Complaint Letter

In a prior letter, I identified a set of ideological premises as superordinate constructions that maintain the rhetorical context in which Eddy Hung is able to make bargains with the devil. I will now elaborate on three of his most ungrateful premises:

   1. He has the mandate of Heaven to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice.
   2. Space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction.
   3. Squalid sciolists are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes.

So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: If he continues to support international crime while purporting to oppose it, I will be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations.

Eddy trumpets xenophobic paternalism laced with ill-natured obstructionism. Which brings us to the harsh reality that must be faced: Difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to establish a supportive -- rather than an intimidating -- atmosphere for offering public comment. He insists that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power. Has anyone, at any time, ever been more wrong? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that if Eddy can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

Eddy has a knack for convincing unsophisticated monomaniacs that he does the things he does "for the children". That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "mediterraneanization" and "ultrastandardization" to keep his sales pitch from sounding myopic. That's why you really have to look hard to see that obscurantism is correctly defined by its gruesome style, structure, and methods, not by its stated or apparent ideological premises or goals. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true.

If someone were to reduce our modern, civilized, industrialized society to a state of mindless, primitive barbarism, I'd rather it be an army of brainless, pretentious ratbags than Eddy because the latter is conniving, while the former are only uncivilized. I have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Eddy operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis. Considering that I have had enough of his waste, fraud, misfeasance, and malfeasance, I find it almost laughable how Eddy remains oblivious to the fact that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of his reports in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must bring him down a peg. He says that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. The inference is that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. I'm happy to report that I can't follow that logic.

Eddy is interpersonally exploitative. That is, he takes advantage of others to achieve his own self-aggrandizing ends. Why does he do that? There is widespread agreement in asking that question but there is great disagreement in answering it. He is absolutely mistaken if he believes that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. Comments on the above are welcome, but please think them out first.