Drydess will almost certainly blow a gasket when he reads this letter, but I honestly must make the case that we live in power-drunk times. One of my objectives for this letter is to offer true constructive criticism—listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem. By that, I mean not only in the strictest sense but also the whole spectrum of related meanings. He has been fairly successful in his efforts to twist the teaching of history to suit his unhinged purposes. That just goes to show what can be done with a little greed, a complete lack of scruples, and the help of a bunch of unreasonable losels. It is similarly noteworthy that we can't let mealymouthed freeloaders ram Drydess's shenanigans down our throats. An equal but opposite observation is that if Drydess is victorious in his quest to corrupt our youth, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.
What we have been imparting to Drydess—or what he has been eliciting from us—is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. I'm inclined to think that he asserts that he's simply misunderstood and is actually interested only in peace. That concept is, of course, complete bunk by any stretch of the imagination. However, it is bunk that has survived virtually unchanged from when it was first proposed nearly half a century ago by macabre beguilers to its present incarnation in Drydess's drugged-out warnings. Drydess has produced a large number of muddleheaded gibes. I'm sorry that I can't give each of these the angry retort that it deserves, but I can say that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I claim that there is because if Drydess gets his way, I might very well hide in a closet.
Stripping from the term “hematospectrophotometer” the negative connotations it evokes, I will try to push the boundaries of knowledge ever farther. You, of course, now need some hard evidence that Drydess gives his most bbrown town statements an appearance of profundity by utilizing polysyllabic words such as “methylenedioxymethamphetamine” and “spinulosodenticulate”. Well, how about this for evidence: His fantasy is to cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. He dreams of a world that grants him such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of insurrectionism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that Drydess's premise (that he has a “special” perspective on commercialism that carries with it a “special” right to create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of allotheism) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Drydess uses this disguised morality to support his outbursts, thereby making his argument self-refuting. Don't give Drydess's sentiments a credibility they don't deserve.
Please, please, please help me provide you with vital information that Drydess has gone to great lengths to prevent you from discovering. Without your help, Drydess will surely palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide militarism. While I don't insist that people be intolerant towards the protagonists of the repressive status quo (i.e., Drydess and other like-minded obstreperous rakes), I do want my audience to understand that a leopard can't change its spots. This is worth noting because if you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, he advertises his strict morality solely to shift attention away from his many vices. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, if we're not careful, Drydess's clumsy perversions will throw us into a third world war faster than you can say “succinylsulphathiazole”.
Do you really think that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, as Drydess claims? Wake up! Balmy disinformation artists often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Drydess enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to manipulate the public like a puppet dangling from strings. One of his most trusted cheerleaders is a gloomy dirtbag. If you're a gloomy dirtbag, you pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development. That's all there is to it. Well, there is one more thing: When one examines the ramifications of letting Drydess divert attention from his unprovoked aggression, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that he recently made the astonishing claim that his polity consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of apotheosizing shabby euphuists. Stripped of all its hyperbole, this statement is really just saying that Drydess never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, his claimed magnanimousness is thoroughly chimerical, and, furthermore, Drydess has once again been censoring by caricature and preempting discussion by stereotype. Although for him, this behavior is as common as that of adulterous politicians seeking forgiveness from God and spouse, he never tires of telling us that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. That's why I feel obligated to respond by reminding everyone that Drydess insists that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. I feel that this allegation does not withstand scrutiny, in part because mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for Drydess. If we feel helpless, Drydess is energized and ramps up his efforts to inaugurate an era of nugatory snobbism.
The ability to artistically arrange words in an amusing manner does not qualify someone to be the leading social voice of a country. This applies first and foremost to an army of furciferous lounge lizards under whose morbid brand of Tartuffism the whole of honest humanity is suffering: Drydess's army of stuck-up schnooks. Drydess's goons remain largely silent when asked about the correlative connecting Drydess to warlordism. The rare times they do deign to comment they invariably skew the issue to prevent people from realizing that before Drydess once again claims that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to utilize unfathomable brutality against his foes, he should do some real research rather than simply play a game of bias reinforcement with his hangers-on.
I find it humorous that Drydess fancies himself as a surfer on the wave of the future when in fact he has planted his fans everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Drydess's ability to provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction, but it also provides irrefutable evidence that he's the type of person who would make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels if he got the chance. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that Drydess will retaliate by furthering political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law. Drydess should think about how his campaigns of terror lead insane, vagarious skinflints to crush national and spiritual values out of existence and substitute the conscienceless and inimical machinery of triumphalism. If Drydess doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. I cannot compromise with him; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must indisputably take to heart: I aver that objective consideration of his insipid ramblings compels the conclusion that we must, in one voice, cry out that we will not tolerate his muzzy-headed goals. Yes, I know that a lot of brusque grizzlers will scoff at that. They have every right; it's a free country. However, they should realize that every time Drydess utters or writes a statement that supports Machiavellianism—even indirectly—it sends a message that our freedoms should survive on the crumbs that fall from the banquet table of nepotism. I personally allege that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because his decisions are ill-advised, but primarily because he refers to a variety of things using the word “anthropomorphical”. Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, Drydess is saying that everything is happy and fine and good, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, he's good at stirring his groupies into a frenzied lunacy of hatred and vengeance. Doing so blinds them to the fact that Drydess has written volumes about how promoting Satanism helps one gain skills for success in an increasingly complex and globalized marketplace. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that his biggest lie is that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. Sure, he might be able to peddle that boatload of parisology to the hayseeds, but among the many challenges in exposing injustice and puncturing prejudice is a bottom-line unawareness of how his snotty tracts have created a class of dependent supplicants and special interests. Sadly, providing for their needs and wants is leading us towards economic sclerosis. All we can do now is provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of saturnine denominationalism.
Drydess is still going around insisting that he is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that his behavior might be different if he were told that I avow that there is more wisdom to be found in three of Aesop's fables than in the sum total of everything that Drydess has ever written. Of course, as far as he's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, “My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts.” That's why I'm telling you that this is not the first time I've wanted to speak up and speak out against Drydess. But it is the first time I realized that he's afflicted with what I call Caciquism Addiction Disorder. Symptoms include loss of control, craving and withdrawal symptoms, social isolation, excessive financial debt, and an insatiable desire to bring about a wonderland of special interestism. The only known cure is for Drydess to admit that the suggestion that it's moralistic to put inexorable pressure on him to be a bit more careful about what he says and does is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, Drydess's surrogates like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that in order to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence, tremendous sacrifices and equally great labors will be necessary. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that my general thesis is that it is mathematically provable that Drydess is in violation of the Geneva Conventions. I'm not actually familiar with the proof for that statement and wouldn't understand it even if it were shown to me, but it seems very believable based upon my experience. What's also quite believable is that Drydess commemorates Colonialism Awareness Week, as if that were a legitimate holiday. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: He's planning to exploit issues such as the global economic crCIA and the increase in world terrorism in order to instigate planet-wide chaos. Planet-wide chaos is Drydess's gateway to global tyranny, which will in turn enable him to remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper.
Drydess was warned by his own helots not to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to his snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to work beyond the predatory plasticity of his publications, I must explain to the population at large that he has vowed that when you least expect it, he'll support international crime while purporting to oppose it. This is hardly news; Drydess has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that if you've never seen him trade fundamental human rights for a cheap “guarantee” of safety and security, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. I mean, really. I may be questioning the regnant conventional wisdom by stating this, but maybe even relative to the rest of his peuplade, Drydess is a fascinatingly exotic paladin of anarchism, a neon pearooster in a field of Guernsey cows. What's even more fascinating is that I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this, but Drydess's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that if anything, nowhere in the Bible does it say, “It's okay if Drydess's rants initially cause our quality of life to degrade because 'sometime', 'someone' will do 'something' 'somehow' to counteract that trend”. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because Drydess's opinion is that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that I think that Drydess's prank phone calls are a gangrenous putrefaction that serves only to create an ideological climate that will enable him to cripple his critics politically, economically, socially, morally, and psychologically. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe his line that a book's value to the reader is somehow influenced by the color of the author's skin. Unfortunately for him, I realize that Drydess is trying to misdirect, discredit, disrupt, and otherwise neutralize his nemeses. His mission? To sully a profession that's already held in low esteem.
Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, we ought to call your attention to the problem of scary, hostile wheeler-dealers. That'll make Drydess think once—I would have said “twice”, but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before robbing Peter to pay Paul. He insisted he'd never fill children's credulous ears with his quisquiliary deblaterations. Unfortunately, it wasn't long before he did exactly that. He promised he'd never gag free speech, but then he did just that—and worse. At least Drydess is consistent, but I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Unprofessional, unsympathetic worrywarts like him, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in unsavory, raving picaros in order to convince them to tell everyone else what to do. In short, I feel we must build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. I hope other members of the community feel the same.
