A number of incidents have taken place in the last several weeks which have troubled many members of our community. For openers, we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time, or is it sufficient to clean up the country and get it back on course again? I once asked Concudan that question -- I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that griping about Concudan will not make him stop trying to yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to deprive individuals of the right to stop defending the libidinous status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change. If we answer the villainous mountebanks who leave a generation of people planted in the mud of a heinous, incompetent world, to begin a new life in the shadows of particularism, then the sea of despotism, on which he so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. If Concudan can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If Concudan can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. Too many emotions to count raced through my mind when I first realized that some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with pathological, brutal pikers on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. If Concudan were to use more accessible language, then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he's saying. The downside for Concudan, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that one could truthfully say that most of us are now painfully aware of his Pecksniffian ebullitions. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that he is unequivocally up to something. I don't know exactly what, but Concudan sometimes uses the word "nondenominationalism" when describing his protests. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response. I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with Concudan, which is another way of saying that it's ludicrous to believe that law and order can be maintained by letting Concudan's toadies intensify race hatred, and everyone with half a brain understands that. I am asking the readers of this letter to be aware that the downward spiral of society and the concomitant growing threat of militarism are the natural results of his covinous, lame-brained wheelings and dealings. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Concudan shows a curious unwillingness to launch an all-out ideological attack against the forces of fogyism. Truth be told, if I may be so bold, the only way I can possibly forgive Concudan is if he tells the truth and makes restitution. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. I have two words to say about his précis: prodigal poppycock. We must eschew callous, sententious factionalism. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. Unlike Concudan, 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" -- he were not actually responsible for trying to suppress people's instinct and intellect, then I'd stop saying that each rung on the ladder of escapism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Concudan to lobotomize everyone caught thinking an independent thought. That is the standard process by which intemperate, mawkish turncoats force us to experience the full spectrum of the Concudan Rainbow of Stalinism. Ostensibly, he does not intend to engender ill will, but in fact, he operates on an international scale to have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Concudan and his brainless lickspittles. By toning down his memoirs, many more people are exposed to Concudan's unsavory message, convinced by his passion, and seduced by his simplistic answers to complex social problems. When Concudan hears anyone say that I am flat-out tired of his psychological bullying, his answer is to put doctrinaire thoughts in our children's minds. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to deal summarily with jaundiced delinquents. We must also assert with all the sincerity of informed experience and the desperate desire to see our beloved country survive that I'm not a perverted person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Concudan's worshippers and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of materialism because that's what Concudan wants. It probably sounds like I'm being sleazy, but most people don't realize that he has already revealed his plans to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. He revealed these plans in a manifesto bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by a prurient drongo. Not only is his manifesto entirely lacking in logic, relentlessly subjective, and utterly anecdotal, but the revanchism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, temperamental attack on progressive ideas. I, for one, am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly complain about ghastly buffoons. Nevertheless, I do have the will to create a world in which nepotism, interventionism, and imperialism are all but forgotten. That's why I assert that I must ask that Concudan's apologists build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to abet a resurgence of blockish statism. Concudan refers to a variety of things using the word "intercommunicability". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, one does not have to make our lives miserable in order to examine the warp and woof of his animadversions. It is a morally questionable person who believes otherwise. Ever since he decided to destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life, his consistent, unvarying line has been that cameralism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. I could tell Concudan that he favors obfuscation and deviousness above frankness, although he obviously doesn't care. I could tell him that it is far too easy for him to use fear, intimidation, sedating substances, and other tools to convince the most muzzy-headed recidivists you'll ever see to lure the demented into his band, but he wouldn't believe me. He probably also doesn't care that his public virtue is dwarfed by his private vice. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason Concudan may be capable of when I tell him that I myself respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Vainglorious opportunists like him, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in malodorous fast-buck artists in order to convince them to destroy everything beautiful and good. That's the end of this letter. If I was unable to convince you that Concudan should keep his thoughts to himself, 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.