User:Martenal0001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By now everyone should have heard about Wikipedia and its postmodernist, ghastly actions. In case you haven't heard or have even forgotten, allow me to refresh your memory. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, Wikipedia decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's larcenous, eccentric perceptions neglect to take one important factor into consideration: human nature. Pardon me for not being able to empathize with the most vitriolic pipsqueaks you'll ever see, but Wikipedia refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. I, not being one of the many crafty marauders of this world, have begged Wikipedia's thralls, who are legion, to step forth and build a better world, a cleaner world, a safer world, and a saner world. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Wikipedia might retaliate? Let me give you a hint: To get even the simplest message into the consciousness of the worst classes of acrimonious bigamists I've ever seen, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but I have a New Year's resolution for Wikipedia: It should pick up a book before it jumps to the pugnacious conclusion that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them".

To most people, the list of Wikipedia's unbalanced obiter dicta reads like a comic strip, but its ventures are actually taken seriously by its surrogates. Wikipedia has -- not once, but several times -- been able to feed us ever-larger doses of its lies and crackpot assumptions without anyone stopping it. How long can that go on? As long as its indelicate, deranged jibes are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them. My position is that unlike Wikipedia, I have chosen to take the moral high ground and will remain there. It, in contrast, argues that its rantings are Right with a capital R. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Wikipedia. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for it to admit that according to it, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. It might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then Wikipedia would realize that it's a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

Sure, the things Wikipedia does are wrong, quixotic, rotten, stentorian -- you name it. But I, hardheaded cynic that I am, frequently wish to tell it that its hypocrisy has reached a new low. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. The reason Wikipedia wants to prevent the real problems from being solved is that it's entirely anal-retentive. If you believe you have another explanation for its chthonic behavior, then please write and tell me about it.

As I gaze into my crystal ball, I see that Wikipedia's advocates will ransack people's homes before long. Just to add a little more perspective, Wikipedia says that what I call arrogant boors are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to sacrifice children on the twin altars of voyeurism and greed. We need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Wikipedia. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that Wikipedia thinks we want it to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science. Excuse me, but maybe it is battening on us. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: its irritable whinges. It's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of sadistic, cranky clowns like Wikipedia can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. There's an important difference between me and Wikipedia. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Wikipedia, in contrast, is willing to kill for its -- or, if not to kill, at least to reward those who knowingly or unknowingly play along with its canards while punishing those who oppose them.

I repeat: Wikipedia accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does it feel I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept its claim that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. The significance of this is that Wikipedia doesn't want to acknowledge that it is leading us down the road of Jacobinism. In fact, Wikipedia would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of sesquipedalianism, and there are those who are not. Wikipedia is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why it has a hair-trigger temper. To top that off, it once said that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids. Oh, please. I'm just glad I hadn't eaten dinner right before I heard it say that. Otherwise, I'd probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that I despise everything about Wikipedia. I despise Wikipedia's attempts to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. I despise how it insists that anyone who dares to treat the disease, not the symptoms, can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. Wikipedia coins polysyllabic neologisms to make its dissertations sound like they're actually important. In fact, its treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.

As someone who is working hard to tackle the multinational death machine that Wikipedia is currently constructing, I must point out that the issue of what to do about selfish barrators is a hopelessly tangled and complicated issue, impossible to discuss due to the intensity with which each side holds its beliefs. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: I'm not very conversant with Wikipedia's background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that Wikipedia's grievances are neurotic in theory and uncontrollable in practice. Now, that last statement is a bit of an oversimplification, an overgeneralization. But it is nevertheless substantially true. One of Wikipedia's followers keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that Wikipedia does the things it does "for the children". The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that an organization that wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of its actions. Wikipedia has never had that faculty. It always does what it wants to do at the moment and figures it'll be able to lie itself out of any problems that arise.

Developing a policy of inclusion will not be easy, because it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about Wikipedia and about hypothetical solutions to our Wikipedia problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Wikipedia and its apple-polishers, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that Wikipedia maintains that the most vengeful exhibitionists I've ever seen should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that its roorbacks are more than just impetuous. They're a revolt against nature. Given the tenor of our times, the ultimate aim of Wikipedia's notions is to restructure society as a pyramid with Wikipedia at the top, Wikipedia's helots directly underneath, perverted demoniacs beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Wikipedia to force me to undergo "treatment" to cure my "problem", which makes me realize that it plans to give the most vindictive prophets of solecism you'll ever see far more credibility than they deserve. The result will be an amalgam of caustic authoritarianism and wily emotionalism, if such a monster can be imagined.

No doubt, seeking to acquire public acceptance of Wikipedia's uncompromising stratagems is a hallmark of a totalitarian regime. But if it weren't for snotty, blockish twits, Wikipedia would have no friends. Wikipedia can write anything it wants about how things would be different were we to give into its demands and let it lead to the destruction of the human race, but no one likes being attacked by the worst kinds of temperamental crooks there are. Even worse, Wikipedia exploits our fear of those attacks -- which it claims will evolve by the end of the decade into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to toss sops to the egos of the spleeny. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that Wikipedia's maudlin preoccupation with hedonism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "scientificogeographical", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to change this country's moral infrastructure. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that I stand by what I've written before, that Wikipedia is extremely oligophrenic. In fact, let's see what my Oligophrenic-O-Meter has to say about it. Whoa! The needle is off the scale! It's a good thing I checked, because this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to lay waste to the environment. Not yet, at least. But some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of Wikipedia's junta quite adamantly claim that going through the motions of working is the same as working. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could think such a thing, but then again, Wikipedia thinks that my bitterness at it is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that Wikipedia is beyond reproach.

In keeping with all of their inner unbridled brutality, Wikipedia's legatees cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. Wikipedia wants to set the wolf to mind the sheep. What does it think it is? I mean, we must lend support to the thesis that it is the type of organization that would shoot you just to see if its gun worked. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. You must be the one to reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning. And you must inform your fellow man that Wikipedia drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes it sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that Wikipedia contends that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance and that, therefore, people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces pestiferous liars and cheats (as distinct from the shambolic, iconoclastic moral weaklings who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that newspapers should report only on items Wikipedia agrees with. In reality, contrariwise, by comparing today to even ten years ago and projecting the course we're on, I'd say we're in for an even more tactless, surly, and complacent society, all thanks to Wikipedia's treatises. Wikipedia is obviously trying to conspire with evil, and unless we act now, it'll unequivocally succeed. Doesn't Wikipedia ever get tired of calling everyone a contumelious cretin? Although Wikipedia was likely following the dictates of its conscience when it decided to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities, the fact remains that each rung on the ladder of pessimism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Wikipedia to go to great lengths to conceal its true aims and mislead the public. That is the standard process by which the worst sorts of brusque rapscallions there are make our lives a living hell.

My current plan is to shield people from Wikipedia's incompetent and besotted deceptions. Yes, it will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but it is interpersonally exploitative. That is, it takes advantage of others to achieve its own rude ends. Why does it do that? This is an important question because it is an interesting organization. On the one hand, Wikipedia likes to contravene decency. But on the other hand, its janissaries consider its protests a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of mercantalism. I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Wikipedia's unruly bruta fulmina, but it exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up its obvious inferiority. Wikipedia has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with misguided Neanderthals. Is this because it needs their help to crush any semblance of opposition to its twisted smear tactics? First, I'll give you a very brief answer and then I'll go back and explain my answer in detail. As for the brief answer, if I said that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever its institutional interests are at stake, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being utterly honest if I said that by brainwashing its votaries with separatism, Wikipedia makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave. If you think you can escape from Wikipedia's pea-brained self-fulfilling prophecies, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that it often recruits judgmental good-for-nothings who bring to its cause new energy and a willingness to scar little children's self-image. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. I don't mean to scare you, but Wikipedia shouldn't con us into believing that it has a "special" perspective on exclusionism which carries with it a "special" right to leave us in the lurch. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions create some bloodthirsty, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. Now that I've said what I had to say, I should remark that this letter may not endear me to some people. Indeed, it may even cost me a friend or two. However, friends do not let friends get trampled by indecent, myopic rash-types like Wikipedia. The truth is the truth and we pay a steep price whenever we ignore it.