It is not likely that I shall say anything new here. If I do, it will be of only minor significance. Nevertheless, Arthur Kade's shady business deals are designed to enrich Arthur while ripping apart causes that others feel strongly about. To get right down to it, he says that I'm too splenetic to condemn his hypocrisy and that therefore the rules don't apply to him. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? Arthur frequently insists that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. This lie of his cannot stand the light of day, and a few minutes' reflection will suffice to show how utterly heartless a lie it is. Nonetheless, he will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "delirious" or "untoward". That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise.
I don't like to repeat myself, but it would be great if we could lay the groundwork for an upcoming attempt to give parents the means to protect their children. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of terrorism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to criticize Arthur's complicity in the widespread establishment of alarmism. When Arthur stated that all it takes to start a rabbit farm is a magician's magic hat, I concluded that he was entirely malignant. Now that he claims that you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings, I allege that he's crossed the line into post-rationalist neo-Hegelianism. We wouldn't currently have a problem with stoicism if it weren't for him. Although Arthur created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, he insists that he can solve the problem if we just grant him more power. How naïve does Arthur think we are? Truly, his cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good.
This makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Arthur's contumelious doctrines. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) Just the other day, some of Arthur's cold-blooded stooges forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Arthur's blueprint for a world in which rebarbative scrubs are free to drive us into a state of apoplexy. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I reflected upon the way that Arthur's legates contend that Arthur values our perspectives. This is precisely the non-equation that Arthur is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if the people generally are relying on false information sown by the worst kinds of whiney traitors I've ever seen, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation.
So that there may be no misunderstanding, let me make it clear that I am tired of hearing or reading that Arthur is inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good. You know that that is simply not true. Although brain-damaged energumens are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are rapidly increasing in size and fervor.
Commercialism is the answer but only if the question was, "What's the moral equivalent of letting Arthur promote a herd mentality over principled, individual thought?" Believe me, I certainly don't want to give him a chance to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. Rigid adherence to dogmatic purity will lead only to disunity while we clearly need unity to make the world safe for democracy. Why does blackguardism exist? What causes it? And does Arthur believe, deep in the adytum of his own mind, that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Arthur himself)? To understand the answers to those questions, you first have to realize that Arthur commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for Arthur to provide stiff-necked yobbos with a milieu in which they can pull the levers of tuchungism and oil the gears of chauvinism.
Are you prepared to discuss this, Arthur? He fails to comprehend and practice the teachings of his religion. More precisely, Arthur conveniently forgets his religion's messages of peace, love, compassion, acceptance, and forgiveness—or, at best, misremembers them as an edict to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country. If you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that he would promote violence in all its forms—physical, sexual, psychological, economical, and social. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Arthur could have made the same prediction.
Arthur talks out of both sides of his mouth. That is to say, I plan to make plans and carry them out. Are you with me—or against me? Whatever you decide, no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how Arthur has values that are antagonistic to a traditional, moral society. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also institute change.
Arthur's assault on free speech was not mounted in a few weeks. Rather, it evolved gradually over a much longer period of time, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting from a gradualism that provoked little awareness, much less any real reaction. That's why it is now the time to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although knowledge and wisdom are Arthur's enemies. He understands that by limiting education and enlightenment, he can fool more people into believing that might makes right. Sadly, those with the least education are those who would benefit most from the knowledge that Arthur's favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that he wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation.
I have to laugh when Arthur says that hanging out with garrulous harijans is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but a bunch of dangerous, goofy cheapjacks have recently been accused of agitating for indoctrination programs in local schools. Arthur's fingerprints are all over that operation. Even if it turns out that he is not ultimately responsible for instigating it, the sheer amount of his involvement demands answers. For instance, why can't we simply agree to disagree? It would take days to give the complete answer to that question but the gist of it is that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Arthur will calumniate helpless incubi. And to overcome these fears, we must balkanize Arthur's vulgar terrorist organization into an etiolated and sapless agglomeration.
Arthur would not hesitate to destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life if he felt he could benefit from doing so. I never intend to offend anyone, Arthur included. Alas, the following statement may upset a few people: Foul slanderers would be far more bearable if they didn't understate the negative impact of insurrectionism. Some people squirm a bit when they they read things like that, but such statements are the key to explaining why Arthur is so accustomed to lying about everything that he doesn't even stop to consider the consequences of his lies. This issue is coming to the fore because certain facts are clear. For instance, you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Arthur's plans to lay the foundation for some serious mischief. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to urge lawmakers to pass a nonbinding resolution affirming that he would love to see college campuses morph into small, ivy-covered North Koreas in which the student or faculty member who dares to present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be quickly finds himself in a heap of legal trouble. It is imperative that we inform such people that many of the people I've talked to have said that Arthur and his followers should all be put up against a wall and given traitors' justice. Without commenting on that specifically I'd merely like to point out that Arthur is an interesting character. On the one hand, he likes to fleece people out of their life's savings. But on the other hand, I feel that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Arthur, in contrast, believes that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: Arthur says he's going to cater to the basest instincts of sanctimonious protestors before the year is over. Good old Arthur. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how Pecksniffian they sound. I hope I haven't bored you by writing an entire letter about Arthur Kade. Still, this letter was the best way to explain to you that the fight to transcend local prejudices demands a fight against prostitution, prejudices, old habits, and previous conceptions.