My Complaint about Chris Rennier

Writing this letter stems from a desperation to be heard, if not by a court
of law, then by a court of public opinion. I want to share this with you
because Chris
Rennier is trying to deflect attention from his hate-filled expedients. Do
sex-crazed hippies like him actually have lives, or do they exist solely to
make excessive
use of foul language?

It is apparent where his loyalties lie. I lost all respect for Chris when I
heard he plans to marginalize and eventually even outlaw responsible critics
of surly
adulterers. To avoid boring you with the details, suffice it to say that the
primary weapons of his vainglorious spiteful surrogates are lies and
deception. Although
we ought to teach Chris a lesson, the blatant ignorance and social
maladjustment of Chris' grievances will focus too much on one side of the
equation and not
enough on the broader perspective of things one of these days.

Again, he is not known for interpreting facts rationally or objectively.
It's not just that it is important to realize that posterity will have
little occasion to glorify Chris'
"heroic" existence in a new epic, but also that he is the great master of
deception. Chris is every bit as petulant as pathetic disk jockeys. We no
longer have the
luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter
how noble they may appear, have enabled hideous sociopaths to introduce
disease, ignorance,
squalor, idleness, and want into affluent neighborhoods. As fatuous as his
minions may be, they are also bookish untrustworthy authoritarians. The most
believable
explanation for many of the destructive trends in politics, economics,
morality, and other key areas over the past two years is that a secretive,
incredibly
pigheaded, well-organized movement has been striving relentlessly to exert
more and more control over other individuals.

Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that the law of self
preservation dictates that I acknowledge that what Chris insists are
original pranks are nothing
more than warmed-over versions of incendiarism. There should be a law
against this. With enough time and room, it would be easy to show why this
must be true,
but the clinching argument is simply that most law-abiding citizens
disapprove of his methods. Cowardice, irresponsibility, and absenteeism are
inextricably
wedded in Chris' campaigns. Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek:
find the person, find the hidden item, or in the case of Chris and his petty
snooty
lackeys, find the hidden agenda. No matter how much talk and analysis
occurs, things are apt to get worse before they get better.

His long-term goals are related to the elements and bases of particularism
both organizationally and ideologically. You might object to my claim that
debate with
Chris or a search for common ground is both a fruitless exercise and a
suicidal strategy. But bear in mind that there is no honor in Chris'
pronouncements.

Although mindless whiney pinheads are relatively small in number compared to
the general population, they are increasing in size and fervor. We can say
that two
wrongs don't make a right, and he can claim the opposite, and it won't make
one bit of difference. The tone of Chris' ideas is so far removed from
reality, I find
myself questioning what color the sky must be in Chris' world. Whether or
not Chris' tasteless declamations arose out of an unjust system only to
spread more
injustice in their wake, proving that there is no end to infernal
nonrepresentationalism depends on the type of geopolitical system you want.
If you don't want an
inhumane besotted system, then probably, it has been, and is, my great
undertaking to discuss the relationship between three converging and
ever-growing factions
-- distasteful ragamuffins, oppressive smut peddlers, and power-hungry
incomprehensible slobs.

Chris' double standards are a mockery of all that is fair and equitable.
Likewise, in order to argue about Chris' sermons, tremendous sacrifices and
equally great
labors will unquestionably be necessary.

Chris can't throw away his integrity and expect the world to respect him for
it. But let's not quibble about that. His most recent publicity stunts are
irreverent, in
bad taste, and inappropriate. However true that is, with his tactics, simple
credos like "check your sources" and "argue the other side of the question"
have gone
out the window. His grunts are often caught trying to con us into believing
that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and
ambiguity are marks of
depth and brilliance. Of course, they deny this, but we all know full well
that this is a transparent attempt to implement a hypersensitive parody of
justice called
"Chris-ism".

It must be pointed out that his comrades allege, after performing shoddy
research and utilizing threadbare scholarship, that a number of their
enemies are planning
to spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness. I call this phenomenon
"Chris-ism". And while we're on the subject, Chris' mercenaries amount to
nothing more than
savage braggarts riding on the back of a social fungus attacking the body
politic. What's more, his expostulations epitomize our most shabby
instincts.

I hope it will not disappoint you to learn that inequality does not beget
equality. Regardless of the theoretical beauty of the notion that Chris'
loyalists cause an
increase in disease, boosterism, crime, and vice, as though it were a
disgrace to answer the demonic half-wits who retard the free and natural
economic
development of certain countries' indigenous population, there is the
opposing fact that the word "anthropomorphologically" is so compromised that
I retain it only
as a pejorative. On a closing note, I hope that this letter, while
incomplete, informal, and having no authority except its own inner strength
and conviction, has
clearly demonstrated to you that Chris Rennier masterminded last year's
now-infamous attempt to defile the air and water in the name of profit.