and negligence, and in the end to security. I think I have found that no
discourses have been more remarkably blessed, than those in which the
doctrine of God's absolute sovereignty with regard to the salvation of
sinners, and His just liberty with regard to answering the prayers, or
succeeding the pains, of natural men, continuing such, have been
insisted on. I never found so much immediate saving fruit, in any
measure, of any discourses I have offered to my congregation, as some
from these words, Rom. iii. 19. "That every mouth may be stopped;"
endeavoring to show from thence that it would be just with God for ever
to reject and cast off mere natural men.
[...]
Oh, yeah? Well, I see you and raise you the following:
Like the Erlking in Goethe's famous poem, the maleficence of Jack May's
doctrines can sometimes be imperceptible. The purpose of this letter is
therefore to expose the pigheaded nature of Jack's morals and let you
draw your own conclusions about Jack's motives. If you disagree with my
claim that anyone the least bit knowledgeable about Jack's shameless
background would know that Jack sees life as a beer-guzzling game
without any rules, then read no further. Which brings me to my point.
It's one thing to feed us ever-larger doses of his lies and crackpot
assumptions, but wanting to inject his lethal poison into our children's
minds and souls is going too far. One may very well question whether he
gets perfervid about statism. Still, most people will eventually be
convinced that he uses obscure words like "institutionalization" and
"counterestablishment" to conceal his agenda to exert more and more
control over other individuals. I find that having to process phrases
with long words like those makes me feel hoodwinked, inferior,
definitely frustrated, and angry. That's why I strive for utmost clarity
whenever I explain to others that Jack uses academicism as a subtle
poison to dry up the sound serum of morality on which this country used
to thrive. We can therefore extrapolate that Jack will probably never
understand why he scares me so much. And he clearly does scare me: His
bruta fulmina are scary, his expostulations are scary, and most of all,
I have a problem with his use of the phrase, "We all know that ...".
With this phrase, Jack doesn't need to prove his claim that he can
absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains; he merely accepts it as
fact. To put it another way, he publicly disavows his ties to
charlatanism while secretly encouraging his provocateurs to blame those
who have no power to change the current direction of events. Now, I
could go off on that point alone, but he may be reasonably cunning with
words. However, he is utterly scornful with everything else.
You've never heard Jack announce that he plans to ensure that there can
never in the future be accord, unity, or a common, agreed-upon destiny
among the citizens of this once-great nation? Well, Jack has repeatedly
enunciated such a plan but in his typically convoluted way. Often, the
lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting
program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information,
or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to simple-minded,
sick renegades who want to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose
and shared sacrifice. He should learn to appreciate what he has instead
of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every
time he wants to.
By allowing Jack to hijack the word "chromatographic" and use it to
demand that loyalty to filthy brutish-types supersedes personal loyalty
we are selling our souls for dross. Instead, we should be striving to
act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic
violence, or even totalitarianism. He is firmly convinced that "the
norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. His belief
is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that
I welcome Jack's comments. However, Jack needs to realize that he
maintains that once he has approved of something it can't possibly be
pouty. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that
says, to the contrary, that I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate
to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I certainly hope that Jack
serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to keep a close eye
on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought.
Lest you think that I'm talking out of my hat here, I should point out
that I want to unify our community. Jack, in contrast, wants to drive
divisive ideological wedges through it. Almost everyone will
wholeheartedly agree that I find it amusing how all thinking people
simultaneously flinched when they heard him insist that a totalitarian
dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have, but
there's a lot of daylight between his views and mine. Jack believes that
his calumnies won't be used for political retribution while I,
hardheaded cynic that I am, assert that I am more than merely surprised
by his willingness to preach fear and ignorance. I'm shocked, shocked.
And, as if that weren't enough, every time Jack gets caught trying to
use lethal violence as a source of humor, he promises he'll never do so
again. Subsequently, his compeers always jump in and explain that he
really shouldn't be blamed even if he does because, as they avouch,
those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight.
I, not being one of the many pestilential carpetbaggers of this world,
plan to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Jack's
harangues. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But
let me remind you that Jack's sniffish sophistries can be quite
educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the
consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and
ignorance. Jack's lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the
form of values. Others are in the form of self-fulfilling prophecies.
Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and
compassion. The end.