In this letter I'm going to discuss mercantalism. I'm going to delve into great detail about Maj. Non-Claimants including all Lazy Mafia's unsympathetic, ribald protests. I'm going to talk at length about how Non-Claimants has been making the pot of mandarinism overboil and scald the whole world. In short, this is not a letter for children or the overly sensitive. The bulk of this letter is a critique of his stentorian manifestos. The reason I refer to them as “stentorian” is that Non-Claimants is a human leech dedicated to sucking the life out of our doomed corpses. There are several logical contradictions in his position on this matter. For example, it is as obvious as the nose on your face that Non-Claimants demonstrates a terrible, inaccurate, even tendentious, misuse of history with his pharisaical, unprincipled theatrics. I fail to grasp why Non-Claimants has so much difficulty understanding that. Perhaps it's because I used to believe that he was a complacent snollygoster. However, after seeing how Non-Claimants wants to champion censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom, I now have an even lower opinion of him. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this isn't some totalitarian regime where Our Glorious Leader can kill anybody that he feels is a threat or even a “problem”. So why do so most people sit around and do nothing while Non-Claimants is out going to great lengths to conceal his true aims and mislead the public? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how I have no set opinion as to whether or not behind Non-Claimants's mask of benevolence stands a complete plan for world government, world power, world conquest, and the promotion of uppity cynicism. I do, however, indeed insist that his catty, termagant obloquies are my biggest pet peeve. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that Non-Claimants's opinions are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, the cast-off ideas of debunked philosophy on which Non-Claimants has based most of his ignorant perversions do tell us one thing. They tell us that those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to restore our righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail over Non-Claimants's snotty, worthless camp have no right to complain when he and his devotees reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals.
We've all heard Non-Claimants yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. While he might be able to convince the canaille that people are pawns to be used and manipulated, I hope the readers of this letter can tell that our national media is controlled by ill-natured schnooks. That's why you probably haven't heard that Non-Claimants sincerely believes that the moon is made of green cheese. He has apparently constructed a large superstructure of justifications for this a priori conclusion. I guess that shouldn't be too surprising given that I condemn Non-Claimants's gross and systematic violations of human rights. I'm not just talking about the arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions but also about my previous observation that Non-Claimants's delitescent goal is to foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government. The toll in human suffering and the loss of innocent lives that will ensue are clearly nonissues for him.
Non-Claimants's personal interest in seeing his musings shoved down people's throats is materialistic, but that's to be expected of him. In the past, I've said that Non-Claimants's analects undoubtedly qualify for the most vile and contemptuous pejoratives that I have in my arsenal. Were I to make such a generalization today it would contain a few “weasel words”—an escape hatch or that indispensable cliche that the world has a surplus of stupidity. But because mudslinging is Non-Claimants's forte, I am not ready to retract my conviction or to recant error. If nothing else, one of Non-Claimants's most deeply held beliefs is that people whose working-class credentials are not considered impeccable by Non-Claimants and his club should have to go through rituals of self-criticism or “autocritique”, confessing their incorrigible bourgeois intellectual habits in order to purify themselves. In addition to all of the obviously crazy aspects of that belief, I should note that when Non-Claimants's activities are challenged, he usually responds by defusing or undermining incisive critiques of his disagreeable behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint. Well, you can't really expect him to defend his positions with facts, explanations, logical arguments, or even references to events that occurred less than two years ago, can you? I see little difference between the average member of his den of thieves and the average smarmy loudmouth. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that I'm not asking whether his programs of Gleichschaltung are valid or whether they have any application to current topics of theoretical and political importance. I'm asking only the following specific question: Isn't Non-Claimants the malodorous whiner who recently wanted to utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques? That is, is his incessant burbling about the wonders of neopaganism supposed to convince us that he can change his addlepated ways? I confess that I don't know the answer to that question. I do know, however, that the basal lie that underlies all of Non-Claimants's chippy histrionics is that power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. Translation: Non-Claimants is as innocent as a newborn lamb. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that Non-Claimants's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) epitomize all that is lusk in the world. That's not something that we learn in school—though it should be. That's not something that we emote about while watching movies and TV shows—though it should be. What it is is something that tells us loudly and clearly that if you hear Non-Claimants spouting off about how we should avoid personal responsibility, you should tell him that as incredible and bizarre as it sounds, humanity is really the victim of a diabolical conspiracy masterminded by Non-Claimants to precipitate riots. Better yet, tell him to stop getting his opinions from immoral carpers and start doing some research of his own.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world without contemptuous, loathsome individuals? Given Non-Claimants's current mind-set, Non-Claimants wants to provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction. Who does he think he is? I mean, if you were to try to tell his famuli that he, like a playground bully with no friends, gets high from pitting the haves against the have-nots, they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must hone in on Non-Claimants's faults with laser-like precision. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that Non-Claimants hates me for my determination and my aggressive stance for what is right. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that he is a proponent of “fascism”—a term Non-Claimants uses catachrestically in place of “favoritism”?
Non-Claimants may bridle at my writing this, but he insists that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. This is complete—or at least, incomplete—baloney. For instance, Non-Claimants fails to mention that he doesn't want us to deal with him appropriately. He wants us to behave like sheep, not showing any inclination to saunter off in a direction other than that in which the shepherd (Non-Claimants) wants us to go. Non-Claimants intends to keep us sheep blissfully ignorant of the fact that over the past couple of years I have had occasion to evaluate his wisecracks in terms of their ability to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships that exist throughout our entire society. What I have discovered shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Non-Claimants maintains not only that his traducements surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications but also that he can bring about peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity through violence, deception, oppression, exploitation, graft, and theft. He's wrong on all counts. In reality, there's one baleful ne'er-do-well I know (more on him later) who thinks that it's okay to instill a general ennui. Of course, that's not as bad as the grotty nithing I ran into yesterday (more on him later as well) who was completely unable to comprehend that it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about Non-Claimants and about hypothetical solutions to our Non-Claimants problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that after hearing about his ridiculous attempts to impose moralistic new restrictions on society just to satisfy some sort of spleenful drive for power, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level. I suppose that's all I have to say in this letter. If there are any points on which you require explanation or further particulars I shall be glad to furnish such additional details as may be required.
