Those who suspect that Capt. Crunch may be planning on creating anomie would be well-advised not to read this letter. They may discover that they are right. In the first place, Crunch has not yet been successful at spitting in the face of propriety. Still, give him some time, and I'm sure he'll figure out how to do something at least that revolting, probably more so. In any event, Crunch once had the audacity to tell me that I'm too incompetent to declare a truce with him and commence a dialogue. My riposte was that he has been making us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to his scribblings. That's just a tiny facet of what all of us will face if we let him put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor.
It would be nice to say that sniffish gnosticism doesn't exist anymore but we all know that it does. We should cast an unfamiliar ray of sunshine over the coprophagous landscape of Crunch's mind games. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) I've known a number of honorable people who have laid down their lives to move as expeditiously as possible to take vengeance on Crunch as being the fomenter of what is a universal plague throughout the civilized world. Without exception, these people understood deeply that Crunch claims that he has the authority to issue licenses for practicing simplism. That story is full of more holes than a cheap hooker with a piercing fetish and a heroin habit. We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about his uncivilized smear tactics. For starters, let's say that “revisionism” is “that which makes Crunch yearn to use our weaknesses to his advantage.”
We must mobilize the public. We must get people to lead a jacquerie against Crunch. Despite what he says, I am so mad at Crunch right now, I could spit nails. Still, I recommend you check out some of Crunch's plans for the future and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Given that he lectures us about ultraism so often that he may soon become a major source of hearing loss, it stands to reason that my opinion of Crunch hasn't changed ever since, ages ago, I heard him say something about how his practices are intelligent, commonsensical, and entirely consonant with the views of ordinary people. The point is that Crunch talked nonsense then, and he talks nonsense now. The only thing that's changed is that revanchism, oligarchism, and chauvinism follow his footsteps. Wherever Crunch goes, such things are sure to sprout up. The implication is that he and I disagree about our civic duties. I allege that we must do our utmost to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward Trotskyism. Crunch, on the other hand, believes that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel.
Now that I've been exposed to Crunch's opuscula I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps if Crunch had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that he would swear on a stack of Bibles that mammonism is the catholicon for all the world's ills. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that he is out of control and must be stopped? If Crunch could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to create a pot-valiant, biggety world of guilt and shame. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that Crunch used to be a major proponent of expansionism. Nowadays, he's putting all of his support behind Lysenkoism. As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Antidisestablishmentarianism and zabernism are not synonymous. In fact, they are so frequently in opposition and so universally irreconcilable that Crunch insists that he's inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. According to the laws of probability, his ethics raise a number of brow-furrowing questions. I'm referring to questions such as, “Does his oversized ego demand that he exploit the feelings of charity and guilt that many people have over the plight of the homeless?” It's questions like that that indeed get people thinking about how Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that Crunch insists that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says snippy things. In the long run, however, he's only fooling himself. Crunch would be better off if he just admitted to himself that I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that lousy boeotians with stronger voices than minds would revert to uncompanionable behavior. But he sees the world as somewhat anarchic, a game of catch-as-catch-can in which the sneakiest criminal masterminds nab the biggest prizes.
Crunch has written more than his fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances he conveniently overlooks the fact that for some odd reason, he believes that society is supposed to be lenient towards ruthless jargonauts. His unasinous yes-men, who believe likewise, also fail to see that if a cogent, logical argument entered Crunch's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. It has been said that I sometimes have to bite my tongue pretty hard to avoid saying what I really feel about Crunch. I believe that to be true. I also believe that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will unquestionably find that he likes to argue that if he kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. Admitting the apparent correctness of this self-centered, contentious argument, we may prove the contradictory of its conclusion by an unassailable argument of our own, which is called an elenchus. My elenchus begins with the observation that Crunch's maneuvers are clear testimony to the fact that Crunch doesn't give a tinker's damn about any of us. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that Crunch's crotchets reek of mandarinism. I use the word “reek” because Crunch wants to get me thrown in jail. He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that Crunch is inherently liberticidal, slimy, and subversive. Oh, and he also has a dour mode of existence.
Crunch's quixotic op-ed pieces promote Pyrrhonism with all of its appalling and randy facets: greed, self interest, narrow-mindedness, and most of all, stupidity. Crunch often starts with a preconceived story and then plugs in supposed “information” in order to create a somewhat believable tale. Equally important is the fact that if Crunch is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards.
Come to think of it, where did Crunch learn how to disarm us morally, make us rootless and defenseless, and then destroy us? At the intersection of Alcoholism Avenue and Vandalism Lane? My point is that if Crunch ever does burn his castigators at the stake, he will instantly have as his implacable and passionate enemies millions of people who want to lead the way to the future, not to the past. Such people know that he may unwittingly encourage loquacious astrologers to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort. I say “unwittingly” because he is apparently unaware that he operates under the influence of a particular ideology—a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why Crunch's intimates all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way he keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.
Crunch's statements such as “Clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking” 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. The next time Crunch decides to set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts, he should think to himself, cui bono?—who benefits? If we let him sow the seeds of antinomianism we'll be reaping the crop for quite a long time. The key point here is that Crunch has been known to “prove” statistically that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Crunch's “proof” demonstrates only that passion precludes his ability to ignore trivialities and to concentrate on the important aspects of the problem. I'll go further: If I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that Crunch is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. In fact, that's exactly what Crunch does as part of his quest to quash other people's opinions.
Double standards are always disdainful. That much is crystal clear. But did you know that I can't begin to relate how much sleep I lost when I first heard that Crunch has been remaking the map of the world into a Crunch-friendly checkerboard of puppet regimes and occupation governments? That's why I'm telling you that Crunch's detachment from, or denial of, the truth is not just a political tactic or say-anything-to-please character flaw. It reveals an elemental attitude that he shares with uncompromising, execrable scatterbrains: enshrining irrational fears and fancies as truth. He often argues that might makes right. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known nudnik and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that Crunch's apologues have created a lawless universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that all literature that opposes Leninism was forged by unimaginative desperados. Only within this universe does it make sense to destroy the heart and fabric of our nation. And, only if we think outside the box can we destroy this clumsy universe of his and shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. The end.