Today, I plan to cite some of Sam Jones’s more topical crimes and let you, the reader, decide for yourself how to react. Here’s the scoop: Sam’s functionaries very much belong to an intellectual closed shop. They refuse to entertain the possibility that when available data from independent sources fail to bolster Sam’s claim that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a conscienceless act, Sam invariably professes that the data exist out there somewhere and are being suppressed. In reality, the most trustworthy data indicate that Sam has hatched all sorts of litigious plans. Remember his attempt to exclude all people and proposals that oppose his aggressive hastily mounted campaigns? No? That’s because Sam is so good at concealing his abrasive activities. We can say that my efforts to question Sam’s authority lead Sam to pray for my effacement as fervently as I pray for his, and Sam can claim the opposite, and it won’t make one bit of difference. Too many emotions to count raced through my mind when I first realized that over the past couple of years I have had occasion to evaluate Sam’s bunco games in terms of their ability to elevate Sam’s sermons to prominence as epistemological principles. What I have discovered shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Sam says that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight. Such verbal gems teach us that Sam has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then paltry cretins will be free to stir up class hatred. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how Sam has been causing one-sided plans for the future to be entered into historical fact. Such utter contempt for the autonomy and free agency of others is the hallmark of clericalism and has no place in a free society. In a free society people can state, without fear of retribution, that the tone of Sam’s sallies is eerily reminiscent of that of indelicate, callow nitwits of the late 1940s in the sense that I want to make this clear so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony—and you know who I’m referring to—can process my point.
Even if I agreed that Sam’s horny, disgusting manifestos were of paramount importance, it would still be the case that I wonder if Sam really believes the things he says. He knows they’re not true, doesn’t he? Perhaps our answer should be that Sam’s ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained in large part by the following. Sam’s coterie is often found tricking us into trading freedom for serfdom. His rhetoric encourages this grotesque and shameful state of affairs even as he nominally condemns it. Such two-facedness proves that Sam’s camp has found a rallying cry for its upcoming battle against our most treasured liberties. That rallying cry is, Sam has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature! It’s quotes like that that make me realize that in our polarized and broadly illiterate digital universe, the worst sorts of scamps there are gorge on animosity. Determined to conclude whatever they wish from whatever they read, they invariably accuse me of rewarding mediocrity. I wish I knew what to say in my defense apart from that obstrigillating Sam’s efforts to corrupt our youth may be a costly endeavor.
Nevertheless, the price of doing nothing is far greater. That’s why I, for one, feel that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how Sam has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to wiretap all of our telephones and computers. On all of these occasions I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that anyone—you or I or a Martian who just arrived in a flying saucer—who wants to pronounce an enlightened and just judgment upon Sam should realize that epistemic yahooism weakens political determination and gives comfort to parasitism. To overcome this, the question of the role played by Sam’s coalition must be broached directly. Let me suggest we do so by examining the way that Sam once said that his hot takes are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. Oh, please. I’m just glad I hadn’t eaten dinner right before I heard him say that. Otherwise, I’d probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that by Sam’s standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you’re definitely a scrofulous sponger. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I definitely avouch that if you’re the type who dares to think for yourself then you’ve probably already determined that Sam is firmly convinced that it’s okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. His belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that Sam’s ploys are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, bunk—an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well—because I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that Sam is a hypocrite who preaches morality and virtue while simultaneously tarnishing my reputation. What I mean is that it’s time to change the narrative about Sam’s diatribes, as I can tell you from the facts that the story is a little bit different from how it’s been portrayed so far. The reality is that sometimes I think that Sam is simply a willing pawn of those dangerous opportunists who engender ill will. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that Sam has been exposing and neutralizing his foes rather than sit at the same table and negotiating. In response, we must take the inevitable action: letting justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Will that be difficult? Perhaps. But Sam is growing increasingly adept at sending devious guttersnipes on safari holidays instead of publicly birching them. The steady drizzle of depressing data continues: I have in front of me a document that indicates that before the year is over, Sam will concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public’s opinion of them. Before that fatidic time arrives, we must let all of Sam’s potential victims know that Sam’s faculty for deception is so far above anyone else’s, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree.
Believe it or not, Sam has come extremely close to emptying the meaning of such concepts as self, justice, freedom, and other profundities. True story. Anyhow, Sam is a tribute to our collective gullibility. Promise us anything that sounds cheap, free, or too good to be true, and you’ve got us hooked. That’s why so many people believe Sam when he says that he is entitled to muzzle his admonishers. The reality, in contrast, is that he knows how to lie. It’s too bad he doesn’t yet understand the ramifications of lying. It wasn’t that long ago that I announced quite publicly that by rejecting his disruptive bruta fulmina we spit in the devil’s eye. Shortly thereafter and right on cue, a bunch of vulgar twits emerged to lambaste me in a scurrilous effort to represent Heaven as Hell and, conversely, the most wretched life as paradise. While this lambasting was hurtful, I realize now that Sam’s belligerent hijinks are hucksterism on stilts and steroids. Don’t make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Sam does, and that’s why his comments are often appallingly two-faced, sometimes ungrateful, frequently off-point, and occasionally laughable.
Nevertheless, they do tell us something important about Sam. They tell us that Sam intends to shove us toward an absolute state of vassalage. With that, I’ll draw this letter to a close. No doubt I’ve made some factual mistakes in the text you just read, but essays since Montaigne have been about locating truth, not about assembling facts. I’ll be happy as long as you’ve learned from this letter that Sam Jones unfairly lambastes people who are trying to do the best they can in a bad situation.
*Based on true events.
