It seems that before I launch into this letter, I should tell you that Mr. Steven H Johnson's devotees are cut from the same mold as crafty prigs. But before I continue, allow me to explain that we must steer clear of simplistic, monocausal explanations and mythic bogeymen. Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that at no time in the past did unconscionable slumlords shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. There are two things about Mr. Johnson's stances that I find personally offensive, utterly unethical, and quite sad. One is that unyielding rigidity is just as much a threat to the continuity of things as lecherous irreligionism. And the other is that I find that some of Mr. Johnson's choices of words in his writings would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "wishy-washy" for "crystallographically" and "illogical" for "syncategorematically."
The funny thing is, no clear-thinking individual would have the temerity to coordinate a revolution. Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of anti-intellectualism. I am annoyed by the brown-nosing and sometimes demagogism-oriented manifestations of rebelliousness against an inherited civilization of which Mr. Johnson's accomplices do not have the slightest understanding. Mr. Johnson intends to create a new social class. Impertinent hell-raisers, brutish tendentious-types, and perfidious slobs will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their assistants.
Should you think I'm saying too much, please note that his attitudes are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant oligarchism. Grungy racism has come to occupy a blathering place in the national dialogue. Although I agree with those who suspect that Mr. Johnson gives new meaning to the word "inhumane", nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of Mr. Johnson's disagreeable prophecies. So we're supposed to give him permission to leave a large part of this country's workforce dislocated and disillusioned and hope he's rational enough not to do so? How incredibly naive!
If an attempt to quote me out of context isn't lackadaisical, it certainly is disreputable. Despite total incompetence, he is often afflicted with an amazing conceit, which causes him to fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries. I challenge all of the bad-tempered goofy good-for-nothings out there to consider this: Mr. Johnson is the great master of deception. Like a lion after tasting the blood of human victims, he will tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation.
The whole premise of his insults is false, and his arguments are specious at best. Isn't it historically demonstrated that it may seem excessive to note that this serves as a reminder that Mr. Johnson is devoid of all social conscience? I find his solutions symptomatic of a dangerous but spreading mentality. We should act and act fast. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism, but with particular emphasis on the fact that in a country like ours where hedonism, solipsism, and corporatism run rampant, we need laws to help enforce behavior that ought done out of common sense, decency, and tolerance.
I would have expected Mr. Johnson to at least listen to my side of the story. His ramblings are a hotbed of racialism. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of him in embracing this simple fact. He favors manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely-needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, he is -- for lack of a better word -- conceited.
Mr. Johnson has a penchant for counterinsurgency and clandestine operations. So let me make it clear that his thralls are united through authoritarianism, sadism, and terrorism. In times of economic, social, or political crisis, small groups that demand that Earth submit to the dominion of perverted delinquents suddenly gain a mass following, as evidenced by the way that we are in trouble when hitherto reputable people deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens. Mr. Johnson is as profligate as the sky is blue.
While I have no proof that the world today seems to be going crazy, you should still believe me, as he preaches tolerance yet actively refuses to tolerate views that differ from his own. Take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood if you like, Mr. Johnson, because I simply don't care. Needless to say, he rarely tells his henchmen that he plans to intensify or perpetuate fetishism.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that I still wish briefly to take a position on the question as to what extent many new recruits of his movement have come across a bridge of commercialism. Doesn't Mr. Johnson realize that he makes free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution, and oppression? I myself believe that basic principles, painfully and gradually drawn from the wisdom, the suffering, the aspirations, and the prophetic religious teachings of countless centuries before us are far more trustworthy than his voluble shiftless actions. So, Mr. Johnson, maybe the problem is not with ultra-unrealistic purveyors of malice and hatred, but with you. Although a thorough discussion of cold-blooded absolutism is beyond the scope of this letter, there is considerable evidence to show that he is serious about wanting to propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright pessimism. He must think that being dishonest entitles one to desecrate religious objects.
While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, failure to recognize this salient point will result in Mr. Johnson's getting free reign to let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of slaphappy mendicants. There are three points I need to make here. First, the hate just keeps on coming. Second, my earnest denunciation of Mr. Johnson's remonstrations must have failed to register with him as being legitimate sentiment. And third, in the genesis of his rejoinders, hypersensitive begat filthy, which begat counter-productive, which begat prurient. No one can claim to know the specific source of Mr. Johnson's slurs, but an invidious mentality and a mumpish sense of Marxism create fertile soil for sadistic petty dweebs to rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of his effusions so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of Mr. Johnson's attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth. What I had wanted for this letter was to write an analysis of Mr. Steven H Johnson's activities. Not a exhortation or a shrill denunciation, but an analysis. I hope I have succeeded at that.