I am writing this letter because I recently heard some troubling news. Apparently, a large number of people actually believe JohnK's claim that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. Some background is in order: His co-conspirators employ carefully developed psychological techniques to abet a resurgence of inarticulate vigilantism. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. The whole premise of JohnK's codices is false, and his arguments are specious at best. The best available data strongly suggest that JohnK lectures us about mandarinism so often that he may soon become a major source of hearing loss. There are several logical contradictions in his position on this matter. For example, we should scuttle JohnK's ribald attempts to weaken our mental and moral fiber. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) JohnK is thoroughly inconsistent in his views. On one hand, JohnK insists that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. But on the other hand, he favors advocating measures that others criticize for being excessively cankered. How much clearer do I have to explain things before you can see his hypocrisy? Having witnessed his carelessness with facts, the egregiously sloppy commentary JohnK churns out on a daily basis, and his effrontive, "ends justify the means" approach to quislingism, I have serious doubts about his integrity and a strong conviction that JohnK's stories about conspiracism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. Help me put JohnK in his place. Join your hands with mine in this, the greatest cause of our time.
In this letter, I will try to describe I KO I's tracts in such a way that my language will not offend and yet will still convey my message that I, speaking as someone who is not a heinous autocrat, don't know how I KO I can be so orgulous. First, the misinformation: I KO I suggests that his theories 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. Where the heck did he come up with that? I would venture the answer has something to do with hoodlumism. To elaborate, if he isn't bestial, I don't know who is. He believes with sincere conviction that he is cunctipotent. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won't faze him; he's immune to any sort of reality check. That's why in any decent society, I KO I would be just another crapulous clown standing on a streetcorner braying his nonsensical diatribes from atop a soapbox. Nevertheless, he has managed to gain some credibility among vexatious freeloaders because they relate to her message that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately sinister. On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must maintain social control by eliminating rights and freedoms. I KO I does that even when his liberties aren't being threatened. I apologize if the following points are hard to follow but they're quite relevant to the gist of my argument. First, I shall return to this point in particular. And second, as conscious, sentient beings aware of our actions and capable of response, we must put I KO I's undiplomatic ideas out to pasture. All of this means, of course, that I KO I claims to be supportive of my plan to deliver new information about his addlepated credos. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. Not only that, but I KO I makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother. Consider, for example, I KO I's claim that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the insane thieves in his coterie. The fact of the matter is that someone has to be willing to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by his platitudes. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that he answers to no one. Similarly, I want to deal with I KO I appropriately. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because I KO I's peons certainly don't want us to get people to stop believing lies that were forged in the fiery pits of hell. That'd be too much of a threat to gangsterism, terrorism, and all of the other uncouth things they worship. Clearly, they prefer getting everyone to march in lockstep with I KO I's quasi-jaundiced hangers-on. As I gaze into my crystal ball, I see that his cohorts will violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship sooner than you think. According to the laws of probability, I KO I screams and cries whenever he's prevented from destroying our moral fiber. I assert that if he stopped acting like such a big baby, maybe then he'd see that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to criticize his smears publicly for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that I overheard one of I KO I's serfs say, "I KO I possesses infinite wisdom." This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. I KO I's sexist tirades promote ruffianism with all of its quarrelsome and heartless facets: greed, self interest, narrow-mindedness, and most of all, stupidity. I KO I needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that people often get the impression that scabrous scammers and I KO I's representatives are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that I KO I's dissertations do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress. 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 no one has a higher opinion of I KO I than I, and I think I KO I is an intransigent perjurer. I don't know when poststructuralism became chic, but contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to challenge I KO I's pushy, warped assumptions about merit. It is not possible fully to understand the present except as a projection of the past. For the benefit of any doubting Thomases I will prove that point via an explanation of how I KO I sometimes puts himself in charge of making nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping. At other times, one of his bedfellows is deputed for the job. In either case, many members of I KO I's lynch mob believe that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Even worse, almost all of I KO I's devotees believe that misinformed, delirious tosspots are easily housebroken. (One would think that the mammalian brain could do better than that, but apparently not.) My point is that I KO I just reported that violence and prejudice are funny. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on I KO I's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to pull the levers of nosism and oil the gears of Chekism. No one ever said it would be easy to take a strong position on I KO I's barbs, which, after all, let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of simple-minded, mischievous oafs. That's why we must stick to our knitting and navigate a safe path between the Scylla of I KO I's careless, presumptuous execrations and the Charybdis of sesquipedalianism. I claim that we should denounce I KO I's allocutions, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by ensuring that I always bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. When I KO I stated that laws are meant to be broken, I concluded that he was thoroughly lecherous. Now that he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy, I believe that he's crossed the line into post-rationalist neo-Hegelianism. Need I point out that anyone who says that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless can be branded as both self-aggrandizing and jackbooted? The worst sorts of viperine harijans there are thrive when the rest of us underestimate the threat they pose or are too weak or unorganized to hold the line. Ergo, I have no idea why he believes that it is his moral imperative to poison the air, water, and soil. Perhaps the thought popped into his head during omphaloskepsis. In any case, there are some simple truths in this world. First, the simple ability to challenge I KO I's claims of exceptionalism is a pons asinorum that I KO I may never cross. Second, I KO I is like a fire hydrant spewing dysfunctional, maladroit vitriol over anyone unfortunate enough to pass by. And finally, I KO I recently claimed that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from him a hundred times before. Having already explained that faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as I KO I has had, I must undoubtedly begin the invigorating, rejuvenating process of encouraging open, civic engagement, let me now state that I KO I craves more power. I say we should give him more power—preferably, 10,000 volts of it. I can say with absolute certitude that unless we reveal the nature and activity of his rank-and-file followers and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims, no real changes will ever occur. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, it's quite easy for I KO I to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? I have asked God for answers, but it appears that this is a closed-book test. Let me simply suggest, therefore, that I KO I seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren't hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that his prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. When I first encountered I KO I's scribblings, all I could think of was, "I, for one, am unmistakably worried about the minacious tone I KO I takes whenever he announces his latest plans to impugn the patriotism of his rivals." It has been said that favoritism can not and must not be tolerated. I, for one, believe that to be true. I also believe that I KO I had previously claimed that he had no intention to defuse or undermine incisive critiques of his feral behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would diminish our will to live. We all know what happened then. Now, I KO I would have us believe he'd never ever mulct us out of our lives' savings. Will he? Go figure. My view is that I KO I clings to any argument or principle, however reprehensible or parasitic, that appears to support his harangues. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. I KO I is a polarizing figure. Uninformed champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine love him because he promotes blackmailing politicians into contaminating clear thinking with his arrogant declamations. The rest of us have the opposite opinion, that I KO I seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, incompetent schnooks of one sort or another. It would sure be nice if he could present his case without resorting to yellow journalism. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that I KO I has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then the most unbalanced prima donnas I've ever seen will be free to pit people against each other. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how the suggestion that human rights can best be protected by suspending them altogether is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, I KO I's apocrisiaries like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that I KO I says that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely gloomy and hideous lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by I KO I's lieutenants. While I can't speak for anyone else, I, for one, contend that it may not be easy to review the basic issues at the root of the debate, but it can be done. And it needs to be done. And we must always remember that the only weapons I KO I has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. Now that you've read my entire letter, I hope you've concluded that my plan to subject I KO I's roorbacks to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant is deserving of serious consideration.
That's for the free publicity! Hey look everyone, my name has appeared 24 times in 1 post! I'm PoPuLaR!!! Correction, 54 TIMES!! Credit to Microsoft Word for counting every I KO I.
In this letter, I will try to describe Divine_God's tracts in such a way that my language will not offend and yet will still convey my message that I, speaking as someone who is not a heinous autocrat, don't know how Divine_God can be so orgulous. First, the misinformation: Divine_God suggests that his theories 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. Where the heck did he come up with that? I would venture the answer has something to do with hoodlumism. To elaborate, if he isn't bestial, I don't know who is. He believes with sincere conviction that he is cunctipotent. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won't faze him; he's immune to any sort of reality check. That's why in any decent society, Divine_God would be just another crapulous clown standing on a streetcorner braying his nonsensical diatribes from atop a soapbox. Nevertheless, he has managed to gain some credibility among vexatious freeloaders because they relate to her message that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately sinister. On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must maintain social control by eliminating rights and freedoms. Divine_God does that even when his liberties aren't being threatened. I apologize if the following points are hard to follow but they're quite relevant to the gist of my argument. First, I shall return to this point in particular. And second, as conscious, sentient beings aware of our actions and capable of response, we must put Divine_God's undiplomatic ideas out to pasture. All of this means, of course, that Divine_God claims to be supportive of my plan to deliver new information about his addlepated credos. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. Not only that, but Divine_God makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother. Consider, for example, Divine_God's claim that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the insane thieves in his coterie. The fact of the matter is that someone has to be willing to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by his platitudes. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that he answers to no one. Similarly, I want to deal with Divine_God appropriately. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because Divine_God's peons certainly don't want us to get people to stop believing lies that were forged in the fiery pits of hell. That'd be too much of a threat to gangsterism, terrorism, and all of the other uncouth things they worship. Clearly, they prefer getting everyone to march in lockstep with Divine_God's quasi-jaundiced hangers-on. As I gaze into my crystal ball, I see that his cohorts will violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship sooner than you think. According to the laws of probability, Divine_God screams and cries whenever he's prevented from destroying our moral fiber. I assert that if he stopped acting like such a big baby, maybe then he'd see that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to criticize his smears publicly for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that I overheard one of Divine_God's serfs say, "Divine_God possesses infinite wisdom." This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. Divine_God's sexist tirades promote ruffianism with all of its quarrelsome and heartless facets: greed, self interest, narrow-mindedness, and most of all, stupidity. Divine_God needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that people often get the impression that scabrous scammers and Divine_God's representatives are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Divine_God's dissertations do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress. 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 no one has a higher opinion of Divine_God than I, and I think Divine_God is an intransigent perjurer. I don't know when poststructuralism became chic, but contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to challenge Divine_God's pushy, warped assumptions about merit. It is not possible fully to understand the present except as a projection of the past. For the benefit of any doubting Thomases I will prove that point via an explanation of how Divine_God sometimes puts himself in charge of making nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping. At other times, one of his bedfellows is deputed for the job. In either case, many members of Divine_God's lynch mob believe that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Even worse, almost all of Divine_God's devotees believe that misinformed, delirious tosspots are easily housebroken. (One would think that the mammalian brain could do better than that, but apparently not.) My point is that Divine_God just reported that violence and prejudice are funny. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Divine_God's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to pull the levers of nosism and oil the gears of Chekism. No one ever said it would be easy to take a strong position on Divine_God's barbs, which, after all, let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of simple-minded, mischievous oafs. That's why we must stick to our knitting and navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Divine_God's careless, presumptuous execrations and the Charybdis of sesquipedalianism. I claim that we should denounce Divine_God's allocutions, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by ensuring that I always bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. When Divine_God stated that laws are meant to be broken, I concluded that he was thoroughly lecherous. Now that he claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy, I believe that he's crossed the line into post-rationalist neo-Hegelianism. Need I point out that anyone who says that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless can be branded as both self-aggrandizing and jackbooted? The worst sorts of viperine harijans there are thrive when the rest of us underestimate the threat they pose or are too weak or unorganized to hold the line. Ergo, I have no idea why he believes that it is his moral imperative to poison the air, water, and soil. Perhaps the thought popped into his head during omphaloskepsis. In any case, there are some simple truths in this world. First, the simple ability to challenge Divine_God's claims of exceptionalism is a pons asinorum that Divine_God may never cross. Second, Divine_God is like a fire hydrant spewing dysfunctional, maladroit vitriol over anyone unfortunate enough to pass by. And finally, Divine_God recently claimed that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from him a hundred times before. Having already explained that faced by such despicable perfidy and the frustration of not being able to respond to the same audiences as Divine_God has had, I must undoubtedly begin the invigorating, rejuvenating process of encouraging open, civic engagement, let me now state that Divine_God craves more power. I say we should give him more power—preferably, 10,000 volts of it. I can say with absolute certitude that unless we reveal the nature and activity of his rank-and-file followers and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims, no real changes will ever occur. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, it's quite easy for Divine_God to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? I have asked God for answers, but it appears that this is a closed-book test. Let me simply suggest, therefore, that Divine_God seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren't hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that his prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. When I first encountered Divine_God's scribblings, all I could think of was, "I, for one, am unmistakably worried about the minacious tone Divine_God takes whenever he announces his latest plans to impugn the patriotism of his rivals." It has been said that favoritism can not and must not be tolerated. I, for one, believe that to be true. I also believe that Divine_God had previously claimed that he had no intention to defuse or undermine incisive critiques of his feral behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would diminish our will to live. We all know what happened then. Now, Divine_God would have us believe he'd never ever mulct us out of our lives' savings. Will he? Go figure. My view is that Divine_God clings to any argument or principle, however reprehensible or parasitic, that appears to support his harangues. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Divine_God is a polarizing figure. Uninformed champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine love him because he promotes blackmailing politicians into contaminating clear thinking with his arrogant declamations. The rest of us have the opposite opinion, that Divine_God seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, incompetent schnooks of one sort or another. It would sure be nice if he could present his case without resorting to yellow journalism. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that Divine_God has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then the most unbalanced prima donnas I've ever seen will be free to pit people against each other. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how the suggestion that human rights can best be protected by suspending them altogether is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, Divine_God's apocrisiaries like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that Divine_God says that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely gloomy and hideous lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Divine_God's lieutenants. While I can't speak for anyone else, I, for one, contend that it may not be easy to review the basic issues at the root of the debate, but it can be done. And it needs to be done. And we must always remember that the only weapons Divine_God has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. Now that you've read my entire letter, I hope you've concluded that my plan to subject Divine_God's roorbacks to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant is deserving of serious consideration.
I take exception to a few key aspects of I KO I's barbs. Let's get down to brass tacks: There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If I KO I finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that I KO I has been paddling around in the swampy parts of sanity. Why else would he allege that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by crabby schemers for the purpose of population reduction? I don't know what bothers me most about him. Is it his specious arguments, his illogical reasoning, his obscurantist claims, his unreasonable speculations, or any of the many forms of pseudoscholarship we see in his generalizations? In any case, I KO I's detachment from, or denial of, the truth is not just a political tactic or say-anything-to-please character flaw. It reveals an elemental attitude that he shares with hectoring, conceited pantywaists: fostering ruffianism at every opportunity. I KO I's allies have tried repeatedly to assure me that I KO I will eventually tire of his plan to establish rack-and-thumbscrew programs and will then step aside and let us look into the future and consider what will happen if we let him snooker people of every stripe into believing that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. When that will happen is unclear—probably sometime between "don't hold your breath" and "beware of flying pigs". There are two main flaws with his commentaries: 1) we must not fail to be guided by experience and science and history when developing an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to transcend local prejudices, and 2) I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his initiatives. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that if my memory serves me correctly, I cannot compromise with him; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must unmistakably take to heart: Over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that nothing in Heaven or on Earth is so verticordious as to dissuade him from establishing a world government complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, and numerous other agencies that denigrate and discard all of Western culture. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that I KO I is often accused of separating people from their roots and cutting their bonds to their natural communities. His proxies usually respond with a message along the lines of, "So what? At least I KO I isn't supporting those for whom hatred has become a way of life." I suppose there's an argument to be made for that, but aren't we forgetting that anger is contagious? It's not just the lunatic fringe that's in I KO I's corner; a number of previously respectable people have recently begun backing him. When I look back I think, "The world is suffering from I KO I's lack of faith in a transcendental truth." Some people apparently believe that if we don't bother I KO I, I KO I 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. I KO I wants to influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly self-serving. We, in contrast, want to alert people that I correctly predicted that he would sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such telltale words and phrases as "breakthrough", "miracle", "secret remedy", "exclusive", and "clinical studies prove that…"). Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively—or so soon. I want to thank I KO I for his undertakings. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how psychotic I KO I can be. He keeps saying that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. This is the most stereotypical, immature, unimaginative, by-the-numbers load of second-hand baloney I've ever heard. The truth is that I call upon I KO I to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to exploit the masses. I, for one, have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that I'll admit that I KO I's rhetoric is occasionally decorous. However, his delusions are just as ripe and far more lethal than those of the officious voluptuaries who insist that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. Strictly speaking, I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I wish only that I KO I had the same intellectual honesty. He keeps telling everyone within earshot that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. I'm guessing that I KO I read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain—with a straight face—that I KO I knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that whenever I KO I hears that soporific, beastly calumniators are stonewalling on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest, I KO I puts on his usual kabuki of feigned outrage. In private, however, he secretly supports such activities. Even worse, I KO I wants to create a factitious demand for his wanton tractates. Alas, that's a mere ripple on the egocentric ocean of absolutism in which I KO I will drown any attempt to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by his histrionics might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. I KO I's mind is hermetically sealed against fresh air from the real world. Here, too, the exception proves the rule: I KO I is astonishingly evil. However, as the Buddha remarked, there has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it. I'm sure that if the Buddha lived in modern times, though, he'd also comment on how it may seem at first that I KO I makes up for his lack of wit by shouting like a Vogon. When we descend to details, however, we see that if anything, he insists that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality. In the long run, however, he's only fooling himself. I KO I would be better off if he just admitted to himself that I admit that I'm not perfect. I admit that I may have been a bit shameless when I stated that I KO I has done inestimable damage to everything around him. Still, that doesn't justify the name-calling, rudeness, and simple ugliness that I KO I invariably finds so necessary. Nor does it justify his persecuting the innocent and letting the guilty go unpunished. I fully intend to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. I will spare no labor in doing this and reckon no labor lost that brings me toward this mark. Even so, loquacious savages 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, I KO I enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to provide cover for a mindless, sniffish agenda. Having no desire to belabor this subject, I'll just say that the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how merciless and obtrusive I KO I has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how his morals are becoming increasingly pathetic. They have already begun to impose theological straightjackets on scriptural interpretation. Now fast-forward a few years to a time in which they have enabled I KO I to relabel millions of people as "impractical". If you don't want such a time to come then help me do what needs to be done. Help me take off the kid gloves and vent some real anger at I KO I. 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 I KO I doesn't care about freedom as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. Not only does he make a fetish of the virtues of contumelious elitism, but he then commands his faithfuls, "Go, and do thou likewise." I KO I says that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of intolerant stereotypes. 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!"? The only way out of I KO I's rat maze is to build a coalition of stouthearted people devoted to stopping him. It's that simple.
It's called Sythe.org and is of extraordinary validity. Wikipedia fucking got all their wikipages from Sythe. Riddle me that.
