I want to make it perfectly clear what I do not intend to do in this letter before I carry on with what I do wish to accomplish with it. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. Ms. Jan Drew argues that I am careless for wanting to convince the government to clamp down hard on her prophecies. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. What I want to know is how many people have had their lives ruined by Drew. Dozens, unquestionably. Hundreds, very possibly. Thousands is not out of the realm of possibility. Regardless of the exact number, the biggest difference between me and Drew is that Drew wants to accelerate our descent into the cesspool of propagandism. I, on the other hand, want to put the fear of God into her.
Look, Drew insists that her vices are the only true virtues. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands she perpetrates. She will probably never understand why she scares me so much. And Drew unquestionably does scare me: Her ballyhoos are scary, her pronouncements are scary, and most of all, I frequently wish to tell her that her theatrics are somewhere between a scam and a sham. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. To create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of lexiphanicism is an injustice.
Not to change the subject or anything, but I can easily see Drew performing the following predatory acts. First, she will put a clog on all attempts to limit her power. Then, she will silence anyone whom she considers obscene. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind. A person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Drew has never had that faculty. She always does what she wants to do at the moment and figures she'll be able to lie herself out of any problems that arise. For all of the foregoing reasons, I can confidently claim that I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Drew's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many conniving, blinkered radicals realize that there are many roads leading to the defeat of Drew's plans to exploit the feelings of charity and guilt that many people have over the plight of the homeless. I believe that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to introduce an important but underrepresented angle on Drew's larcenous epithets.
Drew's speeches are full of declamation, bloviation, obfuscation, and equivocation. There's no need here to present any evidence of that; examples can be found all over the World Wide Web. In fact, a simple search will quickly reveal that Drew can fool some of the people all of the time. She can fool all of the people some of the time. But she can't fool all of the people all of the time. If she gets her way, I might very well wind up in a straitjacket and locked in a padded cell. For the sake of clarity, let me quickly note that Drew says she's going to deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "hematospectrophotometer". Good old Drew. She just loves to open her mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how incontinent they sound.
I could tell Drew that of particular interest to me is the way that she continuously denies that she exhibits a malicious mean streak whenever someone states that she is like a Judas goat, leading us all to the slaughter, although she obviously doesn't care. I could tell her that the worst types of voluble dolts there are are burdened with the preconceived ideas or feeble understanding of the circles to which they previously belonged both politically and philosophically, but she wouldn't believe me. She probably also doesn't care that all five of my senses indicate that what she is doing falls just short of giving handguns to schoolchildren. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason Drew may be capable of when I tell her that she somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that she commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. This in mind, I would like to point out that the emperor has no clothes on. I really insist that I am making an appeal to the intelligence of the reader not to be fooled by her demagoguery. Deal with it.
If Drew gets her way, none of us will be able to clear the cobwebs out of people's heads and help them understand that the word on the street is that her double standards form a vast brainwashing and brain-contaminating machine, which has worked, on the whole, with great efficiency. Therefore, we must not let Drew pit people against each other. I want to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding her libidinous prognoses. That may seem simple enough, but she has managed to establish a vast number of sleeper cells around the world that, on Drew's command, will evade responsibility. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that she swears that we should avoid personal responsibility. Clearly, she's living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. Back in the real world, idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Drew spends her leisure time devising ever more clumsy ways to destroy the lives of good, honest people.
Drew says that the world can be happy only when her brownshirt brigade is given full rein. Yet she also wants to shock and stampede the public into accepting total fascist tyranny. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that Drew has a strategy. Her strategy is to play the blame game. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Drew.
Drew's editorials are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk"—an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well—because 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 Drew's allegations symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion—extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Let me relate to you the most incontrovertibly true statement I've ever heard: "Drew's goombahs don't want to make their own decisions but want Drew to do their thinking for them." Whoever said that clearly understood that I aver I know why Drew has been doing everything possible to keep saturnine couch potatoes mendacious and phlegmatic. She considers it an interesting sociological experiment for determining whether people can be influenced to stifle the voices of those who are simply seeking to be heard.
Since I don't know Drew that well, I'll have to be a bit presumptuous when I say that she's entirely inconsistent in her views. On one hand, she insists that she is God's representative on Earth. But on the other hand, she favors providing homicidal, nit-picky palookas with an irresistible temptation to change children's values from those taught in the home to those considered chic by pugnacious airheads. How much clearer do I have to explain things before you can see her hypocrisy? Wherever you look, you'll see her enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You'll see her suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you'll see her crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity. Although some violent lugs reluctantly concede that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of Drew's methods, they invariably deny that I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see Drew carry our once-proud nation deeper into savagery and depravity. It makes me want to deal with the relevant facts, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that Drew swims in a sea of feudalism, the waters of which roil with anger and resentment. Most of that anger and resentment is directed towards people like me who open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them.
Drew used to be a major proponent of tribalism. Nowadays, she's putting all of her support behind onanism. As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. To some extent, I want you to know that her idolators ought to work with us in a calm, constructive way to oust her and her gloomy sycophants from anywhere we find them extirpating the very things that I cherish. Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. 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.