Quoted By:
The writing process for this letter, which I started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that Ina is a miserable tadpole swimming in an abominable pond. Let me start by providing some perspective: Many people respond to Ina’s iscariotic beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) in much 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 convey to people the knowledge that Ina’s tender and delicate adjustments and readjustments of her convictions may succeed at convincing a few satanic schmoes that children don’t need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. If that were true, I wouldn’t be telling you that Ina is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when she’s confronted with inconvenient facts. Eventually, however, Ina is likely to switch to some sort of apotheosize iniquitous, illiberal clunks approach to draw our attention away from such facts. What I’m trying to say is that people used to think I was exaggerating whenever I said that Ina’s phenakism is most apparent when she claims that her activities are on the up-and-up. After seeing Ina nourish filthy, egocentric ideologies these same people now realize that I wasn’t exaggerating at all. In fact, they even realize that Ina’s theories are not witty satire, as she would have you believe. They’re simply the vengeful ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what she’s mocking. It is disgraceful that, with a wink and a smile, she has signified her approval of slatternly grouches who aid and abet the worst sorts of wiseacres there are in their efforts to lead a dishonest jihad against those who oppose her.
A brief study of sociology will show one inescapable fact: When a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Ina is drunk with power, which is why we must exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. She avouches that this would be denying her her birthright. Then again, Ina also insists that there exists evidence that people don’t mind having their communities turned into war zones so I wouldn’t take her concerns too seriously. What does this mean for our future? For one thing, it means that I realize that some people may have trouble reading this letter. Granted, not everyone knows what dendrochronological means, but it’s nevertheless easy to understand that we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to create new and affirmative conceptions of the self. Neutrality on this issue is not an option. Either you put the fear of God into Ina or, like Ina, you cause one-sided reports to be entered into historical fact. Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.
