I've tried to keep quiet, but I just can't hold it in any longer. I have to tell everyone that long text manipulates public opinion through raw emotion, sexual desire, "family values", comedy, music, entertainment, false religion, social engineering, journalistic propaganda, and junk science. With this letter, I hope to cast a ray of light on long text's unimaginative, phlegmatic rodomontades. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: I invite you to talk to long text yourself if you feel that I'm misrepresenting its position. To enter adequately into details or particulars upon this subject in such a short letter as this is quite out of the question. Hence, I will only remark here, in a general way but with all the emphasis of earnestness and truth, that if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.
We must face the fact that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that long text's success is just a flash in the pan. And I can say that with a clear conscience because I, speaking as someone who is not a lascivious carpetbagger, don't need to tell you that we need to change long text's maneuvers for the same reason that one needs to change a baby's diapers. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that long text is trying hard to convince a substantial number of morally questionable masters of deceit to move uncongenial cannibalism from the harebrained fringe into a realm of respectability. It presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite disgusting anthropophagi to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that I've tried to explain to long text's puerile, sophomoric squadristi that long text's strategy is make people feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to take a chance and let long text use "pressure tactics"—that's a euphemism for "torture"—to coerce ordinary people into pouring a few drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm in hopes that letting long text do such a thing may actually improve society. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that long text insists that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. How can it be so blind? Very easily. Basically, if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong.
People sometimes ask me why I seem incapable of saying anything nice about long text. I'd like to—really, I would. The problem is, I can't think of anything nice to say. I guess that's not surprising when you consider that if long text can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that everyone who fails to think and act in strict accordance with its requirements is a pesky desperado, I will personally deliver its Nobel Prize for Mumpish Rhetoric. In the meantime, it has been said that long text might not be the authority we should look to for guidance on how to live our lives. I believe that to be true. I also believe that if it is victorious in its quest to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.
That statement can be most easily defended, since it is not quantitative, but qualitative. Yes, I could add that it should pay for its mistakes, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that we can't stop long text overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to mention a bit about bookish slaves to fashion such as long text.
I surely aver that there are in fact many people who possess the intelligence, wisdom, talent, and ability to arraign long text at the tribunal of public opinion. My goal is to locate those people and encourage them to help me induce long text to perceive its errors of perception and judgment and make it realize that the idea of letting it procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror is, in itself, salacious. I can't possibly believe long text's claim that the rules don't apply to it. 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 seeing long text succeed at resolving a moral failure with an immoral solution has left me with a number of unanswered questions—questions such as "Will the world ever be free of fatuitous nebbishes like it?"
Thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that long text should take a step back and look at everything from a different perspective. I was right when I said that the time has come to perform noble deeds. And I was right when I said that I have some advice for long text. It should keep its mouth shut until it stops being such a deluded hideous-type and starts being at least one of informative, agreeable, creative, or entertaining.
I intend to look closely at long text's shenanigans to see what makes them so effectual at engendering ill will. I should expect to find—this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify—that I can easily see long text performing the following laughable acts. First, it will convert lush forests into arid deserts. Then, it will inject its lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. 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. I happen to believe that I have a hard time reasoning with people who remain calm when they see long text hamstringing our efforts to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. Long text swears that it's okay for it to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Clearly, it'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, the objection may still be raised that long text possesses infinite wisdom. At first glance this sounds almost believable yet the following must be borne in mind: My goal is to change the world for the better. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I sincerely do have to try.
Long text 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 it fears because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that every so often, long text tries forcing us to bow down low before disaffected mythomaniacs. Whenever it gets caught doing so it raises a terrific hullabaloo calculated to spread fetishism all over the globe like pigeon droppings over Trafalgar Square.
Having no desire to belabor this subject, I'll just say that some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with parasitic, conceited polluters on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to create massive civil unrest. I, for one, have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. Of course, "long text" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone creating a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration, I tell him or her to stop "long text-ing". Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that if long text wants to complain, it should have an argument. It shouldn't just throw out the word "roentgenographic", for example, and expect us to be scared.
Ladies and gentlemen, long text will go into the trash can of history with a very black and shameful file full of attempts to demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous. That's clear. But its allies get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with long text, and meeting some other goofy yo-yos is merely a social event. They're not even aware that long text is trying to brainwash us. It wants us to believe that it's grungy to speak out against blasphemous, detestable carpetbaggers; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that most members of our quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society are too impatient to realize the importance of disentangling people from the snares set by long text and its lapdogs. I wish only that a few more people could see that long text's mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. I hope I haven't bored you by writing an entire letter about long text. Still, this letter was the best way to explain to you that long text has a certain fondness for vulgar agitators.
