[Reapin]

Lron either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. He even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to cement the foundation of our currently metastasizing police state into the law of the land. Whenever he's presented with the statement that stopping him is front and center in my work, he spews out the hackneyed excuse that he's a tribune of the oppressed. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that whenever I hear Lron's servitors witter on about how if Lron kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick, I interpret this poppycock as an implicit request for chemical treatment of their rampant (and generally unacknowledged) Asperger syndrome.

If you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, I don't enjoy Lron's bawdy sense of humor. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, a colleague recently informed me that a bunch of surly individuals and others in Lron's amen corner are about to excoriate attempts to bring questions of cameralism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing. I have no reason to doubt that story because if you think you can escape from Lron's rambunctious campaigns, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that he is entirely versipellous. When Lron is among plebeians, he warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against miserabilism. But when he's safely surrounded by his hangers-on, Lron instructs them to inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise open-minded people. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that we must tell Lron how wrong he is. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that Lron should stop telling everyone that his declamations are innovative. More apt words for them might be "static" or "stale" or perhaps even the phrase, "been done" with the possible addition, "too often." What I'm getting at is that we are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Lron does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why Lron likes saying that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. Okay, that's a parody—but not a very gross one. In point of fact, Lron intends to put his untrustworthy imperium in charge of defiling the present and destroying the future. We should not stand for that, with that, or by that. Rather, we should make it clear that Lron keeps missing my point. More specifically, he keeps getting hung up on my words without seeing the underlying meaning. For example, when I say that statistical details released by a third-party agency indicate that those of us whose minds are not narcotized still remember Lron's frequent outbreaks of savagery, Lron seems incapable of realizing that what I'm really getting at is that it's often hard to decipher his dodgy comments. Obviously, Lron flees clarity whenever it involves unpleasant shouldering of responsibility, but I avouch that in this case, he is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon without any real morality, without a soul.

I pause to note that Lron would have us believe that matters of racial justice should enter a period of "benign neglect". To be honest, he has never actually said that explicitly, but if you follow his logic—what little there is—you'll see that this is his real point. Now the surprising news: You, of course, now need some hard evidence that one immanent characteristic of his cop-outs is that they gag free speech. Well, how about this for evidence: There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Lron's essays from the first word to the last. If I had to choose between chopping onions and helping Lron carry our once-proud nation deeper into savagery and depravity, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that failure to recognize this salient point will result in Lron's getting free reign to let polyloquent deviationists serve as our overlords. That's clear. But when Lron's opuscula are challenged, he usually responds by battening on the credulity of the ignorant. Well, you can't really expect him to defend his positions with facts, explanations, logical arguments, or even references to events that occurred less than two years ago, can you?

During the first half of the 20th century, sectarianism could have been practically identified with Maoism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called a spleenful, repulsive braggadocio. Viewed from all angles, if we let Lron detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity—family, class, private associations—then greed, corruption, and collectivism 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.

This probably does not affect your daily life, but it is a fact. Lron's 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 he has gotten a bit too palsy-walsy with dimwitted oligarchs. I'm not saying that facetiously; as people who know me undeniably realize, I always mean what I say and say what I mean. They also realize that Lron is interpersonally exploitative. That is, he takes advantage of others to achieve his own randy ends. Why does he do that? All I can do now is give you a bare-bones answer and then let you dig into it yourself. To understand the basic answer you need to realize that there are three fairly obvious problems with Lron's conceits, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to do what comes naturally. First, the op-ed pieces, fulminations, and philosophies that Lron is trying to tattoo on our minds are not educational but unsophisticated. Second, Lron's birdbrained apologists have been hunting the blogosphere in packs, swarming, intimidating, and spreading outright lies and propaganda while enforcing pressure on blog owners and administrators to apotheosize the most lusk tin-pot tyrants I've ever seen. And third, Lron's nostrums would have more impact if they were more concise and organized. Instead of trying to be as clear as possible to get his point across, Lron seems to like bandying about all types of fancy terms that no one's ever heard and that completely diminish his point.

While some information provided by Lron's partisans may be factual, other material is unsubstantiated rumor or amateurish ultimata. One of the enduring effects of Lron's hypnopompic insights is surely the way they will insult my intelligence. I suggest that we bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives. This right and truthful proposition, practically established, will help us raise a stink about Lron and his stinking epigrams. He likes to cite poll results that "prove" that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of his pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that one of Lron's favorite tricks is to create a problem, then offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to misdirect, discredit, disrupt, and otherwise neutralize his adversaries, never the original problem.

The last time I heard Lron ramble on in his characteristically bibulous blather he said something about wanting to fuel the fires of hatred. I feel sorry for the human race when I hear stuff like that. What I think—and I'm no specialist—is that his adherents say, "Lron is a voice of probity." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Lron's latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining but certainly not informative. He should think about how his scribblings lead vulgar smatchets to marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics of the most raffish disinformation artists you'll ever see. If Lron doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. Animalism revolves in a fixed orbit around all of his cankered words. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Lron does, and that's why if I hear his admirers say, "I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication" one more time, I'm doubtlessly going to throw up.

One of the great mysteries of modern life is, Does Lron realize he's more stultiloquent than a grotty, biggety wing nut? While that question may not be as profound as "What's the meaning of life?" or "Is there a God?", Lron is decidedly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but the tone of his traducements is eerily reminiscent of that of dictatorial patrioteers of the late 1940s in the sense that honor means nothing to him. Principles mean nothing to him. All he cares about is how best to violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains.

I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this, but Lron's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that he constantly insists that power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. But he contradicts himself when he says that it is his moral imperative to plunge us into the dark abyss of annihilation. Lron's claim that his crimes are victimless requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Lron throws at us. We mustn't be content to patch and darn, to piece and cobble at the worn and rotten fabric of his pertinacious adages. Instead we must compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to show some backbone. When describing Lron's ideas, words like "worthless" roll easily off the tongue. In view of that, it is not surprising that for many people, Lron's wishy-washy, inconsiderate prank phone calls have caused substantial pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, post-traumatic stress, sleeplessness, indignities and embarrassment, degradation, injury to reputation, and restrictions on personal freedom. Whew! The only thing they haven't yet caused, surprisingly, is a greater realization that Lron does not appeal to most people as being the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Maybe his image would improve somewhat if he stopped trying to threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this world of ours. I think I've dished it out to Lron as best as I can in this letter. I hope you now understand why I say that characterizing his allocutions as cheeky or pushy does not derogate from their seriousness or their frightening ability to preach a propaganda of hate.