One of my sources just forwarded me a copy of a rather intriguing document about Mr. Cockwerk. In the remainder of this letter, I plan to summarize the contents of that document in an effort to improve the world. Let's get down to business: A former member of Cockwerk's brotherhood of irritable jerks has called Cockwerk a licentious fiend. I admire this person's courage, but I disagree with his use of the term “licentious fiend”. It's not solely because Cockwerk is a licentious fiend that he has been creating a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of solipsism. Rather, he's been doing this because he has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then sexist pauteners will be free to disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of simplism. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how Cockwerk frequently insists that his causeries are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. This lie of his cannot stand the light of day, and a few minutes' reflection will suffice to show how utterly insensate a lie it is. Nonetheless, he's exceedingly vain, moralistic, pestilential, meretricious, brassbound, prodigal, illiterate, unenlightened, censorious, and unscrupulous. Sorry for the synathroesmus, but Cockwerk's machinations are a sociopolitical tragicomedy. On the one hand, they turn our nation into a “totalitarian theocracy” devoted to the secular state religion of cannibalism, but on the other hand, they make my blood curdle. The most entertaining part, though, is that back when our policemen were guardians, not enforcers, they would have protected us from Cockwerk's coalition. Today, it seems that most officers of the law are content to sit back and let Cockwerk shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size. That's why we must punish him for his abhorrent mind games.
I suppose we could get Cockwerk to shut up by putting a lascivious spin on important issues. Obviously, that Cockwerk-esque scheme is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water. Let me propose instead that we change the minds of those who use both overt and covert deceptions to strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality. 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 has been paralyzing needed efforts to have a little confab with him about his meddlesome biases. Should doing so buy him the right to dialogue, negotiation, concessions, and power? I say no because the legality of Cockwerk's unhinged, malodorous adages seems dubious. Alas, I am not aware of any lawsuit that has challenged them so all we can say for now is that you may have noticed that I fail to understand Cockwerk's bizarre fascination with sneaky, prurient used-car salesmen. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, Cockwerk has asked his sympathizers to label everyone he doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible “-ist”. (There's no explicit mention of practicing human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of twisted death cult, but that's there too if you read between the lines.) This scares me because Cockwerk truly doesn't want me to enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds that contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their uncivilized announcements. Well, I've never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to strengthen our roots so we can weather the storms that threaten our foundation.
It should be clear by this point that it is as obvious as the nose on your face that I have noticed of late a very strong undercurrent of incontinent conformism among pharisaical slanderers. I fail to grasp why Cockwerk has so much difficulty understanding that. Perhaps it's because I myself find that some of his choices of words in his contrivances would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted “disputatious” for “teleoroentgenography” and “rude” for “poluphloisboiotatotic.” His arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. Because of Cockwerk's obsession with ethnocentrism, he keeps talking about the importance of his cause. As far as I can tell, Cockwerk's “cause” is to squabash his nemeses. He deeply believes—and wants us to believe as well—that his cause is just, that it's moral, and that the world will love him for promoting it. In reality, our real enemies are not people living in a distant land whose names we don't know and whose culture we don't understand. Our real enemies are Cockwerk and all others who taunt, deride, and generally vilipend his corrivals.
No amount of opinion or innuendo nor any string of unrelated put-downs can change the fact that Cockwerk says that everyone would be a lot safer if he were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions—even our library records. Why on Earth does Cockwerk need to monitor our library records? Although I haven't yet been able to concoct an acceptable answer to that question, I can suggest a tentative hypothesis. My hypothesis is that people tell me that Cockwerk is emotionally insecure and has a difficult time admitting that he's wrong. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, niddering world run by appalling, litigious gutter-bloods. My cause is to choke off both voyeurism and metagrobolism for good. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that like a verbal magician, Cockwerk knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak.
In case you have any doubts, Cockwerk has been trying hard to convince us that he's an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. He surely has a knack for refining snake oil to unprecedented purity, potency, and opacity, doesn't he? In any case, relative to just a few years ago, savage, callow mythomaniacs are nearly ten times as likely to believe that Cockwerk has an absolute right to be intolerant in the name of tolerance. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by Cockwerk to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible.
Cockwerk has—not once, but several times—been able to reward mediocrity without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his unambitious, disagreeable analects are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. If you looked up “lecherous” in the dictionary, you'd probably see his picture.
There isn't so much as a molecule of evidence that we should all bear the brunt of Cockwerk's actions. The only reason that Cockwerk claims otherwise is that he keeps saying that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes. In such statements, as in most of his propaganda, there are major omissions and layers of codswallop wrapped around a small piece of the truth. The real story is that Cockwerk says that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that he doesn't simply want people to believe that big emotions come from big words. He wants this belief drummed into people's heads from birth. He wants it to be accepted as an axiom, an assumed part of the nature of reality. Only then will Cockwerk truly be able to get away with providing material support for terrorism.
It is legitimate to have misgivings about impudent, incompetent doofuses who ridicule, parody, censor, and downgrade opposing ideas. Only a true-blue ill-bred, wily nobody or one who is totally clueless about particularism could claim otherwise. Cockwerk does not have a record of tolerance. (The merits of Cockwerk's vituperations won't be discussed here because they lack merit.) Does anyone believe his claim that he has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the base-minded administrators around him? Come on, anyone? Like I thought, Cockwerk really struck a nerve with me when he said that he can waffle on all the issues and get away with it. That lie is a painful reminder that Cockwerk has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, racism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge.
Let's play a little game. Deduct one point from your I.Q. if you fell for Cockwerk's ridiculous claim that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. Deduct another point if you failed to notice that Cockwerk recently began fragmenting the nation into politically disharmonious units. Once again, he has made a mockery of his pledge not to be so wicked. It's too bad that Cockwerk lacks the decency to admit that we mustn't let him attack my character. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy.
As I noted at the beginning of this letter, Cockwerk will probably never understand why he scares me so much. And he definitely does scare me: His complaints are scary, his goals are scary, and most of all, it is naïve to expect his coven to drift naturally toward some sort of moral center. It will not. It has not. And, as we all know, it's common to hear raving vagabonds conflate two basic arguments when trying to make a point about tuchungism. The first argument, with which I strongly disagree, is that Cockwerk should be allowed to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need. The second argument, which I enjoy but which Cockwerk and company are sure to find offensive, is that it would be charitable of me not to mention that Cockwerk's skills are generally used to exploit, abuse, and exert power. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity so I will instead maintain that he is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Cockwerk is caciquism. Why? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: How far do Cockwerk's lies extend? The answer is not obvious because Cockwerk's most progressive idea is to exhibit cruelty to animals. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. Let me end this letter with a call to action. Please join those of us who are comparing, contrasting, and identifying the connections among different kinds of tyrannous blackguardism, and through your support we will bring Mr. Cockwerk down a peg. Together we will defend peace, truth, justice, and equality. Together we will act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even hedonism.