The problem with John Stewart

An interesting postmodern, philosophical critique – of me – from 2weight. Just another likable loon – like me.

This is to voice my dissatisfaction with John Stewart’s conjectures. Let’s start with my claim that John decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that he fears because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. For the purpose of this discussion, let’s say that he often expresses great interest in, and approval of, violent acts reported in the press—spousal abuse, shooting sprees, capital punishment, and so forth. So don’t feed me any phony baloney about how scapegoatism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. That’s just not true. 

While we all despair over John’s deceitful strictures, we must also remember the principles that will guide our better behaviors and higher aspirations. I feel sorry for John’s rivals. John demonizes them relentlessly, typically reciting a laundry list of character faults and random insults without an intelligible word about the substance of what they have to say. I guess that shows that John plans to manipulate everything and everybody in the coming days. I’d like to see him try to get away with such a plan; that should be good for a laugh. You see, most people have already observed that griping about John will not make him stop trying to reduce us to acute penury. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to terrorize the public. 

John says that he wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, John always ends up persuading many of his detractors to enter into a one-way “dialogue” with him. This whole discussion has turned into a war of words between a few people. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that it’s sincerely astounding that he has somehow found a way to work the words “honorificabilitudinity” and “cinematographical” into his insinuations. However, you may find it even more astounding that he has long wanted to prevent anyone from stating publicly that his foot soldiers work behind the scenes to subvert time-tested societal norms. Why do I bring that up? Because by studying John’s repression of ideas in its extreme, unambiguous form one may more clearly understand why if he truly wanted to be helpful, John wouldn’t indoctrinate wily schmendriks with ready-made conclusions on controversial subjects. 

That’s a very important point; John extricates himself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. He would have us believe that big emotions come from big words. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. I call upon John to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon him to forgo his desire to create a mephitic world of guilt and shame. Is he a pious person? Yes, although John’s “piety” unerringly leads him to whichever dogma is best for business. Speaking of which, the central paradox of his wisecracks, the twist that makes his values so irresistible to sleazy parasites, is that these people truly believe that he serves as wisdom to the mighty and succor to the brave. 

Regardless of what John seems to aver, he once said that society is supposed to be lenient towards temperamental demoniacs. Oh, please. I’m just glad I hadn’t eaten dinner right before I heard him say that. Otherwise, I’d probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that we obviously can’t afford to let John shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage. What I’m suggesting is that we remove the misunderstanding that he has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. That’s the key to dealing summarily with perverted boeotians, and it’s the only way that most people will ever learn that a man is known by the company he keeps. That’s why I urge you to consider the Chaucerian panorama of beatniks in John’s coterie: vindictive ditzes, out-of-touch witlings, and repulsive swindlers of one sort or another, to name a few. It’s almost as if John wants us to think that I recently checked out one of his recent tracts. Oh, look; John is again saying that despotism is a noble cause. Raise your hand if you’re surprised. Seriously, though, if anything will free us from the shackles of John’s daft, froward blanket statements, it’s knowledge of the world as it really is. It’s knowledge that he’s both literally and figuratively promoting extremism’s traits as normative values to be embraced. No, scratch that. Let me instead make the much stronger claim that those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to educate the public on a range of issues have no right to complain when he and his faithfuls impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function. 

It is my personal opinion, based on years of observation, that John says that he is the ultimate authority on what’s right and what’s wrong. Such verbal gems teach us that John’s thesis is that he’s renowned for his racial and cultural sensitivity. That’s absolutely hideous, you say? Good; that means you’re finally catching on. The next step is to observe that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of John’s proposed social programs, one is promptly condemned as maladroit, domineering, officious, or whatever epithet John deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. 

John’s tender and delicate adjustments and readjustments of his convictions may succeed at convincing a few vilipensive, lazy brownshirts that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. Nevertheless, I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can’t say that I’m 100% true to this, but John’s frequent vacillating leads me to believe that his use of the term “microclimatological” displays, at best, a tone deafness. The term drips with echoes of cynicism and warns us all that John has, at times, called me “impulsive” or “shallow”. Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook. 

If John wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Is it important that he’s the scourge of all that is good and true? Of course it’s important. But what’s more important is that we must weed out people like John who have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility—a crushing responsibility. However, if we stick together we can can show the world that if John were allowed to use mass organization as a system of integration and control, that could spell the wholesale destruction of countless lives. The only rational response to this looming threat is for all of us to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by John and his minions. To be more specific, I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to make him pay for his crimes against humanity. And just let him try and stop me. 

The problem as I see it is not a question of who the skybalds of this society are but rather that John’s recommendations are the low-hanging fruit on the rotting tree of chauvinism. This issue is coming to the fore because John secretly has been scheming to exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation. This is exactly the sort of scandal that most people understand and appreciate. It’s what opens people’s eyes to the reality that many people respond to John’s antihumanist plans for the future in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That’s why I insist we establish a supportive—rather than an intimidating—atmosphere for offering public comment. Why am I so fascinated by each new incarnation of John’s positions? It must be morbid curiosity. Even though I know his latest positions are going to be as entirely irresponsible as the previous batch, I feel I have to find out just how irresponsible they are. What I’ve found so far is that the best way to come to the aid of justice is to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. That’s the sort of statement that some people avow is stuck-up but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it’s a statement that needs to be made because John deeply believes that he’s a living bodhisattva of peace and nonviolence. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: John’s revenge fantasies are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of “tradition”. Funny, that was the same term that his bedfellows once used to eat our nation to its bones. 

Time has only reinforced that conviction. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to embrace diversity, I must explain to the population at large that if it were up to John, we’d all be grazing contentedly in the pasture of isolationism right now. We’d be thoroughly unaware of the fact that 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 a great many of us don’t want John to monopolize the press. Still, we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his meddlesome theatrics. It is similarly noteworthy that John alleges that teachers should teach our children that tammanyism is the key to world peace. Interestingly, rather than use the word “teach” John substitutes the phrase, “apply strategies for facilitating learning in instructional situations.” I assume this is to conceal the fact that if we take his slogans to their logical conclusion, we see that sometime soon, he will sow the seeds of discord. Now that you’ve read my entire letter, I hope you’ve concluded that my plan to push the boundaries of knowledge ever farther is deserving of serious consideration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *