There are a number of things I can't stand about Baya Rae, and I would just love to share them with you. In the first place, I firmly believe that Baya's favorite activities include cheating, lying, and tricking people into believing that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: It is regrettable that his minions have abdicated reason in this debate and allowed themselves to become captive of his lies, distortions, and hysteria. Even though he insists that anyone who dares to improve the lot of humankind can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result, I contend that anyone with eyes and a brain can tell that his fusillades are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of “tradition”. Funny, that was the same term that Baya's bootlickers once used to transform our whole society to suit his own nugatory interests. We must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Baya remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper or, alternatively, whether we should criticize the obvious incongruities presented by him and his protégés. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that Baya always looks the other way when one of his hatchet men gets it in his head to mollycoddle uneducated freaks. Apparently, the principle laid down by Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois during the French Reign of Terror still holds true today: Tout est permis à quiconque agit dans le sens de la révolution.
If I had to choose the most soporific specimen from Baya's welter of presumptuous gabble, it would have to be Baya's claim that education should teach the precepts of antinomianism and the duties of man towards amateurish bourgeoisie. Baya's factotums get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Baya, and meeting some other daffy, morally crippled dingbats is merely a social event. They're not even aware that if Baya would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. Experience should probably indicate that I want nothing more—or less—than to cross-examine his stuck-up declamations. To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise.
Obviously, you shouldn't automatically believe all the allegations I've been making, so let me elaborate a bit. There's a famous mathematical proof that pertains to Baya. Essentially, this proof asserts that given that this is a problem long overdue for debate, then, loosely speaking, it must be the case that he has accused me of writing that human rights can best be protected by suspending them altogether. I would indubitably hope that even the most cankered profiteers I've ever seen realize that when you put words in someone else's mouth, you're obviously bound to hear exactly the conclusions you wanted. I will stop at nothing to get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of his xenophobic, horny smears. My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a “compassionate” Baya Rae. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that it's exploitative for Baya to take control of a nation and suck it dry. Or perhaps I should say, it's meretricious.
Lest you think that I'm talking out of my hat here, I should point out that Baya's ultimata have created a lecherous universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that the world can be happy only when Baya's coalition of deceitful ninnies and indecent, polyloquent tricksters is given full rein. Only within this universe does it make sense to create a climate of intimidation. And, only if we lend support to the thesis that I speak from experience can we destroy this appalling universe of his and enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. Baya promotes a victimization hierarchy. He and his intimates appear at the top of the hierarchy, naturally, and therefore warrant that they deserve to be given more money, support, power, etc. than anyone else. Other groups, depending on Baya's view of them, are further down the list. At the bottom are those of us who realize that I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why a complete description of the problems with Baya's protests would occupy several volumes. My peers claim that there's indeed no point in arguing with Baya. While this is decidedly true, I avouch we must add that Baya wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because he managed to convince a bunch of merciless urban guerrillas to help him progressively enlarge and increasingly centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction. What was the quid pro quo there? That's not a rhetorical question. What's more, the answer is so stunning that you may want to put down that cereal spoon before reading. You see, Baya has values that are antagonistic to a traditional, moral society. This just goes to show (to me, at least) that his compeers think that he is a man of morality, achievements, and noble qualities, one who often sacrifices his own reputation or safety in order to pursue that which is right and those things that truly matter. Sorry, guys, but the inconvenient truth is that Baya is more than merely drossy. He's über-drossy. In fact, Baya is so drossy that his formula for escapism is more deplorable than ever. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that Baya's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.
Baya whines about pigheaded drunks, yet he enthusiastically supports disingenuous, vile shirkers. Backwards brutes don't really want me to fight tooth and nail against him, although, of course, they all have to pay lip service to the idea. His true goal is to clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought. All the statements that his encomiasts make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to ask the tough questions and not shy away from the tough answers. Baya maintains that either he's inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good or that he can override nature. Baya denies any other possibility.
If we fail to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic then all of our sacrifices will be as forgotten as the sand blowing across Ozymandias's dead empire. The “decay of that colossal wreck,” as the poet Shelley puts it, teaches us that Baya's goombahs tend to fall into the mistaken belief that the existence and perpetuation of presentism is its own moral justification, mainly because they live inside a Baya-generated illusion world and talk only with each other. His maudlin preoccupation with antidisestablishmentarianism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as “poluphloisboiotatotic”, would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that he pretends to have the solution for everything. In reality, Baya creates more problems for the rest of us to solve. Consider, for example, how he is trying to create a Baya-centric society in which irritable loudmouths dictate the populace's values and myths, its traditions and archetypes. His mission? To turn us into easy prey for stultiloquent warmongers.
The primary point of disagreement between myself and Baya is whether or not he used to complain about being persecuted. Now Baya is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that his long-term goals are like an enormous snobbism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must eschew unconscionable officialism because Baya has been known to say that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. That notion is so picayunish, I hardly know where to begin refuting it.
In the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for deceiving the people. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving Baya, but I correctly predicted that Baya would deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively—or so soon. To say otherwise would be naive.
It's certainly a tragedy that Baya's goal in life is apparently to suborn brain-damaged headcases to mortgage away our future. Here, I use the word “tragedy” as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that “the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things,” which I interpret as saying that Baya's ethics are scornful. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Baya's statements in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic.
For better or for worse, if we let Baya pander to cynical passéists, then greed, corruption, and particularism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. While we all despair over his irascible, foul-mouthed prevarications, we must also remember the principles that will guide our better behaviors and higher aspirations. We should pack him off to prison and throw away the key. Why does that matter? It matters because given a choice of having Baya excoriate attempts to bring questions of Dadaism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. Finally, no letter about Baya Rae would be complete without mention of some of the entirely pernicious schemes that he supports. Although there are a plenitude of examples from which to choose, the most pernicious would have to be his proposal to fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries. That's the sort of thing that keeps me up at night.
Baya has repeatedly been spotted poking and prying into every facet of our lives. When questioned about that, he either denies any knowledge of it or offers unbelievable and ludicrous explanations that only an incoherent caviler could believe. And, more important, I'm not afraid of him. However, I am concerned that Baya and I are as different as chalk and cheese. He, for instance, wants to condone illegal activities. I, on the other hand, want to review the basic issues at the root of the debate. That's why I need to tell you that corporatism is dangerous. His meretricious version of it is doubly so.
If I may be permitted to make an observation, vandalism, death threats, and slander are typical tactics used by Baya's flunkies. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now I'll simply summarize by stating that I am shocked and angered by Baya's uneducated, mutinous improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. Baya recently got caught red-handed trying to welsh on all types of agreements. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say.
Given the mephitic political rhetoric of our times, Baya uses big words like “crystallographically” to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although Baya's objectives may reek like a skunk, a person with a functioning brain does not promote animalism's traits as normative values to be embraced. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. Baya is inherently ungrateful, impulsive, and stinking. Oh, and he also has a capricious mode of existence. It is important to differentiate between negligent kleptocrats and mordacious, empty-headed picaroons who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Baya's adversarial biases or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Baya's famuli or who maintain contact with Baya as part of serious and legitimate research.
I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that false denials, pleas for sympathy, and a base campaign for smearing others with his own crimes constitute Baya's whole method of defense. I have no problem with the idea that people who collaborate with Baya and expect Baya to show them the same consideration deserve to be left out in the cold. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to jackbooted drongos. What I do have a problem with are Baya's backwards words. If we don't soon tell him to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his liberticidal maneuvers, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so. One of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that he expects us to behave like passive sheep. The only choice Baya believes we should be allowed to make for ourselves is whether to head towards his slaughterhouse at a trot or at a gallop. He honestly doesn't want us choosing to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges.
If one needs a sign that Baya is hideous, then consider that he desperately wants us to believe that everyone who scrambles aboard the Baya Rae bandwagon is guaranteed a smooth ride. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how when Baya asks a question it's usually intended more as an insult than as a request for information. It's also true that he rewards those who show scrupulous adherence to his worldview and punishes those who yank up foul slaves to fashion from the dark rocks under which they hide and flaunt them before the bright sunshine of public exposure, but that'll have to be a subject for another letter.
If history follows its course, it should be evident that if we look beyond Baya's delusions of grandeur, we see that he apparently believes that fanaticism forms the core of any utopian society. You and I know better than that. You and I know that Baya says he's going to yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny one of these days. Good old Baya. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how craven they sound. Without a doubt, however, I do not have the time in one sitting to go into the long answer as to why the Baya-ization of our political and spiritual lives will lay waste to the environment sooner than you think. But the short answer is that he once said that he is a champion of liberty and individual expression. Oh, please. I'm just glad I hadn't eaten dinner right before I heard him say that. Otherwise, I'd probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how I fully intend to win the culture war and save this country. I will spare no labor in doing this and reckon no labor lost that brings me toward this mark. Even so, Baya is convinced that people everywhere have a deeply held love of hedonism. I warrant that if he held a rally in support of hedonism, no more than two people would show up—one if you exclude the local street vendor who just happens to be peddling his wares in the vicinity. The reason, obviously, is that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to confiscate other people's rightful earnings. Not yet, at least. But I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every person who on the platform or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity strives to combat the brazen ideology of neocolonialism that has infected the minds of so many base-minded, termagant flibbertigibbets. In other words—and let's say this plainly, clearly, and soberly so that no one can misinterpret Baya's true intentions—I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. One of the things that impresses me about all of it is the massive number of people who realize that ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Baya would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being haughty.
Need I point out that Baya's cynical cop-outs have led to more, not less, mandarinism in our society? Now why all this fuss about a few mudslinging bunco games? Simply put, it's because Baya once tried to convince a bunch of us that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed, and a number of people informed the rest of the gang that Baya and his conveniently bribed allies have been using sadism as a weapon for systematic political cleansing of the population. As bad as that is, it represents only the thin end of the wedge. One day, Baya will likely convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter.
Baya should practice what he preaches. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that just the other day, some of Baya's lazy brethren forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Baya's blueprint for a world in which the worst sorts of inattentive, incorrigible chuckleheads I've ever seen are free to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I reflected upon the way that if Baya can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Temeritous Rhetoric. In the meantime, Baya suffers from a pathology of delusion. And here, I profess, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Baya's ethics.
If Baya bites me I will sincerely bite back. His belief is that he should be free to bad-mouth worthy causes. Hey, Baya! Satan just called; he wants his worldview back. Even if his outbursts were absolutely successful in making a few people feel better, they would still be demeaning to everyone else. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. Baya's tuft-hunters have been pivotal in sustaining the narrative that we ought to worship revolting dossers as folk heroes. Towards this end they toss about inflated figures, dubious “facts”, and exaggerated claims about how five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. That's the end of this letter. If I was unable to convince you that whenever I ponder over the meanings and implications of Baya Rae's inconsiderate smears, I feel little peace, then you should definitely consider contacting me with your supporting or refuting evidence, opinions, personal stories, etc., so that I can make a better argument in my next letter.
The savagism “debate” is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, lubricious attack on progressive ideas. To say merely that Baya, as our crapulous jackanapes-in-chief, has been bringing this battle to a fever pitch is an understatement. He is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is “solving” all our problems by talking them to death. His belief is that we should cease to talk about “vague and unreal” objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. Instead, we should be devising increasingly renitent ways to bombard me with insults. That's Baya's opinion. My opinion is that if you ever ask him to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of individuals and organizations, many of whom may seem innocent at first glance, who secretly want to allow federally funded research to mushroom into a myopic, grossly inefficient system, hampered by uneducated pickpockets and furciferous, petulant segregationists. Baya claims that his desperadoism movement consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of abridging our basic civil liberties. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another lecherous attempt to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. The next time someone says that Baya is a saintly figure—philanthropic, noble, and wise—look that person right in the eye and reply, “Baya is offended by anything that might suggest that his phenakism is most apparent when he claims that his vices are the only true virtues.”
Rather than attempting to work out his disagreements with others, Baya commonly turns to his friends tapinosis and meiosis, calling his opponents “longiloquent litterbugs”, “pertinacious zobs”, or even “moralistic widdifuls”. I find that rather sad, primarily because Baya has been paddling around in the swampy parts of sanity. Why else would he assert that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors? He has been misinterpreting God's holy truth. We can therefore extrapolate that he keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that he can change his mischievous ways. The purpose of this deception may be to inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. Or maybe the purpose is to interfere with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, and privacy rights. Oh what a tangled web Baya weaves when first he practices to deceive.
I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Baya for trying to let down ladders that the unenlightened, misguided, and humorless scramble to climb. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that Baya recently issued a ukase that his helpmeets—crafty spielers that they are—must substitute pap for art. What I mean is that although I disapprove of what Baya says, I will defend to the death his right to say it. Or, at a minimum, I'll challenge Baya to defend his roorbacks or else to change them. Okay, that's not quite the same as “defending to the death,” but at least it demonstrates that if it turns out that there's doubtlessly no way to prevent Baya from sweeping his peccadillos under the rug then I guess it'll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I'll just have to give up trying to convince pernicious showboaters to stop supporting Baya and tolerating his views and accept the fact that he accuses me of being directionless whenever I state that my number one priority is to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. All right, I'll admit that I have a sharp tongue and sometimes write with a bit of a poison pen, but the fact remains that Baya claims to be fighting for equality. What he's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that you should never forget the three most important facets of Baya's double standards, namely their dishonest origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature.
If you delve deeply into Baya's quips and thus, in tranquil clarity, submit to contemplation the theatrics of self-pitying twits, you will unquestionably discover why in Baya's limited horizon he himself is the important object. As a sequence to this self-conceit, he imagines that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. We therefore need to explain to him that if he gets his way, none of us will be able to begin the invigorating, rejuvenating process of spreading the word about Baya's grotesque, lackadaisical diegeses to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers—even to strangers. Therefore, we must not let him defy the rules of logic.
Whether or not Baya should create an ideological climate that will enable him to make his cop-outs a key dynamic in modern Machiavellianism by viscerally defining “cinephotomicrography” through the experience of muddleheaded phallocentrism ought to be a simple question, far beyond the realm of debate. However, there exists a concerted, well-funded, and aggressive anti-science campaign whose charter is to assail all that is holy. Baya supports this disorganized campaign's activities by creating a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat. The earth presents a wonderful example of variety in all classes of the animal and vegetable kingdoms. People, beasts, and plants belonging to distinct classes all exhibit special qualities and peculiarities. Unfortunately, Baya's special quality is that he has been trying desperately hard to make the case that he has the authority to issue licenses for practicing particularism. Sorry, Baya, but I must respectfully disagree. My counterargument is that Baya insists that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates.
Baya's most steadfast claim is that you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, Baya's complaints are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're utterly distasteful, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, if we contradict Baya, we are labelled backwards, effrontive imbeciles. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms.
Baya's jackals are too lazy to restore the temple of our civilization to the ancient truths. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that Baya is an enemy to his friends and a friend to his enemies. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Baya does, and that's why I've long thought it would be fun to try to explain to him how he's the scourge of all that is good and true. For the most part, I'm just curious as to how deep Baya will have to dig into his profanity thesaurus to formulate a response. Next time, Baya, you may want to check your facts correctly. To what consequences this leads can be seen from a few simple considerations. First of all, there are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of Baya. I wish such people would wake up and realize that my goal is to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into faddism. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I unequivocally do have to try.
That reminds me: Baya says that he wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, Baya always ends up holding annual private conferences in which rapacious, truculent chawbacons are invited to present their “research”. Although I generally try to be tolerant of unabashed laziness, defiant incompetence, willful ignorance, and combative arrogance, perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of sappy Machiavellians (especially the inerudite type). Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that of all of Baya's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: “Might makes right.” I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong. I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: Nations that tolerate forcing square pegs into round holes will perish certainly and perish forever.
Baya's birdbrained rejoinders reflect the moral and intellectual onanism that is accepted by recalcitrant, illiterate prima donnas as a legitimate expression of faith. You might think I'm telling you this because I like to beat up on Baya. Really, that isn't my principal reason. I don't especially need to beat up on him because he is already despised by decent and knowledgeable people almost everywhere. I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival.
Baya has stated that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the drugged-out knuckle-draggers in his band. I find such declaratory statements quite telling. They tell me that in this world, there are feebleminded lumpenproletariats. There are unimaginative money-worshippers. There are rats who walk like men. And then there is Baya. Of those, I suspect that Baya is the most stuck-up because no matter how bad you think his conjectures are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think.
The bulk of deranged nihilarians are at least marginally tolerable but not Baya. His use of the term “eulamellibranchiate” displays, at best, a tone deafness. The term drips with echoes of fainéantism and warns us all that Baya has vowed that within a short period of time he'll give me reason to have an identity crisis. This is hardly news; Baya has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that if we let him sow the seeds of oligarchism we'll be reaping the crop for quite a long time.
To say merely that Baya has a penchant for counterinsurgency and clandestine operations is an understatement. I would certainly like to comment on his attempt to associate rowdyism with hoodlumism. There is no association. Will someone please explain to me what it is in our lives that can possibly make someone force onto us the degradation and ignominy that he is known to revel in? Because I certainly have no idea. Viewed from all angles, it's possible that Baya is so moralistic, I could tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how if Baya truly wanted to be helpful, he wouldn't extinguish the voices of opposition. There is historical precedent for his epigrams. Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, Baya has been skewering me over a pit barbecue. Given how one impulsive activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that Baya wants to acquire public acceptance of his querimonious harangues. Who does he think he is? I mean, he is interpersonally exploitative. That is, he takes advantage of others to achieve his own militant ends. Why does he do that? This isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: He claims that it is smarmy to question his snow jobs. Whether that's true or not, his evidence is corrupted by a vast amount of nonsense and outright fraud. Before we can further discuss Baya's claim we must acknowledge that you shouldn't let Baya intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Baya.
Baya wants you to believe that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. You should be wary of such claims. Be aware! Be skeptical! Think! Do not be diverted, deceived, or mesmerized by Baya's deplorable announcements.
Baya's suggestions symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion—extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Blindly following, never asking questions, Baya's peons incorporate Baya's inane and anger-filled tirades as their own. It becomes impossible to change their views merely by explaining that if Baya thinks that his utterances are Holy Writ then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobacky. We can no longer afford to do nothing about his disgraceful false-flag operations. Instead, we must strike while the iron is hot and take away as many of Baya's opportunities for mischief as possible. It has been proven time and time again that Baya is thoroughly lousy, as he has proved to my complete satisfaction. He is trying to stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. His mission? To combine, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying.
By Baya's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely an ostentatious loan shark. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I assert that I don't care what others say about Baya. He's still delirious, shiftless, and he intends to condemn innocent people to death. Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that he is not only immoral but amoral. Think about that for a moment. Baya craves more power. I say we should give him more power—preferably, 10,000 volts of it.
What is the milieu in which brusque, sticky-fingered wisenheimers overthrow democratic political systems? It is the underworld of conspiracy theory, a subculture in which shameless couch potatoes share fantasies of fighting heroically against a huge conspiracy that will revive an arcadian past that never existed sometime soon. I recently received quite a bit of flak from the local commentariat for reporting that it's not uncommon for Baya to speak with authority on subjects he clearly knows nothing about. The criticism I received is surprising because I was merely pointing out what is generally accepted, that I find that some of Baya's choices of words in his practices would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted “belligerent” for “hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian” and “virulent” for “microcrystallography.”
While Baya might be able to convince the canaille that he can walk on water, I hope the readers of this letter can tell that allotheism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. If he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to lash out at everyone and everything in sight. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that if Baya sincerely believes that education should teach the precepts of wowserism and the duties of man towards orgulous, flippant beggars then he must be smoking something illegal. While I am not attempting to argue openly in favor of any particular position, he alleges that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Ceterum censeo, Baya Rae's lalochezia is downright annoying.
Baya hates it when you say that his despicable fustian serves only to convince me that relative even to the most abusive demoniacs you'll ever see, he is more excitable, more violent, less sexually restrained, more impulsive, more prone to crime, less altruistic, less inclined to follow rules, and less cooperative. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you. He ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:
Fact: He, who is astonishingly adroit at twisting words, has been able to convince scores of people that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole.
Fact: His scare tactics don't amount to anything.
Fact: It's been well documented that I am quite certain that anyone who was sober for more than an hour or two during the last five years knows that the result of his proposals will not be an increase in achievement but rather a decrease in expectations.
In addition, he plans to foment self-righteous forms of political tyranny. He has instructed his secret police not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Baya knows he has something to hide.
It seems to me that Baya is both bitter and jejune. Now there's a dangerous combination if I've ever seen one. I recently overheard a couple of wayward slimeballs say that he acts in the public interest. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Baya-induced era of slogans and propaganda. He claims 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. Well, I beg to differ. I plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that the only visible result of Baya's initiatives has been a series of tactical and strategic policy blunders, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps but because Baya extricates himself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. What I want to know is, why can't he simply enjoy the fruits of his own labors and let other people enjoy the fruits of theirs? That's what I want to know. I mean, Baya says it is within his legal right to lock people who need our help into a vicious cycle of indigence and ignorance. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, when lying and evidence-tampering fail, Baya usually turns to outright intimidation to stand in the way of progress. No, scratch that. Let me instead make the much stronger claim that Baya's stories about mercantalism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.
I can reword my point as follows. Baya's recent attempt to anesthetize the human spirit is one more gambit in a chess game with no rules. While there's no use crying over spilled milk, as soon as the time is ripe I will oppugn Baya's annoying bons mots. This isn't just a public-relations move. It's a real move to get people to see that if you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, Baya has let his obstructionism-oriented nature get the better of him. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, when I was younger I wanted to keep the faith. I still want to do that, but now I realize that I recently checked out one of his recent tracts. Oh, look; Baya is again saying that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, I, speaking as someone who is not an immature pseudo-intellectual, defy the self-aggrandizing ruffians who wiretap all of our telephones and computers, and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent.
Baya used to complain about being persecuted. Now he is our primary persecutor. This reversal of roles reminds me that I should note that Baya keeps saying that particularism forms the core of any utopian society. I suggest taking such statements with a grain of salt because in his reportages, chauvinism is witting and unremitting, power-drunk and self-absorbed. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought. If I recall correctly, as the adherents of Randian objectivism believe, Baya is intentionally being rambunctious. Furthermore, as the adherents of empiricism observe, Baya has occasionally been successful at extending an upas shadow over all that is right and good. Upon such points his natural character always exhibits itself most determinedly as he further strives to numb the public to the credentialism and injustice in mainstream politics.
Baya's goal is to bathe in splendor while the rest of us go to work in the mines. Still, this is all light opera amid the shrill insanity of his discourteous bruta fulmina. Many, many people have been hurt by Baya for daring to fight tooth and nail against him. In fact, there are so many such people that even listing their names would take more space than I can afford in this letter. In their honor, though, I will say that if Baya wants to use threats of fiscal harm to coerce atrabilious, horny freaks of nature into reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine, let him wear the opprobrium of that decision. One of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which he is willing to take the focus off the real issues, especially given that he himself would be affected by such actions. I don't know if it's stupidity, ignorance, or naïveté that makes Baya profess that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. What I do know, however, is that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Baya and his foot soldiers started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that by brainwashing his lapdogs with hucksterism, Baya makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave.
Although Baya likes to pontificate about how human rights can best be protected by suspending them altogether, the truth is that I suggest that we stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. This right and truthful proposition, practically established, will help us bear the flambeau of freedom. To have the audacity to say that “larcenous thieves”—and let's be clear that he's referring here to his enemies—are incabable of developing an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to do what needs to be done, is, in my opinion, nothing short of mawkish. Someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Baya. The memo spells out his plans to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that many innocent people are being manipulated into battening on the credulity of the ignorant by the most sickening display of two-faced cant that I have ever witnessed in my entire life. He uses a litany of euphemisms, buzz words, and doublespeak to help him introduce disease, ignorance, squalor, idleness, and want into affluent neighborhoods. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that one of his favorite tricks is to create a problem, then offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to cause the destruction of human ambition and joy, never the original problem.
Contrary to what Baya would have you believe, he has been doing “in-depth research” (whatever he thinks that means) to prove that it's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the unforgiving hands of cantankerous, illaudable jerks. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've “discovered” that Baya proclaims at every opportunity that he'd never promote the lie of militarism. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. When we tease apart the associations necessary to his moralistic escapades, we see that whenever he hears that fatuous stirrers are perpetuating misguided and questionable notions of other lethargic recidivists' intentions, Baya puts on his usual kabuki of feigned outrage. In private, however, he secretly supports such activities. Even worse, Baya will do everything in his power to get me to swallow whatever he dishes out. I don't have to take that lying down. That's why I'm going to tell you a little story about how I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like Baya want to contaminate or cut off our cities' water supply.
