The prerequisite to understanding this letter is to have encountered some of Mr. Zachary C Wong's pleas and to have realized how refractory they are. What follows is the story of how Zachary can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. I do not wish to evaluate alcoholism here, though I assert that Zachary would have us believe that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his contemptible, fork-tongued prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Zachary is surrounded by brown-nosing schmoes who parrot the same nonsense, which is why if his subalterns had even an ounce of integrity, they would fight for our freedom of speech. He claims to be supportive of my plan to drive off and disperse the nettlesome dissemblers who create a system of jingoism characterized by confidential files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll force square pegs into round holes. Not only that, but Zachary's favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that he wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Zachary's deputies take for granted.
Zachary talks a lot about antagonism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can he argue for something he's never defined? My answer is, as always, a model of clarity and the soul of wit: I don't know. However, I do know that he has OD'd on isolationism. Now, that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me corroborate it by saying that an armed revolt against Zachary is morally justified. However, I insist that it is not yet strategically justified. Sadly, in once sense, Zachary is correct. If we let him work both sides of the political fence, then I will obviously be forced to have a conniption. His occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are Zachary's promises. In fact, I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. Zachary claims that the rules don't apply to him. I, however, claim that that's a load of crud. Yes, I hate him to my very bone marrow, but according to him, clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. He might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then Zachary would realize that an unholy alliance of combative rabble-rousers and flippant, besotted quiddlers has been instrumental in devising increasingly repressive ways to turn the social order upside-down so that the dregs on the bottom become the scum on the top. Let's remember that.
The acid test for Zachary's "kinder, gentler" new initiatives should be, "Do they still wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that Zachary claims that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Zachary's own language, overtly prissy. No history can justify it. Here's the heart of the matter: He doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Are you still with me? To put it another way, I don't believe that we should avoid personal responsibility. So when he says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position. I am not Mr. Zachary C Wong's whipping boy. That is why, come what may, we must challenge the present and enrich the future.
La complaint generator. Rather fun. here