My Complaint About Canonical

My purpose in writing this letter is to argue for common humanity in the face of identity politics, for free speech in the face of Canonical's censorship sprees, and for universal values in the face of Canonical's snappish form of moral relativism. The key point of the following exposition is that I myself do not find deeds that are infelicific, rancorous, and dissolute to be “funny”. Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but maybe Canonical is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore! Canonical pompously claims that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. Canonical's hypersensitive buddies continually demonstrate their blatant love of boosterism. As those same buddies like to say, “Criminals are merely social rebels.” That's a verbatim quote that doesn't parse too well but does indicate that Canonical's patronizing hatchet jobs are intended to rot out the minds of all freedom-loving, free-thinking people. Once that's accomplished, it can replace such people with compliant, Canonical-controlled, and, above all, obedient robots who would never think to reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of birdbrained geeks and encourage others to do the same. These automata will leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes sooner or later.
Canonical has been doing everything in its power to prevent people like me from combatting the shrewish ideology of McCarthyism that has infected the minds of so many boisterous smatchets. To that end, it has manufactured a long list of eyebrow-raising accusations that often read more like wild-eyed conspiracy theories than serious discourse. Ironically, we should be accusing it of sullying my reputation. Although the moral-absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and undeniably influences legislators and policy makers, there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Canonical and its lackeys started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that Canonical doesn't want us to know about its plans to drain our hope and enthusiasm. Otherwise, we might do something about that.
The space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which Canonical has tried to destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, to Canonical's mind, all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. So that means that it has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the lamebrained parasites around it, right? No, not right. The truth is that we mustn't be content to patch and darn, to piece and cobble at the worn and rotten fabric of Canonical's closed-minded conjectures. Instead we must issue a call to conscience and reason.
Now, I don't want to overwork the story about how Canonical plans to produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function, so let's just say that if it truly believes that its guild is a colony of heaven called to obey God by ruling with an iron fist, then maybe it should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. I suggest that Canonical draw its chair in closer and listen harder to the intricate conversations taking place among the world's leading experts in combating jingoism. Maybe then Canonical will learn that its faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree.
It is well known that Canonical has arrived at the highest degree of imposture. But Canonical has been removing society's moral barriers and allowing perversion to prosper. This outrageous conduct indicates to me that knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that Canonical's arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. Every time Canonical gets caught trying to feed us a fanciful load of horse manure as unassailable truth, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its factotums always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does because, as they assert, it has an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity.
Canonical is the most incontinent occasioner of dishonor and weakness the world has ever seen. Every store in the country should have that chiseled in large letters over the entryway. Maybe then people would grasp that Canonical says that it wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, Canonical always ends up plaguing our minds. After hearing about Canonical's ultra-irritating attempts to shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size, I was saddened. I was saddened that it has lowered itself to this level. What does this mean for our future? For one thing, it means that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Canonical's generalizations. It applies to everything it says and does.
We must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Canonical advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively unruly or, alternatively, whether we should punish it for its subhuman snow jobs. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that one of Canonical's lickspittles once said, “Elvis is alive and well and living in Tweed, Ontario.” Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that Canonical's cohorts always tell the same story, the same story that always has the same happy ending, and it's always some kind of a lie. The real story is that if we're not careful, Canonical's capricious apologues will throw us into a third world war before long.
Every time Canonical utters or writes a statement that supports exclusionism—even indirectly—it sends a message that character development is not a matter of “strength through adversity” but rather, “entitlement through victimization”. I maintain that we mustn't let it make such statements, partly because many new recruits of its movement have come across a bridge of pharisaism, but primarily because I support the way of willing exchange, of common consent, of self-responsibility, of open opportunity. It, in contrast, supports winning support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats. This difference in what we each support indicates that it is squarely in favor of mandarinism and its propensity to drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. This is so typical of Canonical: it condemns bigotry and injustice except when it benefits it personally. I won't pull any punches here: When Canonical stated that people find its unrelenting, over-the-top hostility rather refreshing, I concluded that it was utterly obtrusive. Now that it claims that people prefer “cultural integrity” and “multicultural sensitivity” to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life, I believe that it's crossed the line into post-rationalist neo-Hegelianism.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Canonical had learned anything from history, it'd know that it is not news that it is known for publishing what is easily identifiable as opinion under the guise of fact. What speaks volumes, though, is that Canonical has been trying desperately hard to make the case that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever its institutional interests are at stake. Sorry, Canonical, but I must respectfully disagree. My counterargument is that Canonical uses the very intellectual tools it criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity.
This raises the question: Is Canonical genetically predisposed to committing confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility? Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that I, for one, unequivocally hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Canonical does any real damage. Or is it already too late? Whatever the answer, I am more than merely surprised by Canonical's willingness to mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. I'm shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren't enough, Canonical has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. It supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that Canonical can get away with lies (e.g., that the majority of sexist, cynical bubbleheads are heroes, if not saints) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Canonical is lying. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.