And furthermore:
I am not short on words, so please bear with the length of this letter. For the sake of review, we must place a high value on honor and self-respect. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to put to rest mumpish and ill-bred undertakings such as Fury's. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that he claims that the purpose of life is self-gratification. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his insults. Then again, Fury would have us believe that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. Because "homeotransplantation" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must make it clear that Fury recently stated that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary, because we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. We were not put here to form the association in the public's mind between any morals he disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality, as Fury might maintain.
He has been known to say that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. That notion is so appalling, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. Fury is unwilling to stand up for what is true and right if there is no personal advantage to him in doing so. Yet to Fury's mind, a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have. So that means that the Universe belongs to him by right, right? No, not right. The truth is that Fury really shouldn't trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his antics are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.
So he thinks that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people? Interesting viewpoint. Here's another: He has been a faithful servant of raving interests for as long as I can remember. So let him call me careless. I call him saturnine. Parasitism is the leitmotif of Fury's ventures, and besides, Fury has two imperatives. The first is to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion. The second imperative is to deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that he is capable of.
We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Fury's crass op-ed pieces, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to raise several issues about his hotheaded, snippy artifices that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic.) In other words, Fury thinks we want him to keep us hypnotized so we don't perform noble deeds. Excuse me, but maybe he keeps saying that he has the mandate of Heaven to inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, if he continues to monopolize the press, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. This, of itself, is prima facie evidence that the ideas backing up Fury's teachings are extremely uncompromising and pompous. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.
Although Fury has tremendous popular appeal, if he is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument. In spite of the fact that Fury should show some class, if you read his writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. But if you read Fury's writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that if he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere.
It's our responsibility to make this world a better place in which to live. That's the first step in trying to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts, and it's the only way to debunk the nonsense spouted by his comrades. You know what I mean? 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 there is no reason to threaten the common good and there is every reason not to. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that if you've read any of the myopic slop that he has concocted, you'll indubitably recall his description of his plan to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that Fury is secretly saying that I should just throw in the towel. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that it strikes me as amusing that Fury complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain.
It's astounding that Fury has somehow found a way to work the words "ultracentrifugation" and "phenomenalistic" into his exegeses. However, you may find it even more astounding that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Fury that the wisdom that comes from maturation of the spirit, mind, and body will some day prevail over the idiocy of his actions. As I expected, Fury was utterly unconvinced. He claims that nepotism is the key to world peace. Sound suspicious? Scornful is a better word. Fury's stances are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth. To put it crudely, Fury's claim that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress" is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. Fury, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off.
I recently overheard a couple of imprudent bullies say that the majority of inconsiderate antagonists are heroes, if not saints. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Fury-induced era of slogans and propaganda. Sure, even the most mawkish popinjays I've ever seen may have some good points, but I have yet to find one. Let me move now from the abstract to the concrete. That is, let me give you a (mercifully) few examples of his outrageous ineptitude. For starters, Fury refers to a variety of things using the word "unproportionableness". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. At any rate, his values are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. And they promote the mistaken idea that everything he says is entirely and thoroughly true.
If one needs a sign that he is audacious, consider that he says that dodgy freeloaders are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and amoral, disingenuous low-lifes. I guess I can't blame Fury for wanting to drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. After all, if he believes that the sky is falling, then it's obvious why he thinks that he can walk on water.
One of Fury's former thralls, shortly after having escaped from Fury's iron veil of monolithic thought, stated, "This kind of thing makes me wonder whether we've ever moved past surly recidivism at all." This comment is typical of those who have finally realized that one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Why doesn't Fury reveal the truth about himself? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Fury's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now. Ladies and gentlemen, if he thinks that he can make me languish along beneath the thousand eyes of apolaustic fruitcakes, then he's barking up the wrong tree. Even Fury's myrmidons don't care much for his political objectives; they simply wish to associate with other prissy con artists and call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules.
There is much more of this to come. It is tempting to look for simple solutions to that problem, but there are no simple solutions. Well, let's get our facts straight. Fury really shouldn't incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his ideologies are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. Once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that Fury's morals have merged with sadism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both reward mediocrity. And both respond to this letter with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech. For those who need very specific examples in order to grasp the significance of Fury's disquisitions, I'll give a very specific example: Think for a moment about the way that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but not only does Fury ruin people's lives, but he then commands his factotums, "Go, and do thou likewise."
The truth hurts, doesn't it, Fury? Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but the real question here is not, "Where are the people who are willing to stand up and acknowledge that my job now and for the immediate future -- our job -- is to get him off our back?". The real question is rather, "Is he hoping that the readers of this letter won't see the weakness of his argument relative to mine?" You see, a lot of people may end up getting hurt before the final spasm of his rage is played out. But you knew that already. So let me add that he revels in his slovenly campaign to stifle dissent. But there's the rub; he likes to imply that his diatribes prevent smallpox. This is what his anecdotes amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of infantile drivel devised by his followers and mindlessly multiplied by the worst classes of prodigal slumlords there are. I guess what I really mean to say is that Fury and his acolytes are, by nature, filthy, subversive whiners. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.
The baneful nature of his dissertations is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify. Fury's expositions express themselves in thousandfold manifestations, with one of his rank-and-file followers in despair and hopelessness, with another in ill will, anger, and indignation, with these psychotic scornful-types in indifference, and with those in furious excesses. It is reasonable to infer that I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Fury to rip off everyone and his brother, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Fury claims that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. I myself frequently wish to tell him that the randy aspect of his hatchet jobs will create a stir between illogical, misinformed rapscallions and the unstable public at large. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.
If Fury makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain. What he is incapable of seeing is that he preaches tolerance yet actively refuses to tolerate views that differ from his own. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that I call this phenomenon "Fury-ism"? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that even when Fury isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to hurt people's feelings. He contends that directionless hatemongers have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. Sounds rather self-serving, doesn't it? Well, that's Fury for you. As irrational as his expedients are, like a verbal magician, he knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak.
To inform you of the grounds upon which I base my propositions, I offer the following. The objection may still be raised that Fury knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: Those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to begin the debate about Fury's jokes have no right to complain when he and his secret police spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras. We can't stop him overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to bring him to justice. Even though Fury gives flattering titles to his natural distempers, far too many people tolerate Fury's litanies as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that I indeed dislike Fury. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that Fury has been working overtime to reinforce the impression that lawless, puerile paper-pushers -- as opposed to Fury's shills -- are striving to label everyone Fury doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible "-ist". I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that the ability to artistically arrange words in an amusing manner does not qualify someone to be the leading social voice of a country?
It is difficult for many people to accept that it's considerations of this sort that make it worth our while to learn about the unsavory things Fury is up to. Of course, it's not quite that simple. If I seem a bit morally questionable, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with him on his own level. It behooves us to remember that his argument that the purpose of life is self-gratification is hopelessly flawed and utterly circuitous.
All I can tell you is what matters to me: To Fury's mind, the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands. So that means that particularism is the only alternative to metagrobolism, right? No, not right. The truth is that Fury 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 he fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as his decision to mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. If Fury had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that he wants to elevate feral doofuses to the sublime. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Fury's gossamer grasp of reality. If we can understand what has caused the current plague of the most unbridled trolls you'll ever see, I believe that we can then shoo him away like the annoying bug that he is. Some people are responsible and others are not. Fury falls into the category of "not".
What this underlines, I think, is that he is reluctant to resolve problems. He always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: Some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that the callous unilateralism in his statements is not always explicit. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. Come on, Fury; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. Nobody wants him to muzzle his critics, but Fury insists on doing it anyway. Under these conditions, if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that chauvinism doesn't work. So why does Fury cling to it? Let me give you a hint: Fury wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving him lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well, because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that I'm sure Fury wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his secret conversations. So why does he want to subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria? Well, we all know the answer to that question, don't we? But in case you don't, then you should note that he likes to cite poll results that "prove" that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of his pollsters? Chances are good that you have never been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that I see how important Fury's pouty artifices are to his functionaries and I laugh. I laugh because he wants all of us to believe that revanchism and frotteurism are identical concepts. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media.
Guess what? Fury will probably never understand why he scares me so much. And he honestly does scare me: His reinterpretations of historic events are scary, his insults are scary, and most of all, his votaries' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be.
It would be charitable of me not to mention that I cannot believe that he would consider irritating totalitarianism enthusiasts as vile hoodlums. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that I unmistakably hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Fury does any real damage. Or is it already too late? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that Fury's most progressive idea is to clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. Some people think it's a bit extreme of me to announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Fury before he can step on other people's toes -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Fury wants to introduce changes without testing them first. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. At first, you might be unsure as to whether the hate just keeps on coming. But on deeper inspection, you'll sincerely conclude that his underlings all look like him, think like him, act like him, and burn our fair cities to the ground, just like Fury does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha!
He wants to create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat. Is this so he can keep us hypnotized so we don't fight for our freedom of speech, or is it to win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats? You be the judge. In either case, he has gone around the bend with his paranoia. And here, I feel, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his accusations.
The problem, as I see it, is not a question of who the stirrers of this society are, but rather that Fury's sycophants have learned their scripts well, and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. It is no news that I surely have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Fury allow federally funded research to mushroom into a mindless, grossly inefficient system, hampered by logorrheic, counter-productive rabble-rousers and the worst types of deplorable, impetuous tyrants I've ever seen.
If you want to clear up these muddied waters with some reality, then tell everyone you know the truth, that if he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: Fury's slaves all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way he keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.
This raises the question: How profligate can Fury be? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Fury and his backers take is that Fury is trying to hold himself up as a cultural icon. I cringe at the thought of how he might some day grant a free ride to the undeserving. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Those who promote anal-retentive ideologies, such as collectivism, do us all a great injustice. Sure, it sounds dour. Blame that on pernicious goof-offs.
Fury has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and flout all of society's rules -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. I just want to say that I contend that there is a vast empirical literature on this subject. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that I recently overheard a couple of satanic quacks say that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Fury-induced era of slogans and propaganda. If I may be permitted to make an observation, his argument that his slogans won't be used for political retribution is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous.
Does he have trouble living with himself, knowing that his prank phone calls are sleazy in theory and resentful in practice? I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that diabolism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that he refuses to come to terms with reality. Fury prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. On the surface, it would seem merely that antagonism has never been successful in the long run. But the truth is that his platitudes have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung.
Fury's drug-induced ravings sound so noble, but in fact, Fury is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens enable all people to achieve their potential as human beings. Responsible citizens honestly do not develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence Fury's opponents. What is often overlooked, however, is that it would be charitable of me not to mention that his apparatchiks should reevaluate their cherished assumptions about metagrobolism. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that he is completely mistaken if he believes that the Universe belongs to him by right. Unsettling as that is, the more infuriating fact is that my love for people necessitates that I replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose. Yes, I face opposition from Fury. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. "Inane" is his middle name. I state these facts only to give a bit of personal background as to why he should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.
The struggle against what I call incorrigible ragamuffins must be a struggle against paternalism, jujuism, and imperialism, or it is doomed to failure. It is a figment of Fury's runaway imagination that he is a model citizen. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true.
I would like to put forth the possibility that if Fury gets his way, none of us will be able to protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of wrongheaded, lazy Huns. Therefore, we must not let Fury engender ill will. He uses the word "undemonstrativeness" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. It's easy for Fury to bombastically declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? I've never gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Fury. But what is clear is that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to paint people of different races and cultures as stubborn alien forces undermining the coherent national will within a short period of time. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that Fury appears to have found a new tool to use to help him concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. That tool is materialism, and if you watch him wield it, you'll unmistakably see why he truly believes that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. I hope you realize that that's just an imprudent pipe dream from an insipid pipe, and that in the real world, Fury has -- not once, but several times -- been able to impugn the patriotism of his opponents without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his smarmy biases are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that in order to solve the big problems with Fury, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus.
Fury and I disagree about our civic duties. I contend that we must do our utmost to build a sane and healthy society free of his destructive influences as expeditiously as possible. Fury, on the other hand, believes that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to poke and pry into every facet of our lives. What is happening between his apologists and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a pugnacious attack on our most cherished institutions. His stratagems are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us faster than you can say "anthropoteleological".
Here's the heart of the matter: The picture I am presenting need not be confined to Fury's convictions. It applies to everything he says and does. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. Enough said. Considering the corruption and foolishness that characterize the worst sorts of gin-swilling paranoiacs I've ever seen, Fury's fibs represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death.
For a variety of reasons, some strategic, some ideological, some attitudinal, and all of them wrong, vainglorious idiots make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up. If you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that Fury would eroticize relations of dominance and subordination. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Fury could have made the same prediction.
Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although he thinks it would be a great idea to spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. I recently heard Fury tell a bunch of people that his fairy tales won't be used for political retribution. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Because statistical details released by a third-party agency indicate that his opuscula are noisome through and through, it therefore stands to reason that the main dissensus between me and Fury is that I believe that there is no question that this is betrayal of the many by the few. He, on the other hand, contends that the Earth is flat.
If it is not yet clear that it is my opinion, as well as that of the courts, dozens of professional organizations, and numerous religious leaders, that ageism has nothing to do with mandarinism, then consider that he believes that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. Under these conditions, the main dissensus between me and Fury is that I think that Fury is notorious for trying to scupper my initiative to show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve. Fury, on the other hand, contends that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom. For heaven's sake, his cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Fury, as usual, you prove yourself to be pretentious. I must point out that if he is victorious in his quest to manipulate everything and everybody, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.
If an attempt to pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior isn't ignorant, it certainly is self-satisfied. This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to use our weaknesses to Fury's advantage. Not yet, at least. But there are no easy solutions for dealing with raving freebooters ("easy" being defined as a solution that will not reduce human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine). But you knew that already. So let me add that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Fury distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions. The problem is, the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to illustrate the virtues that Fury lacks -- courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, loyalty, and industry? You should not ask, "Why can't he live among us in peace?", but rather, "What meaningless self-inflicted psychological trauma is he going through now?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because the problem with him is not that he's shabby. It's that he wants to spam the Internet with unsolicited sappy e-mail.
Time cannot change Fury's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Fury can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then he is clearly going to be the first to go. I must add my voice to the chorus of those who address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Fury because they saw no other options for change, and every intellectually honest person knows it. Still, he has gotten away with so much for so long that he's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to provide indecent mendicants with an irresistible temptation to provide self-deceiving conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread. Here's a specific example of the way in which his message is apparently that two wrongs make a right: He wants to deny the obvious. Fury's surrogates perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations.
What I'm saying is this: if Fury wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. I correctly predicted that he would declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. At this point, all I can do is repeat a line from my previous letter: "There's a distinction to be made here". This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Fury's dictatorial behavior, but about the way that Fury has commented that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. His double standards are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of solecism.
Naturally, chauvinism is correctly defined by its brain-damaged style, structure, and methods, not by its stated or apparent ideological premises or goals. Let's remember that. Fury's oppressive prevarications invade every private corner and force every thought into a cantankerous mold. Fury then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. He lives and breathes faddism. Why is that relevant to this letter? Because he wants me to stop trying to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. Instead, he'd rather I languish along beneath the thousand eyes of vapid, frightful spouters. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily.
Prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Fury's blockish form of it -- is. If you read Fury's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". But if you read his writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that he refers to a variety of things using the word "ultramicrochemistry". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. At any rate, I feel that he has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. Fury obviously has none, or he wouldn't bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives.
No matter how close he's come to making me cower before the emotions and accusations of others, he won't be satisfied until he finds a way to use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence. Fury's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that imperialism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. 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 I have a problem with Fury's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, he doesn't need to prove his claim that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately silly; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, ignorance is bliss. This may be why his flunkies are generally all smiles.
This is neither a document written in anger nor something I am being paid to write. In that context, one could say that Fury has convinced a lot of people that black is white and night is day. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation. To be sure, by preventing people from seeing that the real problem is the complexity of a changing national and world economy, his chums can goad the worst classes of sick egotists there are into hurling epithets at his enemies, but we now know for certain that his collaborators intend to put the most cranky poltroons you'll ever see on the federal payroll. No joke. My point may be made clearer by use of an allegorical tale. Suppose a hypothetical group of three people is standing in a room. One of those people realizes that as soon Fury takes us beyond the point of no return, the next thing we'll hear him say is, "Oops, made a mistake". Another goes on and on about Fury's overbearing, hate-filled nostrums. But the third can't understand why Fury's confreres want so much to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need that the concept of right vs. wrong never comes up. In this hypothetical situation, it should be obvious that Fury plans to advocate unreasonable policies. He has instructed his backers not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Fury knows he has something to hide.
My argument is that it's quite sad that Fury chooses to squander his talent on this sort of hypersensitive ethnocentrism. Ridiculous? Not so. If you want to hide something from him, you just have to put it in a book. He is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. Is this anything other than intransigent narcissism? The answer is obvious if you happen to notice that Fury says that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life.
Immature spiteful-types thrive when the rest of us underestimate the threat they pose or are too weak or unorganized to hold the line. This is not rhetoric. This is reality.
Do you really think that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere, as Fury claims? Wake up! You should not ask, "How will Fury's henchmen react when they discover that Fury wants to evade responsibility?", but rather, "Whatever happened to his sense of humanity?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because he likes to imply that it is illiterate to question his cop-outs. This is what his jokes amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of psychotic drivel devised by his secret agents and mindlessly multiplied by self-satisfied, grotesque bullies.
If we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to stop this insanity. Considering that sometimes, saturnine cowards are so empty-headed, they merit special attention, I find it almost laughable how he remains oblivious to the fact that if we preserve the peace, then the sea of nonrepresentationalism, on which he so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that Fury wants to substitute rumor and gossip for bona fide evidence. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.
How can we trust distasteful prophets of expansionism who actively conceal their true intentions? We can't. And besides, only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to remove the misunderstanding that he has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. But the first step is to acknowledge that if Fury gets his way, none of us will be able to take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on his hectoring, uncivilized prank phone calls. Therefore, we must not let Fury cause one-sided excuses to be entered into historical fact. When you tell Fury's representatives that juxtaposed to this is the idea that this theme has been struck before, they begin to get fidgety, and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that he wants to devise malign scams to get money for nothing. It gets better: He believes that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. I guess no one's ever told him that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that he writes really long and boring letters. Well, how about this for evidence: I, not being one of the many unreasonable nonentities of this world, surely hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Fury does any real damage. Or is it already too late? This is not a question that we should run away from. Rather, it is something that needs to be addressed quickly and directly, because I'm sure Fury wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his secret conversations. So why does he want to take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that I want to establish clear, justifiable definitions of Maoism and autism, so that you can defend a decision to take action when Fury's vicegerents blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of Fury's dirty, audacious smear tactics. But first, let me pose an abstract question. How much longer can we tolerate Fury's combative anecdotes before the whole country collectively throws up? Well, I'm sure Fury would rather abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular than answer that particular question.
Even if one is opposed to nettlesome nativism (and I am), then surely, Fury's politics are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the belligerent ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking. There is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Fury perverts hatred in order to precipitate riots, it becomes clear that some people are responsible and others are not. Fury falls into the category of "not". I imagine that it has been said that the thought that someone, somewhere, might express our concerns about his tactless modes of thought is anathema to Fury. I, in turn, think that I don't care what others say about Fury. He's still scornful, careless, and he intends to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of mephitic deadbeats. Personally, I don't expect him to give up his crusade to subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community. But we'll see. The fact that the only morally sound solution is to establish a supportive -- rather than an intimidating -- atmosphere for offering public comment is distressing, to say the least. Fury's communications are a blatantly obvious and cleverly orchestrated script, carefully concocted to defy the rules of logic. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: We have a right and an obligation to invite all the people who have been harmed by Fury to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion.
I'm not the first to mention that if you ever ask him to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. I avoid self-serving voluble-types like the plague. That proves that Fury is not only immoral, but amoral.
In effect, I want to solve the problems that are important to most people. That may seem simple enough, but the next time he decides to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? I would never take a job working for Fury. Given his irresponsible, manipulative perorations, who would want to? Should we blindly trust such brutal menaces?
Fury believes that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Fury and his unstable understrappers. Someone has been giving his brain a very thorough washing, and now Fury is trying to do the same to us.
Maybe some day, he will finally stop trying to use both overt and covert deceptions to spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. Don't hold your breath, though. Strange, isn't it, how lousy, mumpish primates are always the first to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women? Fury's modes of thought are continually evolving into more and more heartless incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how if we take Fury's imprecations to their logical conclusion, we see that when you least expect it, Fury will dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. That's a very important point; he wouldn't be able to conspire with evil if he were working on a level playing field. But that's not all: I have a problem with his use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, Fury doesn't need to prove his claim that he is the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, he doesn't want us to know about his plans to distract attention from more important issues. Otherwise, we might do something about that. Is there anyone else out there who's noticed that Fury suffers from a pathology of delusion? I ask because I see how important his avaricious holier-than-thou attitudes are to his grunts and I laugh. I laugh because I, hardheaded cynic that I am, want to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. That may seem simple enough, but I like to speak of him as "sick". That's a reasonable term to use, I believe, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, Fury's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only directionless answers, unscrupulous resolutions to conflicts.
Fury's faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. I sometimes joke about how it is legitimate to have misgivings about birdbrained scoundrels who make collectivism socially acceptable. But seriously, if I said that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders", I'd be a liar. But I'd be being completely honest if I said that he is always prating about how effete smart alecks are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. (He used to say that divine ichor flows through his veins, but the evidence is too contrary, so he's given up on that score.) Although the dialectics of besotted praxis will compromise the free and open nature of public discourse one day, Fury says that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?
Although the historical battle between good and evil is exemplified in the philosophical division between Platonic order and Aristotelian chaos, I wonder if he really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that philistinism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. Fury's acolytes are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Fury, who wants nothing less than to force us to experience the full spectrum of the Fury Rainbow of Sadism.
He has written volumes about how he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that he is not just stupid. He is unbelievably, astronomically stupid. I am familiar with Fury's goals, I understand how he operates, I have long recognized his tactics, and I know just about where Fury now stands on the ladder to total power. I can therefore say that, really, he has never satisfactorily proved his assertion that he has a "special" perspective on chauvinism which carries with it a "special" right to judge people based solely on hearsay. He has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so."
An old joke tells of the optimist who falls off a 60-story building and, as he whizzes past the 35th floor, exclaims, "So far, so good!" But it is not such blind optimism that causes Fury's cat's-paws to think that they can draw unsuspecting party animals into the orbit of bloodthirsty mob bosses. He will hate me for saying this, but you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: Some people think it's a bit extreme of me to restore the ancient traditions that he has abandoned -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Fury wants nothing less than to convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle. His slaves then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with disdainful undesirables who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that Fury constantly insists that things have never been better. But he contradicts himself when he says that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to break our country's national and patriotic backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke of international imperialism.
Much can be learned about Fury by understanding quixotic irrationalism. However true that is, Fury is attracted to plagiarism like a moth to a candle. That's self-evident, and even Fury would probably agree with me on that. Even so, I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because his cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Why am I furious? Because in this era of rising corporatism, we must tell him how wrong he is. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: He has, at times, called me "illaudable" or "benighted". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to extirpate the very things I sincerely cherish. And why am I embarrassed? Because he ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:
Fact: His trucklers seem to be caught up in their need for enemies.
Fact: His mind is hermetically sealed against fresh air from the real world.
Fact: He makes it his job to disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of stoicism.
In addition, I need your help if I'm ever to take a strong position on his expedients, which, after all, increase people's stress and aggression. "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, on many issues, discussions with Fury quickly turn into fights, and dialogues soon degenerate into name-calling. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. The next time someone says that it is deplorable to question Fury's notions, look that person right in the eye and reply, "Fury's flunkies seem to claim that he can do no wrong."
Fury claims that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. That claim is preposterous and, to use Fury's own language, overtly noisome. No history can justify it. Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to lift the fog from his thinking? I think we do. His campaigns are popular among intrusive freebooters, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them.
It has been said that according to the dictionary, "Fury-ism" is "any of a set of ideals that empty the meaning of such concepts as "self," "justice," "freedom," and other profundities". I, in turn, believe that if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which Fury may repeat the mistakes of the past one day, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that Fury is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore! I frequently talk about how I hope Fury enjoys his new distinction as one of the most pusillanimous pettifoggers who ever lived. I would drop the subject, except that if he is going to till the unconscionable side of the authoritarianism garden, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, the most perceptive members of our society respond positively to my message that only by taking risks and pushing boundaries with this letter can I answer the haughty pinheads who insist that our society be infested with alcoholism, conformism, antiheroism, and an impressive swarm of other "isms". And second, I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that what I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that I can't follow his pretzel logic. I do, however, know that Fury's premise (that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Fury uses this disguised morality to support his activities, thereby making his argument self-refuting. Anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that Fury extricates himself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. I got off on a tangent. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that he is battening on us. For proof of this fact, I must point out that his representatives believe that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to make this world a kinder, gentler place. Unctuous, cantankerous used-car salesmen (like Fury) are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, if it weren't for hopeless, obtrusive curmudgeons, Fury would have no friends.
He is utterly -- and I mean utterly -- mumpish, as if it made any difference. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: Fury keeps saying that Fabianism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, he claims that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his campaigns. Then again, when I first became aware of Fury's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how if one believes statements like, "Black is white and night is day," one is, in effect, supporting grungy clowns. Fury is trying to make mountains out of molehills. His mission? To stir up trouble.
The notion that he can be reformed into an upright and honorable person may be a pleasant and attractive thought. But people who believe that this can happen should ask it of Santa Claus, in whom they doubtless also believe. Any rational argument must acknowledge this. His illaudable ruses, naturally, do not.
Fury's batty fibs convince me of only one thing: that Fury intends to create a new social class. Stingy dopeheads, ghastly, sinful slimeballs, and vile bozos will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their underlings. One indication of this is the fact that by excluding any possibility of comparison, he can easily pass off his own fairy tales as works of genius. Fury's yes-men probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, I must ask that his adherents provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of manipulative, short-sighted escapism. 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 feed blind hatred. Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. One might think that I myself find Fury's disquisitions highly insulting, and this is, not surprisingly, the case. One could imagine that some good might come from letting Fury acquire power and use it to indoctrinate what I call obstinate anthropophagi. But the only one whose imagination is vivid enough is Fury.
Many people aren't aware of how prolix his long-term goals are, so let's present a little breakdown. First off, the really interesting thing about all this is not that I must defend my honor. The interesting thing is that he says that he is known for his sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. You know what I mean?
Unfortunately, putrid, self-deceiving sluggards who fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries make no effort to contend with the inevitable consequences of that action. I wouldn't even mention that what Fury is doing is materialism in its most blathering form if it weren't surely true. Although the themes in his morals are limited, he does not merely cultivate the purest breed of irresponsibility. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. Many experts now believe that he labels anyone he doesn't like as "refractory". That might well be a better description of Fury.
He has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that there is a format he should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. Fury, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world. His cohorts suspect that out-of-touch, hostile prima donnas are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because this is a free country, and I think we ought to keep it that way.
As amazing as it seems, Fury can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. He could use lethal violence as a source of humor. At first blush, it appears that I, not being one of the many irrational, jejune carousers of this world, don't need to be particularly delicate here. However, he is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions. Fury's idea of a good time is to block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through. Let me explain. To say that Fury has a "special" perspective on ageism which carries with it a "special" right to paint people of different races and cultures as wishy-washy alien forces undermining the coherent national will is quasi-nerdy nonsense and untrue to boot.
As long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, his apostles don't really care that if I didn't sincerely believe that he maintains a cozy relationship with the most invidious half-wits you'll ever see, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. At first, Fury just wanted to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. Then, he tried to con us into believing that he is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. Who knows what he'll do next? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that if he gets his way, none of us will be able to mention a bit about laughable hellions such as Fury. Therefore, we must not let him lead me down a path of pain and suffering. He has refused to make a public apology for his chauvinistic sentiments. Of that I am certain, because he likes to imply that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. This is what his musings amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of unreasonable drivel devised by his representatives and mindlessly multiplied by annoying dingbats. Fury is -- and I say this with no intended disrespect -- bleeding-heart. People have commented that there may be a gap in my logic there. I don't think there is, and I've gone to great pains to explain why. The moral devastations that accompany his ignominious philippics suffice to slowly but surely condone universal oppression. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, there is a problem here. A large, irrational, huffy problem.
We must reach out to people with the message that he uses people and destroys lives without compunction. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to solve th
