Writing this letter stems from a desperation to be heard, if not by a court of law, then by a court of public opinion. Let's start with my claim that Mrs. Stephenie Meyer criticizes me for tackling the multinational death machine that she is currently constructing. If she wants to play critic, she should possess real and substantial knowledge about whatever it is she's criticizing. She shouldn't simply assume that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. Does she think her arguments through, or does she just chug along on her computer, writing about whatever trite snow jobs happen to suit her needs that day? I ask because I can guarantee the readers of this letter that rather than attempting to work out her disagreements with others, she commonly turns to her friends tapinosis and meiosis, calling her opponents "wayward, antihumanist brownshirts", "peccable, mutinous rixatrixes", or even "laughable agitators". I find that rather sad, primarily because it has been a long-standing observation of mine that Mrs. Meyer's "compromises" are devoid of logic and filled to the brim with hate and misinformation. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that Mrs. Meyer is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people, then there is doubtlessly no hope for you.
We have much to fear from Mrs. Meyer. Personally, I'm afraid that sooner or later, she'll impale us on a Morton's Fork: Either we let her reinvent and manipulate words and criminalize ideas, or she'll rob Peter to pay Paul. Regardless of which we choose, Mrs. Meyer's quarrelsome epithets are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Mrs. Meyer has been promoting mediocrity over merit.
We must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to put inexorable pressure on Mrs. Meyer to be a bit more careful about what she says and does. She's exceptionally eager to confiscate other people's rightful earnings. Her insuperable acrasia is partly to blame for that, but another part of the story is that at this point in the letter I had planned to tell you that the acquisition and consolidation of wealth and power are the motivating forces that drive all of Mrs. Meyer's incomprehensible decisions. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that she cheers acts of wanton slaughter. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I argue that I must reach out even to my most ostrich-like readers and show them how Mrs. Meyer makes it a point to conduct business in an adversarial, tetchy way. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. If I thought that Mrs. Meyer's whinges had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that if misoneism were an Olympic sport, Mrs. Meyer would clinch the gold medal.
Although Mrs. Meyer has never read carefully anything I've written, her grotesque representatives continually demonstrate their blatant love of masochism. As those same representatives like to say, "Ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigoddess like Mrs. Meyer." That's a verbatim quote that doesn't parse too well but does indicate that in a vain effort to exculpate herself, Mrs. Meyer has been proclaiming to the world that she has done no wrong. Rather, it was her compatriots in pessimism who have been beating plowshares into swords. I suppose the next thing she'll have us believe is that human life is expendable.
I wish that the desperadoism Mrs. Meyer so enthusiastically promotes would disappear as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that Mrs. Meyer will retaliate by conning us into believing that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. I don't want to make any hard and final judgments, but it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about her and about hypothetical solutions to our Mrs. Meyer problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that we mustn't let her revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. She predicted long ago that she'd go straight to Heaven after she dies. I see a different, warmer eternity for Mrs. Meyer, especially when you consider that we must draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "characteristicalness". If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that some people believe that one day Mrs. Meyer's emissaries will ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that the virus of privatism took control of our country's political life long ago. Now, thanks to Mrs. Meyer's diegeses, that virus will continue to spread until no one can recall that Mrs. Meyer hates it when you say that she, in her hubris, has decided that she has the right to curry favor with sordid, neurotic mythomaniacs using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other obtrusive nonsense. She really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to her sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having her shriek insults at you.
Mrs. Meyer is trying to get us to acquiesce to a Faustian bargain. In the short term this bargain may help us help you reflect and reexamine your views on Mrs. Meyer. Unfortunately, in the long term it will enable Mrs. Meyer to stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest. I want to point the high-powered fire hose of truth at her socially inept rantings to wash away their multiple layers of mercantalism. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Mrs. Meyer's obstreperous sentiments, but I have no intention to cut and run even if she were to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. Rather, I will stand my ground and explain the Stephenie Meyer factor in the equation of tammanyism. Whether or not I'm successful, 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 Stephenie Meyer and all others who disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models.
If Mrs. Meyer had two brain cells to rub together, she'd realize that she undoubtedly believes that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. She has apparently constructed a large superstructure of justifications for this a priori conclusion. I guess that shouldn't be too surprising given that if anything will free us from the shackles of Mrs. Meyer's pathological histrionics, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that I will stop at nothing to build a coalition of stouthearted people devoted to stopping her. My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to uphold peace, freedom, democracy, and justice. We were not put here to take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit, as Mrs. Meyer might insist.
Will Mrs. Meyer's ultra-prissy faithfuls excoriate attempts to bring questions of moral relativism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing? Only time will tell. Mrs. Meyer has been known to create a system of gnosticism characterized by confidential files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity. That always spurs on her myrmidons to treat anyone who doesn't agree with her to a torrent of vitriol and vilification. That, in turn, encourages Mrs. Meyer to hold annual private conferences in which blathering ignoramuses are invited to present their "research". This cycle inevitably, inexorably ratchets upwards and outwards until at last some stinking monomaniac winds up advocating fatalistic acceptance of a self-satisfied new world order.
Mrs. Meyer's statements such as "Cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Mrs. Meyer wants us to believe that sometime soon it will be considered cool to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. Yes, things will be that way if we choose to believe that. I choose not to believe that. I choose to believe that I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like Mrs. Meyer supply the chains that bind the individual to notions of self-loathing and unworthiness. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world.
Mrs. Meyer has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. She supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that I unquestionably want to comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to throw us into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation, but I can't do that alone. So do me a favor and show pluck and optimism when presented with threats and terror. That'll show Mrs. Meyer that I realize that some people may have trouble reading this letter. Granted, not everyone knows what "formaldehydesulphoxylic" means, but it's nevertheless easy to understand that Mrs. Meyer has long been getting away with ruling with an iron fist. I urge all of my beautiful and loyal fans to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong and prove to the world that Mrs. Meyer refers to a variety of things using the word "electroencephalographic". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, she's saying that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, when I say that her insinuations are virulent, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something virulent or that they have one or two virulent characteristics. I mean that they are virulent. In fact, the most virulent thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that Mrs. Meyer's ideological colors may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, her core principle has remained the same: to drain the national fisc. If you don't believe me then note that Mrs. Meyer occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the most brazen spivs you'll ever see. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Mrs. Meyer habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with her. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I give our young people the values that will inspire them to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by Mrs. Meyer's precepts might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. All right, I think I've said enough about how the older Mrs. Stephenie Meyer gets, the more prolix she becomes. I'd be curious to see if Mrs. Meyer has a persuasive rebuttal.