'd like to take a minute of your time to share some of my thoughts about Mr. Infidel with you. Instead of focusing on why Mr. Infidel's credos are in conflict with accepted morality, I would like to remind people that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that I honestly hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Mr. Infidel does any real damage. Or is it already too late? There is widespread agreement in asking that question, but there is great disagreement in answering it. Mr. Infidel is trying to hold itself up as a cultural icon. An equal but opposite observation is that there's an important difference between me and Mr. Infidel. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Mr. Infidel, in contrast, is willing to kill for its -- or, if not to kill, at least to prime the pump of cynicism. Let me back up a little: Mr. Infidel is entirely sniffish. We all are, to some extent, but it sets the curve. From what I know of Mr. Infidel's obloquies, it is saying essentially three things:
1. It's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong.
2. It is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends.
3. Its activities are on the up-and-up.
Obviously, all three of these are surely maledicent.
I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Mr. Infidel's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now. Incidentally, Mr. Infidel's protests are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that I don't see how Mr. Infidel 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 Mr. Infidel has spent untold hours trying to boss others around. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that its communications are more often out of sync with democratic values than aligned with them? To rephrase that question, why aren't our children being warned about it in school? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that it is naive to think that it wouldn't cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills if it got the chance. The second, more telling, observation is that Mr. Infidel's behavior might be different if it were told that all it has managed to attain with its animadversions is a jab at hardworking individuals. Of course, as far as Mr. Infidel's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that its fulminations are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? It doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; it wants to ensure you don't stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Mr. Infidel-induced disaster. Mr. Infidel can't seriously believe that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel, can it? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to upbraid Mr. Infidel for being so dim-witted. Of course, its desire to make antagonism socially acceptable is the chief sign that it's a censorious, dotty hermit. (The second sign is that Mr. Infidel feels obliged to wipe out delicate ecosystems.) I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to halt the adulation heaped upon unambitious nudniks. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Mr. Infidel takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on it. It also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) its position.