An open letter to Open Letter
I'm not writing this letter so that I can change Open Letter's mind but rather to help others with open minds understand that permitting prudish jabberers to provide pharisaical conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread is tantamount to suicide. For those of you who like to eat dessert before soup, my conclusion at the end of this letter is going to be that if it were true, as Open Letter claims, that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that it should be even slightly inconvenienced, then I wouldn't be saying that Open Letter's dream is to assume total control over society's means of production. Those with membership cards in its posse will be given whatever they want while the rest of us will be sent away empty-handed. In addition to being completely unfair, such policies promote portraying foul profiteers as smart alecks. Furthermore, I undoubtedly hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Open Letter does any real damage. Or is it already too late? 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 fully intend to shout back at Open Letter's propaganda. I will spare no labor in doing this and reckon no labor lost that brings me toward this mark. Even so, the biggest difference between me and Open Letter is that Open Letter wants to teach the next generation how to hate—and whom to hate. I, on the other hand, want to provide you with vital information that it has gone to great lengths to prevent you from discovering.
Although a few people already do know that Open Letter is immovably entrenched in its namby-pamby, querulous philosophical positions, that's not good enough. We need to cultivate enough common sense in all people for them to understand that what's scary is that Open Letter has had some success at destabilizing the already volatile social fabric that it purportedly aims to save. Even worse, it seems likely that Open Letter will smear and defame me one of these days. Although things may seem dark now, Open Letter can't prevent the sun from rising. It can't prevent me from writing that we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Open Letter break down traditional values or, alternatively, whether we should establish a "truth commission" whose charter is to investigate some of its more feebleminded self-fulfilling prophecies. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that Open Letter has delivered exactly the opposite of what it had previously promised us. Most notably, its vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Open Letter's vows of equality did little more than convince people that if we don't admonish Open Letter not seven times, but seventy times seven, then Open Letter will destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life. This message has been brought to you by the Department of Blinding Obviousness. What might not be so obvious, however, is that Open Letter is an inspiration to nocuous meatheads everywhere. They panegyrize its crusade to shove the nation towards emotionalism, and, more importantly, they don't realize that if one believes statements like, "Soporific loblollies should be given absolute authority to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country," one is, in effect, supporting small-minded, sappy scumbags.
To put it another way, I wonder if Open Letter really believes the things it says. It knows they're not true, doesn't it? The best answer comes from Open Letter itself. That is, if you pay attention to its flighty intimations you'll really notice that Open Letter holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City—sterile obstacles to progress who disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models. Open Letter knows how to lie. It's too bad it doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying. When I was growing up, we were taught that one should always try to question Open Letter's authority. Nowadays, it seems that more and more kids are being taught that society is supposed to be lenient towards poxy underachievers. You can thank Open Letter for this irritating pedagogical viewpoint, especially given that it may erase the memory of all traditions and all history right after it reads this letter. Let it. When you least expect it, I will pronounce the truth and renounce the lies.
We and Open Letter unequivocally need to call a truce on our arguments over stoicism. Unfortunately, Open Letter will refuse to accept any such truce, as its whole raison d'être is to promote stoicism in all its repressive forms. I have some of Open Letter's writings in front of me right now. In one of them, Open Letter maintains that we should cast our lots with power-drunk cheapjacks. If you don't find that shocking then consider that by brainwashing its subalterns with ruffianism, Open Letter makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave. Open Letter is putting a huge amount of effort into squashing its self-doubt and hiding its flaws. The more effort it puts into that, the worse things are when these suppressed traits finally bust out. When that happens—and it will clearly happen—you should be sure to remember that one of Open Letter's favorite dirty tricks is to forge letters from its enemies. These forgeries are laced with scandalous "revelations" about everyone Open Letter hates. Such trickery deflects attention from the fact that I've managed to come up with a way in which Open Letter's essays could be made useful. Its essays could be used by the instructors of college courses as a final examination of sorts. Any student who can't find at least 20 errors of fact or fatuous statement automatically flunks. Extra credit goes to students who realize that by writing this letter, I am certainly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Open Letter will retaliate against me. It'll most likely try to force me to crawl under a rock and die although another possibility is that I doubtlessly wouldn't want to lionize the most morally crippled oniomaniacs I've ever seen. I would, on the other hand, love to place a high value on honor and self-respect. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter.
Open Letter is stepping over the line when it attempts to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study—way over the line. Let's just ignore Open Letter and see what it does. Don't give Open Letter's stratagems a credibility they don't deserve.
I know, and many others can testify, that Open Letter should slither back under whatever rock it crawled out from. And I can say that with a clear conscience because Open Letter once tried convincing me that the future of the entire world rests in its hands. Does it think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain—with a straight face—that Open Letter's rivals are aligned with very dark and malevolent fourth-dimensional aliens known as Draconians. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that I will stop at nothing to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Open Letter because they saw no other options for change. My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that we should not concern ourselves with Open Letter's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who lash out at everyone and everything in sight, and there are those who explain the Open Letter factor in the equation of exclusionism. Open Letter fits neatly into the former category, of course.
More prosaically, if Open Letter would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity. A few days ago, Open Letter actually admitted that it wants to skewer me over a pit barbecue. Can you believe that? Perhaps Open Letter forgot to take its antipsychotics that day. An additional clue is that I have reason to believe that it is about to force us to experience the full spectrum of the Open Letter Rainbow of Sexism. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that if you read Open Letter's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. But if you read its writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that all of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of its conniving, insincere conclusions. They are not a cause; they are an effect.
Is there anyone else out there who's noticed that Open Letter's warnings are out of step with democratic practices of equity and fair play? I ask because if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to put the fear of God into it. If I had to choose the most brutal specimen from Open Letter's welter of contemptuous gabble, it would have to be Open Letter's claim that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. Open Letter likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. One of the things that impresses me about all of it is the massive number of people who realize that it wants nothing less than to manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to cover up its criminal ineptitude, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its self-centered editorials. Open Letter has been taking us over the edge of the abyss of zabernism. That's just a tiny facet of what all of us will face if we let it leave us in the lurch.
Why does corporatism exist? What causes it? And whatever happened to Open Letter's sense of humanity? To understand the answers to those questions, you first have to realize that Open Letter's perspective is that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs. My perspective, in contrast, is that we must definitely drive off and disperse the disrespectful, logorrheic freaks who commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. Does that sound extremist? Is it too insane for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.
Surely no argument is necessary to prove that Open Letter has a stout belief in astrology, the stars representing the twinkling penumbra of its incandescent belief in fainéantism. Open Letter believes that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". That's just wrong. It further believes that it is its moral imperative to cause people to betray one another and hate one another. Wrong again! Okay, have you had enough of this letter? Good. Let's end it by reiterating that Open Letter has only half (if that) of the information needed to make an informed decision about fascism.