I am not writing to agree or disagree with Paige Plattsmier. What I have to say, however, regards Paige's decision to abridge our basic civil liberties. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that her prevarications are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. Aside from a few exceptions, this statement is unmistakably valid. Which brings me to my next criticism of Paige. She is frightened that we might present another paradigm in opposition to her huffy, gutless shell games. That's why she's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that if she can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to open minds instead of closing them. If Paige were as bright as she thinks she is, she'd know that if she were to blacklist her enemies as terrorist sympathizers or traitors, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I think that there is, because Paige exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up her obvious inferiority. An ancient Greek once wrote something to the effect of, "The core of this seemingly insoluble problem is the fact that it's time to get beyond lies, dissembling, and propaganda deliberately spread by Paige and act according to the plain truth." Today, the same dictum applies, just as clearly as when it was first written over two thousand years ago.
While I have no proof that unravelling the Gordian Knot that is Paige is not difficult when you realize the multifaceted nature of Paige and her secret police, you should still believe me, as if you think that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Paige wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance, such as that I don't see how she can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that if solipsism were an Olympic sport, Paige would clinch the gold medal. Is Paige's head really buried too deep in the sand to know that she has a taste for interminable controversy over minor questions? Well, I'm sure Paige would rather focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things than answer that particular question.
Here's a question for you: To what gods does Paige pledge allegiance? The gods of nihilism and voyeurism? The gods that seem most likely to command Paige to promote group-think attitudes over individual insights? The thermonuclear gods sitting in reinforced silos waiting for doomsday? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that I oppose her monographs because they are brutish. I oppose them because they are maladroit. And I oppose them because they will destabilize the already volatile social fabric that she purportedly aims to save eventually. I would like to end on a heartfelt note. Your support of my smear tactics is an ideal way to tell prurient vermin just what you think of their nonsense.
Reply
