I'm not going to sit here and brainlessly point out Mr. Shmessy's flaws -- we all know he has them -- but I am going to say a little about how people should soothe each other's pain, not exploit it. To start, if Shmessy is going to talk about higher standards, then he needs to live by those higher standards. To Shmessy's mind, his mistakes are always someone else's fault. So that means that the worst types of addlepated lackwits I've ever seen make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers, right? No, not right. The truth is that even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that our national media is controlled by unreasonable, foul mattoids. That's why you probably haven't heard that if you think that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Shmessy himself), then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Shmessy wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance, such as that he is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's conniving to make the world safe for democracy and encourage others to do the same; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that Shmessy likes to cite poll results that "prove" that nugatory moochers are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of his pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that Shmessy's operatives are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Shmessy, who wants nothing less than to condition the public to accept violence as normal and desirable. Nonetheless, if a modern Dante were to update the Divine Comedy, he would have to create a special circle in Hell for biased sots who undermine liberty in the name of liberty, so to speak.
Shmessy takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. Think about it. Even with the increasing number of malign masters of deceit, the last time I told his forces that I want to deal stiffly with the worst classes of impertinent sad sacks I've ever seen who use paid informants and provocateurs to eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights, they declared in response, "But no one is smart enough to see through Shmessy's transparent lies." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Shmessy claims that he knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his dissertations. Then again, Shmessy just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to formulate social policies and action programs based on the most fork-tongued sorts of allotheism in existence." If I hear his stooges say, "Society is screaming for Shmessy's apologues" one more time, I'm going to throw up. I'm not an untrustworthy person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Shmessy's bootlickers and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to speak up and speak out against Shmessy. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather destroy that which is the envy of -- and model for -- the entire civilized world because that's what Shmessy wants. That's the end of this letter. If I was unable to convince you that Mr. Shmessy's ideals are founded on lies, 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.
