I can't see myself being active in OU any time soon. Even if I was to start posting again, I think its only fair that I earn it back like everyone else, given I've barely posted since being badged anyway.
Where, oh where, should I begin telling you about how pigheaded Birkal is? How about here: Birkal's rise to power was not accomplished without a fair amount of backstabbing, skulduggery, and unanticipated and unpredictable reversals of fortune. To get right down to it, Birkal makes a living out of plagiarism. I call this tactic of his "entrepreneurial plagiarism". Birkal and his co-conspirators have indeed raised entrepreneurial plagiarism to a fine art by using it to leach integrity and honor from our souls.
Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it? I, speaking as someone who is not an invidious heresiarch, think we do. Following this line of logic, it would appear that there'll always be some misinformed grammaticaster who's eager to complain about my use of English in this letter. He'll probably tell me that it's grammatically incorrect to use the word "insolent" when writing, "Birkal is an insolent yobbo." Well, the fact is that Birkal is an insolent yobbo, and he is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally truculent allegations.
It is grossly misleading merely to claim that Birkal uses the word "counterestablishment" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. His policy is to provoke aberrant, dictatorial urban guerrillas into action. Then, Birkal uses their responses in whatever way he sees fit, generally to toy with our opinions. He wants to unleash an unparalleled wave of poststructuralism. But what if the tables were turned? How would Birkal like that?
Perhaps Birkal received his information (or rather, misinformation) from late-night television programs and "B" movies. His conniving manuscripts leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children Birkal's enemies? The answer is almost totally obvious—this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that a man is known by the company he keeps. That's why I urge you to consider the Chaucerian panorama of Luddites in Birkal's crime syndicate: sinister sods, pathological, inhumane pamphleteers, and paltry losers, to name a few. It's almost as if Birkal wants us to think that he always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to him. Nothing else matters—except maybe to make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks. I tell you this because Birkal is typical of cynical indelicate-types in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his recommendations.
Birkal's latest stratagems have arisen like a phoenix out of the ashes and failures of their hidebound forebears. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from totalism, absolutism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. I say that because I've known a number of honorable people who have laid down their lives to put the kibosh on his shenanigans. Without exception, these people understood deeply that Birkal contends that the more strepitant the communication, the more perspicuous the message, and that, therefore, we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as him. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces ill-bred, slimy ninnyhammers (as distinct from the feebleminded, mischievous gutter-bloods who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that statism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. In reality, contrariwise, Birkal doesn't want to acknowledge that his ignorance is matched only by his arrogance. In fact, Birkal would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because he insists that women are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras. How can he be so blind? Very easily. Basically, some people think it's a bit extreme of me to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Birkal is widely seen as unforgivable for exploiting public sympathy in order to bolster support for his doolally gibes. Expect him to lay low for a while and allow public amnesia to expurgate the immediacy of his sins. Afterwards, he'll sincerely return to converting our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle. My hope, though, is that the second time around, people will be aware of the fact that we wouldn't have a problem with unilateralism if it weren't for Birkal. Although he created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Birkal insists that he can solve the problem if we just grant him more power. How naďve does he think we are? Truly, my position is that Birkal's partisans get so hypnotized by his simplistic "good guys and bad guys" approach to history that they do not hear what he is really saying. Birkal, in contrast, argues that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Birkal. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that his simplistic, bumper-sticker-like quotes about sadism lead many nit-picky malcontents to believe that his stroppy, pusillanimous lynch mob is a benign and charitable agency. Am I aware of how Birkal will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because I frequently wish to tell him that this is a transparent attempt to peonize and enslave his rivals. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. Now that you've read the bulk of this letter, it should not come as a surprise that Birkal represents a new breed of loud dolts. However, this fact bears repeating again and again, until the words crack through the hardened exteriors of those who would dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. I am referring, of course, to the likes of Birkal.