After hearing Free Republic say that its ignorance is just as good as our knowledge, I felt that someone needed to write a dissenting opinion. Unless you share my view that its resentful sermons involve a gradual abandonment of concern for reason or evidence and rely on propaganda to maintain public support, there’s no need for you to hear me further. Free Republic hates people who have huge supplies of the things it lacks. What it lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that Free Republic’s most progressive idea is to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of apolaustic jobsworths. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way.
I have nothing but scorn for Free Republic. So please permit me to appropriate and paraphrase something I once heard: “I am unmistakably galled that Free Republic is so intent on demonizing and penalizing people who find success on the road to happiness.” Of all the delusions I have ever known, the most laughable is the idea that black is white and night is day. Still, that doesn’t prevent Free Republic from emptying garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people. Anyone with an IQ two points higher than a wet sponge’s knows that the union of theory and practice, in Free Republic’s hands, becomes a union of pomposity and ethnocentrism. But, even so, an unholy alliance of furciferous self-promoters and querimonious troglodytes has been instrumental in devising increasingly narcissistic ways to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a coprophagous coterie of classism. Its vicegerents probably don’t realize that because it’s not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, I personally recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to create and nurture a true spirit of community. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why wherever you look, you’ll see Free Republic enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You’ll see it suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you’ll see it crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity.
Free Republic’s rantings are perfidious by any measure. Given that they’re intended to subvert time-tested societal norms, they come close to being a crime. If we’re to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to tend to the casualties of Free Republic’s war on sanity. I’ll try not to dwell on this, but Free Republic says that the future of the entire world rests in its hands. Although Free Republic doubtlessly cut that statement out of whole cloth, it asserts that education should teach the precepts of egoism and the duties of man towards peccable fugitives. That assertion is not only untrue but a conscious lie. Free Republic claims to be fighting for equality. What it’s really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that it’s clear enough that Free Republic knew of its allies’ plans to bring widespread death and degradation to millions of human beings across the face of the Earth. However, Free Republic contented itself with a private, pro forma call for restraint—in other words, a green light. This call may even have encouraged its allies’ actions by obscuring the fact that parasitic moochers serve as the priests in Free Republic’s cult of despicable, ungracious aspheterism. These “priests” spend their days basking in Free Republic’s reflected glory, pausing only when Free Republic instructs them to prevent me from getting my work done. What could be more self-serving? I could give you the answer now, but it would be more productive for me first to inform you that if it weren’t for its double standards Free Republic would have no standards at all. Hence, it’s completely a waste of time even to address its hypocrisy. That’s why I’ll state merely that Free Republic might rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings some day. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don’t see the horrible outcome?
One of the enduring effects of Free Republic’s reinterpretations of historic events is surely the way they will manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright snobbism. Now there will, no doubt, be merciless nitwits out there who will ask, “So what if Free Republic’s lieutenants identify political and religious groups that are Free Republic’s political enemies and re-label them as ‘villainous sophomoric-types’ in order to justify operations against them? That won’t affect me.” Such crippled thinking is the best example there is as to why if I chose to do so I could write exclusively about Free Republic’s shabby sophistries and never be lacking for material. Nonetheless, I’d rather spend some time discussing how I sometimes see well-meaning people swallow Free Republic’s lie that it is an organization of peace. To my mind, shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. That’s why I wish that all decent people realized that if Free Republic got its way, it’d be able to abet a resurgence of manipulative larrikinism. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that.
I, for one, don’t believe that power corrupts Free Republic but that Free Republic corrupts power. Speaking of corruption and power, knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That’s why it’s important for you to know that if you or I were to go around saying that Free Republic can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion, we would be held up to ridicule—and we would deserve it. That’s why I instead point out that Free Republic wants to keep us helpless and afraid. While none of us need to be so fearful, we are. These fears make it difficult for us to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Free Republic because they saw no other options for change. This is why is critical that we talk about how its buddies all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way Free Republic keeps them loyal to it is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.
I have no intention to cut and run even if Free Republic were to achieve total world domination. Rather, I will stand my ground and solve our problems over a negotiating table instead of resorting to the battlefield. Whether or not I’m successful, Free Republic has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. For reasons which I will adumbrate presently, the tone of Free Republic’s viewpoints is eerily reminiscent of that of balmy pickpockets of the late 1940s in the sense that Free Republic’s jobations have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply offensive. Now, not only are they both disagreeable and iscariotic, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that if I recall correctly, Free Republic’s desire to fuel the fires of hatred is the chief sign that it’s a morally crippled desperado. (The second sign is that Free Republic feels obliged to contravene decency.)
This march into pigheaded emotionalism is not happening by mere chance. It is not, as many raving, barbaric crooks insist, the result of the natural, inevitable course of things. It is happening as a direct result of Free Republic’s immature homilies. Believe me, I certainly don’t want to give Free Republic a chance to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse. Although Free Republic has managed to avoid indictment, or even a consensus that it did anything illegal, its greed will be its undoing. Of that I am certain because it thinks it would be a great idea to enact new laws forcing anyone who’s not one of its disciples to live in an environment that can be described, at best, as contemptuously tolerant. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.
Now, I hope Free Republic was joking when it implied it was going to till the unprofessional side of the jingoism garden, but it sure didn’t sound like it. Please don’t misinterpret that last statement to mean that Free Republic’s plane of understanding is beyond the realm of human imagining. That’s not at all what it means. Rather, it means that everything I’ve said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that I’ve known a number of honorable people who have laid down their lives to make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Free Republic’s ploys. Without exception, these people understood deeply that Free Republic’s lackeys consider its crusades a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of vigilantism.
There are situations where certain polemics are appropriate and there are situations where they are not. So far, the response from Free Republic’s camp has been tardy and equivocal. People have commented that there may be a gap in my logic there. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, don’t think there is, and I’ve gone to great pains to explain why. Free Republic often remarks that its destructive psychobabble is based upon a firm and vivid grasp of the concrete truths of life itself. That’s one of those neat little subreptions that its incomprehensible satellites employ to deceive themselves. The truth is that Free Republic’s flunkies have been seen subordinating all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community. Free Republic claimed it would take responsibility for this unbalanced behavior, but in fact it did nothing to fix matters or punish the culprits. This proves that Free Republic is locked into its present course of destruction. It does not have the interest or the will to change its fundamentally ill-tempered catch-phrases.
Whatever happened to Free Republic’s sense of humanity? I’m sure you already know the answer so I won’t bother repeating it. I’d like to emphasize, however, that now that I’ve been exposed to Free Republic’s prevarications I must admit that I don’t completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Free Republic. The memo spells out its plans to encourage people to leave their spouses, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become the most malignant analphabetics you’ll ever see. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that as far as Free Republic is concerned, facts and evidence are subordinate to, and mediated by, a “discourse”. There are no right or wrong answers, just competitive discourses. If that’s the case, then perhaps Free Republic would like to explain why it disbelieves that if I may be so bold, its peremptory form of fetishism is like a forest fire. Once it is started, none can set bounds to the resulting conflagration. The only option is to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of anal-retentive, domineering thoughts Free Republic is thinking about these days. While doing so won’t put a stop to fetishism, it will demonstrate decisively that the number of Pecksniffian purveyors of malice and hatred who wish to create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues is on the rise. This statistic alone portends an encroaching, escalating, and all-encompassing calamity. What can we do to protect ourselves? That’s the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you’d also know why not only does Free Republic purge the land of every non-bestial person, gene, idea, and influence, but it then commands its lickspittles, “Go, and do thou likewise.” Our goal must now be to ask the tough questions and not shy away from the tough answers. If you believe that that’s a worthwhile goal, then I can certainly use your help. Let me hear from you.
I have a burning desire to vent my spleen on The Hon. Whonose Q. Lazamataz, Esq.. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. Lazamataz gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, he ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that until recently, Lazamataz’s inclinations have gone unnoticed and unanalyzed. Every time I strike that note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me mudslinging or uncontrollable. Here’s my answer: I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, all of the claims I’ve read regarding the benefits of Lazamataz’s practices have been absolutely premature. That is, they always seem to be based on an inadequate exploration of these practices, their history, and their possible meanings. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, believe it is therefore high time we throw off Lazamataz’s yoke of metagrobolism. Let me start the ball rolling with the observation that Lazamataz maintains not only that his screeds are not worth getting outraged about but also that the more paperasserie and bureaucracy we have to endure, the better. He’s wrong on all counts. In reality, Lazamataz just wants to avoid detection and punishment. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical over which Lazamataz has any control. But that’s inconsequential because I, for one, was completely gobsmacked the first time I saw Lazamataz making us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. Since then, I’ve seen him do that so many times that I hardly bat an eyelid when someone tells me that Lazamataz wants us to believe that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. I’m hopeful that most people will see right through that lie like it were a gooey glob of ectoplasm. At a minimum, I hope that people realize that Lazamataz generally tries to keep his distance from the obtrusive meretricious-types who focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things. However, he sees nothing wrong with stamping out the last vestiges of academic freedom, scholarly autonomy, and freedom of research and teaching in our nation’s universities. Ah the sweet, sweet smell of hypocrisy.
While these incidents may seem minor, back when our policemen were guardians, not enforcers, they would have protected us from Lazamataz’s phalanx of recalcitrant moochers. Today, it seems that most officers of the law are content to sit back and let Lazamataz unleash carnage and barbarity. That’s why we must straighten out his thinking. To believe that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day is to deceive ourselves.
Lazamataz likes to argue that big emotions come from big words. Admitting the apparent correctness of this sick-minded argument, we may prove the contradictory of its conclusion by an unassailable argument of our own, which is called an elenchus. My elenchus begins with the observation that I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, “Lazamataz always gives noncommittal answers to questions.” I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way but rather because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I’m not the only one who thinks that I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Lazamataz’s Ponzi schemes. Videlicet, they inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. And that’s saying nothing about how he denies ever having tried to make individuals indifferent to the survival of their families. I assume he’s merely trying to cover his posterior, as the truth is that I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Lazamataz that my position is that he serves as a conduit that carries the élan vital of larrikinism. Lazamataz, in contrast, argues that brain-damaged, grungy desperados have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Lazamataz. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that it is the difficult decisions, the ones that have consequences, challenge orthodoxies, bear risk, and threaten status that take real courage. It takes real courage, for instance, to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. That said, it is also the case that he feels that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. How can he be so blind? Very easily. Basically, it is not difficult to see the undercurrents of exclusivism in Lazamataz’s blandishments. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that our freedoms should survive on the crumbs that fall from the banquet table of egotism, then there is doubtlessly no hope for you. Finally, it is not at all unlikely that in this letter I have said some things to which many of my readers may take exception. It has not been any part of my purpose either to please or to displease anybody but simply to tell the truth and to say, so far as I have given expression to my views, precisely what I think. And what I think is this: The Hon. Whonose Q. Lazamataz, Esq., having recently learned a smattering of scientific terminology, uses it to fund, assemble, and train insecure urban guerrillas to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of the worst types of sneaky harebrained-types there are.