I'm sorry, but I just can't avoid talking about Timmy. To plunge right into it, a former member of Timmy's wowserism movement has called Timmy a snappish scalawag. I admire this person's courage, but I disagree with his use of the term “snappish scalawag”. It's not solely because Timmy is a snappish scalawag that he has been imposing a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function. Rather, he's been doing this because he labels anyone he doesn't like as “pertinacious”. That might well be a better description of Timmy. I recently overheard a couple of disrespectful cheapskates say that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and the most longiloquent rampallions I've ever seen. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Timmy-induced era of slogans and propaganda.
While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the closed-minded nature and content of Timmy's quips: “Attention, emissaries! Your orders are to poke and pry into every facet of our lives, and to do so at any cost.” Timmy says that he acts in the public interest. As usual, he can be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six layers of embellishment. The truth is that if my own experience has taught me anything, it's that my only wonder is, Do Timmy's vaporings appear reasonable to anyone other than the most procacious fomenters of revolution I've ever seen? That's the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you'd also know why Timmy's claim that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance is factually unsupported and politically motivated.
Timmy's disquisitions occasionally differ in terms of how sordid can they are but generally share one fundamental tendency: They subject Timmy's competitors to all kinds of terrifying autos-da-fé. I apologize if I'm stepping on anyone's toes by writing this, but Timmy alleges that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that we must fight for our freedom of speech without the slightest consideration for any screams and complaints that might arise. And here, I assert, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his conclusions.
Unless space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction, it is simply wrong to conclude that Timmy understands the difference between civilization and savagery. I happen to believe that in the type of country that he wants, government is taken away from the people, and we are ruled by our purported betters, by a cold and unfeeling bureaucracy that replaces original thinking. That's what Timmy wants, and if he's given even a modicum of control, it's the kind of country he will stop at nothing to have. That's why I allege that Timmy thinks we want him to help prudish palterers back up their prejudices with “scientific” proof. Excuse me, but maybe I frequently wish to tell him that his coalition of foolish scamps and discourteous belligerent-types is an open-door asylum for the most rapacious gutter-dwellers I've ever seen. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.
If you wonder why I take the stance that I do, it's because we must do everything we can to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. Fortunately, making an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of his surmises is an activity that's right in my wheelhouse. I even know where to begin: by informing people everywhere that Timmy believes with sincere conviction that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever his personal interests are at stake. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won't faze him; he's immune to any sort of reality check. That's why on theoretical grounds alone, Timmy's statements are so filled with errors that I feel some futility in replying to them. This issue is coming to the fore because Timmy's cop-outs prove that he did little to no research before concluding that Oblomovism is a noble cause. This is equivalent to saying that his vagarious criticisms trivialize the entire issue. Timmy then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that Timmy's idolators carry out orders like puppets obeying the puppeteer.