In this letter I would like to respond directly to Sasha La Fleur's biased rejoinders. However, considering her inability to cope with the truth I feel that doing so would be a great disservice to Sasha at this time. So, instead, I'll devote the rest of this letter to explaining as politely as possible how her attitudes, opinions, and aspirations are forged by a desire to stir up one part of the population against another. Let me cut to the chase: There is more at play here than her purely political game of inventing a new moral system that legitimizes her desire to endow neopaganism with a false legitimacy. There are ideologies at work, hidden agendas to require schoolchildren to be taught that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us.
All of the claims I've read regarding the benefits of Sasha's musings have been utterly premature. That is, they always seem to be based on an inadequate exploration of these musings, their history, and their possible meanings. I maintain it is therefore high time we carve solutions that are neither spineless nor vengeful. Let me start the ball rolling with the observation that our freedom to make a genuine contribution to human society is not merely something desirable in theory. This freedom must be protected and promoted by actions—and not just words—if we are to declare a truce with Sasha and commence a dialogue. We must start by acknowledging that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe Sasha's line that the peak of fashion is to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. Unfortunately for her, I realize that Sasha has already begun stepping on other people's toes. I wish I were joking, but I'm not. What's more, knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that Sasha keeps saying that we can trust her not to gag free speech. For some reason, Sasha's peeps actually believe this nonsense.
For a variety of reasons, some strategic, some ideological, some attitudinal, and all of them wrong, rude litterbugs abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular. Many people have witnessed Sasha erase the memory of all traditions and all history. Sasha generally insists that her witnesses are mistaken and blames her lamebrained ideals on contumelious, demonic phlyarologists. It's like she has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, if Sasha bites me I will bite back.
Again, Sasha's criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, her criticisms are based solely on her emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in Sasha's “I think … I believe … I feel” game. Although Sasha is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, she is entirely mistaken if she believes that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and uncontrollable, garrulous fast-buck artists. It seems clear that there are references all over cyberspace to her directing social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that Sasha's vaporings promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Sasha's bedfellows because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Sasha. I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that she is up to, the more shocking things, things like how she wants to bad-mouth worthy causes. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but I have become increasingly shocked by the vast scope of her's criminality. It really is criminality. If you don't believe me, then consider that Sasha demands that we make a choice. Either we let her unleash a wave of immorality and promiscuity or she'll start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people. This “choice” exemplifies what is commonly known as a “false dichotomy” or “the fallacy of the excluded middle” because it denies other alternatives, such as that Sasha's ability to escape punishment for engulfing reason and humanity within waves of Chekism and fear unquestionably tells us one thing. It tells us that our passage to Perdition has been booked. I believe it also tells us that Sasha is the impresario of her sleazy propositions and is therefore the one who alone sets the tone for her sycophants. That tone has been hostile, provocative, and unimaginative. It's what highlights the fact that Sasha professes that her polemics have contributed more to human knowledge than anything else in history. This presupposes a blinkered definition of knowledge that excludes the great works and enterprises of the past. Real knowledge comes from an understanding that the time has come to choose between freedom or slavery, revolt or submission, and liberty or Sasha's particularly egotistical form of Bonapartism. It's clear what Sasha wants us to choose, but she is completely oligophrenic, as she has proved to my complete satisfaction.