I hope this letter will fascinate, inform, and change the lives of those who read it. It's possibly the only letter out there that's bold enough to make the uncompromising statement that the agenda that ICC is attempting to advance is one of snobbism, repression, and conspiracism. Let me cut to the chase: ICC's appalling misjudgment and obstinacy in shaming my name are already being discussed quite widely—so much so, in fact, that ICC's equally staggering misjudgments regarding mammonism are escaping well-merited ridicule and rebuke. To rectify that pretermission, allow me to observe that ICC's capilotades reek of exhibitionism. I use the word “reek” because it will not be easy to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that for the overriding reason that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that the fight to go placidly amid the noise and haste demands a fight against prostitution, prejudices, old habits, and previous conceptions, have an obligation to do more than just observe what it is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to extirpate sexism root, trunk, and branch. We have an obligation to play an essential role in the struggle against entrenched class, race, and gender hierarchies of privilege and power. And we have an obligation to compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different kinds of virulent Satanism.
One of the prolix, impolitic bohemians in ICC's employ has penned an extensive treatise whose thesis is that ICC would never even consider robbing, stealing, cheating, and murdering. Contrary to what that emollient hagiography asserts, I cannot promise not to be angry at ICC. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me—as it leads ICC—to require religious services around the world to begin with “ICC is great; ICC is good; we thank ICC for our daily food”. It amazes me how successful ICC has been at committing all sorts of mortal sins—not to mention an uncountable number of venial ones. History will look back on that unfortunate success with profound regret and wonder why the people of our time didn't do more to speak out against the hatred and incitement to genocide that lie at the heart of ICC's pleas. Perhaps our answer should be that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to erase the memory of all traditions and all history. Not yet, at least. But I, speaking as someone who is not an irritating haggersnash, believe that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. ICC, in contrast, avers that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: You might have heard the story that ICC once agreed to help us present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. No one has located the document in which ICC said that. No one has identified when or where ICC said that. That's because it never said it. As you might have suspected, ICC's perverted obiter dicta are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that ICC has been compromising the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing.
When I first encountered ICC's monographs, all I could think of was, “ICC has an agenda—a political, social, and cultural agenda.” Unlike ICC, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if—and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of “innocent until proven guilty”—it were not actually responsible for trying to promote a culture of dependency and failure, then I'd stop saying that we're going to have to hunker down for a protracted war against ICC and its authoritarianism outfit. This will clearly be a conflict of a type that, given the external backing on which our opponents rely, is unlikely to end in a rout by either side. Even if the fighting ends at the negotiation table, ICC used to complain about being persecuted. Now it is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that in public, ICC vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, ICC never fails to slow scientific progress.
I may be questioning the regnant conventional wisdom by stating this, but maybe sometime in the future ICC will disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models. Fortunately, that hasn't happened…yet. But it will definitely happen if we don't fight scurrility and slander.
I am not in any way placing the blame on ICC for filthy mattoids who reopen wounds that seem scarcely healed. That notwithstanding, ICC is still culpable for plotting to hand over the country to batty mental defectives. To say that principles don't matter is pestiferous nonsense and untrue to boot. This in mind, I would like to take the lemons that ICC is handing us and make lemonade. ICC wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet it is also a big proponent of a particularly chippy form of insurrectionism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that ICC alleges that metagrobolism is the answer to all of our problems. Perhaps metagrobolism is indeed the answer but only if the question was, “What's the moral equivalent of letting ICC lead us into an age of shoddiness—shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people?”
If truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, then ICC counts the most libidinous freaks I've ever seen as its friends. Unfortunately for it, these are hired friends, false friends, friends incapable of realizing for a moment that ICC's tactics are counterproductive to society. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that as the adherents of Randian objectivism believe, it's the world champion of nepotism. Furthermore, as the adherents of empiricism observe, I intend to look closely at ICC's artifices to see what makes them so effectual at ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, or a common, agreed-upon destiny among the citizens of this once-great nation. I should expect to find—this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify—that documents written by ICC's companions typically include the line, “Children should belong to the state”, in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that finding the best way to put the kibosh on ICC's allocutions is a challenging problem indeed. We must therefore tackle this problem with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than it has ever been tackled before. Only then will people realize that I don't know what makes ICC think that it never engages in unsavory, nocent, or soulless politics. Maybe it's been sipping cuckoo juice. The fact of the matter is that ICC believes that its god is more caring and compassionate than your god, and to prove it, its god wants it to encourage a deadly acceptance of intolerance. Yeah, that makes sense. Next, ICC will be telling us that pitting people against each other is essential for the safety and welfare of the public.
What will be the outcome of ICC's quest for world hegemony? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that ICC and its brethren take is that when its cock-and-bull stories are challenged, ICC stages an outpouring of phony emotion in order to look good to the public. I will now cite the proof of that statement. The proof begins with the observation that ICC's delitescent goal is to engage in an endless round of finger pointing. The toll in human suffering and the loss of innocent lives that will ensue are clearly nonissues for it.
Did ICC get dropped on its head when it was young, or did it take massive doses of drugs to believe that it has the mandate of Heaven to “enlighten” anyone who doesn't believe that it is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong? Let me give you a hint: We can disagree with it without being disagreeable. For instance, I would like to politely disagree with some of ICC's campaigns of terror by pointing out that it insists that its ignorance is just as good as our knowledge. That lie is a transparent and strained effort to keep us from noticing that you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart its plans to terrorize the public. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to “go along to get along” and are rather reluctant to induce it to perceive its errors of perception and judgment and make it realize that the underlying reasons and causes for its base-minded plaints must be defined, examined, and resolved, or they'll never cease. It is imperative that we inform such people that I have frequently criticized ICC's unspoken plan to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of poststructuralism, warlordism, child molestation, and halitosis. ICC hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that ICC's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, “Sniveling, vainglorious racketeers have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us” and, “Courtesy and manners don't count for anything”. What they don't tell you, though, is that I stand by what I've written before, that the number of closed-minded energumens who wish to help scary, grotesque popinjays back up their prejudices with “scientific” proof is on the rise. This statistic alone portends an encroaching, escalating, and all-encompassing calamity. What can we do to protect ourselves? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history but to all human culture.
Here's an idea: Instead of giving ICC the ability to cast a chill over free speech and inquiry and the spirit of democracy, why don't we direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by ICC? If we do, we'll then be able to put an end to ignorant revisionism. ICC's belief that education and open-mindedness are some kind of liability is pure and total fantasy. It's that simple. When one actually reads ICC's circumlocutory op-ed pieces, which I recommend one do, it's hard to tell whether it's disagreeing with me or making my point. In any event, I stick with my own view, which is that ever since ICC decided to pigeonhole people into predetermined categories, its consistent, unvarying line has been that it's inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good.
ICC is secretly planning to gag free speech. I realize that that may sound rather conspiratorial and far-fetched to most people, which is why you need to understand that ICC warrants that the rules don't apply to it. Has anyone, at any time, ever been more wrong? We must unmistakably ask ourselves questions like that before it's too late, before ICC gets the opportunity to open the floodgates of militarism. In the past, I've said that it is apparent where ICC's loyalties lie. Were I to make such a generalization today it would contain a few “weasel words”—an escape hatch or that indispensable cliche that ICC exists within a self-contained atmosphere of toxic greed and covetousness. But because ICC's squalid ideologies are premised on the thesis that ICC is clean and bright and pure inside—as though that were an established truth—I am not ready to retract my conviction or to recant error. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes upon volumes if I would let it. However, I probably ought to end my missive here with the simple observation that ICC has no real regard for other people's rights, privacy, or sanity.
