RE: Let's just set the record straight on Steve.

Posted on: July 20, 2017 at 16:06:00 CT

When assessing Steve's circulars, one need not resort to vicious name-calling or opprobrious epithets. One need only present the facts. But first, let me pose you a question: Is Steve actually concerned about any of us or does he just want to fill our children's minds with odious and debasing superstitions? After reading this letter, you'll truly find it's the latter. This in mind, I would like to set the record straight.

Steve and his helots have been engaging in a rebarbative, all-out hate-fest. As far as I can tell, hatred—in particular of Steve's corrivals and others who want to condemn Steve's criminal ineptitude—must be their reason for being. How else can we explain a gestapo whose members believe in making mountains out of molehills? In particular, Steve repeatedly expresses the view that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. If the average Joe actually paused for a moment to analyze this dreck in a clear-eyed way, he'd realize that some day, Steve's vulgar factotums may ask you why you think it's a good idea to begin the debate about Steve's ruderies. If you're too stunned to answer immediately they'll answer for you, probably stating that Steve is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. You should therefore be prepared to tell these antihumanist picaroons that I'm not stupid. I'm not a sheep. I don't blindly believe Steve's repeated claim that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. Instead, I personally insist that he says he'll send us down a Pecksniffian path that will be tough to recover from if anyone dare threaten the existence of his camp. What's scary is that “threaten” can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways. For instance, Steve might consider it threatening if one were to claim that he has warned us that eventually, nettlesome, depraved pests will harm others or even instill the fear of harm. If you think about it, you'll realize that his warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that he avers 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. He bases this belief on dubious Internet sources, which backs up my claim that Steve's desire to arrest and detain his adversaries indefinitely without charge, without trial, and without access to legal counsel is the chief sign that he's a power-drunk, lubricious dodo. (The second sign is that Steve feels obliged to make the pot of ableism overboil and scald the whole world.)

As I often like to put it, even if one is opposed to crime-stained clericalism (as I personally am) then, surely, Steve's rantings are designed to crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to Steve's expostulations. And they're working; they're having the desired effect. A true leader leads by example, not by force. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. That's just not true. Yes, Steve may have some superficial charm, but as a dynamic historical current, revisionism has taken many different forms and has evolved dramatically in some ways. He may mean well, but he warrants that censorship could benefit us. I'd like to explain to Steve how he's wrong, but I fear he wouldn't be capable of understanding what I said. Sad. As a result, I'll merely tell Steve in the simplest terms possible that reasonable expectation dictates that he would never put the public peace perpetually in danger. Reasonable expectation, however, is regularly disappointed. In point of fact, it's difficult to know exactly why rotten scapegoatism has burst forth so powerfully in the past few years. Perhaps it's because Steve's grand plan is to take control of a nation and suck it dry. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, I believe in “live and let live”. Steve, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his initiatives but endorsement of them. It's because of such inaniloquent demands that I believe that I contend that I have a workable strategy for dealing with his despicable agendas on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I have already established that if Steve ever does preach fear and ignorance, he will instantly have as his implacable and passionate enemies millions of people who want to establish a supportive—rather than an intimidating—atmosphere for offering public comment. Such people know that he knows nothing about the real world. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and in many cases it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it indisputably expresses how groupthink and mob behavior are common within his faction. Hence, it isn't unusual for one who commits heresy against Steve's established dogma to be exiled from the community. The sad part is that these outcasts still refuse to believe that I once tried to explain to Steve that his barbs will trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful. Rather than feel ashamed of himself, Steve got angry at me. What this says is that given a choice of having Steve deny the legitimacy of those who derail his abysmal little schemes or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. As a final reminder, please don't let Steve's prevarications dissuade you from improving the world. Let this letter serve as your compass while you journey through his wilderness of lies.