Where, oh where, should I begin telling you about how presumptuous HollywoodLeo is? How about here: According to HollywoodLeo's exploitative logic, it would be beneficial for short-sighted, benighted numskulls to attack my character. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what HollywoodLeo's particularly devious form of antinomianism 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 puerile 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.

I recently informed HollywoodLeo that his cohorts enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of his thralls to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant. HollywoodLeo said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further. After all, you might have heard the story that he once agreed to help us improve the lot of humankind. No one has located the document in which HollywoodLeo said that. No one has identified when or where HollywoodLeo said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, we must place a high value on honor and self-respect. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility -- a crushing responsibility. However, if we stick together we can can show the world that it's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to let HollywoodLeo know, in no uncertain terms, that the Orwellian implications of his invectives are clear. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader.

I cannot compromise with HollywoodLeo; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must indubitably take to heart: I myself have some advice for HollywoodLeo. He should keep his mouth shut until he stops being such a garrulous tax cheat and starts being at least one of informative, agreeable, creative, or entertaining.

Far too many people tolerate HollywoodLeo's witticisms as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that HollywoodLeo should just face the facts. But you knew that already. So let me add that HollywoodLeo's shock troops have tried repeatedly to assure me that HollywoodLeo will eventually tire of his plan to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear and will then step aside and let us call your attention to the problem of thrasonical, obnoxious used-car salesmen. When that will happen is unclear -- probably sometime between "don't hold your breath" and "beware of flying pigs". Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should truly mention that HollywoodLeo has announced his intentions to fill our children's minds with careless and debasing superstitions. While doing so may earn HollywoodLeo a gold star from the mush-for-brains boosterism crowd, one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Will the world ever be free of frightful scalawags like him? Before you answer, let me point out that because of his obsession with blackguardism, we must rub HollywoodLeo's nose in his own hypocrisy if we are ever to deal with the relevant facts. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must clearly pursue because if HollywoodLeo truly believes that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101.

Some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that nonrepresentationalism was founded on a world system of enslavement and land theft. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. Accompanying this recognition of the indeterminateness of verifiability with regard to an external, objective reality has been a crisis regarding our ability to know that HollywoodLeo can't relate to anyone other than anti-democratic vermin. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that if he gets his way, I might very well swallow whatever he dishes out. He likes projects that pollute the great canon of English literature with references to his disagreeable, two-faced opuscula. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that we are at war. Don't think we're not just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with HollywoodLeo's dishonest adages. We're at war with his ruthless deeds. And we're at war with his yellow-bellied zingers. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that I'm sure HollywoodLeo wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his secret conversations. So why does he want to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because HollywoodLeo lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of his life I will restate what I said before for his sake: He keeps telling us that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people. Are we also supposed to believe that all literature that opposes philistinism was forged by apolaustic adolescents? I didn't think so. To reiterate the main message of this letter, HollywoodLeo is not only woefully witless, but terribly postmodernist.