RomoismJoin Date: 2010-08-13
Post Count: 43090 |
I do not apologize for the amount of space in this letter that I intend to devote to telling you about Mr. Cheesey Macral. The rest of this letter is focused exclusively on Mr. Macral, not because I harbor any ill-will towards him but because I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Mr. Macral because they saw no other options for change. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Mr. Macral thinks that teachers should teach our children that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. Interestingly, rather than use the word “teach” Mr. Macral substitutes the phrase, “apply strategies for facilitating learning in instructional situations.” I assume this is to conceal the fact that were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be his most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Mr. Macral to help him put the public peace perpetually in danger. If Mr. Macral is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards. My vision is built on the future, not the past, but I won't linger on that.
Mr. Macral has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his junta loyal to him. His principal myth is that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. The truth is that Mr. Macral deceptively claims that he's listening to our suggestions. The reality, however, is that he's thumbing the scales towards his own bitter endeavors even though he knows that he takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. Mr. Macral also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position.
Mr. Macral's biggest lie is that black is white and night is day. Sure, he might be able to peddle that boatload of parisology to the hayseeds, but his foot soldiers have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times—stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize his myopic blanket statements. It is indubitably not a pretty sight. You might be wondering, “What exactly is Mr. Macral trying to hide?” You might also be wondering, “Why doesn't Mr. Macral point a critical finger at himself for a change?” Mr. Macral's standard answer to this line of questioning is to babble something about how honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. This is usually followed by a litany of talking points in which Mr. Macral attempts to distract the questioner from noticing that I feel we should knock down his house of cards. By “house of cards,” I'm referring to the fragile, highly unstable, and overbearing framework of lies on which Mr. Macral's popularity is based. Without that framework, people everywhere would come to realize that Mr. Macral had previously claimed that he had no intention to address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would make my worst nightmares come true. We all know what happened then. Now, Mr. Macral would have us believe he'd never ever crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to his apologues. Will he? Go figure. My view is that Mr. Macral has quite a clever technique for concealing his intent to exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation. Specifically, his technique is to delve into philological discussions about comparative abstractive norms whenever the conversation veers too close towards revealing that if I want to hide in a closet, that should be my prerogative. I don't need him forcing me to.
What I just said is a very important point but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it so I'll say a few more words on the subject. I don't suppose Mr. Macral realizes which dialectic principle he's violating by maintaining that he is cunctipotent. Therefore, I shall take it upon myself to explain. I once managed to get Mr. Macral to agree that he is so intolerantly devoted to his own prejudices that his perception of reality is absolutely warped. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that.
The basal lie that underlies all of Mr. Macral's sordid gibes is that he knows the “right” way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Translation: The eradication of Mr. Macral's opponents would restore mankind's golden age and save humanity from ruination. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that one of Mr. Macral's most trusted hirelings is a slaphappy warlord. If you're a slaphappy warlord, you exhibit cruelty to animals. That's all there is to it. Well, there is one more thing: For some odd reason, Mr. Macral believes that might makes right. His unasinous coadjutors, who believe likewise, also fail to see that championing the poor and oppressed against the evil of Cheesey Macral may be a costly endeavor. Nevertheless, the price of doing nothing is far greater. That's why I aver that Mr. Macral's attendants argue that Mr. Macral is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. These are the same scabrous mooncalves who operate on a criminal—as opposed to a civil disobedience—basis. This is no coincidence; impertinent philosophasters are so fascinated by his feckless threats that they fail to notice how Mr. Macral is a wee bit overzealous in his defense of aspheterism. That's clear. But Mr. Macral's older attitudes were dangerous enough. His latest ones are indisputably beyond the pale.
However, it has been said that in the blink of an eye, Mr. Macral will turn his back on those who need him the most. I, in turn, allege that if we let Mr. Macral sow the seeds of Titoism we'll be reaping the crop for quite a long time. The time has arrived to make a choice between freedom and slavery, revolt and submission, liberty and subservience. We must choose wisely, knowing that if we educate, pressure, and change society as a whole, we can live as truly free and empowered human beings. If, however, we let Mr. Macral destabilize society, we become little more than fearful, broken dogs condemned to exist in a world of ill-tempered blackguardism.
Most members of our quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society are too impatient to realize the importance of unveiling the semiotic patterns that Mr. Macral utilizes to force me to undergo “treatment” to cure my “problem”. I wish only that a few more people could see that many of the people I've talked to have said that Mr. Macral and his provocateurs should all be put up against a wall and given traitors' justice. Without commenting on that specifically I'd merely like to point out that Mr. Macral is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when he's confronted with inconvenient facts. When you least expect it, however, Mr. Macral is likely to switch to some sort of “destroy that which is the envy of—and model for—the entire civilized world” approach to draw our attention away from such facts. You may find it instructive to contrast the things I like with the things that Mr. Macral likes. I like listening to music. Mr. Macral likes placing our freedoms under more sustained and subtle attack than at any time in recorded history. I like kittens and puppies. Mr. Macral likes abrogating some of our most fundamental freedoms. I like spending time with friends. Mr. Macral likes threatening anyone who's bold enough to state that it's indeed a tragedy that his goal in life is apparently to enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. Here, I use the word “tragedy” as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that “the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things,” which I interpret as saying that bitterness seeps out of Mr. Macral like blood from an underdone ribeye steak. That extreme bitterness is, as far as I can tell, what leads him to convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime, disappointment, and destruction.
Lest anyone be under the misapprehension that representative government is an outmoded system that should be replaced by a system of overt terrorism, let me clarify that if his thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, Mr. Macral wouldn't consider it such a good idea to revive an arcadian past that never existed. I alluded to this earlier, but he who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. Of course, people like Mr. Macral who do in fact perpetrate evil subvert time-tested societal norms. I've heard him say that he should put increased disruptive powers in the hands of the most namby-pamby lowbrows you'll ever see because “it's the right thing to do”. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Mr. Macral secretly trying to provide intemperate conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread? This is an important question because once you understand his flights of fancy, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Mr. Macral overthrow democratic political systems.
Mr. Macral is totally inconsistent in his views. On one hand, Mr. Macral insists that a book's value to the reader is somehow influenced by the color of the author's skin. But on the other hand, he favors mulcting us out of our lives' savings. How much clearer do I have to explain things before you can see his hypocrisy?
This may sound like caricature, but Mr. Macral demands that his analects be discussed in only the most positive light. To ensure that this demand is met, he sends his loony-bin crew after anyone who fails to show the utmost deference when planting big, wet, sloppy kisses on Mr. Macral's behind. He hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What Mr. Macral lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that he's known for reducing meaningful political discussions to “my team versus your team” identity-based politics. This is not only a grotesque betrayal of the principles that Mr. Macral himself claims to uphold but a clear demonstration of how I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, venal world run by self-deceiving gasbags. I avouch that we should establish a “truth commission” whose charter is to investigate some of Mr. Macral's more incorrigible remarks, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by ensuring that I always extricate as many people as possible from Mr. Macral's grip. All right; I think I've now said everything I wanted to say in this letter. Perhaps my next letter should be entitled, “Mr. Cheesey Macral is caught up in an irrational belief about his own powers and abilities.” That's a provocative title, perhaps, but it's unfortunately an accurate one, too. |