the only weapons he has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. that's all he has, and he knows it. as i understand it, he just keeps on saying, "i don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. i just want to glorify the things that everyone else execrates."

my current plan is to shed the light of truth on the evil that is dave. yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of hell to tear that plan asunder, but if he wants to complain, he should have an argument. he shouldn't just throw out the word "ultramicrochemistry", for example, and expect us to be scared. he clings to fascism like a drowning man clings to a life preserver. what are the lessons for us in this? first, it's that his op-ed pieces will come back to bite us in the behind one day. and second, he might make people weak and dependent by the end of the decade. what are we to do then? place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome?

if it were up to dave, schoolchildren would be taught reading, 'riting, and racism. we all need to be aware of each other's existence as intelligent, feeling, human beings, even if some of us are complacent prima donnas. there are few certainties in life. i have counted only three: death, taxes, and dave doing some sex-crazed thing every few weeks. i won't pull any punches here: he is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. in fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. the only thing that has any meaning to dave is ethnocentrism. why? this isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: dave may rip apart causes that others feel strongly about right after he reads this letter. let him. by the next full moon, i will show dave how he is as wrong as wrong can be. he says that a book of his writings would be a good addition to the bible. wow! isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "they're not in here!"?

to say otherwise would be insidious. daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that dave maintains that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights. this is hardly the case. rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that if he thinks his equivocations represent progress, dave should rethink his definition of progress.

while i don't know his secret plans, i do know that his apple-polishers are tools. like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. the evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. that evil is dave, who wants nothing less than to supply the chains that bind the individual to notions of self-loathing and unworthiness. in the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that flagitious fanaticism is not new. unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. he says that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to condone illegal activities. that's a stupid thing to say. it's like saying that every word that leaves his mouth is teeming with useful information. dave's prank phone calls are designed to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. and they're working; they're having the desired effect.

there is absolutely nothing these disdainful hell-raisers will not do to destroy their enemies. they will poke into the most secret family affairs and not rest until their truffle-searching instinct digs up some barbaric incident that is calculated to finish off their unfortunate victim. every time dave tells his vicegerents that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question.

his conjectures will have consequences -- very serious consequences. and we ought to begin doing something about that. dave's put-downs must not go unchallenged. surprised? you shouldn't be, because we are at a crossroads. one road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which nugatory prigs like dave are entirely absent. the other road leads into the darkness of voyeurism. the question, therefore, is: who's driving the bus? you know the answer, don't you? you probably also know that if dave makes fun of me or insults me, i hear it, and it hurts. but i take solace in the fact that i am still able to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by dave.

his drones are delighted with the potential for violent confrontation, but given the way things are these days, we must remember that we must reach out to people with the message that there must be some ascertainable mental block that makes him so pernicious. we must alert people of that. we must educate them. we must inspire them. and we must encourage them to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. i indubitably wouldn't want to use our weaknesses to dave's advantage. i would, on the other hand, love to establish a supportive -- rather than an intimidating -- atmosphere for offering public comment. but, hey, i'm already doing that with this letter. dave is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. as i've said before, it's easy to tell if he is lying. if his lips are moving, he's lying.

if someone were to pose a threat to the survival of democracy, i'd rather it be an army of anal-retentive schizophrenics than dave, because the latter is vicious, while the former are only tactless. of course, he approximates slatternly dummkopfs as far as practical action is concerned, but differs from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. i say "of course," because the last time i told his supporters that i want to lead us all toward a better, brighter future, they declared in response, "but the average working-class person can't see through dave's chicanery." of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. to sum it all up, dave's theories are a parody of original thought.