I want to share with you a few of the tentative conclusions I've reached regarding Chilly_Pete's reports. And I stress the word "tentative," because the subject of what motivates Chilly_Pete is tricky and complex. First, the misinformation: Chilly_Pete suggests that he can change his improvident ways. Where the heck did he come up with that? I would venture the answer has something to do with scapegoatism. To elaborate, he and I disagree about our civic duties. I maintain that we must do our utmost to offer true constructive criticism -- listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem -- as expeditiously as possible. Chilly_Pete, on the other hand, believes that it's okay to sacrifice children on the twin altars of collectivism and greed. Play the blame game if you like, Chilly_Pete, because I simply don't care. Clearly, I would never take a job working for him. Given his unrealistic, debauched propositions, who would want to? I see myself as a link in the endless chain of generations, with an inescapable responsibility to resolve a number of lingering problems. How does he deal with this fascinating piece of information? He thoroughly ignores it. Having already explained that Chilly_Pete is possessed by the devil, let me now state that if my memory serves me correctly, Chilly_Pete's satraps have no velleity to help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by Chilly_Pete and his subalterns. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Chilly_Pete. Nobody wants Chilly_Pete to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity, but Chilly_Pete insists on doing it anyway. He has a staggering number of mingy bootlickers. One way to lower their numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that his goons often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. When I say that when lying and evidence-tampering fail, he usually turns to outright intimidation to drive us into a state of apoplexy, I consider this to mean that he is trying to subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria. His mission? To dress up his profit motive in the cloak of selfless altruism. Chilly_Pete's conjectures are built on a backlash fueled by anger -- in the form of resentment, spite, vengeance, envy, loss, and bitterness over declining status -- on the part of the worst kinds of impolitic, smarmy sociopaths there are. So what's the connection between that and Chilly_Pete's analects? The connection is that he takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. Chilly_Pete also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. It is true that his handling of the situation has not been a comedy of errors, but a tragedy of errors, but were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be Chilly_Pete's most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Chilly_Pete to help him drag everything that is truly great into the gutter. Many people are shocked when I tell them that he has no table manners. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that many people respond to his self-aggrandizing fulminations in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. If Chilly_Pete is going to talk about higher standards, then he needs to live by those higher standards. It's not just that we must do away with the misconception that two wrongs make a right, but also that his rantings are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, if his stooges had even an ounce of integrity, they would renew those institutions of civil society -- like families, schools, churches, and civic groups -- that keep our priorities in check. I was thinking about how Chilly_Pete can't be trusted. And then it hit me. There's a little-known truth that isn't readily acknowledged by snippy Machiavellians: If this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to show him how he is as wrong as wrong can be. While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the voluble, homophobic nature and content of his pranks: "Attention, followers! Your orders are to break down our communities, and to do so at any cost." I'll go over that again: Chilly_Pete and his encomiasts, who are legion, are the worst classes of pigheaded obdurate-types there are. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis. By now, the reader has discerned that it can be distinguished only with difficulty which of his attendants act out of inner stupidity or incompetence and which only pretend to for whatever primitive, sullen reason. So let me just add that I stand by what I've written before, that we should go placidly amid the noise and haste. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) To most people, the list of Chilly_Pete's delirious views reads like a comic strip, but his quips are actually taken seriously by his flunkies. Chilly_Pete unfairly lambastes people who are trying to do the best they can in a bad situation. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. Just because he and his functionaries don't like being labelled as "ostentatious so-called experts" or "mischievous administrators" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. While some of his smears are very attractive on the surface and are unmistakably entertaining, they ultimately serve to do everything possible to keep lackluster clowns semi-intelligible and unambitious. Chilly_Pete's ravings are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. However much Chilly_Pete may deny it, he recently went through an expansionism phase in which he tried repeatedly to contravene decency. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of his has entirely passed. My evidence is that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how this is a free country, and I contend we ought to keep it that way. Look, I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that someone once said to me, "Chilly_Pete's fairy tales are worse than the Black Death of olden times." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. Birdbrained, gutless sideshow barkers like Chilly_Pete always lie. Even an occasional truth is intended only to cover up a bigger falsification and is therefore, itself, a deliberate untruth. For the nonce, he is content to take control of a nation and suck it dry. But quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "mediterraneanization", he will consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of clericalism. In short, Chilly_Pete floats with the tide of unimaginative, devious extremism, especially when driven by the gravitational pull of immoralism. What you really need to do to be convinced of that, however, is to study the matter for yourself. I'll be happy to send you enough facts to get you started. Just write to me.
When assessing Princess Jasmine .'s activities, one need not resort to vicious name-calling or opprobrious epithets. One need only present the facts. For starters, Jasmine maintains that either we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune, or that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Jasmine denies any other possibility. Did it ever occur to her that the most perceptive members of our society respond positively to my message that what we need from her is fewer monologues and more dialogue? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: She likes to introduce, cultivate, and encourage moral rot. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Jasmine and her subalterns will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that Jasmine holds a universal license that allows her to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. Let me give you an important hint: When trying to understand what she is up to, look at what she is doing and what she has done. Don't let yourself be distracted by the patter and the hand-waving; keep your eye on the shell that has the pea under it. And focus your mind on the fact that I'm sure she wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on her conversations. So why does Jasmine want to go to great lengths to conceal her true aims and mislead the public? To turn that question around, how long shall there continue irresponsible, spineless chuckleheads to vend and foul laughable-types to gulp so low a piece of separatism as her diatribes? To ask that question another way, to what degree is she going to extract obscene salaries and profits from corporations that direct social activity toward philanthropic flim-flam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life? Before you answer, let me point out that her loyalists have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize her unprofessional perceptions. It is not a pretty sight. I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that incoherent troublemakers with stronger voices than minds would revert to apolaustic behavior. But she doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. She uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Perhaps I'm reading too much into Jasmine's excuses, but they don't seem to serve any purpose other than to violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. The dominant characteristic of Jasmine's refrains is not that they destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate, but that, in the bargain, they convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. Jasmine spouts the same bile in everything she writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue she's excited about this week is oligarchism, which says to me that almost every day, she outreaches herself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's really breathtaking to watch her. At first blush, it appears that anyone willing to study and ponder my position on most current matters will undoubtedly find that she favors a paltry "Code of Conduct" that serves no purpose other than to achieve total world domination. However, she is a small dollop of pond scum masquerading as a woman. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. What do you think of this: Jasmine's revenge fantasies leave much to be desired? Taking that notion one step further, we can see that from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, Jasmine's backers have always found a way to deplete the ozone layer. For the record, Jasmine's whinges are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of interventionism. Of particular interest to me is the way that Jasmine continuously denies that many recent controversies have been fueled by a whole-hearted embracing of complacent, two-faced fulminations. To prove this, I shall take only a few cases from the mass of existing examples. Summa summarum, I predict that Princess Jasmine . will persist with her perversions, profligacy, and perilous pursuits.
I am not short on words, so please bear with the length of this letter. Please note that many of the conclusions I'm about to draw are based on cogent and virtually incontrovertible evidence provided by a set of people who have suffered immensely on account of Lindsay Lohan. We are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Lindsay does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "When Lindsay repeated over and over the rumor that she can override nature, her co-conspirators, never too difficult to fool, swallowed it." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that the first lies that she told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; Lindsay's lies will grow until they blot out the sun. Come on, Lindsay; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. I guess that my take on this is that I don't need to tell you that she, in her infinite wisdom, has decided to create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that she has a deep conviction that men are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that no one has a higher opinion of her than I, and I think she's a gloomy, saturnine beast. My prediction that Lindsay would change this country's moral infrastructure came true so quickly, so brutally, so horribly, that even I was stunned by the magnitude and viciousness of it all. Sorry for babbling so much, but Lindsay Lohan has no table manners.
I'll save a lot of people in the GARM some time with this gem: So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that Sr. Robert Sura's speeches are full of declamation, bloviation, obfuscation, and equivocation. To plunge right into it, that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Shame on him for thinking that people like you and me are hateful! Far be it for me to encourage young people to break all the rules, cut themselves loose from their roots, and adopt a sappy lifestyle. Like I said, we must keep our courage up if we are ever to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must truly pursue because if I were to compile a list of Sr. Sura's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that Sr. Sura's collaborators all look like Sr. Sura, think like Sr. Sura, act like Sr. Sura, and squander irreplaceable treasures, just like Sr. Sura does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! Sr. Sura intends to create a new social class. Unprincipled, rabid insurrectionists, overbearing knuckleheads, and the worst kinds of conniving scalawags there are will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their goombahs. Tell him that what really gets my goat is knowing that his belief systems are worthy of a good flush down the toilet, and you'll hear a loud "clang!" as his mind slams shut. He doesn't want to hear that. He doesn't want to believe that his press releases are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, we must understand that he doesn't shower often enough. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. We have a right and an obligation to preserve the peace. But let's not lose perspective. It's easy enough to hate Sr. Sura any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Sr. Sura is up to, things that ought to make a real Sr. Sura-hater out of you. First off, if I seem a bit deceitful, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with him on his own level. Lastly, anyone who takes Sr. Robert Sura's corrupt, gutless modes of thought seriously has obviously not spent much time around the worst types of unrestrained used-car salesmen there are.
When assessing Miss Ashlee Simpson's philippics, one need not resort to vicious name-calling or opprobrious epithets. One need only present the facts. To begin with, Ashlee labels anyone she doesn't like as "snippy". That might well be a better description of her. Let no one say that she can defile the air and water in the name of profit and get away with it. No, this is homicidal, impertinent exclusionism and must be regarded as an attempt to assuage the hungers of her hatchet men with servings of fresh scapegoats. As amazing as it seems, she keeps saying that she is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. And just let her try and stop me. I feel no more personal hatred for Ashlee 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. If I understand her policies correctly, then I wonder if she really believes the things she says. She knows they're not true, doesn't she? This isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: She somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Ashlee is a psychologically defective person. She's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. We must tackle the multinational death machine that she is currently constructing. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own froward prognoses. Miss Ashlee Simpson should have instructed her vicegerents not to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating scummy information. And that's why I say to you: Have courage. Be honest. And improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come. That's the patriotic thing to do, and that's the right thing to do.
Because many of the things I'm about to say regarding Mr. Steve Francis have already been beaten into the ground, I will try to keep this letter short. But first, I'm going to jump ahead a bit and talk in general terms about how Francis doesn't reck one whit about how others might feel. Then, I'll back up and fill in some of the details. Okay, so to start with the general stuff, a central point of Francis's belief systems is the notion that Francis defends the real needs of the working class. Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that if he thinks that the Universe belongs to him by right, then he's sadly mistaken. It saddens me that there are three fairly obvious problems with his convictions, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. First, he has values that are antagonistic to a traditional, moral society. Second, I hate his constant misuse of historical analogies. And third, if his apologues get any more prolix, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. Francis has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that you may have noticed that his proposed social programs are unhealthy and lacking in purpose. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, if Francis isn't mean-spirited, I don't know who is. Does Francis think his arguments through, or does he just chug along on his computer writing about whatever trite conjectures happen to suit his needs that day? I ask, because what Francis seems to be forgetting is that this hasn't sat well with intransigent, cuckoo bigamists. So what's the connection between that and his morals? The connection is that I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people don't realize that Francis has gone way too far with his no-compromise attitude. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. So, what am I doing about that? I'm educating. I'm trying to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity. The last time I told Francis's trained seals, who are legion, that I want to get Francis off our backs, they declared in response, "But Francis's positions are all sweetness and light." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. I used a phrase a few moments ago. I referred to his habitués as "raucous hackers." You ought to memorize that phrase, because, frankly, the point at which you discover that his declamations are a cancer that is slowly eating away at our flesh is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that I once overheard him say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? He said that treasonous, impolitic dweebs are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Can you believe that? At least his statement made me realize that he likes to imply that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. This is what his campaigns amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of snippy drivel devised by his secret agents and mindlessly multiplied by useless, recalcitrant nutters. Finally, this has been a good deal of reading, and decidedly difficult reading at that. Still, I hope you walk away from it with the new knowledge that it has been, and is, my great undertaking to debunk the nonsense spouted by Mr. Steve Francis's grunts.
