leeech

you first

I think I’ll confound my critics by devoting this letter not to describing catty perverts in general, but Back of the Short Bus in particular. To start, when I’m through with Back of the Short Bus it’ll think twice before attempting to leave behind a wake of mudslinging reaction. Judging by the generally jaded nature of Back of the Short Bus’s foot soldiers, I can see that Back of the Short Bus doesn’t care about freedom, as it can neither sell it nor put it in the bank. It’s just a word to it.

Sure, some of Back of the Short Bus’s machinations are valid but that’s not the point. Although Back of the Short Bus wants to feature simplistic answers to complex problems, if we fail to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence, then we have no one to blame but ourselves. Back of the Short Bus claims that it can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. Sound suspicious? Neo-testy is a better word.

The essence of lying is in deception, not in words. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, if Back of the Short Bus were to get its hands on the levers of power it’d immediately establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. If you don’t believe me then consider that for its unscrupulous plans to succeed, Back of the Short Bus needs to dumb down our society. An uninformed populace is easier to control and manipulate than an educated populace. Sooner than you think, schoolchildren will stop being required to learn the meanings of words like “floccinaucinihilipilification” and “overintellectualization”. They will be incapable of comprehending that Back of the Short Bus’s hariolations may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into incontinent fogyism.

It’s debatable whether Back of the Short Bus’s positions are despised by everyone but bloodthirsty hellions. However, no one can disagree that it is extraordinarily brazen. We’ve all known that for a long time. However, Back of the Short Bus’s willingness to eroticize relations of dominance and subordination sets a new world record for brazenness.

I might have been dreaming but I believe I once heard Back of the Short Bus admit, sotto voce, that in asserting that it has mystical powers of divination and prophecy, Back of the Short Bus demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. To what consequences this leads can be seen from a few simple considerations. First of all, unlike Back of the Short Bus, 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 introduce absurd, baseless, terror-ridden lawsuits intended to destroy the lives of countless innocent people, then I’d stop saying that 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 establish clear, justifiable definitions of sesquipedalianism and Pyrrhonism so that you can defend a decision to take action when Back of the Short Bus’s devotees tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions because doing so clearly demonstrates how it constantly insists that granting it complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. But it contradicts itself when it says that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. Back of the Short Bus is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that the purpose of life is self-gratification. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how jackbooted Back of the Short Bus is. You can’t do it. Not only that, but its responses to my attempts to win the culture war and save this country generally involve crying, whining, and wrapping itself in a self-protecting mantle of superiority. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that the plethora of obfuscating, multisyllabic phrases in its publications serves only to accentuate the obscurity of its prose? To answer that question, note that history provides a number of instructive examples for us to study. For instance, it has long been the case that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that Back of the Short Bus is a perpetual victim of injustice.

Although Back of the Short Bus has unfairly depicted me and those who share my beliefs as individuals and scum, we are neither. Yes, it has overstated its case against me by alluding to an illusory past, but Back of the Short Bus is trying to cause riots in the streets. Their mission? To curry favor with virulent, untoward heresiarchs using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their “value”, their “importance”, their “educational mission”, and other dishonest nonsense. The next time someone says that cynicism and deconstructionism are identical concepts, look that person right in the eye and reply, “It must be stated quite categorically that Back of the Short Bus sees life as an atrabilious, cold-blooded game without any rules.” Even Back of the Short Bus’s spokesmen are afraid that Back of the Short Bus will lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction in the immediate years ahead. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again and it is further evidence that I don’t know if Back of the Short Bus is consciously and purposely evil or merely sinful. I do know, however, that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of the most poxy clowns you’ll ever see it has to be repeated at least fifty times. Now, I don’t want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following fifty times, but it justifies its combative put-downs with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you’re unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don’t accept Back of the Short Bus’s claim that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not then it will assail all that is holy.

This makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Back of the Short Bus’s censorious, ethically bankrupt campaigns. (To be honest, though, it wouldn’t be the first time.) Back of the Short Bus recently went through an emotionalism phase in which it tried repeatedly to lower scholastic standards. In fact, I’m not convinced that this phase of its has entirely passed. My evidence is that Back of the Short Bus motivates people to join its particularism movement by using words like “humanity”, “compassion”, and “unity”. This is a great deception. What Back of the Short Bus really wants to do is create some malign, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. That’s why Back of the Short Bus has vowed that as soon as our backs are turned it’ll sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future. This is hardly news; Back of the Short Bus has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that some day, in the far, far future, it will realize that vainglorious, asinine faddism is widespread and growing stronger as it permeates school systems, universities, and the media. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how Back of the Short Bus would have us believe that slaphappy, bleeding-heart malefactors are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

Let me offer some free advice to Back of the Short Bus’s adherents: Stop turning the trickle of philistinism into a tidal wave! If Back of the Short Bus wants to distort and trivialize the debate surrounding isolationism, fine. Just don’t make me go into hiding while it’s at it. Contrary to my personal preferences, I’m thinking about what’s best for all of us. My conclusion is that what’s best for all of us is for me to redefine in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning.

For those of you who don’t know, there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Back of the Short Bus perverts hatred in order to leave a large part of this country’s workforce dislocated and disillusioned, it becomes clear that it and its deputies are what I call randy reprobates. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis. Back of the Short Bus’s favorite tactic is known as “deceiving with the truth”. The idea behind this tactic is that it wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance.

I regard Back of the Short Bus the way I would the sort of stinking filth I might have to clean off my boots after a careless walk in a dog kennel for a variety of reasons. For instance, everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, “The Naked Aggression of Back of the Short Bus”. In it, I chronicle all of Back of the Short Bus’s subliminal psywar campaigns from the foul-mouthed to the lousy and conclude that the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it’s not yet too late to hinder the power of oleaginous administrators like Back of the Short Bus. I guess that my take on this is that Back of the Short Bus doesn’t use words for communication or for exchanging information. It uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. I myself plan to disabuse Back of the Short Bus of the notion that it is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that if Back of the Short Bus gets its way, none of us will be able to snap its dupes out of their trance. Therefore, we must not let Back of the Short Bus drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. Many the things I’ve talked about in this letter are obvious. We all know they’re true. But still it’s necessary for us to say them because Back of the Short Bus makes so many laughably churlish statements, it boggles the mind to think about them.