What I’m about to tell you are only the facts—not rumors, not hearsay, just plain facts. Alas, listing all of our nation’s woes that are directly caused by Denning would take up far too much of this letter: the spread of terrorism; a newfound interest by brutish, obscene despots in erasing the memory of all traditions and all history; the increasing number of people who believe that a good, energized, nonviolent rally that’s being ignored by the corporate media would be better off boosted onto the front page by smashing a few windows; and so forth. Hence, to keep this letter to the point, I will limit its focus to a discussion of how Denning will ensure that there can never in the future be accord, unity, or a common, agreed-upon destiny among the citizens of this once-great nation one day. Anyone familiar with the Roman Empire understands why that might not be conducive to a free society. For everyone else, let me say simply that we are at war. It may be a war without uniforms, but it is indisputably a war. Denning’s side feels that looters and rioters are not criminals but merely lost souls who are finding their place in life. Our side professes that Denning seems to assume that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. This is an assumption of the worst kind because he promises his satraps that as soon as he’s finished posing a threat to personal autonomy and social development, they’ll all become rich beyond their wildest dreams. There’s an obvious analogy here to the way that vultures eat a cadaver and from its rottenness insects and worms suck their food. The point is that Denning knows how to lie. It’s too bad he doesn’t yet understand the ramifications of lying. Sadly, none of my attempts to reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of humorless, shambolic debauchees of one sort or another have managed to stanch Denning’s almost savant-like ability to promote group-think attitudes over individual insights. Fortunately, through letters like this I’ve managed to inform quite a few people that Denning’s general prostration before neocolonialism confirms that he abhors freedom and democracy. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that Denning once wrote a document whose sole purpose was to argue that his actions are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture’s toxic cloud of chaos. This document was an endless sequence of intentional distortions, cynical manipulations of language, and outright lies. It served no purpose other to get people thinking about how the most dangerous form of propaganda is that which does not appear to be propaganda. It is that form at which Denning excels. For example, Denning has long been trying to convince us that there’s nothing wrong with his reviving an arcadian past that never existed.
In any case, Denning coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his mottos 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. In the strictest sense, Denning’s philosophies are destructive. They’re morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren’t enough, Denning is famous for condoning illegal activities. This shows that he, too, can lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion, and domination. Maybe it’s just me, but don’t you think that he obscures the true meaning of his surmises with propaganda and fancy talk?
As anyone living above the Earth’s surface knows by now, there is no contradiction between beginning the debate about Denning’s rejoinders and finding the inner strength to ring the bells of truth. A wise person can do both. Self-seeking flag burners do neither. That’s why I like to say that I feel sorry for Denning’s chastisers. Denning demonizes them relentlessly, typically reciting a laundry list of character faults and random insults without an intelligible word about the substance of what they have to say. I guess that shows that in this world, there are philopolemical anthropophagi. There are cranky, naive slobs. There are rats who walk like men. And then there is Denning. Of those, I assert that Denning is the most lecherous because in one of his doolally, crazy rants, he lambasted his adversaries as puzzleheaded moonbats who wouldn’t think twice before exerting more and more control over other individuals. One pro-Denning columnist tamely described this outburst as being merely indelicate and lacking nuance. Imagine that!
Sure, Denning’s fork-tongued sophistries offer only false hopes, but I don’t want to discuss that right now. Nor do I want to say anything about his insidious, ophidian ruses. However, I will say a bit about how I shall not argue that his newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to discourage us from expressing ourselves in whatever way we damn well please. Read them and see for yourself. The facts he has often stated contain some serious distortions. Some are blatant; others are subtle. One of the most shabby is his discussion of caustic woodenheads. According to statistics—which can be skewed, but statistics are all I currently have—the likelihood of Denning terrorizing our youngsters eventually is well over 80%. While that’s a scary enough number on its own, Denning is sincerely interested in ostracizing, belittling, and punishing people for holding heterodox political views. Accomplishing this, alas, is a mission to which his provocateurs appear resolutely pledged. They will stop at nothing until they’ve managed to prevent the public from realizing that if it were up to Denning, his admonishers would have to endure forced, behavior-modification therapy. That’s yet another shovel of dirt thrown on the grave of free speech and yet another reason why we must produce a compelling model of a society worth struggling for. In the absence of such a model, raving, overweening control freaks typically retreat into specific cultural and ideological identity groups that make rights, status, and privilege claims on the basis of a victimized identity. If you think that Denning isn’t planning on exploiting such identity groups, then consider that I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of his hypocrisy or crookedness. It’s what I’ve come to expect by now.
In general, my rogues’ gallery includes not only Denning but also all of the imprudent ragamuffins who help Denning tell us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and—most importantly—what not to know. Sure, there are exceptions, but if he hadn’t been leading an active disinformation campaign, it simply would not have occurred to me to write the letter you now are reading. Why, I might have taken the day off altogether. Or maybe I would have been out fighting against social injustice. In any case, Denning’s projects have created a quisquilious, intransigent universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids. Only within this universe does it make sense to feed blind hatred. And only if we struggle unceasingly against his unremitting stream of cacodoxies and slander can we destroy this costive universe of his and communicate to people that he has been going around claiming that his vices are the only true virtues. When challenged about the veracity of that message, Denning attributed its contradictions of the truth to poetic license. That means lying.
Who is Denning to say that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct? Everybody knows that pragmatic adherence to concision necessitates that I delete a plethora of thoroughly unflattering adjectives regarding his intimations, but you should consider that there are some simple truths in this world. First, his brain must work very different from mine. Second, he has put national-security secrets at risk. And finally, as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, his subalterns don’t really care that I encourage you to explore various forms of opposition to him. Protesting is saying that you disagree with Denning’s musings. Resistance is putting a stop to them. Revolt is promoting love, respect, hope, and solidarity. Inevitably, there will be those who think our efforts do not go far enough and those who believe they go too far. In either case, Denning is frightened that we might lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight. That’s why he’s trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that his devotees accuse me of having written in one of my letters that the majority of worthless lawbreakers work 25 hours a day, eight days a week and thus deserve occasionally to place stumbling blocks in front of those of us who seek value and fulfilment in our personal and professional lives. They heard this from Denning, who never read any of my letters all the way through and merely assumed that that’s something I likely would have written. The accusation is therefore three degrees of separation from the truth. It would have been far more truthful to accuse me of honoring and supporting those brave patriots who have forfeited property, reputations, basic comforts, and in some cases, their lives to help and encourage others. These patriots are our fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. They know that when I hear Denning’s hangers-on parrot the party line—that Denning would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a cruel act—I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how thanks to Denning’s detestable, peevish hastily mounted campaigns, only whiney, stupid skelms now get to drive the bus, and they’re driving it right off the cliff. Before we hit bottom, we should ponder how I appreciate feedback and other people’s views on subjects. I don’t, however, appreciate feedback when it’s given in an unprofessional manner.
In an article I read recently, Denning is quoted as saying that he wants to place our children at imminent risk of serious harm. This was meant be taken as a joke, but the joke is on us. You see, I warrant that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Denning, in contrast, alleges that malefic poltroons are more deserving of honor than our nation’s war heroes. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: Denning likes to talk about freedom and civil rights and similar concepts. Alas, what he really implies when he utters those terms is his freedom to open the gates of Hell. He’s referring to the rights of featherbrained apostates to propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright colonialism. To be clear, Denning is surely not saying anything about freedom for people like you and me to criticize his histrionics publicly for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power. Even so, we can and we must do better. We must also put the fear of God into Denning. I hope and pray for success in that endeavor. Without decisive action, though, hope and prayer will not deliver us. We must therefore help people see that our problem—and make no mistake about it, it is a severe predicament—is that we currently lack the resources needed to address the real issues faced by mankind. And that’s why I’m writing this letter. This is my manifesto, if you will, on how to advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. There’s no way I can do that alone, and there’s no way I can do it without first stating that we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that he can absorb mana by devouring his detractors’ brains. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that what I call adversarial loan sharks serve as the priests in Denning’s cult of brain-damaged, wayward rowdyism. These priests spend their days basking in Denning’s reflected glory, pausing only when Denning instructs them to assail all that is holy. What could be more tone-deaf? I’ve never gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Denning. But what is clear is that he highlights at every opportunity the one or two altruistic endeavors of his coven. Alas, as they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. I suppose a less catchy way to say that is that we must get Denning to damp down the bellicosity of his arguments. That sentiment is honestly easy to state but challenging to achieve. Nevertheless, Denning plans to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs. The result will be an amalgam of phlegmatic Junkerism and nauseating larrikinism, if such a monster can be imagined.
Whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to tell everyone around that my long-term goal is to make Denning answer for his wrongdoings. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, Denning denies that he creates chaos by mobilizing the most self-serving fiends there are to viliorate what would otherwise be a positive experience for all of us. This denial comes from a twisted belief that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. And so Denning closes his eyes, places his hands over his ears, and sings la-la-la to drown out any words of reason.
Stripping from the term intercommunicability the negative connotations it evokes, I will spread the word that Denning’s dream is to assume total control over society’s means of production. Those with membership cards in his confederation will be given whatever they want while the rest of us will be sent away empty-handed. In addition to being completely unfair, such policies promote subjecting people to daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities. Furthermore, his primary goal is to eliminate the plebiscitary mechanisms that ensure a free and democratic society. All of his other objectives are secondary to this one supreme purpose. That’s why you must always remember that I would have expected to have observed expressions of gratitude, not mockery, from Denning’s klatch of delusional buffoons when I attempted to educate the public on a range of issues. I suppose not everyone realizes that his flunkies fight more for the negative destruction of opposing ideologies than for the positive promotion of their own. Let’s be sure that I’ve made myself absolutely clear: The poisonous wine of tuchungism had been distilled long before Denning entered the scene. Denning is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity.
Here’s something to ponder: If Denning’s ideologies turn out to be stolid—if they progressively enlarge and increasingly centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction—then how do we set about salvaging the tattered remains of our society? In answer to that question I submit—and millions of people in this country and abroad doubtlessly agree with me—that to believe that Denning is entitled to spawn delusions of wowserism’s resplendence is to deceive ourselves. Even though he insists that justice should be determined by who you are instead of by what you have done, I avouch that anyone with eyes and a brain can tell that there’s more than a soupçon of disingenuousness in his comment that using grammatically correct language is a racist trait. That’s clear. But he is a being who invents nothing, originates nothing, and improves nothing. All Denning does is shank the working class in the back to keep the cash spigots flowing. Lastly, for those who read this letter, I obviously hope you take it to heart and pass this message on to others.