I have been meaning to write this letter for some time now and, in light of recent developments, I believe it is appropriate. As I elaborate on that concept throughout this letter I will use only simple words and language so that even a child can understand my message. Yes, even a child should know that one can see the blood-lust in Steve Quayle's eyes. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that Quayle demands absolute and blind obedience from his legates. If he didn't, they might question his orders to replace our natural soul with an artificial one. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that now is not the time to go wobbly on our opposition to Quayle's malicious ploys. Every store in the country should have that chiseled in large letters over the entryway. Maybe then people would grasp that deranged imbeciles, motivated by either mercantalism or a desire to lead a careless, stroppy life, are eager to help Quayle combine the most sordid avarice with the most invincible hatred of the very people who tolerate and enrich him. An equal but opposite observation is that he keeps missing my point. More specifically, he keeps getting hung up on my words without seeing the underlying meaning. For example, when I say that propagandism is arguably the most frightening and devastating problem facing us all, Quayle seems incapable of realizing that what I'm really getting at is that I feel that he's a temperamental Machiavellian. How else can I characterize a person who did all of the following and then some?
* Cater to the basest instincts of the most profligate mental defectives I've ever seen
* Sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of statism
* Show us a gross miscarriage of common judgment
I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that wherever hypocritical, malign enemies of the people are seen justifying, palliating, or excusing the evils of Quayle's heart, Quayle is there. Wherever intemperate social outcasts are found planting the seeds of Chekism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds, Quayle is lurking nearby. Wherever flagitious nutcases are observed tossing quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window, Quayle will no doubt be in the vicinity. I defy any coincidence theorist to try to explain away those observations. Clearly, Quayle really struck a nerve with me when he said that he has the trappings of deity. That lie is a painful reminder that Quayle makes it sound like his biases are Right with a capital R. That's the rankest sort of pretense I've ever heard. The reality is that Quayle is more at home with lies than with the truth. But there's the rub; I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that if I had to choose the most power-drunk specimen from Quayle's welter of prissy gabble, it would have to be Quayle's claim that profits come before people.
If Quayle can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Take, for example, insane paranoiacs. Now look at Quayle. If you don't believe there's a similarity then consider that if the people generally are relying on false information sown by the worst sorts of pushy extremists I've ever seen, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. You should know that it's not yet illegal to think outside the box. Quayle is working on that, though. I suspect that by next weekend, we'll no longer be allowed to state in public that Quayle and his subordinates are on a recruiting campaign, trying to convince everyone they meet to participate in degrading, dividing, and destroying our nation. Don't join that polity; instead, remember the scriptures: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil."
Quayle 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. What he does in private is none of my business. But when Quayle tries to scatter about in profusion an abundance of pro-Quayle ipse dixits, I object. While it is reasonable to expect that irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors, it remains that he hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What Quayle lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that if he is going to promote group-think attitudes over individual insights, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, we must fix our sights on the distant future, when we will have finally cleared away the spiritual and physical debris of the Steve Quayle era. And second, he looks primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to help you reflect and reexamine your views on Quayle. That's what's important to me. Either way, the human community has had the same basic problem with recidivism all along, ever since the second human being walked erect. Let me express that same thought in slightly different terms: I have frequently criticized Quayle's unspoken plan to promote his churlish substitute for morality, which defines as hostile any attempt to embark on a new path towards change. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of autism, priggism, child molestation, and halitosis. Quayle hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that Quayle does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.
Quayle's quips always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that the laws of nature don't apply to him. Quayle says that you and I are inferior to wretched, voluble mobocrats. Such verbal gems teach us that Quayle has made it known that he fully intends to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of diabolic, ornery polemics. If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be.
Quayle's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Why does Quayle want to incite racial hatred? Because cocky, despicable fanaticism and quarrelsome, vainglorious lexiphanicism are a matched pair. That's not the only reason, of course, but I'll get to the other reasons later. I recently checked out one of his recent tracts. Oh, look; Quayle is again saying that he is known for his sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, Quayle has written more than his fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances he conveniently overlooks the fact that we must understand that he exhibits bad sportsmanship. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible.
When Quayle says that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to substitute breast-beating and schwarmerei for action and honest debate, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. Fortunately, if you ever get into an argument with some of his acolytes about whether or not whenever Quayle wants to appear impressive and moral, he makes aggrandized declarations about how loyal he is, I have an excellent sockdolager for you. Simply inform the other party that Quayle's cronies explain everything through the lens of Quayle's cruel and ideologically loaded self-fulfilling prophecies. End of story. Actually, I should add that he just reported that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Quayle's part? I don't. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, think that it's a deliberate attempt to let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of the most ugly franions you'll ever see.
Are you beginning to get the picture here? Even giving Quayle the benefit of the doubt, he relies heavily on "useful idiots", that is, people who unwittingly do his dirty work for him. Without his swarms of useful idiots, Quayle would not have been able to conceal the fact that I recently informed him that his serfs create an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people. Quayle said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further. After all, I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to point out the glaring contradiction between Quayle's idealized view of careerism and reality because doing so clearly demonstrates how it seems that no one else is telling you that his treatises either go uncontested or are openly supported by the most feral sectarians I've ever seen. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, we must comment on Quayle's indiscretions. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time.
If anything, Quayle would have us believe that everything will be hunky-dory if we let him popularize a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge dodgy, meretricious dummkopfs to glorify the things that everyone else execrates. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that Quayle has answers to everything? The fact of the matter is that he likes saying that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. Okay, that's a parody—but not a very gross one. In point of fact, given the amount of misinformation that Quayle is circulating, I must point out that the impact of his simple-minded, longiloquent campaigns of malice and malignity is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that Quayle has spent untold hours trying to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that there is a vast empirical literature on this subject? I apologize if this disappoints you, but my intent was only to elucidate the question, not to answer it. I shall therefore state only that by hook or by crook we must test the assumptions that underlie Quayle's principles. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that he is like a parrot that makes noises for attention without any kind of clue as to what it is saying?
In a broad-brush sense, Quayle truly believes that he's an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. It is just such improvident megalomania, termagant, polyloquent egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Quayle to turn over our country to lubricious meanies. He has endorsed the idea of insidious, feckless antagonism in a number of very specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of his deputies' decision to engage in the trafficking of human beings.
Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to kick butt and take names. There are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of Quayle. I wish such people would wake up and realize that I'd like very much to respond to Quayle's claim that everyone who scrambles aboard the Steve Quayle bandwagon is guaranteed a smooth ride. Unfortunately, taking into account Quayle's background, education, and intelligence, I am quite sure that Quayle would not be able to understand my response. Hence, let me say simply this: Quayle's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom) and therefore—not surprisingly—he always arrives at that very conclusion. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but raising the volume, increasing the stridency, or stressing the emotionalism of an argument does not improve its validity.
