Spurred by a recent comment posted to my last entry, I got to thinking how best would I go about doing myself down? Taking into account every entry I have ever posted to date (as much as is possible); this is what I came up with:

To begin at the beginning, if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that Andy's cold-blooded subalterns like to shout, "Let's feed us ever-larger doses of Andy's lies and crackpot assumptions. That'll be wonderful. Hooray, hooray!" But that won't be wonderful. Rather, it'll deny the legitimacy of those who think outside the box.

Contrary to what Andy would have you believe, you might say, "A great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about his slogans." Fine, I agree. But he has been deluding people into believing that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. Don't let him delude you, too. Anyone who believes that a book of his writings would be a good addition to the Bible is kidding himself. And that's where we are right now.

No doubt, it is through Andy's detestable folly and selfishness that ophidian politicos have been concealing information and, occasionally, blatantly lying. But Andy's goal is to get on my nerves. The toll in human suffering and the loss of innocent lives that will ensue are clearly nonissues for him. What makes Andy think we want him to carve out space in the mainstream for intolerant, rebarbative politics? Did he read something about that in "The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Exclusivism"?

If Andy wanted to, he could undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole. He could dismantle national civil rights organizations by driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-and-file members. And he could convince others that shrewish blockheads are the "chosen people" of scriptural prophecy. We must not allow Andy to do any of these.

There is no possible justification for the argument that Andy has a "special" perspective on barbarism that carries with it a "special" right to muzzle his critics. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. His artifices are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. You may balk at this, but many of the people I've talked to have said that Andy and his collaborators 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 Andy asserts that masochism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society.

Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. Of all of his exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "The ideas of 'freedom' and 'exclusionism' are Siamese twins." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong.

You see, Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that I once managed to get Andy to agree that it would be a mistake to believe that barbaric, bloody-minded tossers have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that.

Let's be frank: If Andy manages to supplant one form of injustice with another, our nation will not endure as a civilization, as a geopolitical entity, or even as a society. Rather, it will exist only as a prison, a prison in which uppity dole-sucking parasites destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate. I can't make heads or tails of his scare tactics. I mean, does Andy want to rub salt into our wounds, or doesn't he? He's well aware that it is saddening to have to tell him that he is the most insipid show-boater witnessed by the history of mankind. Yet the Establishment media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Andy had learned anything from history, he'd know that he operates on an international scale to perpetuate the myth that his decisions are based on reason. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to restore the traditions that Andy has abandoned.

For the record, in any decent society, Andy would be just another uncongenial, insidious pillock standing on a street corner braying his nonsensical diatribes from atop a soapbox. Nevertheless, he has managed to gain some credibility among pouty nabobs of cameralism because they relate to her message that he acts in the public interest. His penchant for autism chokes his judgment like tea leaves blocking a sink. And I can say that with a clear conscience because he is—for lack of a better word—jaded. (Yes, I claim that, in the main, prætorianism has its stronghold among picayunish slaves to fashion, but that's an entirely different story.)

Please note that when I finish writing this letter you might not hear from me again for a while. I simply don't have enough strength left to challenge Andy to defend his allegations or else to change them. Nevertheless, Andy spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his ravings while ignoring the fact that we need to change the minds of those who enthrone falsehood in the very centre of human thought. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything.

What's interesting is that Andy keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that lying is morally justifiable as long as it's referred to as "strategic deception". The purpose of this deception may be to change the course of history. Or maybe the purpose is to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of Andy's recalcitrant histrionics. Oh what a tangled web Andy weaves when first he practices to deceive. I, speaking as someone who is not a mudslinging harridan, challenge you to ponder this subject with the broadest vision possible.