Don't Do Drugs Kiddies!

I KO I · Dec 12, 2012

Favorite is the one of the chick's face basically melting off her head.

Laurie · Dec 12, 2012

Sad and disheartening.

Divine_God · Dec 12, 2012

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.