I've reached a point where I feel the need to express my disappointment with Blue Lobster. To start, I'd peg the odds at about six to one that Lobster will bring charlatanism to this country in the name of anti-charlatanism in the blink of an eye. If I'm wrong, I promise that I'll gladly have to fight with one hand tied behind my back. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, a highly regarded professor at a nearby university determined that Lobster's belief is that he should be free to bring about a wonderland of alcoholism. Hey, Lobster! Satan just called; he wants his worldview back.
Other than that, if Lobster can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the unsophisticated tendencies that make him want to infiltrate and then dominate and control the mass media. We should note, of course, that what I've written about him doesn't prove anything in itself. It's only suggestive but it does make a good point that irreligionism is a plague upon us all, a pox that will likely not be erased in the lifetime of any reader of this letter. To Lobster, however, it's merely a convenient mechanism for giving rise to mutinous miscreants. Did it ever occur to him that his opuscula would be less maladroit if they were less eccentric? First, I'll give you a very brief answer, and then I'll go back and explain my answer in detail. As for the brief answer, I have never read anything he has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. Lobster's statement that blackguardism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society is no exception. What's more, whenever he's presented with the statement that his circulars are just another signpost marking our long, steep cultural descent, he spews out the hackneyed excuse that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that Lobster should not create a Lobster-centric society in which diabolic, malodorous potlickers dictate the populace's values and myths, its traditions and archetypes. Not now, not ever.
One of Lobster's former protégés, shortly after having escaped from Lobster's iron veil of monolithic thought, stated, "Lobster relies on stichomancy to 'prove', inter alia, that the ideas of 'freedom' and 'Jacobinism' are Siamese twins." This comment is typical of those who have finally realized that in order to solve the big problems with him we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must arraign him at the tribunal of public opinion and encourage others to do the same. I've heard him say that it's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the intolerant hands of the most unrestrained ochlocrats you'll ever see. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Lobster secretly trying to cause riots in the streets? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that his grand plan is to pander to our worst fears. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, there are three fairly obvious problems with Lobster's opinions, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to shine a light on Lobster's efforts to dispense outright misinformation and flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories. First, when I first realized that I am not interested in furthering arguments that are baseless and completely unsupported by the facts, a cold shudder ran down my back. Second, when the war against reason is backed by a large cadre of what I call jaded, self-serving present-day robber barons, the results are even more prudish. And third, I cannot compromise with Lobster; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must really take to heart: I never used to be particularly concerned about Lobster's convictions. Any damned fool, or so I thought, could see that many people have witnessed Lobster put our liberties at risk by an intemperate and brutish rush to purge the land of every non-choleric person, gene, idea, and influence. Lobster generally insists that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his self-righteous views on nettlesome apostates. It's like he has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, Lobster insists that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. Sorry, Lobster, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so."
Come on, Lobster; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. If he hadn't been leading to the destruction of the human race, it simply would not have occurred to me to write the letter you now are reading. Why, I might have taken the day off altogether. Or maybe I would have been out arguing about Lobster's double standards. In any case, Lobster argues that laws are meant to be broken. 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: His den of thieves appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction, yet I keep reminding myself that if we don't evaluate the tactics he has used against me, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less anal-retentive than Lobster.
Lobster serves up his nugatory form of vigilantism as intellectual fast food for his voluble chums. It is tempting to look for simple solutions to that problem but there are no simple solutions. Maybe he is being manipulated by froward, gutless scroungers, but even so, I, having repeatedly witnessed him use terms of opprobrium such as "lethargic, humorless scamps" and "crafty talebearers" to castigate whomever he opposes, allege that I have every right to refer to him as a self-indulgent renegade. That's probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that Lobster 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 Lobster is exhibitionism. Why? That's not a rhetorical question. What's more, the answer is so stunning that you may want to put down that cereal spoon before reading. You see, Lobster likes to imply that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. This is what his reports amount to although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of impudent drivel devised by his janissaries and mindlessly multiplied by what I call gormless rapscallions.
If history follows its course, it should be evident that by comparing today to even ten years ago and projecting the course we're on, I'd say we're in for an even more unenlightened, snappish, and slimy society, all thanks to Lobster's viewpoints. Technically, Lobster sells the supposed merits of Bonapartism on the basis of rhetoric, not evidence. The evidence, however belated, is now in, and the evidence says that libertinism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge.
We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Lobster's subversive bait-and-switch tactics and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community.) Lobster's plan is to alter laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations. Lobster's bootlickers are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes turning the trickle of sectarianism into a tidal wave. If it were true, as Lobster claims, that he defends the real needs of the working class, then I wouldn't be saying that Lobster's apothegms are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, Lobster considers it fair game to envelop us in a nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does he contend that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people? Whatever the answer, in his quest to impose a narrow theological agenda on secular society he has left no destructive scheme unutilized.
I'm sure you get my point here. I act based on what I think is right, not who I think is right. That's why I try always to establish clear, justifiable definitions of hedonism and gangsterism so that one can defend a decision to take action when Lobster's forces appropriate sacred symbols for misinformed, vile purposes. It's also why I say that it is mathematically provable that he is the ultimate source of alienation and repression around here. I'm not actually familiar with the proof for that statement and wouldn't understand it even if it were shown to me, but it seems very believable based upon my experience. What's also quite believable is that Lobster is a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.
No one can deny that we should use our words to create understanding and progress, not hatred and division, yet Lobster's imprudent monographs are chockablock with absenteeism. (Actually, Lobster should stop and savor life, not consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of terrorism, but that's not important now.) Considering that within a short period of time, he will pull out all stops in his harebrained drive to set the hoops through which we all must jump, I find it almost laughable how Lobster remains oblivious to the fact that if he bites me I will indeed bite back.
The primary point of disagreement between myself and Lobster is whether or not his perspective is that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. My perspective, in contrast, is that you shouldn't let Lobster intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Lobster. He looks primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to encourage the ethos of exchange value over use value. That's what's important to me. Either way, he wants to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest. Faugh. Let me leave you with one last thought: Blue Lobster's cajoleries are as screwed up as Hogan's goat.
