Parts of what follows below were actually painful to write. However, because of the ongoing misinformation campaigns launched by Incomplete and his loyalists, I feel it is my duty to write this. In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in Incomplete's logic because he doubtlessly doesn't use any logic. Hopeless hedonists undermine liberty in the name of liberty. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: Incomplete and his humorless cheerleaders. I want to talk about the big picture: if we are powerless to make pretentiousness unfashionable, it is because we have allowed Incomplete to attack my character.
You see, I correctly predicted that Incomplete would dominate or intimidate others. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. His expansionism movement appears to be growing in number. I obviously pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping him hurt people's feelings, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that if Incomplete feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself.
I've catalogued all of Incomplete's foibles -- and the list is pretty big. Which brings me to my next criticism of Incomplete. Shame on him for thinking that people like you and me are inarticulate! Incomplete, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world.
Let no one say that academicism brings one closer to nirvana. No, this is polyloquent, superstitious statism and must be regarded as an attempt to damage the self esteem and physical health of millions of young men and women. When Incomplete promotes the idea of a "global village" he secretly means "global pillage". And that's where we are right now. I may be opening a Pandora's box by writing this, but he accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he allege I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.
We must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. Let's be frank: If Incomplete were to tell us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and -- most importantly -- what not to know, it would be a grave insult to everyone who devoted his or her life's work to helping the less fortunate. For that reason, I must ask that Incomplete's spin doctors hold Incomplete responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses. I know they'll never do that so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to intensify race hatred. When we tease apart the associations necessary to his evil animadversions, we see that the very genesis of his dangerous contrivances is in absolutism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that Incomplete will eventually himself be destroyed by absolutism.
In essence, Incomplete's compeers are too lazy to spread the word about Incomplete's slatternly, catty jibes to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers -- even to strangers. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Incomplete for trying to defy the rules of logic. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, if Incomplete had his way, schools would teach students that the sun rises just for him. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how even Incomplete must concede that I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to place a high value on honor and self-respect. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: What accounts for his prodigious criminality and dissipation? A clue might be that his abominable hypnopompic insights introduce changes without testing them first. Incomplete then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.
You should never forget the three most important facets of Incomplete's orations, namely their stingy origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Before I leave this issue, let me share an interesting finding from a recent poll: Four out of five people surveyed insist that Incomplete says he's going to extract obscene salaries and profits from corporations that make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks one day. Good old Incomplete. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how nugatory they sound. His stories about antagonism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why Incomplete wants to reward mediocrity. Maybe it's because he plans to advocate lousy epigrams. His claim that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere is factually unsupported and politically motivated. It is therefore reasonable to infer that when I was younger I wanted to navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Incomplete's dotty, rash anecdotes and the Charybdis of sesquipedalianism. I still want to do that but now I realize 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 if I have a bias, it is only against frowzy dolts who force us to bow down low before pharisaical extortionists. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of Incomplete's belligerent scribblings rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because Incomplete plans to understate the negative impact of ageism. He has instructed his peons not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Incomplete knows he has something to hide.
So that there may be no misunderstanding, let me make it clear that Incomplete can get away with lies (e.g., that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative) 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 Incomplete is lying. He has been trying to convince us that profits come before people. This pathetic attempt to develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence his opponents deserves no comment other than to say that we must give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to take the initiative to set the record straight.
It may sound strange to Incomplete when I say that we must educate, inform, and nurture our children instead of keeping them ignorant, afraid, and in danger, but Incomplete's parasitic dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Autism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these nerdy trends is to give parents the means to protect their children. To be precise, I'm sure he wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his secret conversations. So why does Incomplete want to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence? You see, I never used to be particularly concerned about his insults. Any damned fool, or so I thought, could see that he does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Incomplete discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that putting unholy thoughts in our children's minds is considered de rigueur by Incomplete's peuplade.
Rather than engage in a point-by-point response to the textual interpretation of Incomplete's litanies, I want to respond to the more general issue at hand. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. Incomplete attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, he calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, Incomplete says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does he say such things? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is indubitably not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that Incomplete has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that his announcements are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of sadism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up.
In general, Incomplete has long wanted to prevent anyone from stating publicly that foolish is as foolish does. Why do I bring that up? Because by studying his repression of ideas in its extreme, unambiguous form one may more clearly understand why Incomplete's endeavors are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? A complete answer to that question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give you a simplified answer. For starters, I am indeed not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that if we don't deal with Incomplete's namby-pamby, merciless communications on a case-by-case basis right now, then Incomplete's reinterpretations of historic events will soon start to metastasize until they infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating impulsive information. Despite Incomplete's protestations and rhetoric, the facts do not support his claims, but I guess nobody ever explained that to his surrogates. 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 Incomplete's older précis were unimaginative enough. His latest ones are definitely beyond the pale.
I, for one, might be able to forgive Incomplete, but only if he promises never again to issue a flood of bogus legal documents. He promises that if we give him and his shock troops additional powers, he'll guard us from bumptious devotees of conspiracy theories of various stripes. My question, however is, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- Who will guard the guards?
The primary point of disagreement between myself and Incomplete is whether or not he has never satisfactorily proved his assertion that he is beyond reproach. He has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." I realize that factionalism is a tremendous problem in our society, but does it constantly have to be thrown in our faces? To ask that question another way, what meaningless self-inflicted psychological trauma is he going through now? That is, what sort of severe tunnel vision has led him to think that his memoirs epitomize wholesome family entertainment? The answer is not obvious because there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent he has tried to cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills. The other is whether or not Incomplete has for a long time been arguing that he is known for his sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. Had he instead been arguing that this is clear to every knowledgeable observer, I might cede him his point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Incomplete's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how it's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to cause riots in the streets. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a testy idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that if you read Incomplete's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that Incomplete should be even slightly inconvenienced. But if you read his writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that we live in a deeply troubled society. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if he finds a way to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate fork-tongued hell-raisers of one sort or another.
If you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, I truly believe that Incomplete is full of it. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, finding the best way to fight for what is right is a challenging problem indeed. We must therefore tackle this problem with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than it has ever been tackled before. Only then will people realize that Incomplete is like a pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Incomplete and a pigeon is that Incomplete intends to exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation. That's why over time, Incomplete's intimations have progressed from being merely heartless to being superheartless, hyperheartless, and recently ultraheartless. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megaheartless.
Because the foundation of diabolism is terribly flawed, anything based on it will also be terribly flawed. That explains why Incomplete's analects are so delirious. In fact, not only are they delirious but they fail to take into consideration the way that I welcome Incomplete's comments. However, Incomplete needs to realize that I myself want nothing more -- or less -- than to give peace a chance. To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise.
Note that there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of brown-nosing vigilantes but the hope that makes you eager to initiate meaningful change. If I had to choose the most peremptory specimen from Incomplete's welter of insolent gabble, it would have to be Incomplete's claim that he is omnipotent. If one could get a Ph.D. in Demagogism, Incomplete would be the first in line to have one. Not to put too fine a point on it but I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to point out the glaring contradiction between his idealized view of Jacobinism and reality. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that if Incomplete's attempts to introduce, cultivate, and encourage moral rot have spurred us to encourage open, civic engagement, then Incomplete may have accomplished a useful thing.
I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that if we look beyond Incomplete's delusions of grandeur, we see that he says that he wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, he always ends up making my blood curdle.
Incomplete either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. He even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to prostrate the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of entire countries. If he gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of Lysenkoism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that if it weren't for obdurate, lazy cheapskates, Incomplete would have no friends. He presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, Incomplete devises new schemes to make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs.
How can we trust an officious, distasteful dummkopf who actively conceals his true intentions? We can't. And besides, it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did Incomplete's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "How can someone who claims to be so educated and so open-minded dare to form the association in the public's mind between any rantings Incomplete disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality?" The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems but it boils down essentially to this: It is probably safe to assume that Incomplete has a morbid fascination with all that is inferior, debased, deformed, raucous, and obstinate. Furthermore, I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that Incomplete's orations reek of solipsism. I use the word "reek" because Incomplete claims that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another disgraceful attempt to institutionalize credentialism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. Our goal must now be to lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight. If you believe that that's a worthwhile goal, then I can surely use your help. Let me hear from you.
My topic is nothing new. However, since no one else has found it fit to address directly, I will address it here. Permit me this forum to rant. Incomplete asserts that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. His sermons may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into venal, ophidian lexiphanicism. I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Incomplete's soulless, stroppy equivocations, but his goombahs are quick to point out that because he is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, Incomplete is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Incomplete is a victim of his own success -- a success that enables Incomplete to provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction.
Will Incomplete's splenetic lapdogs make incorrect leaps of logic? Only time will tell. I have a plan to unveil the semiotic patterns that Incomplete utilizes to make my worst nightmares come true. I call this plan "Operation raise malicious shambolic-types out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor". (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that Incomplete's snippy animadversions demand that Earth submit to the dominion of self-serving, apolaustic adolescents of various stripes. Incomplete then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.
Finding the best way to stop Incomplete's encroachments on our heritage is a challenging problem indeed. We must therefore tackle this problem with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than it has ever been tackled before. Only then will people realize that what we're seeing is a domino effect of events that started with Incomplete stating that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. That prevarication incited his foot soldiers to take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown. The most ghastly headcases you'll ever see reacted, in turn, by breaking down our communities. The next domino to fall, not surprisingly, was a widespread increase in snobbism, and that's the event that galvanized me to tell everyone that we must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to preach a message of community and brotherly love.
While there's no dispute that Incomplete's pertinacious and probably a little Pecksniffian, he's also cunning, implacable, fanatic, and ruthless. Why else would he convince people that their peers are already riding the Incomplete bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too? His goal is to judge people based solely on hearsay. How prurient is that? How incomprehensible? How vicious? At the risk of shocking you further I shall point out that he has planted his companions everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Incomplete's ability to put supercilious smart alecks on the federal payroll but it also provides irrefutable evidence that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still contend that he is incapable of looking with an open mind at anything that doesn't strictly endorse his views, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. We have an obligation to anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. And we have an obligation to tell Incomplete what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use.
Since I don't know Incomplete that well, I'll have to be a bit presumptuous when I say that there is only one way to stop him from preventing me from sleeping soundly at night. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of what I call wrongheaded, subversive champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine, people who are willing to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of delirious, crotchety thoughts Incomplete is thinking about these days. Then together we can stop the Huns at the gate. Together we can show the world that I would like to give you an example of how detestable Incomplete can be. Incomplete has admitted that he intends to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities. Okay, that may have been a particularly bald-faced and unsubtle example but I cannot compromise with Incomplete; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must truly take to heart: Incomplete is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead.
While these incidents may seem minor, if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which Incomplete may sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need any day now, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that you may have noticed that it is not possible fully to understand the present except as a projection of the past. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Incomplete of planning to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that he's more than pouty. Incomplete's mega-pouty. In fact, to understand just how pouty he is, you first need to realize that it strikes me as amusing that Incomplete complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain.
Incomplete would not hesitate to 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 if he felt he could benefit from doing so. Why does parasitism exist? What causes it? And where is Incomplete's integrity? To understand the answers to those questions, you first have to realize that Incomplete's yes-men are encouraged -- or more aptly, dragooned -- into helping Incomplete defile the air and water in the name of profit. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don't mind, though, I'll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, if we do nothing, Incomplete will keep on bombarding me with insults. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of militarism.
I hardly need to tell you that in order to solve the big problems with Incomplete we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must discuss the programmatic foundations of his disaffected causeries in detail. The following is a preliminary attempt to establish some criteria for discussion of these complex issues. To begin with, over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that he has the gall to block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that there's something I've observed about Incomplete. Namely, he may not know how to spell "microclimatological" but he indeed knows how to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate aberrant sandbaggers. I've further observed that Incomplete is absolutely bad-tempered, as he has proved to my complete satisfaction.
Even without the manipulative ideology of allotheism in the picture, we can still say that some people claim that Incomplete has never been accused of objectivity. Others believe that under the guise of "fighting fetishism," Incomplete will inculcate dissolute recommendations. In the interest of clearing up the confusion I'll make the following observation: I intend to look closely at Incomplete's perorations to see what makes them so effectual at causing violent subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. I should expect to find -- this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify -- that Incomplete ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:
Fact: Incomplete's deputies have decided, behind closed doors and in closed sessions, to use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives.
Fact: Incomplete considers "honesty" to be a dirty word.
Fact: Faster than you can say "psychotherapeutical", Incomplete's hatred of all things pure and good will erupt like Mt. Vesuvius, scattering the ashes of heathenism over everyone in its path.
In addition, Incomplete must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Incomplete accuses me of admitting that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. What I actually said is that we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that Incomplete answers to no one. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that if we were to let Incomplete get away with changing this country's moral infrastructure, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice.
Incomplete doesn't want us to know about his plans to turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency. Otherwise, we might do something about that. The important point here is not that his doctrines are in conflict with accepted morality. The vital matter is that he recently stated that his blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary because if he is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument. We can't just sit around and do nothing. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.
Something is happening here, and I'm getting a little worried. For starters, if I were a complete sap, I'd believe Incomplete's line that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever his personal interests are at stake. Unfortunately for him, I realize that we must criticize the obvious incongruities presented by Incomplete and his serfs. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility -- a crushing responsibility. However, if we stick together we can can show the world that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I warrant that there is because if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then Incomplete is clearly going to be the first to go.
Incomplete wants us to feel sorry for the sniffish politicos who accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. I insist we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Incomplete's campaigns of malice and malignity are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, Incomplete says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, Incomplete's time has run out. Well, sure; Incomplete has been promoting door-to-door roundups of "troublemakers" (meaning people who resist being inducted into the ranks of Incomplete's coterie) and their delivery into concentration camps (more accurately: liquidation camps), but that doesn't change reality.
Incomplete 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. Slaphappy, malign weirdos are responsible for the conscienceless tenor of his conclusions. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that if Incomplete is victorious in his quest to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that he may be generating, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.
I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that Incomplete's publications 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 the immediate years ahead. I feel that it can be safely said that Incomplete's reinterpretations of historic events reinforce the point that we still have a long way to go in terms of achieving true tolerance in our society. What's the difference between Incomplete's shock troops and destructive, picayunish money-worshippers? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right. Things are apt to get worse before they get better. This is equivalent to saying that Incomplete must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Incomplete accuses me of admitting that he never engages in hate-filled, hostile, or annoying politics. What I actually said is that Incomplete's stances represent a new unsophisticated, shiftless ethos that fatuous, surly spielers will eventually use to make a mockery of the term "undiscriminatingness". At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that he has for a long time been arguing that his nostrums 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. Had he instead been arguing that he makes up for his lack of wit by shouting like a Vogon, I might cede him his point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Incomplete's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how this is a free country, and I profess we ought to keep it that way.
Incomplete claims that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. During the first half of the 20th century, alcoholism could have been practically identified with cannibalism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called a stuck-up so-called expert. I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Incomplete's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many psychotic duffers realize that Incomplete's factotums maintain that Incomplete is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because I defy the predatory roustabouts who make it impossible to disturb Incomplete's splenetic gravy train and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent.
Incomplete has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then putrid yutzes will be free to reduce our modern, civilized, industrialized society to a state of mindless, primitive barbarism. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Incomplete's militant ideologies, but he has a knack for convincing slatternly cockalorums that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "ultramicrochemistry" and "pseudolamellibranchiate" to keep his sales pitch from sounding obdurate. That's why you really have to look hard to see that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Incomplete's vassals don't really care that given the amount of misinformation that he is circulating, I must point out that if we let him mute the voice of anyone who dares to speak out against him, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.
Now, perhaps you think I'm imagining things. Perhaps you think that Incomplete really isn't going to move diabolism-oriented, sullen paternalism from the nettlesome fringe into a realm of respectability. Well, I wish it were just my imagination. But you know, I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I act honorably.
Here's a question for you: To what gods does Incomplete pledge allegiance? The gods of gnosticism and onanism? The gods that seem most likely to command Incomplete to force us to do things or take stands against our will? The thermonuclear gods sitting in reinforced silos waiting for doomsday? Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that it's our responsibility to present another paradigm in opposition to his nugatory machinations. That's the first step in trying to take steps against the whole caustic brotherhood of out-of-touch, imprudent dorks, and it's the only way to maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting him.
I mean, Incomplete's plan is to prevent me from getting my work done. Incomplete's co-conspirators are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes preventing me from sleeping soundly at night. If the left of the current political spectrum is intemperate fascism and the right is longiloquent, polyloquent neocolonialism then Incomplete's politics are clearly going to be a form of mischievous recidivism. Incomplete attracts effrontive storytellers to his flock by telling them that his faith in authoritarianism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, it's Incomplete's deep-seated belief that the ideas of "freedom" and "racialism" are Siamese twins. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that -- using biased or one-sided information, of course -- but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that sneaky, semi-intelligible egotists with stronger voices than minds would revert to brutish behavior. But one of Incomplete's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world, never the original problem.
It would be nice to say that brassbound, dour anarchism doesn't exist anymore but we all know that it does. Whatever should be true of statutory and often ephemeral enactments in human jurisprudence, the fact remains that Incomplete claims to have read somewhere that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. I don't doubt that he has indeed read such a thing; one can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the Internet. More reliable sources, however, tend to agree that in Incomplete's jeremiads, communism is witting and unremitting, phlegmatic and high-handed. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to turn the trickle of incendiarism into a tidal wave. He seems to have recently added the word "anticonstitutionally" to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose Incomplete intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that any rational argument must acknowledge this. His shabby claims, naturally, do not. And now, to end with a clever bit of doggerel: United we stand. Divided we fall. Incomplete's officious hijinks will destroy us all.
http://www.pakin.org/complaint/