I just want a little editorial balance here. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Badspot's particularly bestial form of anti-intellectualism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of brazen politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. My own position on this issue is both simple and clear: Badspot hates it when you say that such conduct as Badspot's induced the despotism of Cromwell and the two Bonapartes. She really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to her sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having Badspot shriek insults at you. Being forced to listen to her yap on and on about animalism is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt, as if it made any difference.
For the moment, I will concentrate on the fact that Badspot wants nothing less than to perpetrate acts of the most high-handed character. Her intimates then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with merciless malingerers who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that anyone who believes that laws are meant to be broken is kidding himself. From this anecdotal evidence I would argue that she maintains that she is a perpetual victim of injustice. While that happens to be pure fantasy from the world of make-believe, one important fact to consider is that she is reluctant to resolve problems. She always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that she claims that she has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. That claim is preposterous and, to use Badspot's own language, overtly morally crippled. No history can justify it.
We must stand as a witness in the divine court of the Eternal Judge and proclaim that Badspot has shown she's not afraid to be blockish. Our children depend on that. It is hard to decide what is stronger in her: her incredible stupidity as far as any real knowledge or ability is concerned, or the bitter insolence of Badspot's behavior. It has been said that the idea of letting her make higher education accessible only to those in the higher echelons of society is, in itself, sniveling. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it undoubtedly implies that in order to convince us that our only chance of saving the planet is to accept unending regulations and straightjacket "reforms" from her helots, Badspot often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Many of her beliefs are seriously flawed, frequently fail to meet minimal standards of logic, and, on balance, are disdainful. But the problems with her inveracities don't end there.
The tone of Badspot's attitudes is eerily reminiscent of that of contumacious, lousy showboaters of the late 1940s in the sense that Badspot sells the supposed merits of resistentialism on the basis of rhetoric, not evidence. The evidence, however belated, is now in, and the evidence says that it's astonishing that Badspot has been able for so long to get away with advocating Badspot's doctrines amid a hue and cry as slaphappy as it is mealymouthed. I can't think of anything that better illustrates the failure of our justice system to deal with such cantankerous, thrasonical flag burners. Now, I hope Badspot was joking when she implied she was going to caricature and stereotype people from other cultures, but it sure didn't sound like it. I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to tear down Badspot's fortress of onanism.
Yes, Virginia, we mustn't let Badspot encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. Although the origins, sources, and causes of her untrustworthy, clumsy "compromises" are complex and interrelated and obviously difficult to identify without careful qualification, there is reason to believe that you shouldn't let Badspot intimidate you. You shouldn't let her push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Badspot. Her machinations serve only to safeguard her own power and privilege. That's the sort of statement that some people claim is coprophagous but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because what really irks me is that she has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let her bar people from partaking in activities that cannot be monitored and controlled or she'll marginalize dissident voices.
At first, Badspot just wanted to craft propaganda that justifies catering to the basest instincts of inane, base-minded freaks of nature. Then, she tried to stigmatize any and all attempts to wage war on faddism. Who knows what she'll do next? Well, if I knew that, I'd be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check.
We must free people from the spell of moral relativism that Badspot has cast over them. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different types of ornery, overweening libertinism. The virus of officialism took control of our country's political life long ago. Now, thanks to Badspot's shell games, that virus will continue to spread until no one can recall that there is more than a mite of palaver in Badspot's newsgroup postings. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me unveil the semiotic patterns that Badspot utilizes to deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that she is capable of. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because Badspot consumes, infests, and destroys. She lives off the death and destruction of others. For that reason alone we need to transcend traditional thinking.
I don't know what sort of abuse Badspot was subjected to as a child that made her such an ill-bred, ruthless toughy but I do know that if Fate desired that she make a correct application of what she had read about Trotskyism it would have to indicate title and page number since the treacherous, ribald snollygoster would otherwise never in all her life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, we can divide her agendas into three categories: sniffish, insipid, and parasitic. Careful examination of her tractates have left me no choice but to conclude that she's in violation of the Geneva Conventions. You might believe I'm telling you this because I like to beat up on her. Really, that isn't my principal reason. I don't especially need to beat up on Badspot because she is already despised by decent and knowledgeable people almost everywhere.
Badspot will hate me for saying this, but she yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Badspot, "attracting attention" usually implies "touring the country promoting adversarial vandalism in lectures and radio talk-show interviews". Although she would like us to believe that my bitterness at her is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish, she has given us neither good reason nor credible evidence to believe that. Her personal attacks, on the other hand, give us good reason to believe that crazy degenerates commonly succumb to her distortions, deceptions, and delusions. I do not. Rather, I take pride in making Badspot pay for her crimes against humanity.
Someone once said to me, "Badspot's writings are a treasure trove of ad hominem attacks, offensive accusations, and biased reporting from a bookish point of view." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. While there is no evidence that Badspot frequently writes self-contradictory, nonsensical "sentences" that are actually just phrases or sentence fragments filled with grammatical, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation errors, it is clear that Badspot is secretly planning to impact public policy for years to come. I realize that that may sound rather conspiratorial and far-fetched to most people, which is why you need to understand that I maintain I know why Badspot has been blaming our societal problems on handy scapegoats. She considers it an interesting sociological experiment for determining whether people can be influenced to increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. Following this line of logic, it would appear that she insists that she is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. Sorry, Badspot, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." Lastly, for those who read this letter, I hope you take it to heart and pass this message on to others.
