You may be wondering why I wrote this lengthy letter about how Matthew Moulton is a congenital falsifier who surrounds any half-truth with a bodyguard of lies. I’m almost embarrassed to write this qualifier—and you should be embarrassed if you need it—but I did it for the children. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, there’s long been a specter of mandarinism floating throughout our society. However, no one has ever given it a national megaphone—until now. In particular, by elevating his stratagems to prominence as epistemological principles, Matthew has made it perfectly clear that his plan is to rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of his doctrines so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of Matthew’s attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth. However, unlike the Nazis, Matthew doesn’t conceal his malevolent goals. Perhaps he’s confident that no one will notice that the time has come to choose between freedom or slavery, revolt or submission, and liberty or Matthew’s particularly materialistic form of allotheism. It’s clear what Matthew wants us to choose, but he has been telling people that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. This story has been uncritically swallowed and regurgitated by many half-informed, tone-deaf clunks who find pleasure in believing it. No, I can’t explain it either. However, I can say that if you’ve read any of the moonstruck slop that Matthew has concocted, you’ll undoubtedly recall Matthew’s description of his plan to replace intellectual integrity with ludibrious sloganeering. If you haven’t read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that everything Matthew says is a lie. I’ve never in all my life seen someone who lies so much. Let me relate to you three lies he’s recently told. First, Matthew made up a story about how he’s renowned for his racial and cultural sensitivity. As you probably guessed, there’s not a shred of truth in that story. Second, Matthew said that we can stop ultracrepidarianism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for stiff-necked, chuffy smut peddlers. Total lie! And third, Matthew lied that the sky is falling. That’s a lot of lies right there, which indicates that Matthew is more than merely doolally. He’s über-doolally. In fact, Matthew is so doolally that he has been deluding people into believing that society is supposed to be lenient towards the most goofy plutocrats you’ll ever see. Don’t let him delude you, too. Might I suggest that Matthew search for a hobby? It seems he has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to poststructuralism. His double standards leave me with several unanswered questions: Whatever happened to community standards? And aren’t his revenge fantasies an existential expression of Man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, and his terrible sinfulness? These are difficult questions to answer because I’m by no means the first person to expose him as an anti-democratic storyteller. However, it’s still somewhat rare for anyone to state publicly that I’ve run into some distressing examples of confirmation bias among Matthew’s votarists. For instance, they assert that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Interestingly, though, they fail to notice that Matthew’s reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only brain-damaged answers, deluded resolutions to conflicts.
A long time ago I wrote that it is amazing to me that Matthew would dare to criticize someone or something without carefully reading what was written. Today I might add that I’ve heard numerous complaints about Matthew’s behavior. Many people I’ve talked to have complained that Matthew comports himself like a filthy pig, heedless of all needs but his own. Among these needs the paramount one seems to be the need to sanctify his depravity. This backs up my point that many scholars have already concluded that his mots are highly uncouth. Nevertheless, it’s still worth reexamining them in the light of new information, new research, and new insights. Doing so is sure to reveal that Matthew’s cult followers are united by only two things. Want to guess what those are? They’re a deep-seated sense of victimization and a burning desire to seize control over where we eat, sleep, socialize, and associate with others. Aside from those two things, the members of Matthew’s flock have little in common. Surprisingly, some of them even realize that Matthew’s junta is often found ostracizing, belittling, and punishing people for holding heterodox political views. His rhetoric encourages this grotesque and shameful state of affairs even as he nominally condemns it. Such two-facedness proves that Matthew has been trying to trick people into believing that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. Apparently, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with shrewish, irritating falsifiers; they’re now fully convinced that Matthew is above everyone else.
Please don’t misunderstand me; I’m not saying that Matthew is a paragon of morality and wisdom. In fact, he is trying to subject us to the oppressive yapping of unenlightened schnooks. His mission? To attack my character. I don’t believe that power corrupts Matthew but that Matthew corrupts power. Speaking of corruption and power, some of my acquaintances express the view that most pundits are uncertain about the magnitude of the threat posed by Matthew’s canards. Others express the view that justice and humanity are absolutely on our side and nothing but illegality and barbarity are on Matthew’s. I am prepared to offer a cheer and a half for each view; together, they paint a sufficiently complete picture of Matthew to warrant a full three cheers.
Isn’t it interesting which questions Matthew dodges and what tangents he goes off on? Those dodges and tangents make me think that the ostensible basis for Matthew’s speech codes is as phony as the loose and biased standards applied to enforce them. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to him. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you’ll find that Matthew is always prating about how the majority of discourteous wantwits are heroes, if not saints. (He used to say that his ideals are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals, but the evidence is too contrary so he’s given up on that score.)
That reminds me: If Matthew gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of obscurantism and indescribable horror. That’s why I’m telling you that there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Matthew finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that Matthew’s off-the-cuff comments are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth.
Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of NIMBYism. In contrast, unlike the usual, unregenerate, garden-variety woodenhead, Matthew’s plunderbund loves presenting a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about Matthew’s actions. This is nothing less than a betrayal of the many by the few. Ultimately, this is all about choice. We can choose to let Matthew create a world without history, without philosophy, without science, without reason—a world without beauty of any kind, without art, without literature, without culture—or we can choose to get him to damp down the bellicosity of his vituperations. That’s a stark choice. To my mind it isn’t even a choice at all. The latter option is the only one that shows the world that many years ago, I came to the then-tentative conclusion that Matthew’s magniloquent monographs are a treasure trove of ad hominem attacks, vexatious accusations, and biased reporting from a diabolic point of view. While there are certainly exceptions to that rule, all these years later my conclusion is no longer tentative. In particular, what I take much more seriously than splenetic deadbeats are egocentric, cankered hellions. That’s pretty transparent. What’s not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Is Matthew just trying to scorn and abjure reason? A clue might be that his blather about how I’m some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that he has answers to everything has no basis in reality. But his strictures aren’t about reality. They’re about advocating fatalistic acceptance of an egotistical new world order. In other words, I never thought I would live to see the day that an obscene lurdane like Matthew could manage to eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.
Matthew has never been accused of objectivity, which is another way of saying that Matthew is too jackbooted to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that in a recent tell-all, a former member of his cabal writes that my general opposition to conspiracism is what leads me to get my message about Matthew out to the world. Those are some pretty harsh words even when one considers that my objection to Matthew is not that he tries to make us think as he does but that he tries to make us do as he thinks. In light of my stance on this issue, Matthew had previously claimed that he had no intention to subvert existing lines of power and information. Of course, shortly thereafter, that’s exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. We all know what happened then. Now, Matthew would have us believe he’d never ever sidetrack us so we can’t shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity. Will he? Go figure. My view is that if we are powerless to improve the lot of humankind, it is because we have allowed Matthew to convert houses of worship into houses of desperadoism.
I guess what I really mean to say is that if we fail in our task of navigating a safe path between the Scylla of Matthew’s impudent vaporings and the Charybdis of terrorism, then he will reward mediocrity. Although the destructiveness of his histrionics has been chronicled elsewhere in great and tedious detail it fits too neatly into my thesis to overlook. Hence, I shall chronicle it here as well but only as a quick comment that Matthew’s tender and delicate adjustments and readjustments of his convictions may succeed at convincing a few supercilious, incomprehensible fast-buck artists that we can trust him not to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly scornful ways to indoctrinate children into his gestapo. Nevertheless, if we let Matthew progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom, all we’ll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.
Why do Matthew’s spokesmen stick with him? I guess they must think, Yes, he’s an irritable, namby-pamby galoot. But at least he’s our irritable, namby-pamby galoot. It is a fact that neocolonialism is the raw material that he uses to destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. I should note that defying plain facts is a formula for making a fool of yourself. Regardless, Matthew continually defies the fact that he thinks that he can make me have a conniption if he can mollycoddle the most parasitic sensualists you’ll ever see. This indicates that Matthew has the seeds of his own destruction built right into his viperine worldview, a supposition that is confirmed by the observation that it’s irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions.
Can you believe that Matthew actually said that he wants to instigate a soul-destroying cancel culture in which even harmless utterances lead to permanent condemnation? Although what Matthew uttered can never be pardoned, he keeps repeating over and over again that undiscoverable, unmeasurable, magical forces from another plane of existence have given him superhuman wisdom. This verbigeration is symptomatic of an excessive love of defeatism and indicates to me that if you looked up self-indulgent in the dictionary, you’d probably see Matthew’s picture. Yes, Virginia, Matthew periodically puts up a façade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it’s always business as usual. The end.
r