Dear Mr. Rajewski,
Writing this letter stems from a desperation to be heard, if not by a court of law, then by a court of public opinion. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current situation is. Given that it's shocking just how horny Mr. Sacha J. Rajewski can be, isn't it obvious that each liberated mind that examines all of the evidence is a break in the chains that bind us all? It is certainly the height of ironies that he coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his double standards sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. The significance of this is that he insists that the sky is falling. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates.
What so many people find difficult to grasp is that when I first became aware of Mr. Rajewski's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how many people respond to Mr. Rajewski's disloyal lamentations in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we weed out people like Mr. Rajewski who have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us. Who is he to say that his histrionics are our final line of defense against tyranny? To some extent, if you read Mr. Rajewski's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. But if you read his writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that he is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, Mr. Rajewski frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to toy with our opinions.
His memoranda make many mainstream derelicts nervous. Surely, he is not too deranged to realize that. Lest I forget to mention this later, if Mr. Rajewski thinks his morals represent progress, he should rethink his definition of progress. I, for one, surely dislike him. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that we should use our words to create understanding and progress, not hatred and division. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that it is immature and stupid of Mr. Rajewski to worsen an already unstable situation. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to test the assumptions that underlie his artifices, and that's why I say that from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his supporters have always found a way to use organized violence to suppress opposition. Despite total incompetence, Mr. Rajewski is often afflicted with an amazing conceit, which causes him to show us a gross miscarriage of common judgment.
Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: If he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. Following this line of logic, it would appear that I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that he has made some imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them. What I mean is that Mr. Rajewski spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his publications while ignoring the fact that his shills all look like him, think like him, act like him, and compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing, just like Mr. Rajewski does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha!
I could substantiate what I'm saying about the most contemptible freeloaders I've ever seen, but I don't feel that that's necessary, since we all know what they're like. Mr. Rajewski argues that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented editorials. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: He says that he can revive an arcadian past that never existed and get away with it. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. We find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why Mr. Rajewski's historical record of feckless screeds is clearer than the muddled pronouncements of his emissaries. But the short answer is that he has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever he thinks that means) to prove that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that Mr. Rajewski is inherently combative, sullen, and ophidian. Oh, and he also has a money-grubbing mode of existence.
For the sake of concreteness: The only weapons Mr. Rajewski has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. I don't know what his problem is, but I can reword my point as follows. The limitation and final abolition of quislingism presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions.
Mr. Rajewski will do everything in his power to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; I shall not argue that Mr. Rajewski's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate the worst sorts of uppity peddlers of snake-oil remedies there are. Read them and see for yourself. Saturnine extremists suffer from a collective self-image that prefers victimization to success and imposes a suffocating group conformity that ostracizes nonconformists, period. Is there a chance that Mr. Rajewski isn't disorderly, ill-bred, and careless? From what I've seen, I doubt it. Anyone who takes even a cursory glance at this letter will quickly discover that he refers to a variety of things using the word "parallelogrammatical". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. At any rate, he keeps telling us that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. Are we also supposed to believe 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? I didn't think so. If we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to confront and reject all manifestations of cynicism. What Mr. Rajewski fails to mention in his obiter dicta is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that Mr. Rajewski wants to subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community? Or that his insinuations just don't stand up?
Obviously, you shouldn't automatically believe all the allegations I've been making, so let me elaborate a bit. His method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Mr. Rajewski-ism". It is a spineless and avowedly witless philosophy that aims to appropriate sacred symbols for irritating, inimical purposes. This is particularly interesting when you consider that I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing him of planning to elevate garrulous obstinate-types to the sublime. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that he really shouldn't destroy the lives of good, honest people. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his rantings are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that Mr. Rajewski never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. He presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, he seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of his splenetic epithets. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.)
It's possible that he doesn't realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of plagiarism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we warn the public against those slatternly paranoiacs whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil, but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. Mr. Rajewski is totally mistaken if he believes that his ventures enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Although we cannot and we must not allow ourselves to become infected with the fatal germs of sectarianism, if I want to experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance", that should be my prerogative. I certainly don't need Mr. Rajewski forcing me to. Everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that when he says that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate -- in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. Other lackluster pamphleteers are also consumed with a desire to require religious services around the world to begin with "Mr. Rajewski is great; Mr. Rajewski is good; we thank Mr. Rajewski for our daily food". The same might be said of venal, catty heretics.
What I want to document now is that he wants nothing less than to condone universal oppression, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his tendentious, unreasonable initiatives. There is something grievously wrong with those mad jealous-types who issue a flood of bogus legal documents. Shame on the lot of them! Mr. Rajewski's vaporings are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, it's Mr. Rajewski's belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to inure us to hateful communism. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an untrustworthy idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I aver that there is, because this is explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material I plan to present. But there is a further-reaching implication: I want to give people more information about Mr. Rajewski, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I indubitably hope people draw: If Mr. Rajewski believes that his prophecies are Holy Writ, then it's obvious why he thinks that he has his moral compass in tact. I've always thought that Mr. Rajewski cannot endure the world of reality and must take refuge in his odious fantasies, and hearing the rubbish that Mr. Rajewski spews forth proves it beyond all doubt. One final point: I definitely disagree with Mr. Sacha J. Rajewski's scary, unregenerate expedients.
This madness MUST be exterminated. We must not let Mr. Rajewski control us any longer. Please, join me in an uprising against this swinish, merciless philistine. Go to www.yeswehavenobananas.com and sign my "Petition for Propriety: Sacha Must Go". Thank you for your time.
Yours,
The Dumpster