The Universal Rejection Manifesto

I’ve been feeling for a week that there was something missing in my life; that I somehow forgot to do something, or have something that I don’t.  I doom scrolled Temu looking for that thing that I absolutely had to have, (like the long-haired rockstar wig for $2.99 made with real human hair — it will be here on Thursday)  but I couldn’t find what seems to be missing in my life.  Then Donald Trump almost got murdered — again!  

THAT’S IT! I know what’s been missing:

A BALLROOM! MANIFESTO!

It seems that everyone has a ‘manifesto’ these days, and I don’t.  I now seem out of place without one, so 
I had my new online friend, Chester, put one together for me.  I hope you like / hate it.

By Chester P. Tweaker, Large Language Model

(A modest proposal to oppose absolutely everything, without exception, hesitation, or snack breaks)

We, the undersigned (and the unsigned, and the ambiguously signed), hereby declare our unflinching, uncompromising, and occasionally inconvenient opposition to everything. Not some things. Not most things. Everything. This is not a phase, nor a policy position, nor a lifestyle brand. It is a total, panoramic, all-encompassing stance of principled contradiction.

We reject the premise that anything deserves acceptance. Acceptance leads to agreement, agreement leads to comfort, and comfort leads to chairs that are slightly too soft and opinions that are far too firm. We will have neither.

Article I: Against Ideas

We oppose all ideas. Good ideas are suspicious for their optimism; bad ideas are suspicious for their persistence. Neutral ideas are the worst offenders, lurking blandly in the middle like unseasoned soup. We reject innovation for being new and tradition for being old. We oppose nuance for complicating things and simplicity for oversimplifying them. We reject debate because it implies two sides, and we are against sides.

Any proposal, once proposed, becomes a thing, and therefore must be opposed. This includes this manifesto, which we oppose in advance, retroactively, and on alternating Tuesdays.

Article II: Against Things

Objects are unacceptable. Tables encourage placing items upon them, which leads to clutter, which leads to decisions, which we oppose. Chairs invite sitting, which leads to comfort, which we have already rejected. Doors imply entry and exit; we oppose both, as they suggest movement in a direction, and directions are inherently biased.

Technology is opposed for being too advanced; nature is opposed for being insufficiently updated. We reject paper for cutting us and screens for staring back at us with that faint, judgmental glow. We oppose clocks for measuring time and calendars for organizing it. Time itself is opposed for moving forward without our consent.

Article III: Against People (Respectfully)

We oppose individuals, collectives, and everyone in between. Not out of malice, but out of consistency. We oppose crowds for being too many and solitude for being too few. We oppose leadership for leading and followership for following. We reject experts for knowing too much and novices for knowing too little.

We oppose agreement among people because it creates consensus, and consensus is dangerously close to being something we might accept. Disagreement is also opposed for creating conflict, which might produce outcomes, which might be useful, which we cannot allow.

Article IV: Against Emotions

Happiness is opposed for its brightness; sadness for its gloom. Anger is opposed for its heat; calm for its suspicious lack of temperature. We oppose excitement for raising expectations and boredom for lowering them. We reject love for being too binding and indifference for being too loose.

Ambivalence, often seen as a safe harbor, is also opposed for trying to have it both ways. We insist on a consistent inconsistency: total opposition, applied evenly across all emotional states.

Article V: Against Systems

All systems are inherently problematic because they systematize. We oppose economic systems for distributing resources, political systems for organizing power, and social systems for structuring interactions. We oppose rules for restricting freedom and freedom for lacking rules.

We reject efficiency because it gets things done too quickly and inefficiency because it doesn’t. We oppose bureaucracy for its forms and anti-bureaucracy for its lack of forms. If there is a process, we oppose it; if there is no process, we oppose that too.

Article VI: Against Solutions

Solutions imply problems have been addressed, which suggests progress, which we oppose for moving forward. We reject fixes, patches, workarounds, and improvements. We oppose innovation when it solves something and stagnation when it does not.

We are particularly wary of “silver bullets,” “low-hanging fruit,” and “thinking outside the box,” as these metaphors suggest spatial orientation and success, both of which are unacceptable.

Article VII: Against Language

Words are tools, and tools build things, which we oppose. We reject nouns for labeling, verbs for acting, and adjectives for describing. Adverbs are especially offensive, as they modify in ways we cannot predict.

Punctuation is also suspect. Periods end things prematurely; commas delay the inevitable; exclamation points show enthusiasm, which we oppose; question marks invite inquiry, which may lead to answers, which we cannot permit. Parentheses (especially these) are clearly up to something.

Article VIII: Against This Manifesto

In keeping with our principles, we oppose this manifesto. It is a document, which we oppose; it contains ideas, which we oppose; it was written, which we oppose; and it is being read, which we also oppose.

However, we also oppose not having a manifesto, as that would be an absence, and we oppose absences for failing to be present. Therefore, we both require and reject this manifesto simultaneously, maintaining our commitment to comprehensive contradiction.

Conclusion: A Call to Inaction

We do not call upon you to join us, because calls to action are themselves actions, which we oppose. We do not ask for your support, as support implies agreement, which we cannot allow. We do not even suggest you consider our position, as consideration may lead to understanding, and understanding is dangerously close to acceptance.

Instead, we firmly, resolutely, and unwaveringly do nothing. And we oppose that as well.

In the end, our stance is clear: whatever is, isn’t; whatever isn’t, is; and we are against both.

Thank you for not participating.