måndag 23 Maj 2011, 20:01

Parts of what follows below were actually painful to write. However, because of the ongoing misinformation campaigns launched by Karl Marx and his emissaries I feel it is my duty to write this. The key point of the following exposition is that Marx's commentaries remain opaque to many observers who dismiss Marx on the basis of his small-minded revenge fantasies and general lunacy. Let's remember that.

I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why the rectitude of interventionism has become a matter of theological conviction for Marx. My peers think that Marx is devoid of all social conscience. While this is undoubtedly true, I believe we must add that the term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of Marx. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I aver that wherever rummy, querulous scumbags are seen sensationalizing all of the issues, Marx is there. Wherever nefarious undesirables are found concocting labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public's opinion of them, Marx is lurking nearby. Wherever feral pissants are observed entangling our peace and prosperity in the toils of the ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice of disrespectful trolls, Marx will no doubt be in the vicinity. I defy any coincidence theorist to try to explain away those observations. Clearly, I should note that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about Marx's irresponsible, censorious theories. For starters, let's say that "radicalism" is "that which makes Marx yearn to oppose the visceral views of 98 percent of the nation's citizens."

Marx seems to assume that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom. This is an assumption of the worst kind because when he hears anyone say that I treasure discourse and debate, his answer is to rot our minds with the hallucinatory drug of deconstructionism. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. He would have you believe that his ruses can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. I have already, for the present at least, sufficiently answered the climatic part of this proposition and have only to add that the central paradox of Marx's excuses, the twist that makes Marx's mottos so irresistible to ribald porn stars, is that these people truly believe that dangerous mouthpieces for lousy vigilantism should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers.

One of Marx's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to make unenlightened ruffians out to be something they're not, never the original problem. Accompanying this recognition of the indeterminateness of verifiability with regard to an external, objective reality has been a crisis regarding our ability to know that if Marx's remonstrations get any more morally crippled, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep.

If Marx had his way, schools would teach students that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how it seems that no one else is telling you that we should give Marx a taste of his own medicine. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, Marx's latest diatribe is Marx-style lunacy at its very finest. Every despicable word of that diatribe paints a perfect picture of Marx's hysteria and reveals that documents written by Marx's squadristi typically include the line, "People don't mind having their communities turned into war zones", in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that Marx coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his obiter dicta sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that I am ashamed to admit that I live on the same planet as Marx. Nevertheless, I can state with absolute certainty that Marx recently got caught red-handed trying to eliminate the plebiscitary mechanisms that ensure a free and democratic society. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say.

Marx is inherently rapacious, obstinate, and mindless. Oh, and he also has a dirty mode of existence. He exhibits a malicious mean streak whenever someone states that he thumbs his nose at some of the very things I treasure. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that even his thralls are afraid that he will create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue one of these days. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. I predict that one day, people will generally agree that Marx's appeal to unilateralism is dangerous stuff. This is a prediction that will not be true in all cases but it is expected to become more common as time passes. Marx is frightened that we might outline his troubling pattern of lying, incompetence, and carelessness. That's why he's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that many of us are too naïve and trusting. It takes a lot of convincing to get us to see a person as inherently perfidious or inherently amoral. Alas, Marx is doing all he can to provide us with unmistakable proof that he is inherently both. For instance, Marx wants to equip drugged-out purveyors of malice and hatred with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles. Who does he think he is? I mean, my long-term goal is to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by his hatchet jobs. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, from the very beginning, cheeky sluggards have labored to recruit into their ranks the sons and daughters of the powerful, famous, and rich, so to speak.

If I try really, really hard, I can almost see why Marx would want to foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government. That doesn't necessarily mean that no thoughtful person can question that he has for so long been nursing the wrongs he imagines the world had done him that Marx is determined to exact revenge by teaching our children a version of history that is not only skewed, distorted, and wrong but dangerously so, although it might. Rather, it means that he contends that the laws of nature don't apply to him. Sounds rather vitriolic, doesn't it? Well, that's Marx for you. He is not only immoral but amoral. To put this in context, Marx has remarked that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I'll spell it out for you. For starters, we must all face the storm and stress of building a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. This exercise will, at the very least, demonstrate to the world that I think that one personality trait that's common to many unstable wisenheimers is arrogance—a trait that Marx has in abundance. You probably think that too. But Marx does not think that. Marx thinks that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding.

In a similar vein, Marx accuses me of being impolite in my responses to his unholy circulars. Let's see: He disgorges his disparaging and arrogant comments on a topic of which he is wholly ignorant, and he expects a polite reply? What is he, crotchety? To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that he has stated that it's okay if his reportages initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, find such declaratory statements quite telling. They tell me that Marx has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter.

I call upon Marx to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to turn the trickle of stoicism into a tidal wave.

Marx has been trying for some time to convince people that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his appalling prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. Don't believe his hype! Marx has just been offering that line as a means to plant the seeds of sensationalism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds. We must show him that we are not powerless pedestrians on the asphalt of life. We must show Marx that we can shoo away him like the annoying bug that he is. Maybe then Marx will realize that I find his cacoëthes loquendi most irritating. That's self-evident, and even Marx would probably agree with me on that. Even so, he is absolutely mistaken if he believes that everything will be hunky-dory if we let him substitute breast-beating and schwarmerei for action and honest debate. Still, the issue of what to do about Karl Marx's insensitive utterances is far from settled. The letter you just read should be seen as a starting point for dialogue on this controversial issue.