Please send Mr Lewis my complimints and my complaints letter.
Mr. Graham Lewis’s expostulations have been getting a lot of undeserved attention recently. What I’m about to say will sound very waspish to many people, but I’ll say it anyway. Graham argues that matters of racial justice should enter a period of benign neglect. This is an entertaining statement, perhaps, except that when taken at face value it presages a likely attempt by Graham to engulf reason and humanity within waves of Trotskyism and fear. This serves as a reminder that this conviction of mine is as firm as a rock. The reason is clear. In a way, I’m glad I’ve experienced firsthand just how neo-conceited Graham can be. It’s one thing to read about his pitting race against race, religion against religion, and country against country, but it’s quite another to be subjected personally to his attempts to make me kiss my freedom goodbye. I reject, with immeasurable scorn and indignation, the imputation that I have any sympathies or purposes in common with wretched stupes. The reason is simple: If we can understand what has caused the current plague of dictatorial, churlish twits, I believe that we can then give the needy a helping hand as opposed to an elbow in the face. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people understood that Graham cheers on members of the world’s most violent totalitarian movements as freedom fighters while labeling as the scum of the earth anyone who seeks peacefully to warn people of the harm that grungy ragamuffins cause by threatening our core values, allegiances, and beliefs. Frustratingly, Graham demonizes everyone who issues such warnings as—guess what?—grungy ragamuffins. I don’t know what to say about such name-calling except that Graham was a goofy, prissy kleptomaniac when I first encountered him. Graham is a goofy, prissy kleptomaniac now. And there is no more reason for believing that Graham will ever cease to be a goofy, prissy kleptomaniac than there is for supposing that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune.
As I like to say, Graham demands obeisance from his cronies. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Graham forces them to lobotomize everyone caught thinking an independent thought. According to the laws of probability, he likes methods of interpretation that encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I’d say that to say that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are three different things is self-indulgent nonsense and untrue to boot. I hope that humanity will rid this earth of untoward, unruly good-for-nothings with the greatest dispatch, since otherwise, the earth might well become rid of humanity.
Now, I am all for freedom of speech, but I frequently wish to tell Graham that his profound moral culpability, arising from his history of materialism and exploitation, deprives him of any right to judge other individuals. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. Doesn’t he realize that he represents an unprecedented danger to democracy? That’s the question that perplexes me the most because there are three fairly obvious problems with his taunts, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to mention a bit about empty-headed tightwads such as Graham. First, Graham’s jeremiads are antithetical to a healthy, stable society. Second, I am sick to my stomach of Graham’s pettiness and simple ignorance. And third, I suggest that we continue the global conversation about the harm caused by mandarinism. This right and truthful proposition, practically established, will help us analyze pharisaism. The analysis of pharisaism informs the politics of social movements against pharisaism, which is important because if you read Graham’s injunctions while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that Graham is inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good. But if you read his injunctions while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it’s clear that in my observations upon Junkerism, I have expressed no opinion thus far of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. I will note, however, though I still have nothing to propose, that he who pays the piper calls the tune. With that in mind, I did a little research to find where Graham gets his money. It turns out that it comes primarily from superstitious crybabies, puerile lumpenproletariats, and—you guessed it—tartarean dopeheads. This explains why I have observed that those who disagree with me on the next point tend to be unsophisticated and those who recognize the validity of the point to be more educated. The point is that I love how Graham proclaims that the entire concept of happiness is a lie designed by unseen overlords of endless deceptive power. Oh, never mind; I accidentally mistook his psychotic ramblings for wisdom. What I meant to say is that if you pry open the cover of any sewer from which quislingism emanates, you’ll find a bunch of pro-Graham cockroaches blinking in the light. The final point I’d like to make is that we can’t turn back time. We can’t undo the past. The choice we face today—and every day—is whether we should let Mr. Graham Lewis hornswoggle people into voting against their own self interests or, instead, if we should be brave enough to lead him to resipiscence.
