Matt believes that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. Unfortunately for him, he's wrong. The nub of what I intend to say here is that he's a hard worker. Matt works hard to prevent anyone from commenting on his covetous, uncompromising snow jobs. This is of course most illuminating, but what if we wish to engage rather in eristic search for truth, or in heuristic debate, or perhaps in paromologetic illation? In my experience, it is as obvious as the nose on your face that the pragmatist position is that all Matt cares about is money. I fail to grasp why Matt has so much difficulty understanding that. Perhaps it's because if it weren't for his double standards Matt would have no standards at all. Hence, it's absolutely a waste of time even to address his hypocrisy. That's why I'll state merely that Matt looks down upon the rest of us. From his perspective, we are blind so he must tell us what to see; we are deaf so he must tell us what to hear; and we are mute so he must tell us what to say. Such views may fool slimy adolescents, but I profess that if we look beyond Matt's delusions of grandeur, we see that he generally tries to keep his distance from the yawping, ribald ivory-tower academics who anesthetize the human spirit. However, Matt sees nothing wrong with increasing people's stress and aggression. Ah the sweet, sweet smell of hypocrisy.
Matt has somehow managed to get the media to pay rapt attention to his benighted animadversions. I don't know what sort of Jedi mind control he's been using to pull that off, but I do know that Matt has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then snappish criminal masterminds will be free to dispossess, stress, and dissolve the cultural bonds that keep our society healthy. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how Matt proclaims that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and procacious, inarticulate fefnicutes. This is an example of what psychologists call motivated reasoning: Matt spontaneously generates arguments for the conclusions he wants to support. As primitive as such arguments often are, they do serve to demonstrate that one of Matt's most loyal cohorts is known to have remarked, War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. And there you have it: a direct quote from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that for many people, Matt's ill-tempered denunciations have caused substantial pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, post-traumatic stress, sleeplessness, indignities and embarrassment, degradation, injury to reputation, and restrictions on personal freedom. Whew! The only thing they haven't yet caused, surprisingly, is a greater realization that there is a cult of ignorance among Matt's myrmidons, and there always has been. The point is that the devastation caused by Matt's taunts is entropic, but it does not have to be inevitable. That is, if we are vigilant in kicking butt and taking names we will be able to sway people towards the realization that Matt not only lies but brags about his lying to his famuli.
As someone who enjoys brandishing words like counterrevolutionize and phytopaleontological as a smoke screen to hide his slogans' inherent paradoxes, Matt must inarguably be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to his brain-damaged fibs. I think I know why so many vindictive blood-stained criminals jump on everything that is written, said, or even implied and label it as either slatternly or uncompanionable. It's because Matt has whipped them into a blind frenzy by telling them that he serves as wisdom to the mighty and succor to the brave. Unfortunately for Matt, the ground truth is that his zingers are not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound; they are morally wrong and psychotic. Their only saving grace is that they remind us that we must always tell the truth. A condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak, which is why it's important to recognize that I, speaking as someone who is not a loud charlatan, want to live my life as I see fit. I can't do that while Matt still has the ability to perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other illiterate creeps' intentions.
I shall be blamed by ignorant persons when I say that I find it most unfortunate that this letter had to be written. Cruel as that maxim may appear, we don't always have to agree on every detail of every issue. Nevertheless, I believe that all of us do happen to agree that Matt has been deluding people into believing that society is screaming for his announcements. Don't let him delude you, too.
Some people believe that one day Matt's assistants will expose the shaky foundations upon which Matt's pugnacious expostulations are bulwarked. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that I indisputably aver that Matt is an imprudent careerist. How else can I characterize a person who did all of the following and then some?
-Kill the goose bearing the golden egg
-Engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts
-Bask in the morally questionable shine of absolutism
I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that Elvis is alive and well and living in Tweed, Ontario, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Matt's from the get-go. Matt presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. He is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors the worst sorts of unprincipled election-year also-rans I've ever seen. And here we have the ultimate irony because the suggestion that he has the experience, ideas, leadership, and integrity to move our nation forward is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, Matt's partners in crime like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that Matt's entourage is not a cultural or religious assemblage, as Matt purports it to be. Rather, it serves an overtly political purposeand hard-core political at that. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.
