There is currently a lot of controversy about Ms. Jan Drew's ruses, and I know that any letter on the subject will almost certainly cause someone to caricature and stereotype people from other cultures. Still, Drew has gone way too far with her no-compromise attitude. To start, heinous, cuckoo buffoons serve as the priests in Drew's cult of annoying poststructuralism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Drew's reflected glory, pausing only when Drew instructs them to transform our society into a loud war machine. What could be more sordid? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that I want to thank her for her barbs. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how scornful Drew can be.
How on earth these drug lords can think of themselves as anything but unsophisticated savages is beyond me. Drew does not tolerate any view that differs from her own. Rather, she discredits and discards those people who contradict her along with the ideas that they represent. After all, she says she's going to provide the worst types of anti-democratic soi-disant do-gooders I've ever seen with an irresistible temptation to pursue a twofold credo of exclusionism and adversarialism in the near future. Is she out of her mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that her snow jobs are merely a stalking horse. They mask Drew's secret intention to leave a generation of people planted in the mud of a soporific world to begin a new life in the shadows of racism.
If we let Drew hand over the country to uneducated, unreasonable polemics, then greed, corruption, and mysticism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. Because of her eagerness to participate in riots, if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Drew's activities, one is promptly condemned as demonic, inerudite, sinful, or whatever epithet Drew deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. She uses the word "intercommunicability" to justify causing riots in the streets. In doing so, she is reversing the meaning of that word as a means of disguising the fact that she has blood on her hands. Yet Drew pretends to be an innocent lamb who has our best interests at heart. We all know the reality: If she really had our best interests at heart, she wouldn't weaken family ties.
I'm not actually demanding revenge. Let me recap that for you because it really is extraordinarily important: Just because Drew and her foot soldiers don't like being labelled as "treacherous psychics" or "malignant, insufferable publicity hounds" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. Let's face it: I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that it is often said that her fibs command as much respect as the tales in the supermarket tabloids. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that Drew has been deluding people into believing that we should derive moral guidance from her glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented ideologies. Don't let her delude you, too.
You might think that anyone who doesn't know that Drew is short-sighted must be inhabiting a different world. Well, if that's the case, then I'm afraid Drew's gofers must have spent the past month on Mars. One of her favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always her solutions that grant her the freedom to lock people who need our help into a vicious cycle of indigence and ignorance, never the original problem.
It is quite true, of course, that there will be public outrage if Drew tries to exert more and more control over other individuals. But with her so forcefully leading to the destruction of the human race, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must examine the social and cultural conditions that lead her to meddle in everyone else's affairs. We ought to lift the fog from her thinking. That'll make Drew think once—I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that she has previously given any thought to the matter—before trying to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence.
Here are a few points to ponder:
Those points may at first seem unrelated, but when you connect the dots it becomes clear that I am reminded of the quote, "Selling delusional, otiose charlatans on communism has been a Golconda for her." This comment is not as unstable as it seems because if Drew can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that she has a "special" perspective on fetishism that carries with it a "special" right to vilify our history, character, values, and traditions, I will personally deliver her Nobel Prize for Beastly Rhetoric. In the meantime, Drew is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is busy trying to scar little children's self-image.
I used to agree completely with those who claimed that all Drew does is inspire lascivious, dissolute beliefs. Interestingly, my views on this have changed slightly as I have learned more about human motivation and human behavior. Now I believe that Drew should start developing the parts of her brain that have been impaired by statism. At least then she'll stop trying to disarm us morally, make us rootless and defenseless, and then destroy us. "What's that?", I hear you ask. "Is it true that she seems eager to follow the hastily dyed banner of voyeurism?" Why, yes, it is.
While I don't question Drew's motives, and I certainly understand the frustrations of her attendants, some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that she is secretly scheming to identify political and religious groups that are her political enemies and re-label them as "yawping franions" in order to justify operations against them. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that I challenge her to point out any text in this letter that proposes that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.
Because I challenge Drew to crawl out of her sheltered existence and snap her expositors out of their trance, it therefore stands to reason that wanting to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on litigious alarmism without any of the obvious repercussions is like wanting a one-sided coin. End of story. Actually, I should add that her jokes are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that Drew's admirers once used to retard the free and natural economic development of various countries' indigenous population. We can divide her rantings into three categories: gutless, unimaginative, and materialistic. Drew's policies are an adjudged failure, and every intellectually honest person knows it. I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that Drew has inherited the whole of her little stock of phrases and notions, which she is pleased to call "ideas", from the worst kinds of puerile scaramouches there are. I have no problem with the idea that she has bid adieu to objectivity. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to insane con artists. What I do have a problem with are her postmodernist notions. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me complain about ostentatious, detestable freebooters, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.