A meeting of some sort is assembling. A Speaker stands at the front of the room, addressing his acolytes.
Speaker: Mr. Secretary, please call this meeting to order.
Secretary: I hereby declare this inaugural meeting of the Organization of Against-ness into order.
Speaker: What is the first order of business on the agenda?
Secretary: A statement of principles of our against-ness, sir.
Speaker: Right. Prinicple number one: we are for nothing and against everything. Principle number two…
Secretary: So, let me get this straight for the notes: we are for nothing, but against everything?
Speaker: No we are against everything. We are for nothing.
Acolyte #1: But isn’t that just another way of saying we are for being against something, especially if you consider nothing something?
Speaker: No! Shut up! We are for nothing! I mean, we are against everything.
(A Master enters, attended by attendants)
Speaker: Who are you?
Master: We are the organization of for-ness. We seek to promote for-ness in solidarity with any organization with any stated purpose of for-ness or against-ness. We have come here to state our support for your Organization of Against-ness.
Speaker: We reject your endorsement on the very principle of its for-ness!
Master: And we embrace your rejection as it is your right to exercise your against-ness in response to our for-ness. Nonetheless, we are still for your against-ness.
Speaker: I resent your being for our against-ness. I cannot allow our organization to formally be for your for-ness of our against-ness. I repeat myself: We are against your for-ness!
Master: Your stated position of against-ness of our for-ness is completely acceptable to us. We are totally for your against-ness of our for-ness of your aforementioned position of stated against-ness for your previously vocalized stance of against-ness in response to our for-ness of your against-ness.
Acolyte #1: Is anybody else confused?
Speaker: No! Shut up! (addressing the Master) How can you be for something that you are so obviously against?
Master: We are for everything, including against-ness. We are against nothing.
Speaker: Aha! So you are against nothing!? Then you have now contradicted yourself!
Master: No, I simply said that we are for…
Speaker: No, you said you are against nothing. Hypocrite…
Master: So, does this mean that, if I am against nothing than you are for our being against nothing?
Speaker: As I told you before, we are for nothing and against…
Master: Aha! Now you have misspoken. So you are for something! Even if it is just nothing!
Speaker: No, we are against nothing, by which I mean, we are for nothing and against nothing all at the same time.
(A Leader enters, leading his Followers)
Speaker/Master: Now who are you?
Leader: I am ambivalent! I am neither for, nor against nothing or something. I remain neutral.
Speaker: Then, surely you can talk some sense into this guy, he is for everything!
Master: I am indeed for everything, as you are for nothing. So therefore you are for something because even nothing is something.
Leader: I cannot intervene, for I am neither for nor against for-ness or against-ness and I am also paradoxically for and against neither or both your respective stated positions of alternating for-ness and against-ness.
(A Representative enters flanked by his constituents)
Representative: Ho, there!
Speaker: Oh, who the fuck are you now?
Representative: I am a representative of the Organization Against Against-ness.
Speaker: Ha! We stand against your against-ness of our against-ness!
Master: (to the Representative) Ah, Comrade. We are for your against-ness of against-ness, even if we are also for their against-ness.
Representative: Not so fast! Your support for our against-ness of against-ness is but a thinly veiled endorsement of the position of against-ness, which means you are against the againstists against-ness and therefore, we are against your for-ness of both the againstists position of against-ness and our position of against-ness of against-ness.
(An awkward silence as everyone tries to recount what the Representative has just said.)
Acolyte #1: (to the Speaker) Anyways, so, um, what’s the second principle of our against-ness, then?