Here’s the angry letter Ms. Megan McArdle knew she was bound to receive. Before I launch into my main topic, I want to make a few matters crystal-clear: (1) Ms. McArdle needs a refill of her medication, and (2) as a result of that, I really intend to keep writing letters like this one until Ms. McArdle changes her ways. Now that you know where I stand on those issues, I can safely say that Ms. McArdle is obviously up to something. I don’t know exactly what, but she recently claimed that two wrongs make a right. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from her a hundred times before. She says that she can change her evil ways. That’s a stupid thing to say. It’s like saying that her hypnopompic insights are Holy Writ.
If you’ll allow me a minor dysphemism, Ms. McArdle offers nothing but cheap insults and banal rhetoric. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, Ms. McArdle’s wisecracks are propaganda to the point of comedy and are so easily refuted as to render them useless even as such. That conclusion is not based on some sort of complacent, ill-natured philosophy or on Ms. McArdle-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that if we don’t improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that the only effective and responsible course of action is to restore the world back to its original balance – an often frustrating prescription, to be sure. To say anything else would be a lie.
Should we sit back and let Ms. McArdle set the hoops through which we all must jump, or should we give you some background information about her? That choice sure sounds like a no-brainer to me. She wants me to stop trying to champion the poor and oppressed against the evil of Megan McArdle. Instead, she’d rather I burst into tears. Sorry, but I don’t accept defeat that easily. While I agree with others’ assessment that there is no honor in her opinions, still, I find it necessary, if I am to meet my reader on something like a common ground of understanding, to point out that when I say that her rantings are irritable, I mean it. I don’t mean that they remind me of something irritable or that they have one or two irritable characteristics. I mean that they are irritable. In fact, the most irritable thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Ms. McArdle for trying to rewrite and reword much of humanity’s formative works to favor ruffianism. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, some people apparently believe that if we don’t bother Ms. McArdle, Ms. McArdle won’t bother us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and hers are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. Ms. McArdle wants to demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement. We, in contrast, want to alert people that if she makes fun of me or insults me I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart her saturnine schemes.
Ms. McArdle insists that unsympathetic, anti-democratic Luddites are more deserving of honor than our nation’s war heroes. How can she be so blind? Very easily. Basically, if you’re interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which Ms. McArdle may sensationalize all of the issues quicker than you can double-check the spelling of “counterexcommunication”, then you’ll want to consider the following very carefully. You’ll especially want to consider that there may be nothing we can do to prevent Ms. McArdle from making good on her word to curry favor with the most scabrous layabouts I’ve ever seen using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their “value”, their “importance”, their “educational mission”, and other petulant nonsense. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by her intimates, we experience psychological stress or “cognitive dissonance”. Our only recourse is to balkanize Ms. McArdle’s abhorrent polity into an etiolated and sapless agglomeration.
Ms. McArdle maintains that her vices are the only true virtues. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that her hagiographic adoration of Fabianism is indubitably sickening. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does she aver that she can override nature? To rephrase that question, where do we go from here? Well, we all know the answer to that question, don’t we? But in case you don’t, then you should note that she wants to prohibit any discussion of her attempts to perpetuate the myth that she acts in the name of equality and social justice. While it is clear why she wants that to be a taboo subject, Ms. McArdle claims to be fighting for equality. What she’s really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that Ms. McArdle maintains a “Big Brother” dossier of information about everyone she distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? It is only when one has an answer to that question is it possible to make sense of Ms. McArdle’s exegeses because Ms. McArdle’s slaves all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way she keeps them loyal to her is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.
Who is behind the decline of our civilization? The culprit responsible is not the Illuminati, not the Insiders, not the Humanists, not even the Communists. No, the decline of our civilization is attributable primarily to Megan McArdle. Sure, she talks the talk but does she walk the walk? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that her secret agents coerce children into becoming activists willing to serve, promote, spy, and fight for her stratagems. The second, more telling, observation is that Ms. McArdle takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on her. She also ignores all of the evidence that doesn’t support (or in many cases directly contradicts) her position.
The only way that Ms. McArdle could convince me that her opinions represent the opinions of the majority – or even a plurality – would be to feed me stupid-flakes for breakfast, at least insofar as this essay is concerned. She drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes Ms. McArdle sound smarter than she really is and obscures the fact that we can divide her excuses into three categories: argumentative, squalid, and capricious. So, does she believe, deep in the adytum of her own mind, that the purpose of life is self-gratification? I guess it just boils down to the question: Is she hoping that the readers of this letter won’t see the weakness of her argument relative to mine? If you maintain that we should all bear the brunt of Ms. McArdle’s actions then you won’t understand my answer no matter how carefully I explain it. You won’t understand my answer if you think that Ms. McArdle holds a universal license that allows her to poison the relationship between teacher and student. However, you have a chance at understanding my answer if you’re open-minded enough to realize that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how Ms. McArdle’s ultimata are worse than the Black Death of olden times. Let’s be sure that I’ve made myself absolutely clear: Ms. McArdle is wallowing in the sty of snobbism. That shouldn’t surprise you when you consider that people often get the impression that the most mendacious publishers of hate literature you’ll ever see and Ms. McArdle’s cohorts are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Ms. McArdle’s roorbacks are more than just self-aggrandizing. They’re a revolt against nature.
Contrary to what Ms. McArdle would have you believe, I’ve heard her say that making my blood curdle is essential for the safety and welfare of the public. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Ms. McArdle secretly trying to censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype? I can give you only my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration, but I do not pose as an expert in these matters. I can say only that just because she and her yes-men don’t like being labelled as “spleeny, bloodthirsty lummoxes” or “surly analphabetics” doesn’t mean the shoe doesn’t fit. If she had her way, schools would teach students that the moon is made of green cheese. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how Ms. McArdle has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that “prove” that principles don’t matter. This is what’s called “advocacy research” or “junk science” because it’s funded by lamebrained, loathsome fugitives who have already decided that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.
We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because if I want to turn to a life of crime, that should be my prerogative. I decidedly don’t need her forcing me to. Astute observers have known for years that the very genesis of Ms. McArdle’s bumptious proposed social programs is in credentialism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that she will eventually herself be destroyed by credentialism. What conclusion should we draw from Ms. McArdle’s imprecations? How about that two wrongs don’t make a right? Although Ms. McArdle would rather I discuss the personality flaws of unwed, pregnant teenagers, I oppose her communiquÃ©s because they are stubborn. I oppose them because they are picayunish. And I oppose them because they will waste our time and money sooner than you think.
By the bye, Ms. McArdle claims that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by villainous election-year also-rans for the purpose of population reduction. That claim is preposterous and, to use Ms. McArdle’s own language, overtly disorganized. No history can justify it. This is what her subalterns try to prevent us from hearing about on radio and television or reading about in popular magazines and large-circulation papers. There’s nothing controversial about that view. It’s a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that Ms. McArdle should clarify her point so people like you and me can tell what the heck she’s talking about. Without clarification, Ms. McArdle’s jeremiads sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don’t really seem to make any sense. In closing, although this letter has been lengthy there are still a large number of comments about Ms. Megan McArdle that I have had to leave aside. I didn’t even begin to mention, for instance, that her legatees are cut from the same mold as the most pouty nobodies you’ll ever see. Anyway, the important point is that my empirically validated theory is that Ms. McArdle’s acrimonious homilies are part of the workforce training agenda for the global planned economy.