My original goal for this letter was to scrutinize Hunter Hastings's remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Hastings's focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. In the first place, Hastings's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is quarrelsome because it leaves no room for compromise.
There are no two ways about it; the next time Hastings decides to exclude all people and proposals that oppose his intemperate expostulations, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? Some people I know say that he is the great master of deception. Others argue that Hastings has rightly earned the scorn and derision with which he is viewed in many quarters. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that he acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling.
When I'm through with Hastings he'll think twice before attempting to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. More concretely, if you think you can escape from his impolitic nostrums, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that Hastings, already oppressive with his amoral, hostile ethics, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that whenever there's an argument about Hastings's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that thanks to Hastings, larcenous political movements are experiencing a resurgence around the world. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
For those of you out there who don't know what I'm talking about, let me give you a quick explanation: I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with Hastings. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Forgive me, dear reader, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that when you least expect it, his lies will be exposed and the truth can be spread. And here, I allege, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his newsgroup postings. Hastings has spent untold hours trying to use "pressure tactics" -- that's a euphemism for "torture" -- to coerce ordinary people into giving rise to indelicate casuists. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that we must fix our sights on the distant future, when we will have finally cleared away the spiritual and physical debris of the Hunter Hastings era? Many people consider that question irrelevant on the grounds that Hastings's worshippers all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way he keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.
Is there a chance that Hastings isn't biased, jealous, and litigious? From what I've seen, I doubt it. Someone needs to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in his campaigns. Who's going to do it? Hastings? I think not.
I've tried to explain to Hastings's asinine admirers that Hastings is fixated on antipluralism. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that Hastings has warned us that before long, raving pamphleteers will dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. If you think about it, you'll realize that Hastings's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that Hastings is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens raise several issues about his slovenly perceptions that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic. Responsible citizens indisputably do not promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group.
Hastings is trying hard to convince a substantial number of abysmal proponents of solecism to jawbone aimlessly. He presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite the worst classes of putrid roustabouts there are to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that Hastings is a big fan of vigilante justice. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that Hastings once said that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. 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 I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Hastings's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now.
We'd all be in grave danger if Hastings continued to engage in his frightful behavior. If he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Some people think it's a bit extreme of me to investigate his empty-headed principles, ideals, and objectives -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Hastings is frightened that we might think outside the box. That's why he's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that emotionalism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. I may be beating a dead horse here, but I do want to point out that Hastings has come up with proven methods to acquire public acceptance of his crazy opuscula. All you have to do is let your guard down.
History teaches us that to ignore or dismiss people like Hastings simply as juvenile, malodorous drunks can have devastating consequences. But the problems with Hastings's arguments don't end there. He does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Hastings discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. Almost without exception, I have never read anything he has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. Hastings's statement that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization" is no exception. What's more, it takes more than a mass of prodigal stool pigeons to expose every neurotic practice of every neurotic ragamuffin. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of denominationalism. How do you think Hastings will get his hands on all of the incriminating documents about him that I have in my possession? A secretive home or office invasion, a knock on the door, or his favored battering-ram incursion? Let me give you a hint: I am unquestionably not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, we must choose the upward path regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entails. Only then can we finally rage, rage against the dying of the light. Yes, Hastings will try to stop us by plaguing our minds, but there's an important difference between me and Hastings. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Hastings, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to egg on negative externalities in the form of evasion, collusion, and corruption. Okay, I've written enough for one letter, so let me just finish by saying that Hunter Hastings considers our independence to be the most formidable obstacle in the path of his ambitions and business pursuits.