My original goal for this letter was to scrutinize Sir Roland Stoppable's remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Roland's focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. One of the first facts we should face is that if my memory serves me correctly, most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.
What we're involved in with Roland is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it. It may seem at first that I challenge him to crawl out of his sheltered existence and create and nurture a true spirit of community. When we descend to details, however, we see that I plan to drag Roland in front of a tribunal and try him for his crimes against humanity. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that Roland contends that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion and that, therefore, he should create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Roland has for his assistants because "it's the right thing to do". This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces deplorable, effrontive shirkers (as distinct from the barbaric blockheads who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that Roland has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. In reality, contrariwise, Roland plans to sacrifice children on the twin altars of Stalinism and greed before the year is over. I'd like to see him try to get away with such a plan; that should be good for a laugh. You see, most people have already observed that I don't know what makes Roland think that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Maybe he's been sipping cuckoo juice. The fact of the matter is that Roland's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only churlish answers, ill-bred resolutions to conflicts.
Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I aver that there is because Roland turns to medieval legends of poisoned wells in order to frighten what I call Pecksniffian, splenetic flibbertigibbets into forcing me to lose all self-control. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: What is it about our society that makes stentorian, pharisaical moral weaklings like Roland desire to promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide? Apparently, even know-it-all Roland doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't even matter if he did, given that it may seem excessive to note that the net effect of his grievances will be a generation of kids who are unable to read, write, or distinguish good from evil. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, for those of us who make our living trying to speak out against the most daft energumens I've ever seen, it is important to consider that in a recent essay, Roland stated that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Roland is drunk with power, which is why we must convince picayunish clumsy-types (especially the meretricious type) to stop supporting Roland and tolerating his asseverations.
At no time in the past did uncongenial half-wits shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. Put simply, we have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by Roland and his torchbearers or we throw down the gauntlet and challenge Roland's shock troops to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding his bleeding-heart off-the-cuff comments. While I don't expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that if Roland's attempts to set the hoops through which we all must jump have spurred us to enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity, then Roland may have accomplished a useful thing. Let's be realistic: his desire to sully my reputation is the chief sign that he's an infantile flibbertigibbet. (The second sign is that Roland feels obliged to abuse science by using it as a mechanism of ideology.) He contends that poststructuralism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. What planet is he from? The planet Disdainful? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture.
Roland uses big words like "premisrepresentation" to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although Roland's double standards may reek like a skunk, Roland has -- not once, but several times -- been able to cater to the basest instincts of brazen scatterbrains without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his nettlesome viewpoints are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and fix our sights on eternity.
Anyone who believes that Roland can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct is kidding himself, which is another way of saying that Roland's foolhardy "compromises" do not comport with my policy to restore the world back to its original balance. But that's not all: He is extremely untrustworthy. In fact, my Untrustworthy-O-Meter confirms that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of spiteful, illiterate exhibitionists it has to be repeated at least fifty times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following fifty times, but once one begins thinking about free speech, about voluble weirdos who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own conniving beliefs, one realizes that this is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact.
Roland can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. He could shackle us with the chains of adversarialism. As I noted at the beginning of this letter, knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that Roland's grand plan is to impugn the patriotism of his opponents. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, Roland wants us to believe that embracing a system of unilateralism will make everything right with the world. How stupid does he think we are? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: Now that I've been exposed to his initiatives I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps his argument that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with is hopelessly flawed and entirely circuitous.
Look at what's happened since Roland first ordered his loyalists to subvert existing lines of power and information: Views once considered crude are now considered ordinary. Views once considered venom-spouting are now considered perfectly normal. And the most immature of Roland's views are now seen as gospel by legions of vainglorious, gloomy ogres. He has vowed that one day he'll introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms. This is hardly news; Roland has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that his memoirs are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, if we do nothing, Roland will keep on stirring up trouble. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can combat the unconscionable ideology of expansionism that has infected the minds of so many satanic smear merchants.
I don't know if I speak for anybody but myself on this, but if Roland isn't garrulous, I don't know who is. With him so forcefully turning the trickle of racialism into a tidal wave, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them.
There is only one way to stop Roland from insulting my intelligence. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of vitriolic cheapskates, people who are willing to reverse the devolutionary course that Roland has set for us. Then together we can make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of his teachings. Together we can show the world that Roland has never satisfactorily proved his assertion that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. He has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." Stand with me, be honest with me, and help me give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time, and together we'll step back and consider the problem of Sir Roland Stoppable's magic-bullet explanations in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. We'll turn his mealymouthed prophecies to our advantage. I'm counting on you. Thanks for reading this.
