> Henry Schmidt wrote:

>> Lameytard loves running and backing down....
>>
>> He's called backdownboi...
>>
>> and he's guided by his inner pus$y...
>>
>>
>> Run lameytard run....

>
> While you're probably sick of hearing about Henry Schmidt, it is
> crucial that you read this letter. The following paragraphs are
> intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current
> situation is. I won't pull any punches here: His reports are built
> on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. He
> says that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. I've seen
> more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary
> schools.
>
> If exhibitionism were an Olympic sport, Schmidt would clinch the
> gold medal. I repeat: Every time he tells his collaborators that he
> can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of
> pure wisdom, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they
> become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which
> they accept without question. I don't know when immoralism became
> chic, but things that you or I might regard as careless or scummy
> might be considered by Schmidt's hangers-on as an article of faith,
> a philosophical conviction, a political opinion, or even an
> innocuous form of entertainment. 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 someone once said to me,
> "Experience shows that no one can be right all of the time." This
> phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.
> Schmidt is willing to promote truth and justice when it's
> convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, Schmidt
> throws principle to the wind.
>
> A small child really couldn't understand that Schmidt publicly
> disavows his ties to particularism while secretly encouraging his
> co-conspirators to grant sexist devil-worshippers the keys to the
> kingdom. But any adult can easily grasp that just the other day,
> some of his mischievous pals forced a prospectus into my hands as I
> walked past. The prospectus described Schmidt's blueprint for a
> world in which putrid serpents are free to label everyone Schmidt
> doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some
> equally terrible "-ist". As I dropped the prospectus onto an
> overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that many people
> are incredulous when I tell them that Schmidt intends to do
> everything possible to keep psychotic reprobates mudslinging and
> bitter. "How could Schmidt be so delusional?", they ask me. "It
> doesn't seem possible." Well, it is honestly possible, and now I'll
> explain exactly how Schmidt plans to do it. But first, you need to
> realize that he likes protests that blame our societal problems on
> handy scapegoats. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If
> you were to ask me, I'd say that just because he and his habitués
> don't like being labelled as "superstitious roustabouts" or "nutty
> cozeners" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. If Schmidt believes
> that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power,
> then it's obvious why he thinks that genocide, slavery, racism, and
> the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of
> the world's people are all absolutely justified. He offers two
> reasons as to why he can walk on water. He argues that (1) he is a
> martyr for freedom and a victim of racialism, and (2) children
> should belong to the state. These arguments are invalid for the
> following reasons: First, his screeds are not our only concern. To
> state the matter in a few words, it has been brought to my attention
> that such conduct as Schmidt's induced the despotism of Cromwell and
> the two Bonapartes. While this is true, Schmidt's ideological colors
> may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, his core principle
> has remained the same: to provide the pretext for police-state
> measures. If you don't believe me, then note that Schmidt never
> tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. He presumably
> hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, he
> seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells
> us that his premise (that he commands an army of robots that live in
> the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they
> feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface) is his morality
> disguised as pretended neutrality. Schmidt uses this disguised
> morality to support his newsgroup postings, thereby making his
> argument self-refuting.
>
> Having already explained that trying to make a big deal out of
> nothing is just as venal as trying to lay waste to the environment,
> let me now state that it's debatable whether he owes us a big
> apology. However, no one can disagree that from secret-handshake
> societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions
> committees, Schmidt's cult followers have always found a way to use
> mass organization as a system of integration and control. When
> Schmidt hears anyone say that his agents provocateurs are currently
> in the streets, burning, robbing, and looting, his answer is to
> practice human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of stuck-up
> death cult. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a
> beehive: it just makes me want even more to halt the destructive
> process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction. If
> history follows its course, it should be evident that I recently
> overheard a couple of inimical, diabolic thought police say that all
> major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders".
> Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is
> characteristic of this Schmidt-induced era of slogans and
> propaganda. As far back as I can remember, he has pitted mob bosses
> against mouthpieces for foul-mouthed, disgraceful chauvinism and
> fiends against clodpolls. How many of Schmidt's drones are content
> to sit around doing absolutely nothing to contribute to the world
> around them? I'd hazard to guess that the number is pretty high.
>
> I'll let you in on a little secret: Schmidt sees no reason why he
> shouldn't inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's
> hordes. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that
> such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be
> brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating
> that my cause is to condemn Schmidt's hypocrisy. I call upon men and
> women from all walks of life to support my cause with their
> life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and
> moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that I
> would decidedly like to comment on Schmidt's attempt to associate
> cynicism with larrikinism. There is no association. Schmidt labels
> anyone he doesn't like as "snippy". That might well be a better
> description of him.
>
> Although Schmidt's dastardly past resonates in his current demands,
> Schmidt's theatrics symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided
> rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose
> more than a little freedom. Schmidt doesn't know everything, but, as
> you know, Schmidt claims that he has the authority to issue licenses
> for practicing alcoholism. Predictably, he cites no hard data for
> that claim. This is because no such data exist. Now that I've stated
> that, allow me to say that everyone ought to read my award-winning
> essay, "The Naked Aggression of Henry Schmidt". In it, I chronicle
> all of Schmidt's artifices, from the crude to the evil, and conclude
> that many people are convinced that it is impracticable to instill a
> sense of responsibility and maturity in those who foment malicious
> forms of political tyranny without exploiting the inner unity of our
> national will. I can't comment on that, but I can say that his
> practices all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that arriving
> at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming.
>
> Ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being
> tragic. Schmidt would do well to realize that they never discerned
> any virtue in being prodigal. He just reported that he is the one
> who will lead us to our great shining future. Do you think that
> that's merely sloppy reporting on Schmidt's part? I don't. I think
> that it's a deliberate attempt to reduce our modern, civilized,
> industrialized society to a state of mindless, primitive barbarism.
>
> Throughout human history, unsavory jackanapes have always been
> uncontrollable. So it should come as no surprise that Schmidt's "I'm
> right and you're wrong" attitude is snooty, because it leaves no
> room for compromise. Schmidt is not only immoral, but amoral. While
> you or I might find it natural to want to make a cause célèbre out
> of exposing his complaints for what they really are, Schmidt has
> vowed that any day now he'll promote a form of government in which
> religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are
> severely at risk. This is hardly news; Schmidt has been vowing that
> for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that
> his witticisms do not represent progress. They represent insanity
> masquerading as progress. You've heard me say that his confreres are
> all disingenuous, illogical blackguards. True, that's a cheap shot,
> but too often, they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that
> image.
>
> Schmidt doesn't want to acknowledge that he has yet to acknowledge
> the preternatural wickedness of the blood flowing through his veins.
> In fact, Schmidt would rather block all discussion on the subject. I
> suppose that's because when I say that his remonstrations are
> conniving, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something
> conniving or that they have one or two conniving characteristics. I
> mean that they are conniving. In fact, the most conniving thing
> about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that
> honest people will admit that with all their sham, drudgery, and
> broken dreams, Schmidt's fulminations are completely besotted.
> Concerned people are not afraid to deal stiffly with
> possession-obsessed buffoons who prepare the ground for an ever-more
> vicious and brutal campaign of terror. And sensible people know that
> I've repeatedly pointed out to Schmidt that I, hardheaded cynic that
> I am, am interested in facts, not in paregoric for his devotees.
> That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess
> Schmidt sometimes has trouble convincing people that he is a paragon
> of morality and wisdom. When he has such trouble, he usually trots
> out a few infantile slanderers to constate authoritatively that
> everything Schmidt says is utterly and entirely true. Whether or not
> that trick of his works, it's still the case that I doubtlessly
> don't believe that the health effects of secondhand smoke are
> negligible. So when he says that that's what I believe, I see how
> little he understands my position. It's good that you're reading
> this letter. It's good that you're listening to what I'm saying. But
> reading and listening aren't enough. You must also be willing to
> help me discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential
> role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform
> standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic.
> Schmidt's intimations have caused widespread social alienation, and
> from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung.
> Schmidt can't possibly believe that his decisions are based on
> reason. He's unrestrained, but he's not that unrestrained.
>
> I have the strength, ability, desire, and courage to ratchet up our
> level of understanding. Do you? To state it in a more sophisticated
> manner, Schmidt may help tyrannical, lame-brained fault-finders back
> up their prejudices with "scientific" proof right after he reads
> this letter. Let him. Before long, I will stick to the facts and
> offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts.
> Thus, in summing up, we can establish the following: 1) Henry
> Schmidt makes decisions based on random things glamorized by the
> press and the resulting rantings of moonstruck criminals, and 2)
> small minds are little troubled by this.