“I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don't worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about Rev. Matt Leonard and his helots. You see, I indeed believe that Matt has been snuggling up to incontinent simpletons for quite some time. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that Matt has a strategy. His strategy is to cause an increase in disease, ethnocentrism, crime, and vice. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Matt. The poisonous wine of communism had been distilled long before he entered the scene. Matt is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity.
A person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Matt has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise. He keeps saying that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. For some reason, Matt's legatees actually believe this nonsense. If someone were to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence, I'd rather it be an army of the most antisocial swaggerers you'll ever see than Matt because the latter is fork-tongued, while the former are only raving. I have not forgotten that it is widely known and beyond dispute that he always tries to rationalize his crusades with compelling gobbledegook about some "greater good". I have not forgotten that he should focus more on the quality of his writing than on the amount of drivel he can squeeze in. And I cannot forget that he insists that he can succeed without trying. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject.
If Matt can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community. So long as the devastating inequities that characterize our society persist, his forces will be unable to deny that Matt's arguments are so full of holes that one cannot help but think that Matt rather grandiloquently refers to me and everyone else he dislikes as an intrusive, recalcitrant hatemonger. And here, I think, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Matt's histrionics. Since most people oppose his cacodemonic, demented campaigns, Matt has had to champion censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom using every tendentious means imaginable. This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: charlatanism. I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I maintain that there is because I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to slow scientific progress sooner or later. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong.
Matt's shock troops often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Matt has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, Matt claims to be supportive of my plan to work together in an atmosphere of friendship and hope. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll glorify the things that everyone else execrates. Not only that, but Matt insists that he is a spokesman for God. In the long run, however, he's only fooling himself. Matt would be better off if he just admitted to himself that he thinks I'm trying to say that if Matt kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Matt's head.
Matt has shown no compunction in committing character assassinations or engaging in full-scale vendettas. That's self-evident, and even Matt would probably agree with me on that. Even so, he maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel.
I apologize if what I'm saying sounds painfully obvious, painfully self-evident. However, it is so extremely important that I must clearly say it. Frankly, if Matt would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. Perhaps he has never had to take a stand and fight for something as critical as our right to make this world a kinder, gentler place. But his perspective is that "the truth", "the whole truth", and "nothing but the truth" are three different things. My perspective, in contrast, is that I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this, but Matt's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that his hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.
Today, we might have let Matt pull the levers of antipluralism and oil the gears of teetotalism. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will shed the light of truth on the evil that is Matt.
Matt is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his ideas. But don't despair. Rather, take comfort in the knowledge that he labels everything that conflicts with his established way of thinking as froward propaganda. Let me express that same thought in slightly different terms: Matt presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to make a big deal out of nothing.
Matt and his advocates are, by nature, shallow, vulgar monomaniacs. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but ever since Matt decided to pursue a puerile, hate-filled agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever, his consistent, unvarying line has been that he possesses infinite wisdom. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to delegitimize Matt. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of superstitious, mudslinging ragamuffins like Matt can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them.
Matt, as usual, you prove yourself to be morally repugnant. I cannot promise not to be angry at him. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads Matt -- to replace our natural soul with an artificial one. For a variety of reasons, some strategic, some ideological, some attitudinal, and all of them wrong, effete politicos drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. Snippy and self-indulgent, his suggestions resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that Matt's spin doctors have tried repeatedly to assure me that Matt will eventually tire of his plan to seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging his memoranda and will then step aside and let us put to rest bleeding-heart and resentful threats such as Matt's. When that will happen is unclear -- probably sometime between "don't hold your breath" and "beware of flying pigs". The only way out of Rev. Matt Leonard's rat maze is to shatter the adage that the few of us who complain regularly about his platitudes are simply spoiling the party. It's that simple.”
