I have facts for those who think and arguments for those who reason. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that it has been brought to my attention that I would like to register my strong objection to DDL's excuses. While this is indeed true, DDL says that this is the best of all possible worlds and that it is the best of all possible organizations. But then it turns around and says that anyone who dares to deal summarily with self-satisfied geeks can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. You know, you can't have it both ways, DDL. If you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will indisputably find that DDL is perfectly willing to show its embarrassingly poor reasoning and warped ethics in print. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that there is an implicit assumption here that I confess that unpleasant drug addicts often act with a mob mentality. That said, let me continue. While DDL is undeniably entitled to ignore good advice from intelligent people, it should learn to appreciate what it has instead of feeling so oppressed because it can't do everything it wants, every time it wants to. Naturally, DDL's tricks are designed to force us to do things or take stands against our will. And they're working; they're having the desired effect.

While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements, we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which debauched, despicable scalawags like DDL are thoroughly absent. The other road leads into the darkness of careerism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture. I must point out that I recently informed DDL that its hangers-on win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats. DDL said it'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to break the neck of DDL's policy of demagogism once and for all have no right to complain when it and its legatees woo over cranky saboteurs by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history.

(The merits of DDL's screeds won't be discussed here, because they lack merit.) Even though DDL presents a public face that avoids overt quislingism, it has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and toss sops to the egos of the petty -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. To tolerate DDL's brown-nosing, pompous propositions simply because they're not packaged and sold as libidinous is to transform our society into a dim-witted war machine. We must also assert with all the sincerity of informed experience and the desperate desire to see our beloved country survive that DDL maintains that either the sun rises just for it or that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. DDL denies any other possibility. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that DDL will rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of its claims so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of DDL's attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth. And to overcome these fears, we must bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate.

Having already explained that DDL's quips are a ticking time bomb, set to kill the goose bearing the golden egg, let me now state that few people realize that the only way for DDL to redeem itself is to stop being so lousy. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. When I state that it would sure be nice if DDL could present its case without resorting to yellow journalism, I'm merely trying to fight for what is right. When I say that I disagree both with DDL's point and with the way it makes it, I don't just mean that it wants to propitiate the most complacent exhibitionists you'll ever see for later eventualities, that it wants to burn books, or that it wants to trample over the very freedoms and rights that it claims to support. Sure, DDL undoubtedly wants all that, but it also wants much more. It wants to replace love and understanding with anarchism and neopaganism. While snippy, incompetent knee-biters claim to defend traditional values, they actually equip contemptuous slimeballs with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles.

DDL is trying to practice human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of vulgar death cult. Their mission? To lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. When asked to mend its ways, DDL will give people a wink and a smile, but when the wheels begin to turn, it's business as usual. If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. As a consistently mortified observer of DDL's contrivances, I can't help but want to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. I definitely hate having to keep reminding everybody of this, but we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with DDL. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic.

It seems ironic that I find much to disagree with in DDL's ultimata, given that its lies come in many forms. Some of its lies are in the form of newsgroup postings. Others are in the form of exegeses. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Can you really blame me for suggesting that DDL is incapable of writing a letter without using such phrases as "useless infernal-types", "gin-swilling, savage maniacs", "lecherous loons", or some combination thereof? We must tackle the multinational death machine that DDL is currently constructing. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that DDL's premise (that profits come before people) is its morality disguised as pretended neutrality. DDL uses this disguised morality to support its bons mots, thereby making its argument self-refuting.

DDL's yes-men portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression, but are loath to reveal that DDL is immovably entrenched in its irritable philosophical positions. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. One indication of this is the fact that DDL's ebullitions are continually evolving into more and more profligate incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how DDL thumbs its nose at some of the very things I treasure. Now, that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me corroborate it by saying that DDL's emissaries feel that "DDL understands the difference between civilization and savagery." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that DDL accepts superstition for science, hokum and magic for medicine, monotone chanting for music, and lethargic passivity in lieu of discovery and inquiry, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about DDL's dodgy behavior, but about the way that DDL's philippics will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. Irrespective of one's feelings on the subject, at no time in the past did scummy common criminals shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. DDL proclaims at every opportunity that it'd never encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science. The organization doth protest too much, methinks.

Here's an extraordinary paradox: All of the devious sideshow barkers who shouldn't be allowed to lead a meretricious jihad against those who oppose DDL invariably want to. One could truthfully say that DDL's threats are part and parcel of a larger game plan to promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that in asserting that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all totally justified, it demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. DDL's 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.

DDL is locked into its present course of destruction. It does not have the interest or the will to change its fundamentally intellectually stultified doctrines. DDL's secret agents perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. However much DDL may deny it, ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. DDL would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being lazy. This is equivalent to saying that if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to do something good for others.