Caller Game-Remove Incognito from the Premises - Page 2

On September 26 2012 11:17 Coagulation wrote:
what the fuck did i do???

On September 28 2012 00:57 Drazerk wrote:
How cruel are we being to caller?

On September 30 2012 08:35 Coagulation wrote:
Even as I sit here, I can't believe I'm writing this. I've never been one to voice my opinions in such a public manner. But after learning that Caller wants to create a desolation and call it peace, I felt I at least had to set a few things straight. To start, he wants to spread rumors, gossip, and stories that are certainly false. Who does he think he is? I mean, the really interesting thing about all this is not that his accusations leave much to be desired. The interesting thing is that it's unfortunate that he has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped.

Caller's clear-cut demonstrations of gross moral turpitude have led me to believe that I, speaking as someone who is not a stuporous usurer, am fed up to the back teeth with Caller's uninformed jibes. But the problems with Caller's long-term goals don't end there. As a consistently mortified observer of Caller's snow jobs, I can't help but want to restore the traditions that Caller has abandoned. Honor means nothing to him. Principles mean nothing to him. All he cares about is how to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive.

In spite of the fact that Caller's claims are pure tripe, many people have witnessed him pamper confused mumpsimuses. Caller generally insists that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his nasty objectives on meretricious, dour passéists. It's like he has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, if it weren't for Caller's double standards he would have no standards at all. Hence, it's utterly a waste of time even to address Caller's hypocrisy. That's why I'll state merely that he has been known to say that we ought to worship philopolemical, self-deluded racketeers as folk heroes. That notion is so malign, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. In summary, savagism revolves in a fixed orbit around all of Caller's noxious opuscula. Is anyone listening? Does anyone care?

I don't intend to discomfit my readers, but I do need to point out that Caller's real enmity against us comes through in his positions, which he uses to emphasize the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive. To begin at the beginning, he has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then judgmental jargonauts will be free to work hand-in-glove with the worst sorts of pudibund, moralistic anarchists there are. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Caller is an expert at calming his adversaries with sweet inversions of the truth. In case you don't believe me, consider how he has managed to convince an alarming number of people that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. He does this even though he knows full well that he's convinced that people everywhere have a deeply held love of despotism. I profess that if Caller held a rally in support of despotism, no more than two people would show up—one if you exclude the local street vendor who just happens to be peddling his wares in the vicinity. The reason, obviously, is that Caller has called people like me spleenful demoniacs, sanctimonious criticasters, and pea-brained, moonstruck litterbugs so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. Caller certainly continues to employ such insults because he's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that one can usually be pretty sure when Caller is lying. Sometimes there's a little doubt: maybe it's not a deliberate lie but merely a difference of opinion. But when Caller claims that his adages are intelligent, commonsensical, and entirely consonant with the views of ordinary people, there's no room for ambiguity: he's lying.

Caller's dupes have been waxing stridently about miserabilism, Caller's double standards, and why Caller should break down traditional values. Meanwhile, I have been setting the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. What do I hope to achieve by doing such a thing? I hope to achieve widespread recognition that I've managed to come up with a way in which Caller's essays could be made useful. His essays could be used by the instructors of college courses as a final examination of sorts. Any student who can't find at least 20 errors of fact or fatuous statement automatically flunks. Extra credit goes to students who realize that Caller's wrongheaded, confused game of chess—the jaundiced chess of mercantalism—has continued for far too long. It's time to checkmate this invidious loblolly and show him that he is not only immoral but amoral.

If anything, by allowing Caller to weave his cruel traits, hidebound exegeses, and power-drunk ploys into a rich tapestry that is sure to represent Heaven as Hell and, conversely, the most wretched life as paradise, we are allowing him to play puppet master. He has not increased our safety, security, or happiness by putting a pestilential, sappy spin on important issues. All he's increased by doing that is the girth of his bloated ego. From a public-policy perspective, I once read an article about how Caller wants nothing less than to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. It was the powerful and long-lingering momentum of the impressions received on that occasion, more than any other circumstance, that gave definite form and resolution to my purpose of substituting movement for stagnation, purposive behavior for drifting, and visions of a great future for collective pettiness and discouragement.

To say that Caller has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the sniffish opportunists around him is sleazy nonsense and untrue to boot. One might think that his claims about dogmatism form a perfect continuum of infinite leaps to vaguely defined conclusions that will rapidly collapse into a singularity of unreason from which no sense can escape, and this is, not surprisingly, the case. If I had to choose between chopping onions and helping him scapegoat easy, unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that if Caller believes that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract, then it's obvious why he thinks that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Although I agree with those who aver that he is becoming ever more audacious in his unappeasable hatred of us, nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of his unforgiving, oligophrenic practices.

Isn't it interesting which questions Caller dodges and what tangents he goes off on? Those dodges and tangents make me think that I've never bothered Caller. Yet Caller wants to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? He unmistakably believes that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. Unfortunately for him, that's all in his imagination. Caller needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about his anti-democratic behavior but about the way that I am tired of hearing or reading that "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. You know that that is simply not true.

My next point will be so cogent that even Caller will be able to understand it. Specifically, Caller has nothing but contempt for responsibility, duty, and honor. Still, I recommend you check out some of Caller's threats and draw your own conclusions on the matter. The dominant characteristic of his canards is not that they sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future, but that, in the bargain, they erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that Caller's policies have become. I challenge Caller to point out any text in this letter that proposes that he possesses infinite wisdom. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.

Caller screams and cries whenever he's prevented from causing riots in the streets. I, not being one of the many sullen, obscene derelicts of this world, warrant that if he stopped acting like such a big baby, maybe then he'd see that his mottos are based on hate. Hate, Stalinism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. I avouch we should knock down his house of cards. By "house of cards," I'm referring to the fragile, highly unstable, and renitent framework of lies on which Caller's popularity is based. Without that framework, people everywhere would come to realize that Caller has somehow managed to get the media to pay rapt attention to his pretentious prognoses. I don't know what sort of Jedi mind control he's been using to pull that off, but I do know that by Caller's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely a stubborn calumniator. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I insist that it's debatable whether Caller's intellectual dishonesty, mismanagement of facts, and outright lies make the most mentally deficient zobs I've ever seen seem ready for sainthood, in comparison. However, no one can disagree that the provision of evidence rebutting his claims is merely fuel piled on the bonfire of his insanity. Hence and therefore, Caller is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, he frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to flout all of society's rules.

I need your help if I'm ever to shatter the adage that if Caller kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, Caller believes it's perfectly okay to mollycoddle slatternly libertines. More than anything else, such beliefs shed light on Caller's moral values and suggest incontrovertibly that he wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that Caller wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If he really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Let me rephrase that: His propositions turn the stomachs of those who know even a little about the real world. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that he has a different view of reality from the rest of us? Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that whenever he's presented with the statement that he is a confirmed liar—a conscious, deliberate, bald-faced, shameless liar—he spews out the hackneyed excuse that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that he should be even slightly inconvenienced. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that Caller's opinion is that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that to someone whose eyes are open, Caller's constantly repeated mantra that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved is an insanely meddlesome notion. By way of contrast, consider my personal mantra that the one thing that's central to all of Caller's ungrateful denunciations is a desire to make emotionalism socially acceptable. I call this the New Terrorism. The old terrorism was concerned only with making bribery legal and part of business as usual. Although that was bad enough, it would be downright brain-damaged for Caller to deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that he is guided by the ignis fatuus of ageism. Well, that's another story. To get back to my main point, I ought to mention that I think I know why so many vexatious, postmodernist ditzes prop up corrupt despots around the world. It's because Caller has whipped them into a blind frenzy by telling them that the most valuable skill one can have is the ability to lie convincingly. Unfortunately for Caller, the ground truth is that his histrionics are a veritable dictionary and synonymicon of Oblomovism. That said, let me continue.

One other thing: Caller contends that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says haughty, ignominious things and that, therefore, taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces daft gauleiters (as distinct from the parvanimous profiteers who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that Caller is a spokesman for God. In reality, contrariwise, if Caller thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately unreasonable then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobacky.

When I was little, my father would sometimes pick me up, put me on his knee, and say "I'd like people who use 'pressure tactics'—that's a euphemism for 'torture'—to coerce ordinary people into allowing federally funded research to mushroom into a scabrous, grossly inefficient system, hampered by mad gumps and unholy varmints to find themselves behind bars, looking out." Even though Caller insists that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point, I claim that anyone with eyes and a brain can tell that if you were to tell him that his hypnopompic insights are fatally fissiparous, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. He really struck a nerve with me when he said that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. That lie is a painful reminder that Caller's confreres merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap. So what's the connection between that and Caller's ramblings? The connection is that we must always be looking towards the future while keeping the past in mind. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. Caller's crusades have grown into the world's greatest enslavers of human minds. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to extirpate the things that I cherish. "How could Caller be so flippant?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is decidedly possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Caller plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of his feebleminded, neurotic indiscretions rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into Caller's world. Why do we want to do that? Because if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: It is honestly not the intention of Heaven to let Caller crush the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world.

Caller's vassals all look like Caller, think like Caller, act like Caller, and shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus, just like Caller does. And all this in the name of—let me see if I can get their propaganda straight—brotherhood and service. Ha! I surely want to protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of iscariotic, logorrheic bloodsuckers, but I can't do that alone. So do me a favor and lend support to the thesis that we must use our minds and spirits to halt Caller's efforts to lure the loathsome into Caller's coven. That'll show him that many, many people have been hurt by him for daring to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. In fact, there are so many such people that even listing their names would take more space than I can afford in this letter. In their honor, though, I will say that the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, the justification Caller gave for interfering with my efforts to lead him out of a dream world and back to hard reality was one of the most silly justifications I've ever heard. It was so silly, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: Caller is a lamebrained liar. Let's list some of Caller's more deluded lies: First, he claims that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. Second, he insists that the more paperasserie and bureaucracy we have to endure, the better. And third, he wants us to believe that it's okay if his suggestions initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. I presented that list to get you to see that Caller recently made the astonishing claim that he answers to no one. Stripped of all its hyperbole, this statement is really just saying that Caller likes to argue that he is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities. Admitting the apparent correctness of this morally crippled argument, we may prove the contradictory of its conclusion by an unassailable argument of our own, which is called an elenchus. My elenchus begins with the observation that if Caller had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" he wouldn't be so keen to put the public peace perpetually in danger. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that he has been confusing, befuddling, and neutralizing public opposition. We need to have long memories and no forgiveness of that sort of behavior. Instead, we must investigate Caller's contumelious principles, ideals, and objectives.

I suggest that we dispense justice. This right and truthful proposition, practically established, will help us overcome the obstacles that people like him establish. While the concept of broad-based peace and social justice coalitions remains desirable, there is an alternative to lying down passively for the executioner. The alternative is to reveal the truth about Caller's homilies. In particular, he never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, Caller's claimed magnanimousness is completely chimerical, and, furthermore, life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? I have asked God for answers, but it appears that this is a closed-book test. Let me simply suggest, therefore, that we've all heard Caller yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear.

It's easy to tell if Caller is lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying. Caller says that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of fanaticism. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that Comstockism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us.

Contrary to the impression that stubborn brutes offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their shell games. We need to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything. Now the surprising news: I condemn Caller's gross and systematic violations of human rights. I'm not just talking about the arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions but also about my previous observation that Caller's emissaries have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. More often than not, I'm at loggerheads with Caller on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. I take the opposite position, that I know more about conspiracism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that if Caller is victorious in his quest to bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.

I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, morally corrupt world run by brassbound, judgmental racketeers. Better, far better, that Man were without the gift of speech than that he use it as Caller does. Better that Man could neither read nor write than have his head and heart perverted by the bilious and hidebound tommyrot that oozes from Caller's pen. And better that the cut of Man's coat and the number of his buttons were fixed by statute and enforced by penalties than that Caller should arouse the hostility and excite the cupidity of gormless rampallions. When you reflect upon this, you'll realize that his viewpoints are more than slovenly. They fill me with a sense of despair. More than anything else, they make me realize that since their emergence on the stage of history, amoral common criminals have been a parasitic growth on the stem of true citizens. If you doubt this, just ask around.

Although Caller wants to enable tetchy, unmannerly rumormongers to punch above their weight, if we fail to straighten out our thinking and change the path we're on, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. He demands absolute and blind obedience from his advocates. If he didn't, they might question his orders to pit people against each other. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that Caller swears that he acts in the public interest. Clearly, he'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, Caller used to maintain that he has the mandate of Heaven to deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that he is capable of. When he realized that no one was falling for that claptrap, he quickly changed his tune to say that lewd, malignant quiddlers are easily housebroken. Caller is clearly a mudslinging liar, and shame on anyone who believes him.

If we don't soon tell Caller to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his unconscionable, jaded ruderies, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given Caller our permission to do so. Caller, who prides himself on being open-minded and who likes to brag about it, refuses to consider my position that I must ask that his adulators restore the traditions that he has abandoned. I know they'll never do that so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions. His lickspittles claim to have no choice but to use threats of fiscal harm to coerce vengeful malevolent-types into testing another formula for silencing serious opposition. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, recalcitrant megalomaniacs. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand.

Was Caller just trying to be cute when he said that everything he says is entirely and absolutely true? I sure hope so because to someone whose eyes are open, his constantly repeated mantra that his faith in solipsism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations is an insanely presumptuous notion. By way of contrast, consider my personal mantra that I try never to argue with Caller because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason. He ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

For the first time ever, a majority of nettlesome widdifuls have been questioning their role in helping Caller gain a respectable foothold for his noisome commentaries. I feel that we should take advantage of this historic opportunity and promote Caller to an elevated status in history as an archdemon of Oblomovism. In a tacit concession of defeat, he is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his deceitful sallies have failed at. Caller accuses me of being a liar. The only proven liar around here, however, is Caller. Only a die-hard liar like Caller could claim that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. The truth, in case you haven't already figured it out, is that the reason he wants to rot our minds with the hallucinatory drug of alarmism is that he's totally humorless. If you believe you have another explanation for his complacent behavior, then please write and tell me about it. This is far from all I have to say on the topic, but it's certainly enough for now. Just remember one thing: Caller gnaws away at the pillars of our society as if he were a termite chewing on wood.

On September 30 2012 09:00 Toadesstern wrote:

I think we should stop quoting this.

On October 01 2012 04:23 HiroPro wrote:
It would be a lot easier to read if people stopped quoting this...

On September 30 2012 08:35 Coagulation wrote:
Even as I sit here, I can't believe I'm writing this. I've never been one to voice my opinions in such a public manner. But after learning that Caller wants to create a desolation and call it peace, I felt I at least had to set a few things straight. To start, he wants to spread rumors, gossip, and stories that are certainly false. Who does he think he is? I mean, the really interesting thing about all this is not that his accusations leave much to be desired. The interesting thing is that it's unfortunate that he has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped.

Caller's clear-cut demonstrations of gross moral turpitude have led me to believe that I, speaking as someone who is not a stuporous usurer, am fed up to the back teeth with Caller's uninformed jibes. But the problems with Caller's long-term goals don't end there. As a consistently mortified observer of Caller's snow jobs, I can't help but want to restore the traditions that Caller has abandoned. Honor means nothing to him. Principles mean nothing to him. All he cares about is how to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive.

In spite of the fact that Caller's claims are pure tripe, many people have witnessed him pamper confused mumpsimuses. Caller generally insists that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his nasty objectives on meretricious, dour passéists. It's like he has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, if it weren't for Caller's double standards he would have no standards at all. Hence, it's utterly a waste of time even to address Caller's hypocrisy. That's why I'll state merely that he has been known to say that we ought to worship philopolemical, self-deluded racketeers as folk heroes. That notion is so malign, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. In summary, savagism revolves in a fixed orbit around all of Caller's noxious opuscula. Is anyone listening? Does anyone care?

I don't intend to discomfit my readers, but I do need to point out that Caller's real enmity against us comes through in his positions, which he uses to emphasize the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive. To begin at the beginning, he has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then judgmental jargonauts will be free to work hand-in-glove with the worst sorts of pudibund, moralistic anarchists there are. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Caller is an expert at calming his adversaries with sweet inversions of the truth. In case you don't believe me, consider how he has managed to convince an alarming number of people that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. He does this even though he knows full well that he's convinced that people everywhere have a deeply held love of despotism. I profess that if Caller held a rally in support of despotism, no more than two people would show up—one if you exclude the local street vendor who just happens to be peddling his wares in the vicinity. The reason, obviously, is that Caller has called people like me spleenful demoniacs, sanctimonious criticasters, and pea-brained, moonstruck litterbugs so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. Caller certainly continues to employ such insults because he's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that one can usually be pretty sure when Caller is lying. Sometimes there's a little doubt: maybe it's not a deliberate lie but merely a difference of opinion. But when Caller claims that his adages are intelligent, commonsensical, and entirely consonant with the views of ordinary people, there's no room for ambiguity: he's lying.

Caller's dupes have been waxing stridently about miserabilism, Caller's double standards, and why Caller should break down traditional values. Meanwhile, I have been setting the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. What do I hope to achieve by doing such a thing? I hope to achieve widespread recognition that I've managed to come up with a way in which Caller's essays could be made useful. His essays could be used by the instructors of college courses as a final examination of sorts. Any student who can't find at least 20 errors of fact or fatuous statement automatically flunks. Extra credit goes to students who realize that Caller's wrongheaded, confused game of chess—the jaundiced chess of mercantalism—has continued for far too long. It's time to checkmate this invidious loblolly and show him that he is not only immoral but amoral.

If anything, by allowing Caller to weave his cruel traits, hidebound exegeses, and power-drunk ploys into a rich tapestry that is sure to represent Heaven as Hell and, conversely, the most wretched life as paradise, we are allowing him to play puppet master. He has not increased our safety, security, or happiness by putting a pestilential, sappy spin on important issues. All he's increased by doing that is the girth of his bloated ego. From a public-policy perspective, I once read an article about how Caller wants nothing less than to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. It was the powerful and long-lingering momentum of the impressions received on that occasion, more than any other circumstance, that gave definite form and resolution to my purpose of substituting movement for stagnation, purposive behavior for drifting, and visions of a great future for collective pettiness and discouragement.

To say that Caller has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the sniffish opportunists around him is sleazy nonsense and untrue to boot. One might think that his claims about dogmatism form a perfect continuum of infinite leaps to vaguely defined conclusions that will rapidly collapse into a singularity of unreason from which no sense can escape, and this is, not surprisingly, the case. If I had to choose between chopping onions and helping him scapegoat easy, unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that if Caller believes that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract, then it's obvious why he thinks that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Although I agree with those who aver that he is becoming ever more audacious in his unappeasable hatred of us, nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of his unforgiving, oligophrenic practices.

Isn't it interesting which questions Caller dodges and what tangents he goes off on? Those dodges and tangents make me think that I've never bothered Caller. Yet Caller wants to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? He unmistakably believes that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. Unfortunately for him, that's all in his imagination. Caller needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about his anti-democratic behavior but about the way that I am tired of hearing or reading that "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. You know that that is simply not true.

My next point will be so cogent that even Caller will be able to understand it. Specifically, Caller has nothing but contempt for responsibility, duty, and honor. Still, I recommend you check out some of Caller's threats and draw your own conclusions on the matter. The dominant characteristic of his canards is not that they sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future, but that, in the bargain, they erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that Caller's policies have become. I challenge Caller to point out any text in this letter that proposes that he possesses infinite wisdom. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.

Caller screams and cries whenever he's prevented from causing riots in the streets. I, not being one of the many sullen, obscene derelicts of this world, warrant that if he stopped acting like such a big baby, maybe then he'd see that his mottos are based on hate. Hate, Stalinism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. I avouch we should knock down his house of cards. By "house of cards," I'm referring to the fragile, highly unstable, and renitent framework of lies on which Caller's popularity is based. Without that framework, people everywhere would come to realize that Caller has somehow managed to get the media to pay rapt attention to his pretentious prognoses. I don't know what sort of Jedi mind control he's been using to pull that off, but I do know that by Caller's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely a stubborn calumniator. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I insist that it's debatable whether Caller's intellectual dishonesty, mismanagement of facts, and outright lies make the most mentally deficient zobs I've ever seen seem ready for sainthood, in comparison. However, no one can disagree that the provision of evidence rebutting his claims is merely fuel piled on the bonfire of his insanity. Hence and therefore, Caller is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, he frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to flout all of society's rules.

I need your help if I'm ever to shatter the adage that if Caller kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, Caller believes it's perfectly okay to mollycoddle slatternly libertines. More than anything else, such beliefs shed light on Caller's moral values and suggest incontrovertibly that he wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that Caller wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If he really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Let me rephrase that: His propositions turn the stomachs of those who know even a little about the real world. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that he has a different view of reality from the rest of us? Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that whenever he's presented with the statement that he is a confirmed liar—a conscious, deliberate, bald-faced, shameless liar—he spews out the hackneyed excuse that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that he should be even slightly inconvenienced. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that Caller's opinion is that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that to someone whose eyes are open, Caller's constantly repeated mantra that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved is an insanely meddlesome notion. By way of contrast, consider my personal mantra that the one thing that's central to all of Caller's ungrateful denunciations is a desire to make emotionalism socially acceptable. I call this the New Terrorism. The old terrorism was concerned only with making bribery legal and part of business as usual. Although that was bad enough, it would be downright brain-damaged for Caller to deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that he is guided by the ignis fatuus of ageism. Well, that's another story. To get back to my main point, I ought to mention that I think I know why so many vexatious, postmodernist ditzes prop up corrupt despots around the world. It's because Caller has whipped them into a blind frenzy by telling them that the most valuable skill one can have is the ability to lie convincingly. Unfortunately for Caller, the ground truth is that his histrionics are a veritable dictionary and synonymicon of Oblomovism. That said, let me continue.

One other thing: Caller contends that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says haughty, ignominious things and that, therefore, taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces daft gauleiters (as distinct from the parvanimous profiteers who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that Caller is a spokesman for God. In reality, contrariwise, if Caller thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately unreasonable then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobacky.

When I was little, my father would sometimes pick me up, put me on his knee, and say "I'd like people who use 'pressure tactics'—that's a euphemism for 'torture'—to coerce ordinary people into allowing federally funded research to mushroom into a scabrous, grossly inefficient system, hampered by mad gumps and unholy varmints to find themselves behind bars, looking out." Even though Caller insists that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point, I claim that anyone with eyes and a brain can tell that if you were to tell him that his hypnopompic insights are fatally fissiparous, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. He really struck a nerve with me when he said that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. That lie is a painful reminder that Caller's confreres merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap. So what's the connection between that and Caller's ramblings? The connection is that we must always be looking towards the future while keeping the past in mind. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. Caller's crusades have grown into the world's greatest enslavers of human minds. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to extirpate the things that I cherish. "How could Caller be so flippant?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is decidedly possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Caller plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of his feebleminded, neurotic indiscretions rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into Caller's world. Why do we want to do that? Because if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: It is honestly not the intention of Heaven to let Caller crush the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world.

Caller's vassals all look like Caller, think like Caller, act like Caller, and shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus, just like Caller does. And all this in the name of—let me see if I can get their propaganda straight—brotherhood and service. Ha! I surely want to protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of iscariotic, logorrheic bloodsuckers, but I can't do that alone. So do me a favor and lend support to the thesis that we must use our minds and spirits to halt Caller's efforts to lure the loathsome into Caller's coven. That'll show him that many, many people have been hurt by him for daring to ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. In fact, there are so many such people that even listing their names would take more space than I can afford in this letter. In their honor, though, I will say that the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, the justification Caller gave for interfering with my efforts to lead him out of a dream world and back to hard reality was one of the most silly justifications I've ever heard. It was so silly, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: Caller is a lamebrained liar. Let's list some of Caller's more deluded lies: First, he claims that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. Second, he insists that the more paperasserie and bureaucracy we have to endure, the better. And third, he wants us to believe that it's okay if his suggestions initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. I presented that list to get you to see that Caller recently made the astonishing claim that he answers to no one. Stripped of all its hyperbole, this statement is really just saying that Caller likes to argue that he is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities. Admitting the apparent correctness of this morally crippled argument, we may prove the contradictory of its conclusion by an unassailable argument of our own, which is called an elenchus. My elenchus begins with the observation that if Caller had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" he wouldn't be so keen to put the public peace perpetually in danger. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that he has been confusing, befuddling, and neutralizing public opposition. We need to have long memories and no forgiveness of that sort of behavior. Instead, we must investigate Caller's contumelious principles, ideals, and objectives.

I suggest that we dispense justice. This right and truthful proposition, practically established, will help us overcome the obstacles that people like him establish. While the concept of broad-based peace and social justice coalitions remains desirable, there is an alternative to lying down passively for the executioner. The alternative is to reveal the truth about Caller's homilies. In particular, he never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, Caller's claimed magnanimousness is completely chimerical, and, furthermore, life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? I have asked God for answers, but it appears that this is a closed-book test. Let me simply suggest, therefore, that we've all heard Caller yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear.

It's easy to tell if Caller is lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying. Caller says that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of fanaticism. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that Comstockism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us.

Contrary to the impression that stubborn brutes offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their shell games. We need to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything. Now the surprising news: I condemn Caller's gross and systematic violations of human rights. I'm not just talking about the arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions but also about my previous observation that Caller's emissaries have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. More often than not, I'm at loggerheads with Caller on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. I take the opposite position, that I know more about conspiracism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that if Caller is victorious in his quest to bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.

I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, morally corrupt world run by brassbound, judgmental racketeers. Better, far better, that Man were without the gift of speech than that he use it as Caller does. Better that Man could neither read nor write than have his head and heart perverted by the bilious and hidebound tommyrot that oozes from Caller's pen. And better that the cut of Man's coat and the number of his buttons were fixed by statute and enforced by penalties than that Caller should arouse the hostility and excite the cupidity of gormless rampallions. When you reflect upon this, you'll realize that his viewpoints are more than slovenly. They fill me with a sense of despair. More than anything else, they make me realize that since their emergence on the stage of history, amoral common criminals have been a parasitic growth on the stem of true citizens. If you doubt this, just ask around.

Although Caller wants to enable tetchy, unmannerly rumormongers to punch above their weight, if we fail to straighten out our thinking and change the path we're on, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. He demands absolute and blind obedience from his advocates. If he didn't, they might question his orders to pit people against each other. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that Caller swears that he acts in the public interest. Clearly, he'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, Caller used to maintain that he has the mandate of Heaven to deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that he is capable of. When he realized that no one was falling for that claptrap, he quickly changed his tune to say that lewd, malignant quiddlers are easily housebroken. Caller is clearly a mudslinging liar, and shame on anyone who believes him.

If we don't soon tell Caller to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his unconscionable, jaded ruderies, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given Caller our permission to do so. Caller, who prides himself on being open-minded and who likes to brag about it, refuses to consider my position that I must ask that his adulators restore the traditions that he has abandoned. I know they'll never do that so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions. His lickspittles claim to have no choice but to use threats of fiscal harm to coerce vengeful malevolent-types into testing another formula for silencing serious opposition. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, recalcitrant megalomaniacs. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand.

Was Caller just trying to be cute when he said that everything he says is entirely and absolutely true? I sure hope so because to someone whose eyes are open, his constantly repeated mantra that his faith in solipsism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations is an insanely presumptuous notion. By way of contrast, consider my personal mantra that I try never to argue with Caller because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason. He ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

For the first time ever, a majority of nettlesome widdifuls have been questioning their role in helping Caller gain a respectable foothold for his noisome commentaries. I feel that we should take advantage of this historic opportunity and promote Caller to an elevated status in history as an archdemon of Oblomovism. In a tacit concession of defeat, he is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his deceitful sallies have failed at. Caller accuses me of being a liar. The only proven liar around here, however, is Caller. Only a die-hard liar like Caller could claim that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. The truth, in case you haven't already figured it out, is that the reason he wants to rot our minds with the hallucinatory drug of alarmism is that he's totally humorless. If you believe you have another explanation for his complacent behavior, then please write and tell me about it. This is far from all I have to say on the topic, but it's certainly enough for now. Just remember one thing: Caller gnaws away at the pillars of our society as if he were a termite chewing on wood.