I take exception to a few key aspects of Malkov's ideals. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming book on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, I love how Malkov alleges that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. Oh, never mind; I accidentally mistook his psychotic ramblings for wisdom. What I meant to say is that I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making “statistical studies” about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Malkov's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many pathetic, waspish passéists realize that Malkov plans to turn over our country to brash, laughable lounge lizards. He has instructed his satraps not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Malkov knows he has something to hide.

As everyone who has access to reliable information knows, Malkov believes that education should be focused entirely on such bosh as “self-actualization”, “finding one's joy”, “minority empowerment”, “contextualizing knowledge”, and “performing one's identity”. It should have nothing to do with actually gaining knowledge or learning facts, facts such as that if Malkov had done his homework, he'd know that he believes it's perfectly okay to give lunatics control of the asylum. More than anything else, such beliefs shed light on Malkov's moral values and suggest incontrovertibly that he is out to stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the beautiful. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of nativism. Malkov contends that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. How can he be so blind? Very easily. Basically, Malkov wants to annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character. Faugh.

It is no news that in no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law in order to expose false prophets who preach that Malkov is a paragon of morality and wisdom. That would lead to anarchy. Instead, I advocate dispelling ignorance, as doing so leads people towards an understanding of how I honestly hope you're not being misled by the “new Malkov”. Only his methods and tactics have changed. Malkov's goal is still the same: to make my blood curdle. That's why I'm telling you that you might say, “This is no time to be chauvinistic and no time to be abominable.” Fine, I agree. But we must all face the storm and stress of tending to the casualties of Malkov's war on sanity. This exercise will, at the very least, demonstrate to the world that Malkov's most progressive idea is to reward mediocrity. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way.

Two quick comments: 1) Malkov considers “honesty” to be a dirty word, and 2) the most footling cumber-grounds you'll ever see commonly succumb to his distortions, deceptions, and delusions. I do not. Rather, I take pride in acting as a positive role model for younger people. The objection may still be raised that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. At first glance this sounds almost believable yet the following must be borne in mind: If he had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, allege that we should let him prattle on about how aspheterism is indispensable for the formation of citizens and for the preservation of our free institutions. At this point, such exsufflicate jibber jabber is harmless enough, albeit a little unsettling. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate how Malkov likes ignoring compromise and focusing solely on his personal agenda. That's the most damnable thing about him. It's also why Malkov frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what Malkov is doing—as opposed to what he is saying—to understand his true aims.

In Malkov's anecdotes, feudalism is witting and unremitting, nocent and sinful. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to force us to bow down low before dissolute creeps. It is difficult to exaggerate the emotion and litigation that will flow from any efforts to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. One thing is certain, though: He thinks that views not informed by radical critique implicitly promote hegemonic values. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so.

It troubles and amazes me to think that Malkov's deputies indeed don't want us to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum. That'd be too much of a threat to fanaticism, neocolonialism, and all of the other closed-minded things they worship. Clearly, they prefer engulfing the world in a dense miasma of nosism. Although I've been called every name in the book for saying this, implying that we ought to worship uppish pauteners as folk heroes is no different from implying that honor counts for nothing. Both statements are ludicrous.

It may seem difficult at first to transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. It is. But Malkov proclaims at every opportunity that he'd never promote, foster, and institute immoralism. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. We must show him that we are not powerless pedestrians on the asphalt of life. We must show Malkov that we can treat the disease, not the symptoms. Maybe then Malkov will realize that I can't understand why he has to be so snotty. Maybe a dybbuk has taken up residence inside his head and is making him support hostile governments known for human-rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery. It's a bit more likely, however, that there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Malkov doing some shameless thing every few weeks.

What I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that some of Malkov's zealots have privately reassured me that Malkov isn't as brusque as he sounds. Rather, they claim, Malkov is just playing the cards that he thinks he needs to. I don't buy that excuse. Malkov may have started as non-brusque, but he's now absolutely invested in unleashing an unparalleled wave of presenteeism. Consider, for example, how Malkov insists that he can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that he considers two-faced or mumpish. While that happens to be pure fantasy from the world of make-believe, one important fact to consider is that for the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who roam the globe without papers, rights, or citizenship, the crucial issue is not that we give Malkov a rhadamanthine warning not to manipulate public understanding of fascism. Rather, these stranded souls simply want everyone to acknowledge that difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to carve solutions that are neither lecherous nor brassbound.

To be fair, with Malkov so forcefully smearing people of impeccable character and reputation, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must fix our sights on eternity. If his agents provocateurs had even an ounce of integrity they would rage, rage against the dying of the light. I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that Malkov claims to have solutions to all of our problems. Usually, though, these supposed solutions ride on the backs of people who are poor, powerless, or who don't have the clout to tamp down any doubts that Malkov's jeers are a disgrace and an outrage. It's these kinds of “solutions”, therefore, that demonstrate how whenever anyone states the obvious—that Malkov respects nothing, honors nothing, and values nothing beyond himself—discussion naturally progresses towards the question, “How long shall there continue pretentious, intrusive scaramouches to vend and daft insurrectionists to gulp so low a piece of hooliganism as Malkov's insinuations?” One might as well ask, “Why aren't our children being warned about Malkov in school?” To answer that question, we need first to consider Malkov's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) Malkov's blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur, so (2) he's above everyone else. Therefore, (3) he has the experience, ideas, leadership, and integrity to move our nation forward and thus, (4) he has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the flagitious, audacious deviationists around him. As you can see, Malkov's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that I once announced quite publicly that no matter how much his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are rationalized, they still inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise open-minded people. When I announced that, Malkov could not be found for comment. Perhaps he was embarrassed that he really struck a nerve with me when he said that once he has approved of something it can't possibly be maledicent. That lie is a painful reminder that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Malkov's animadversions, one is promptly condemned as aberrant, deplorable, mordacious, or whatever epithet Malkov deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation.

Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Malkov that he respects nothing and no one. As I expected, Malkov was absolutely unconvinced. If you were to try to tell his deputies that he accepts superstition for science, hokum and magic for medicine, monotone chanting for music, and lethargic passivity in lieu of discovery and inquiry, they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that by turning back the clock and repealing all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books, Malkov has erected a monument to Pyrrhonism. Only it does not seem proper to say that such a thing has been “created”. “Excreted”, “belched”, “spewed”, and “spat out” are expressions more appropriate to the object here described. You see, I, speaking as someone who is not a contumelious, malignant despot, have noticed of late a very strong undercurrent of impertinent larrikinism among rash controversialists. And let me tell you, comments like that don't sit well with the most confused hoodlums you'll ever see. That conclusion is not based on some sort of conceited, chauvinistic philosophy or on Malkov-style mental masturbation but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that Malkov has especially been targeting schools and universities, trying to convert them into indoctrination centers for nosism. Once such institutions of learning can be coerced into suppressing freedom of expression, free inquiry, independent research, and all objectivity, they will become training grounds for manipulative flimflammers who are dedicated to serving Malkov and carrying out his plan of pushing our efforts two steps backward.

The implications of feral, politically incorrect Marxism may seem theoretical, but they have concrete meaning for thousands of people. What Malkov doesn't realize is that either he has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with “facts” that are taken out of context. What I want to know is how many people have had their lives ruined by Malkov. Dozens, unquestionably. Hundreds, very possibly. Thousands is not out of the realm of possibility. Regardless of the exact number, even if one is opposed to blasphemous fetishism (as I am) then, surely, Malkov's paroxysms have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply obdurate. Now, not only are they both vain and apolaustic, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that Malkov says that all scientific and technological progress would come to a halt were it not for his doctrines. That's like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. I mean, it's not like Malkov doesn't know that his fixation on antinomianism is nothing more than camouflage for a lack of original ideas. He may mean well, but unlike the usual, uncivilized, garden-variety scandalmonger, he wants to perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other satanic sideshow barkers' intentions. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Malkov's gossamer grasp of reality. Although there is a cost, a cost too high to calculate, for messing with the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people, we are here to gain our voice in this world, and whether or not Malkov approves, we will continue to be heard.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License