Last 49er on madden cover was garrison Hearst and he broke his ankle... Must read | Page 3

It is imperative that I give you the following information, which Mr. Patrick Willis wants concealed from the public. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Patrick's particularly maledicent form of masochism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of crazy politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. He lies routinely—even under oath. Am I saying that he uses all sorts of psychological jujitsu to brainwash people into believing that a book of his writings would be a good addition to the Bible? Yes. That it seems a bit late in the day for him to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart his fork-tongued schemes? Maybe. That the mere mention of his loathsome name jacks my blood pressure up into dangerous territory? Definitely.

This makes the issue an even greater tragedy. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to work together towards a shared vision, I must explain to the population at large that to someone whose eyes are open, Patrick's constantly repeated mantra that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel is an insanely abominable notion. By way of contrast, consider my personal mantra that Patrick and his fans are on a recruiting campaign, trying to convince everyone they meet to participate in descending to character assassination and name calling. Don't join that gestapo; instead, remember the scriptures: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Do you really think Patrick will ever learn from his mistakes? I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Patrick to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Patrick claims that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. Although he has managed to avoid indictment, or even a consensus that he did anything illegal, he is swinging pretty hard on some slender evidence. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that Patrick loves getting up in front of people and telling them that he is the way, the truth, and the light. He then boasts about how he'll procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror sometime soon. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Patrick Willis. Of course, he soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, Patrick contends that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from?

I could substantiate what I'm saying about lackadaisical parasites, but I don't feel that that's necessary because we all know what they're like. Even if we accepted Patrick's barbs, so what? Does that mean that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't? Of course not. Perhaps I take seriously the view that those who destabilize the already volatile social fabric that Patrick purportedly aims to save do us all a great injustice, but remember that he really ought to to take something for his hysterical paranoia. I've heard that chlorpromazine works well. Indeed, some sort of medication should awaken Patrick to the fact that his Manichaean style of thought makes him intolerant of compromise. I will now cite the proof of that statement. The proof begins with the observation that if Patrick can't cite the basis for his claim that he is a man of peace then he should just shut up about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that we can't stand idly by and let Patrick consign most of us to the role of his servants or slaves? The facts are, succinctly, these: First, I've never encountered anything as pretentious as his wheelings and dealings. Second, I stand by what I've written before, that Patrick wants to hand over the country to fatuitous, gruesome guttersnipes. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Patrick's gossamer grasp of reality.

Generally speaking, Patrick claims that it's okay to produce culturally degenerate films and tapes. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. If it turns out that there's undoubtedly no way to prevent him from tilling the pudibund side of the gangsterism garden then I guess it'll be time to throw my cards on the table and call it quits. I'll just have to give up trying to cast a gimlet eye on Patrick's harangues and accept the fact that he is as birdbrained as he is invidious. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that he denies that he has been violating the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. His denials clearly contradict reports from eyewitnesses who saw him undermining liberty in the name of liberty. I'd like to see Patrick spin his way out of that one.

If history follows its course, it should be evident that it is morally unjustifiable for Patrick to sap people's moral stamina. Yes, I could add that there is no justification on any level whatsoever for his callous musings, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that pretending to be a victim is Patrick's mawkish attempt to promote mediocrity over merit. Need I say more? I don't think so, but this I will say: Patrick swears that sciolism provides an easy escape from a life of frustration, unhappiness, desperation, depression, and loneliness. Clearly, he's living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. Back in the real world, Patrick had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, he gave us neopaganism, antidisestablishmentarianism, and tribalism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since Patrick can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. He could accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice.

I try to avoid blanket statements and broad generalizations when I propose that inconsiderate ideas are continually escaping the confines of Patrick's (obviously very weak) mind. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: Absolutism advances Patrick's long-term goal of plutocratic global dictatorship. Patrick's improvident exegeses are a sin against nature. It may be more correct, however, to say that his malignant words are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Patrick has been putting the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burning incense to the idol Mammon. He's doing some pretty mischievous things. Or, to restate that without meiosis, Patrick often misuses the word "saccharogalactorrhea" to mean something vaguely related to credentialism or recidivism or somesuch. Patrick's legatees, realizing that an exact definition is anathema to what they know in their hearts, are usually content to assume that Patrick is merely trying to say that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract.

How can we expect to put the kibosh on Patrick's crotchets if we walk right into Patrick's trap? We can't, and that's why he criticizes me for shattering the illusion that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that he serves as wisdom to the mighty and succor to the brave. If he wants to play critic, he should possess real and substantial knowledge about whatever it is he's criticizing. He shouldn't simply assume that I and others who think he's a wrongheaded schizophrenic are secretly using etheric attachment cords to drain people's karmic energy. Didn't Patrick tell his patsies that he wants to reopen wounds that seem scarcely healed? Did he first give any thought to what would happen if he did? Of course, that question is ridiculous—as ridiculous as his soulless, lubricious contrivances.

If you've read this far then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. To pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior has never been something that I wanted to do. Never. Patrick has so frequently lied about how pessimism is a beautiful entelechy that makes us whole that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that Patrick promotes a victimization hierarchy. He and his encomiasts appear at the top of the hierarchy, naturally, and therefore profess that they deserve to be given more money, support, power, etc. than anyone else. Other groups, depending on Patrick's view of them, are further down the list. At the bottom are those of us who realize that Patrick believes that he is a voice of probity. That's just wrong. He further believes that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. Wrong again!

Patrick has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but in public, Patrick promises that he'd never drive us into a state of apoplexy. In private, however, he secretly tells his yes-men that he'll do exactly that. I think we've seen this movie before: It's called Business as Usual for Patrick. Following this line of logic, it would appear that he wants us to believe that it is fickle to question his hypnopompic insights. How stupid does he think we are? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that we desperately need to preserve the peace. It's not enough merely to keep our heads down and pray that Patrick doesn't turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency. As I like to say, if you set the bar low, you jump low. I'll end this letter with a personal invitation to Mr. Patrick Willis himself: If you care to respond to what I wrote, please do, especially if you think that I am being inaccurate or unfair. I do not wish to misrepresent you in any way whatsoever. Pax vobiscum.