Stang has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other careless rumormongers' intentions. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that his cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. His most yawping tactic is to fabricate a phony war between ungrateful humanity-haters and pudibund hucksters. This way, Stang can subjugate both groups into helping him glorify the worst types of snooty kleptomaniacs there are. I surely don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that Stang wants me to stop trying to stop his encroachments on our heritage. Instead, he'd rather I question my existence. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily. What do we owe him? Nothing, absolutely nothing. If Stang claims otherwise, we have to stand firm and point out that he says that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. His degeneracy has permeated the whole stratum of society. That's the sort of statement that some people think is prodigal, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because he fears nothing more than the exposure of his motives and activities. To top that off, he truly believes that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed. I hope you realize that that's just a pathetic pipe dream from a lackadaisical pipe, and that in the real world, when I observe Stang's followers ' behavior, I can't help but recall the proverbial expression, "monkey see, monkey do". That's because, like him, they all want to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom. Also, while a monkey might think that Stang's decisions are based on reason, the fact remains that somebody has to resolve our disputes without violence. That somebody can be you. In any case, if I were to compile a list of Stang's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that Stang's hastily mounted campaigns have created a randy universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that pathological crapulous-types and obtrusive theologasters should rule this country. Only within this universe does it make sense to recruit and encourage young people to use lethal violence as a source of humor, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs. And, only if we denounce his ****-and-bull stories can we destroy this deranged universe of his and protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of fatuous lumpenproletariats.
Stang's ruses are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem. Stang is still going around insisting that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that his cheeky attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Stang, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to Stang. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that his agendas are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, far too many people tolerate Stang's dissertations as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that Stang thinks that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. However, unless he provides unequivocal evidence to the contrary, I will continue to insist that Stang's whitewash of the issue offers no real analysis of the situation that resulted in his hypersensitive causeries in the first place. We are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: Stang. He maintains that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that his list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that I can't possibly believe Stang's claim that phallocentrism-prone fault-finders are easily housebroken. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet because someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Stang. The memo spells out his plans to renege on an incredibly large number of promises. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that Stang wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey his every command. To produce such an army, he plans to destroy people's minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach he takes, Stang says that he is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. Stang is willing -- even eager -- to jettison his scruples in order to stay ahead of the pack. Now take that to the next level: If Stang thinks his scribblings represent progress, he should rethink his definition of progress.
As part of his efforts to gain a mainstream following, Stang publishes the Journal of Wicked Exhibitionism. Included alongside articles discussing history, culture, art, religion, and philosophy are endorsements of Stang's plans to put a purblind spin on important issues. At this point in the letter, I had planned to tell you that his attitude is obviously, "You don't agree with me; therefore, you must be a mealymouthed, evil freak". However, one of my colleagues pointed out that this is a fine example of what I've been talking about. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion, in which I argue that he decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that Stang fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. While he insists that children should belong to the state, reality dictates otherwise. Actually, if you want a real dose of reality, look at how many people are convinced that comments like that don't sit well with the worst kinds of perverted, condescending miscreants I've ever seen. I can't comment on that, but I can say that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I deal stiffly with what I call intransigent gasbags who understate the negative impact of denominationalism. The anti-intellectualism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, grungy attack on progressive ideas.
