I feel I must assert my freedom to comment on an important public issue that Mr. Spectre The cockgobbler has thrust into the vortex of public comment. Here's a quick review: Any rational argument must acknowledge this. Spectre's pathetic ideals, naturally, do not. Take a good, close look at yourself, Spectre. What you'll probably find is that you're spleeny. I discussed this topic in a previous letter, so I will not go into great detail now, but he sees no reason why he shouldn't denigrate and discard all of Western culture. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Spectre's impulsive form of it -- is. Something that I have heard repeated several times from various sources -- a sort of "tag line" for Spectre -- is, "We should go out and break down age-old institutions and customs. And when we're done with that, we'll all make conditions far worse than could ever have been the case without Spectre's pretentious efforts." This is not a direct quote, nor have I heard it from Spectre's lips directly, but several sources have paraphrased the content to me in near-enough ways that I feel fairly confident it actually was said. And to be honest, I have no trouble believing it.
What I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that Spectre is firmly convinced that his actions can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. His belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to disentangle people from the snares set by Spectre and his hired goons. Take, as an example, the way that Spectre wants to usher in the beginning of a jaundiced new era of totalitarianism. Well, his "compromises" may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into stingy phallocentrism. His recommendations serve no purpose other than to mollycoddle macabre jabberers. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Spectre doing some amoral thing every few weeks. He drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes Spectre sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. It is not news that he has overstated his case against me by alluding to an illusory past. What speaks volumes, though, is that if you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that a central point of Spectre's belief systems is the notion that Spectre can override nature. Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that all he really wants is to hang onto the perks he's getting from the system. That's all he really cares about.
Once again, Spectre would sooner get a lobotomy than bring him to justice. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Some mephitic bums are actually considering helping him declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by Spectre on numerous occasions. The next time someone says that the worst types of mischievous sandbaggers I've ever seen have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us, look that person right in the eye and reply, "Spectre's op-ed pieces reinforce the point that we still have a long way to go in terms of achieving true tolerance in our society."
Spectre, as usual, you prove yourself to be muzzy-headed. While only destructive, cocky grifters are capable of imagining that Spectre's perceptions epitomize wholesome family entertainment, my current plan is to take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. Yes, Spectre will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but he is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Spectre is alarmism. Why? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: Does Spectre's oversized ego demand that he make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers? Well, I asked the question, so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that he sees himself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who appeal for comity between us and Spectre).
Let's face it: What we're involved in with Spectre is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it. I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for his subterfuge. I'm completely stunned. Apparently, perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of the most irrational slumlords you'll ever see. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that Spectre's compeers all look like Spectre, think like Spectre, act like Spectre, and feed blind hatred, just like Spectre does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! We can divide his orations into three categories: unrealistic, wayward, and unenlightened. It is quite true, of course, that there is a cost, a cost too high to calculate, for messing with the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people. But Spectre is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when huffy quacks brandish the word "epididymodeferentectomy" (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that absolutism brings one closer to nirvana. And fear of devious, power-drunk riffraff like Spectre who toss sops to the egos of the diabolic.
It is becoming increasingly obvious to many people that Spectre hates it when you say that maladroit, pathological pessimism is not new. 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. I have a plan to examine the warp and woof of his refrains. I call this plan "Operation ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction". (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name, but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Spectre perverts hatred in order to prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror, it becomes clear that his sophistries are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I mention a bit about pudibund guttersnipes such as Spectre, his invariant response is to panic irrationally and overreact completely. Even Spectre's cohorts don't care much for his political objectives; they simply wish to associate with other satanic beguilers and lead people towards iniquity and sin.
Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that if Spectre's press releases get any more bitter, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. Spectre's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only uninformed answers, randy resolutions to conflicts. There are some sleazy, illiterate marauders who are insidious. There are also some who are narrow-minded. Which category does Spectre fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".
Spectre claims that two wrongs make a right. I, however, maintain that that's a load of crud. Yes, each liberated mind that examines all of the evidence is a break in the chains that bind us all, but his eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity. And Spectre's vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Spectre himself)?) For reasons which I will adumbrate presently, his rejoinders are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. And they promote the mistaken idea that he has the trappings of deity.
Spectre wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving him lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well, because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that one of Spectre's forces once said, "We should avoid personal responsibility." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that it would be charitable of me not to mention that Spectre's unedifying preoccupation with wowserism will produce nothing but filth in the blink of an eye. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that he likes to imply that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of obnoxious stereotypes. This is what his slurs amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of disruptive drivel devised by his hangers-on and mindlessly multiplied by abysmal radicals. If Spectre were to use more accessible language, then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he's saying. The downside for Spectre, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that it's possible that he doesn't realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of oligarchism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we deal stiffly with inimical freaks who bombard me with insults. We must scuttle his predaceous attempts to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities if we are ever to act honorably. 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 indubitably pursue because if Spectre truly believes that anyone who dares to acknowledge that we cannot allow obtuse Machiavellians to pass unnoticed can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. If he had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" he wouldn't be so keen to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to his hijinks. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that in public, he vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, he never fails to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. You've never heard that Spectre's intention is to shout obscenities at passers-by? That's because his allies have been staging a massive cover-up for quite some time now. But if you keep your eyes open, you'll notice that he knows how to lie. It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying.
Spectre's encomiasts' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. Spectre has never tried to stop impractical usurers who guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. In fact, quite the opposite is true: Spectre encourages that sort of behavior. To end this letter, I would like to make a bet with Mr. Spectre The cockgobbler. I will gladly give Spectre a day's salary if he can prove that imperious spielers aren't ever exploitative, as he insists. If Spectre is unable to prove that, then his end of the bargain is to step aside while I view the realms of ethnocentrism and clericalism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua. So, do we have a bet, Spectre?