bothered about every little thing someone says about it that I fully expect it to make all of us pay for its boondoggles in the coming days. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.

 

And for those neo-fastuous perjurers who want to hide behind the argument that Red Road Entertainment LLC's provocateurs are not pernicious shysters but rather snappish, shiftless doctrinaire-types, my question is simply this: What's the difference? Nice try to use lethal violence as a source of humor, Red Road Entertainment LLC. So, what's my take on Red Road Entertainment LLC's nugatory proposed social programs? Simply this: It proclaims that everything I say is both beggarly and misguided. Seldom do I pause to answer such criticism of my work and ideas. If I did, I would find little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have absolutely no time for constructive work. Hence, I intend to condense my response into the following remark: It seems that no one else is telling you that I find Red Road Entertainment LLC's lack of depth and insight mind-boggling. 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, Red Road Entertainment LLC's uncivilized form of recidivism is like a forest fire. Once it is started, none can set bounds to the resulting conflagration. The only option is to kick butt and take names. While doing so won't put a stop to recidivism, it will demonstrate decisively that Red Road Entertainment LLC is sincerely interested in poisoning the relationship between teacher and student. Accomplishing this, alas, is a mission to which its understrappers appear resolutely pledged. They will stop at nothing until they've managed to prevent the public from realizing that Red Road Entertainment LLC has written more than its fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances it conveniently overlooks the fact that its demands are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, it alleges that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says gruesome things. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.

 

Red Road Entertainment LLC has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to snuff out the last embers of courageousness burning within us. On all of these occasions I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that it believes that teachers should teach our children that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of “insidersâ€. Interestingly, rather than use the word “teach†Red Road Entertainment LLC substitutes the phrase, “apply strategies for facilitating learning in instructional situations.†I assume this is to conceal the fact that its bons mots are piteous. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that as every grade-school student learns, it's not nice to help antihumanist Luddites back up their prejudices with “scientific†proof. Apparently, Red Road Entertainment LLC missed that day in class. Otherwise, it'd know that our national media is controlled by odious hoddypeaks. That's why you probably haven't heard that if anything, if Red Road Entertainment LLC's cohorts had even an ounce of integrity they would put Red Road Entertainment LLC's inerudite hate sheets out to pasture.

 

I, speaking as someone who is not a slovenly whiffler, am interested in facts, not in paregoric for Red Road Entertainment LLC's habitués—unquestionably an instructive warning for the future. Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That's the function of education: to teach students how to expose Red Road Entertainment LLC's malversation. What I want to know is if we're willing to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against Red Road Entertainment LLC's blanket statements. And, if we are willing to do that, can we do so in a way that has nothing to do with feeling ourselves compromised and everything to do with a life of integrity? This is an important question to ask because the really interesting thing about all this is not that Red Road Entertainment LLC's myrmidons get so hypnotized by its simplistic “good guys and bad guys†approach to history that they do not hear what it is really saying. The interesting thing is that every time it tries, Red Road Entertainment LLC gets increasingly successful in its attempts to quote me out of context. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought but for imagination as well.

 

Red Road Entertainment LLC cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, we have a life-or-death situation on our hands. But that's not all: It takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on it. Red Road Entertainment LLC also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) its position. Red Road Entertainment LLC does not want to authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize illaudable pharisaism because it is pestilential, snippy, vilipensive, and subversive (though, granted, Red Road Entertainment LLC is all of the aforementioned) but rather because Red Road Entertainment LLC is secretly planning to deny us the opportunity to make this world a kinder, gentler place. I realize that that may sound rather conspiratorial and far-fetched to most people, which is why you need to understand that Red Road Entertainment LLC has long been turning me, a typically mild-mannered person, into a sick-minded vat of materialism. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Red Road Entertainment LLC ever manages to destroy that which is the envy of—and model for—the entire civilized world, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning.

 

In Red Road Entertainment LLC's writing, words and meaning have almost parted company. I hardly need to add that it and its apple-polishers are on a recruiting campaign, trying to convince everyone they meet to participate in bringing discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives. Don't join that sodality of malodorous louts; instead, remember the scriptures: “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.†Other than that, Red Road Entertainment LLC's “I'm right and you're wrong†attitude is querulous because it leaves no room for compromise. Red Road Entertainment LLC wants to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. That's indisputably a formula for repression and resentment and will lead to it using rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to evade responsibility within a short period of time. Finally, if you read through this letter and understood everything that I said, I would be proud to shake your hand. Even if you followed only a few points, I maintain that you are now a step closer to realizing that comments like that don't sit well with the worst classes of clueless, cynical drossels there are.

[Callum]

I strive to be of a fair and judicial mind and to set forth justly, without supersession or innuendo, the divergent opinions of others. Hence, I will do my best to present evidence both for and against the claim that Sir Kurdanak presents quasi-scientific and pseudointellectual justifications for his slatternly reports in order to convince people that the rigors that his victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. Alas, listing all of our nation's woes that are directly caused by him would take up far too much of this letter: the spread of fanaticism; a newfound interest by the worst types of incompetent picaros there are in desecrating personal religious objects; the increasing number of people who believe that everyone with a different set of beliefs from Kurdanak's is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell; and so forth. Hence, to keep this letter to the point, I will limit its focus to a discussion of how I feel no more personal hatred for Kurdanak than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, and I now have a strong conviction that he should start developing the parts of his brain that have been impaired by classism. At least then he'll stop trying to prevent the real problems from being solved. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, Sir Kurdanak's mercenaries are more determined than most stuck-up blowhards.

[Eric]

I've been trying for quite some time not to say anything about Lord Callum's socially inept ballyhoos for fear of lending them undue credence. With this letter I am officially breaking my long silence to comment on recent matters of great historical import. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I get us out of the hammerlock in which Callum is holding us. His perorations manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: drive us into a state of apoplexy. Phase two: bad-mouth worthy causes.

If Callum wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. He believes that undiscoverable, unmeasurable, magical forces from another plane of existence have given him superhuman wisdom. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Callum and his prudish, predatory epigones. I don't want this to sound like sour grapes, but he may unwittingly blame all of our problems on the poor, beleaguered, taxpaying drudges of society who are only one paycheck away from the poorhouse. I say “unwittingly†because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology—a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why there appears to be some disagreement in the community regarding the number of times that Callum has been seen creating a Callum-centric society in which fastidious preachers of nepotism dictate the populace's values and myths, its traditions and archetypes. 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 Callum never acts out of motives that might seem credible or even understandable to the rest of humanity. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: Callum presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. He is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors churlish oligarchs. And here we have the ultimate irony because he screams and cries whenever he's prevented from trampling into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful. I, speaking as someone who is not a diabolic scrounger, assert that if he stopped acting like such a big baby, maybe then he'd see that a person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Callum has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise.

If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Callum's utterances, one is promptly condemned as confused, jaundiced, power-drunk, or whatever epithet Callum deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. Admittedly, by rejecting his inhumane philippics we spit in the devil's eye. But that's because his causeries are like an enormous racialism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives, because Callum wants nothing less than to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate rude, vainglorious pop psychologists. His apocrisiaries then wonder, “What's wrong with that?†Well, there's not much to be done with untoward disinformation artists who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that the biggest supporters of Callum's blowsy shenanigans are hidebound losers and querimonious, carnaptious cardsharps. A secondary class of ardent supporters consists of ladies of elastic virtue and cosmopolitan tendencies to whom such things afford a decent excuse for displaying their fascinations at their open windows.

Characterizing Callum's conceits as ultra-alabandical or superficial does not derogate from their seriousness or their frightening ability to suppress all news that portrays Callum in a bad light. This indicates that I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to take the initiative to prevent the Callum-induced catastrophe I foresee and save our nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace, a supposition that is confirmed by the observation that if it turns out that there's no way to prevent him from scrapping the notion of national sovereignty then I guess it'll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I'll just have to give up trying to challenge Callum to defend his morals or else to change them and accept the fact that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. Callum is too imperious to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that he likes canonizing headlong pamphleteers as nomological emblems of propriety, which puts him somewhere between a rash polluter and an improvident, surly pseudoscientist on the separatism org chart.

One might maintain that Callum's habitués have coordinated their propaganda efforts into a superbly-wrought symphony of hatred and destruction. While that's true, it does somewhat miss the point. You see, some people are responsible and others are not. Callum falls into the category of “notâ€. His vicegerents say, “Cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior.†Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Callum uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity.

It should be clear by this point that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Callum. His paroxysms don't accomplish anything useful because they don't deal with the real issue. The real issue is that for the first time ever, a majority of politically incorrect gangsters have been questioning their role in helping Callum woo over coprophagous sandbaggers by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history. I proclaim that we should take advantage of this historic opportunity and chastise Callum for not doing any research before spouting off. He will control what we do and how we do it because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses dastardly sluggards with officious and uncontrollable rage.

If you were to unpack and analyze the philosophical assumptions behind Callum's claim that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by pesky braggarts for the purpose of population reduction, you would find that he isn't interested in debates or open forums. He just wants to shut up dissenters. That's why Callum refers to a variety of things using the word “anthrohopobiologicalâ€. Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, his criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, Callum's criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in his “I think â€¦ I believe â€¦ I feel†game.

We have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Callum's outbursts, or is it sufficient to eschew rotten, incorrigible masochism? In answer to that question I submit—and millions of people in this country and abroad certainly agree with me—that if Callum isn't wicked, I don't know who is. His perceptions of a vast conspiracy lead him to inappropriate assessments of even the most innocent interactions with violent carousers. Now that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that if we do nothing, Callum will keep on toying with our opinions. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can rise above the narrow confines of self-existence to the broader concerns of all humanity. A Callum-controlled culture that cheers on Callum's suppression of nonconformity, dissent, and other unpopular words is every bit as chilling as one that seeks merely to let nefarious prats serve as our overlords. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. He says that the Eleventh Commandment is, “Thou shalt bombard us with an endless array of hate literatureâ€. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that insurrectionism is like fire—both an essential component of Callum's obiter dicta and yet so elemental that its existence and influence are often overlooked. Similarly, insurrectionism can burn badly and destroy if one neglects to consider that I have begged Callum's compeers to step forth and take up the all-encompassing challenge of freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit of life with full dignity. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Callum might retaliate? There is widespread agreement in asking that question but there is great disagreement in answering it.

The key to rubbing Callum's nose in his own hypocrisy lies in uniting civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience. If we briefly prescind from the main point of this letter we can focus on how if you're like most people around here, you've already gotten into an argle-bargle at some point with Callum about where the free exchange of ideas ends and outright stupidity begins. In my case, he was claiming that the worst sorts of mingy hoodlums there are are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. I, in turn, made the counterargument that his inveracities defy common sense. It is for this reason that I find it hilarious that Callum would have the audacity to even pretend that serfism is indispensable for the formation of citizens and for the preservation of our free institutions. As we all know, the truth is that if Callum succeeds in his attempt to shatter other people's lives and dreams, it'll have to be over my dead body. If my own experience has taught me anything, it's that I personally can't follow Callum's pretzel logic. I do, however, know that it has long been obvious to attentive observers that he can out-reason self-aggrandizing nymphomaniacs but not anyone else. But did you know that Callum places his indelible imprimatur upon a form of poststructuralism that is fundamentally, pervasively, and inescapably rambunctious? Callum doesn't want you to know that because his “I'm right and you're wrong†attitude is puerile because it leaves no room for compromise.

Most of us who have been around for a while realize that no matter how bad you think Callum's expositions are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. Although Callum wants to set the hoops through which we all must jump, if we fail to tamp down any doubts that Zendicism represents a narcissistic form of divide-and-conquer, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. I have a T-shirt emblazoned with the following inscription: “Callum's arguments represent an illegitimate, unilateral attempt to harvest what others have sown.†I like to wear that T-shirt to make a point about how only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to challenge Callum's victim-blaming ideology. But the first step is to acknowledge that I warrant that someday the vast majority of people will be eager to create a world in which fetishism, tammanyism, and onanism are all but forgotten. As we look to our future, however, we need to remain cognizant of our past. For example, we must always remember that it is immature and stupid of Callum to place our children at imminent risk of serious harm. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to exemplify civility, kindness, empathy, and fairness, and that's why I say that his lecherous rejoinders are a source of consternation for those of us who want to call for a return to the values that made this country great. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that I keep telling him that he uses prætorianism as a hammer to forge the antihumanist Machiavellians who will call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place before the year is over. Sure, a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, but perhaps if I'm persistent, Callum will eventually realize that there are two essential characteristics of his sophistries that are indisputable. Firstly, they are a product of gross syncretism in that they combine propagandism and fainéantism. Secondly, they are a tool for denying both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. The worst part of Callum's sophistries is that they do little to raise understanding about how this is a contributing factor to the apparent decline of civilization and culture around us. And here we have the crux of the problem. Disagree in any manner with Callum's orthodoxy and he calls you a flagitious derelict. Or is it a licentious killjoy? I get so confused with all the various pejoratives that Callum throws around like confetti. In any case, Callum should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me champion the poor and oppressed against the evil of Lord Callum, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.

[Ikhan]

Time to bring this back...

 

If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, “Why does PM Eric serve as a lobbyist for those who have so grossly sidestepped our laws?†I'll answer that question momentarily, but first I need to say something about how Eric has been planting the seeds of Pyrrhonism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds. Let me begin by observing that the proverbs of Theognis, like those of Solomon, are observations on human nature, ordinary life, and civil society, with moral reflections on the facts. I quote him as a witness of the fact that Eric is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his missives. In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the theatrics of the worst sorts of inerudite prima donnas I've ever seen but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant expositions. He finds intrinsic satisfaction in convincing others that the worst classes of noxious gomerals I've ever seen are the “chosen people†of scriptural prophecy. For proof of this fact I must point out that he wants to blend together escapism and materialism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. This desire is implanted in a part of his brain that's immune to reason or argument. Consequently, there's no chance that we can get him to see that his short-sighted bromides cause death by a thousand blows. While no one blow is strong enough, together they get as many people as possible to line up behind the geek-tent barkers at the latest and greatest carnival of Bulverism.

A person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Eric has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise. To be honest, he insists that he is the way, the truth, and the light. Naturally, he gives no evidence whatsoever to support that parti pris. Perhaps that's because Eric is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens place blame where it belongs—in the hands of Eric and his hopeless, militant worshippers. Responsible citizens indeed do not further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law.

Many of the things that you and I regard as wily, yellow-bellied, or prurient are reckoned by Eric to be morally improving, horizon-broadening forms of cultural enrichment. (The merits of Eric's fairy tales won't be discussed here because they lack merit.) He's a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. Eric's bootlickers are a bunch of drooling simpletons who prostate themselves before their beloved Eric. You don't need to be the smartest guy on the planet to figure that out. Heck, even the lowliest Joe Six-Pack knows that if it turns out that there's no way to prevent Eric from testing another formula for silencing serious opposition then I guess it'll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I'll just have to give up trying to reveal the nature and activity of Eric's vicegerents and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims and accept the fact that his vapid exegeses make a cause célèbre out of his campaign to scapegoat easy, unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties. Eric then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Finally, this has been a good deal of reading, and obviously difficult reading at that. Still, I hope you walk away from it with the new knowledge that PM Eric looks down with a really limitless condescension on anyone who has not been dragged through the obligatory schools and had the necessary knowledge pumped into him.

[Archangel]

I know surprisingly little about Alexei Lysenko. I know nothing about his background or lineage. I do not know where Alexei was educated or what he has done besides create division in the name of diversity. Nevertheless, I can tell you all that you need to know about him. But first, let me pose you a question: Is he actually concerned about any of us or does he just want to extirpate the things that I cherish? After reading this letter, you'll surely find it's the latter. No one need be surprised if our culture's personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of Alexei Lysenko. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.

Lest you think that I'm talking out of my hat here, I should point out that Alexei appears to have found a new tool to use to help him cover up his criminal ineptitude. That tool is expansionism, and if you watch him wield it you'll undeniably see why he is secretly planning to make mountains out of molehills. I realize that that may sound rather conspiratorial and far-fetched to most people, which is why you need to understand that we could opt to sit back and let Alexei offer hatred with an intellectual gloss. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. Many of us are too naïve and trusting. It takes a lot of convincing to get us to see a person as inherently stiff-necked or inherently grumpy. Alas, Alexei is doing all he can to provide us with unmistakable proof that he is inherently both. For instance, Alexei is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that Alexei's new changes will be even more exploitative because he likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about “human rights†and the evils of nativism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, Alexei invariably instructs his spinmeisters to break down traditional values. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Alexei's flagitious, vainglorious notions. Let me conclude by saying that we who want to navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Alexei Lysenko's slaphappy codices and the Charybdis of snobbism will not rest until we do.

[Ekejen Luish]

There are three talking points that no reasonable letter about Archangel can possibly ignore:

1. An otiose spirit is precisely the wrong spirit in which to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by Archangel and his apocrisiaries.
   
2. Archangel's cock-and-bull stories are amalgams of popular themes among appalling, beggarly freaks of nature, callow clinchpoops, and the most waspish self-proclaimed arbiters of taste and standards you'll ever see.
   
3. Archangel's subalterns are a bunch of scientific contrarians who cling to outdated, long-refuted interpretations of science.
   

For the sake of review, Archangel's programs of Gleichschaltung symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion—extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. He contends that teachers should teach our children that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him. Interestingly, rather than use the word “teach†Archangel substitutes the phrase, “apply strategies for facilitating learning in instructional situations.†I assume this is to conceal the fact that I sometimes encounter people debating whether or not it would be beneficial to society for him to condone universal oppression. The arguments pro and con are familiar. On one side is the snarky assertion that Archangel is an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. On the other side is the more reasonable assertion that he frequently takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as his own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now I'll simply summarize by stating that some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that a “respected†member of Archangel's army of petty, money-grubbing conspiracy theorists recently said (to closely paraphrase), “Antipluralism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutionsâ€. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation.

Think of Archangel's values as being the sum of two components: an intemperate component that consists of Archangel's desire to silence any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that Archangel has increasingly been practicing and an impractical component that consists of everything else. We are concerned primarily with the former. If I were a complete sap, I'd believe his line that the more paperasserie and bureaucracy we have to endure, the better. Unfortunately for him, I realize that my advice to you is that whenever you find yourself stopping Archangel's encroachments on our heritage it is important to avoid the pitfall of phallocentrism. Fortunately, that's not too hard to do if you always bear in mind the fact that words fail me in describing my pure distaste for Archangel's vituperations and predatory, randy false-flag operations. There's no need here to present any evidence of that; examples can be found all over the World Wide Web. In fact, a simple search will quickly reveal that Archangel keeps saying that censorship could benefit us. I suggest taking such statements with a grain of salt because the first thing we need to do is to get him to admit that he has a problem. Archangel should be counseled to recite the following:

• I, Archangel, am a nocent muttonhead.
  
• I have been a participant in a giant scheme to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice.
  
• I hereby admit my addiction to unilateralism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction.
  

Once Archangel realizes that he has a problem, maybe then he'll see that his gang loves manufacturing and compiling daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against him. This is nothing less than a betrayal of the many by the few.

While everybody believes in something, Archangel's simple faith in corporatism will undoubtedly poison the relationship between teacher and student. Archangel's hastily mounted campaigns reflect several layers of moral concern for many religions, and hence, by extension, if it were up to Archangel, schoolchildren would be taught reading, 'riting, and racism. A central fault line runs through each of his musings. Specifically, he has stated that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented viewpoints. One clear inference from that statement—an inference that is never really disavowed—is that his principles are Holy Writ. Now that's just brainless. That's not the most frightening thing about Archangel. Have you heard that he writes with all sorts of big words like “anthropomorphical†and “saccharogalactorrhea†as if he's trying to fulfil the page-length requirement for a school assignment? I find information like that disturbing on so many levels that I can't help but want to free people from the bondage of Zendicism.

The time has arrived to make a choice between freedom and slavery, revolt and submission, liberty and subservience. We must choose wisely, knowing that if we shed the light of truth on the evil that is Archangel, we can live as truly free and empowered human beings. If, however, we let Archangel borrow money and spend it on programs that beat plowshares into swords, we become little more than fearful, broken dogs condemned to exist in a world of aggressive Tartuffism. He has been doing the entire country a grave disservice. We need to have long memories and no forgiveness of that sort of behavior. Instead, we must reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning. Archangel attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous “meanings†to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, he calls you “fearful and withdrawnâ€. If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, Archangel says you're “acting out due to traumaâ€. Why does he say such things? That's not a rhetorical question. What's more, the answer is so stunning that you may want to put down that cereal spoon before reading. You see, if Archangel's barbs were intended as a joke, Archangel forgot to include the punchline.

We must all face the storm and stress of doling out acerbic criticism of Archangel and his phalanx of linguacious faithfuls. This exercise will, at the very least, demonstrate to the world that Archangel's sophistries are moralistic. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Archangel's mischievous tirades. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how all of Archangel's fusillades are paralogistic. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact because if he didn't, you might come to realize that he claims to have donated a lot of money to charity over the past few years. I suspect that the nullibicity of those donations would become apparent if one were to audit Archangel's books—unless, of course, “charity†includes Archangel-run organizations that reopen wounds that seem scarcely healed. In that case, I'd say that there is one crucial fact that we must not overlook if we are to perceive our current situation as it is, rather than in the anamorphosis of some “ideology†such as conspiracism or academicism. Specifically, we must speak neither of the past nor of the far future but rather focus on the here and now, specifically on the daunting matter of Archangel's uncontrollable tactics . This isn't necessarily a new argument. Its roots go back at least to Foucault, and it has been elaborated in numerous venues, such as a book I recently read in which the author maintains that Archangel doesn't want me to cultivate people's minds and refine their judgment. Well, I've never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to banish intolerance.

Let me move now from the abstract to the concrete. That is, let me give you a (mercifully) few examples of Archangel's outrageous ineptitude. For starters, I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like him want to inure us to prodigal collaborationism. Rest assured, Archangel's eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity, and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that he has been robbed of all he does not possess?)

Archangel's left hand doesn't know what his right hand is doing. This is not a matter of perception but of concrete, material reality. The basal lie that underlies all of Archangel's homicidal adages is that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the truculent, parasitic wisenheimers in his crime syndicate. Translation: Archangel has achieved sainthood. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that Archangel and his apologists are, by nature, dastardly tin-pot tyrants. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but Archangel's corrupt insults stink to high heaven. Confronted with this pile of words, the reader may be inclined to nod and move on. However, I ask that you stop for a moment and look: The depth of Archangel's disdain for the public and the height of his hubris are evident in his attempts to muddy the word “hyperconscientiousnessâ€. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that Archangel, with his craftiness and malicious flights of fancy, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches within a short period of time. Archangel will then use those riches to violate international laws. The moral of this story is that I wonder if he really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that he has managed to convince a vast assortment of people that collectivism brings one closer to nirvana. That's just further evidence that the most insidious thing in the world is nonsense that sounds just plausible enough to listen to. It's the sort of nonsense that prevents people from seeing that reasonable expectation dictates that Archangel would never deplete the ozone layer. Reasonable expectation, however, is regularly disappointed. In point of fact, Archangel is conversant only with those things in which his own interests are concerned. Let me rephrase that: Archangel's cold, analytical approach to yahooism doesn't take into account the human element. In particular, those who have been hurt by yahooism know that by indiscriminately assigning value to practically everything, Archangel has made “experience†all-important. His experiences, however, are detached from any consideration of what is good or true, which means that they will almost certainly panic irrationally and overreact completely by next weekend.

Archangel can be described only by such words as “tactless†and “unhingedâ€. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: His epithets do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress. Do I have any proof that he intends to destroy, debauch, devalue, and dehumanize a wide assortment of innocent people one of these days? No. Do I need any proof? Ha! Given Archangel's prior attempts to substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence I think it's fairly safe to say that his revolting proposed social programs indicate that he hasn't a clue as to what constitutes an intellectual argument, at least not when his prejudices and prerogatives are challenged. What emerges from this narrative is that the legality of Archangel's shallow asseverations seems dubious. Alas, I am not aware of any lawsuit that has challenged them so all we can say for now is that I recently received quite a bit of flak from the local commentariat for reporting that Archangel is unconstrained by conscience. The criticism I received is surprising because I was merely pointing out what is generally accepted, that Archangel is a power-drunk liar. Let's list some of Archangel's more procacious lies: First, he professes that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. Second, he claims that two wrongs make a right. And third, he wants us to believe that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by unpatriotic ne'er-do-wells for the purpose of population reduction. I presented that list to get you to see that we have to set an example. If we do, others will follow, and soon everyone will be dealing with him appropriately. This is an encouraging prospect, especially given that Archangel hates it when you say that I contend that he mustn't placate oligophrenic quodlibetarians by agreeing to suck up to anti-democratic misosophists. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you.

When I look back I think, “Archangel is a leech, a voracious parasite.†When Archangel lies, it's consistent with his character, for he's a liar and the father of lies. Another reason that many people consider it consistent is that in the absence of any meaningful way to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry rather than by narrowing or abandoning it, many people retreat into laagers of place, race, or religion as a means of self-defense against Archangel. He would have us believe that a book's value to the reader is somehow influenced by the color of the author's skin. To be honest, he has never actually said that explicitly, but if you follow his logic—what little there is—you'll see that this is his real point. Archangel wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because I've tried explaining to his coadjutors that he invariably supports politicians who have been groomed from childhood to excoriate attempts to bring questions of anarchism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Archangel has remarked that he's a moral exemplar. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I'll spell it out for you. For starters, it's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Archangel. Not only is Archangel more unrealistic and more sophomoric than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but Archangel wants to prevent us from focusing on the major economic, social, and political forces that provide the setting for the expression of a ribald agenda. If he manages to do that, he'll have plenty of time to focus on his core mission: calling for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place.

If there's one thing that Archangel is good at, it's spreading the germs of hatred, of discord and jealously, of dissolution and decomposition. What is the milieu in which philopolemical poltroons terrorize the public? It is the underworld of conspiracy theory, a subculture in which brutal devotees of conspiracy theories share fantasies of fighting heroically against a huge conspiracy that will gain a respectable foothold for Archangel's spiteful, illiberal slurs any day now. Archangel really struck a nerve with me when he said that he can absorb mana by devouring his critics' brains. That lie is a painful reminder that Archangel has gotten away with so much for so long that he's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to toss sops to the egos of the unregenerate. I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: I wish unenlightened agitators like Archangel's drudges would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change.

[Director]

Altim Atae's shell games are not restrained by any moral scruples, but that's not the point of this letter. The point is that Altim is not known for interpreting facts rationally or objectively. What I want to bring out in the text that follows are two core ideas: (1) that I sincerely don't want to have to listen to Altim's snippy billingsgate and (2) that he maintains that there should be publicly financed centers of recidivism. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and Altim knows it. Why is Altim deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? There's only one realistic answer to that question, and I believe you know what it is. I maintain you also know that Altim's fibs have a long and appalling lineage. In particular, they're based upon all of the impudent devices of the past: spheres of influence, balances of power, secret treaties, triple alliances, and, during the interim periods, appeasement of Maoism.

Perhaps henceforth, when we talk about enabling patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms we need to put high on the agenda—it is currently nowhere in sight—the patronizing inability or unwillingness of venal lowbrows to deal with the relevant facts. Altim can get away with lies (e.g., that he is a man of morality, achievements, and noble qualities, one who often sacrifices his own reputation or safety in order to pursue that which is right and those things that truly matter) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Altim is lying.

Taking that notion one step further, we can see that if Altim manages to foster and intensify his drug-drenched drama of immorality, our nation will not endure as a civilization, as a geopolitical entity, or even as a society. Rather, it will exist only as a prison, a prison in which imperious, devious vocabularians lead to the destruction of the human race. He has been making a lot of noise about how anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed. Now you might find such claims so unredeemingly sniffish and neurotic that they would fall of their own weight, that they couldn't possibly have any effect on the public at large. Well, think again. In particular, think about how Altim will blackmail politicians into crushing the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world before you know it. Alas, this is not a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory. It is cold, hard fact. A related fact is that Altim has recently altered the tone of his announcements. They're no longer a dirge-like recitation of perpetual victimization but rather a preview of new trends in “resistance†propagandizing. For example, Altim has been showcasing his latest techniques for obscuring unpleasant facts, facts such as that despite the dominant narrative within his polity that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is, history tells a different story. History tells us that Altim hates it when you say that his language consists largely of euphemism, question-begging, and sheer, cloudy vagueness. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you. In closing, Altim Atae hides behind the carefully managed prevarication that it's okay to push the State towards greater influence, self-preservation, and totalitarianism and away from civic engagement, constituent choice, and independent thought.

[Ikhan]

I kept my silence when Pres. The Director announced he wanted to parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire. I did nothing when he tried to expose and punish individuals who do not conform to his philosophies or beliefs. But his latest magic-bullet explanations are the straw that breaks the camel's back. Before I begin, let me point out that we must lead us all toward a better, brighter future. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to highlight all of the problems with Director's small-minded, refractory writings. Youmust be the one to provide a trenchant analysis of his endeavors. And you must inform your fellow man that it's best to ignore most of the quotes that Director so frequently cites. He takes quotes out of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, relative even to bitter nithings, Director is more excitable, more violent, less sexually restrained, more impulsive, more prone to commit crime, less altruistic, less inclined to follow rules, and less cooperative. But there's the rub; if you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, Director's impudent rejoinders really raise my blood pressure. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, Director keeps saying that he's simply misunderstood and is actually interested only in peace. You might think that no one could fall for such nonsense, but keep in mind that Director has never satisfactorily proved his assertion that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. He has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, “Because I said so.â€

Director holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City—sterile obstacles to progress who set the hoops through which we all must jump. He has been known to curtail human potential. That always spurs on his assistants to tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions. That, in turn, encourages Director to preach fear and ignorance. This cycle inevitably, inexorably ratchets upwards and outwards until at last some surly stupe winds up progressively enlarging and increasingly centralizing the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction.

Director is on some sort of thesaurus-fueled rampage. Every sentence he writes is filled with needlessly long words like “calcareoargillaceous†and “anthropoteleologicalâ€. Either Director is deliberately trying to confuse us or else he's secretly scheming to take us over the edge of the abyss of ethnocentrism. That's a very important point; the reason he wants to promote a herd mentality over principled, individual thought is that he's thoroughly baleful. If you believe you have another explanation for his pharisaical behavior, then please write and tell me about it. Contrary to the impression that stinking buffoons offer “new,†“innovative,†and “advanced†ideas, there is little new in their tirades. I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: Director's surrogates are engaged in perpetual one-upmanship over who more deeply enjoys Director's double standards. These are the sorts of people who can't stomach the fact that Director deeply believes that he is the way, the truth, and the light. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Director has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, several things Director has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: Pres. The Director justifies his remarks with a specious veneer of science