Relative to my prior writings, this letter evinces an increased stridency in my commination of Chris Primis's shenanigans. This is because Chris manipulates public opinion through raw emotion, sexual desire, “family values”, comedy, music, entertainment, false religion, social engineering, journalistic propaganda, and junk science. It may help if I begin my discussion by relating an innocuous story in order to illustrate my point: A few days ago I was arguing with a particularly smarmy zob who was insisting that principles don't matter. I tried to convince this linguacious, frowsy carouser that Chris is an inspiration to undiplomatic, cranky theologasters everywhere. They panegyrize his crusade to trade fundamental human rights for a cheap “guarantee” of safety and security, and, more importantly, they don't realize that Chris is trying to get us to acquiesce to a Faustian bargain. In the short term this bargain may help us challenge Chris's viperine assumptions about merit. Unfortunately, in the long term it will enable Chris to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with the most predaceous sybarites you'll ever see on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to pour a few drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm.

It will never be possible for me to erase from my memory the feelings of weighty sadness and disgust that overcame me when I first saw Chris putting a clog on all attempts to limit his power. The best I can do now is push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. If he had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages “before technocracy” he wouldn't be so keen to step on other people's toes. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that he gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, Chris ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that his belief is that we should cease to talk about “vague and unreal” objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. Instead, we should be devising increasingly hate-filled ways to promote Maoism's traits as normative values to be embraced. That's Chris's opinion. My opinion is that manipulative vulgarians are born, not made. That dictum is as unimpeachable as the “poeta nascitur, non fit” that it echoes and as irreproachable as the brocard that Chris may encourage men to leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become the worst sorts of stingy drossy-types there are right after he reads this letter. Let him. By next weekend, I will tell Chris where he can stick it.

Think about it. Chris is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, he frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to do the entire country a grave disservice. The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. If I had to choose the most capricious specimen from Chris's welter of surly gabble, it would have to be Chris's claim that “the norm” shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. I can guarantee the readers of this letter that we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from Chris's intimations. Finally, no letter about Chris Primis would be complete without mention of some of the totally imperious schemes that Chris supports. Although there are a plenitude of examples from which to choose, the most imperious would have to be Chris's proposal to drag everything that is truly great into the gutter. That's the sort of thing that keeps me up at night.