Or just batshit insane?
I fear Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly has finally had a break with reality. No, wait… let me rephrase that. His grip on reality has always been tenuous at best, but it would appear as if this was the week he decided to finally let go, and drifted off into Andyland.
The first inkling was the bizarre rant, calling E=mc2 “meaningless,” “almost nonsensical” and “liberal claptrap.” You have to remember that this is coming from a man who purports to have a B.Sc. Reading a bit further in the article you find that Schlafly’s “reasoning” (besides a hatred of Einstein and the Theory of Relativity) is based on a very flawed premise:
E=mc² is a meaningless though working, almost nonsensical though often applied, e.g., in nuclear physics, statement that purports to relate all matter to energy and light. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap.
Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.
Yes folks, E=mc² is wrong, because one man’s interpretation of a 2,000-year-old book, presumably written by a bunch of goat herders living in a desert, says otherwise. Or because it’s Jewish Physics. The article is double funny, because despite Schlafly’s best efforts, the introduction quoted above, is followed by a proof of the equation. Go figure.
Now if that was all, we could all just roll our eyes and write it off as just another example of “Schlafly hates physics/Einstein/Relativity.” But wait, as they say in the classics, there’s more! Schlafly showed everybody that not only does he not understand the formula, but his reasoning style borders on the infantile:
Eating a pound of cake does not cause one’s energy to increase by the speed of light squared.
It would appear as if Schlafly, an engineer, doesn’t know the difference between a chemical and nuclear reaction. Then again, this certainly isn’t the first time that Schlafly’s bizarre reasoning has been put on display when it comes to physics. Who can forget his classic, “If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much?” when debating the rather wonderful Kate Sorensen?
Now, if this were all, we could probably move on. Sadly it isn’t.
A while back, Schlafly started to ponder on whether of not God has a sense of humour. (Easy answer is yes – have you seen the platypus?! Or maybe that’s proof God was smoking some of his good stuff on the 6th day.) In typical Schlafly fashion, however, he doesn’t engage in any philosophical or theological discussion, but merely takes his own weird talking points and seems to insinuate that because liberals, therefore God is funny. (No, that’s not a typing mistake. “Because liberals” has become a little meme, basically meaning that people like Schlafly blame liberals for everything. Including athlete’s foot.)
So we end up with fewer arguments for God’s sense of humour, and more for Schlafly’s complete lack of understanding of most things:
- politics: atheistic political figures are known for their lack of a sense of humor, such as Attila the Hun and Adolf Hitler, which suggests that the opposite of God is a lack of sense of humor.
- scientific: snowstorms have disrupted global warming conferences; regions that promote the global warming hoax have been subjected to brutally cold weather.
- inexplicable humor: liberals in Colorado wanted to expel the successful, but outspokenly Christian, Tim Tebow, but he ended up in a much bigger media market as a result.
However, it’s his last entry that really raised my eyebrows. Actually, that’s not true. If I raised my eyebrows any more, I’d probably scalp myself:
- dreams: some dreams might be God playing a trick for amusement purposes on you.
Seriously? God amuses himself by fucking with your mind while you sleep? And why only some dreams? Where do the non-God-fucking-with-your-mind dreams come from? And which are the God dreams? I mean I keep having one where I’m hitchhiking and I get picked up by a minivan full of cheerleaders… that must be Heaven-sent!
Now, as if we weren’t already knee deep in the crazy, it would appear as if Schlafly has a very strange was of responding to emergencies. It seems that Conservapedia, being run as it is by a clueless bunch of chumps, crashed a few days ago, with the resulting loss of an entire day’s editing history. Fortunately, one of the users, AugustO, who has a habit of being a thorn in Schlafly’s side by asking for things like facts, was able to pull in the lost edits from the RSS feed. For this, Schlafly gushed like a teen girl (seriously, read the exchange), before dropping this little gem:
The devil — which means “chaos” — is responsible for accidents and, in this case, the loss of E=mc², and God’s intelligent intervention restored it, through you. It’s the never-ending struggle between entropy and order, and thanks to you order prevailed!
So yes, it would appear as the Devil was trying to censor Andy’s bullshit on E=mc². Good job God was on his side, however. Then again, admitting that CP’s server fell over, would be akin to Schlafly admitting he made a mistake, something he almost never does, as evidenced by our next vignette.
Amongst Schlafly’s strangest assertions is the one about Fidel Castro being dead and that liberals (who else) don’t want to admit to it. It all has to do with Castro not being seen in public for a while, having surgery and eventually handing power over to his kid brother, Raúl. As with many of Schalfly’s strange pronouncements, it’s unclear what kind of point he’s trying to make, besides the usual “because liberals,” but as with his other statements, he’s been prepared to wade through shit, rather than admit that he might have made a mistake.
So, how did Schlafly respond when it reported that no lesser personage than the Pope had met with Castro? Simple – he proclaimed that a Castro impersonator had in fact met with Pope. He even went on to expand it into a full blown mystery. It’s a wonderful bit of speculation, straight out of the annals of Prison Planet or Godlike Productions, including such gems as:
- the New York Times was baffled by why the Fidel Castro (lookalike) was wearing “a scarf around his neck that seemed out of place on a warm day” (Note to the New York Times: it’s difficult to make a neck look older, even with make-up.)
- the average male lifespan is reportedly 76 years in Cuba, which means the stand-in for Fidel would of necessity be younger than his extrapolated 85 years (Fidel was born in August 1926); overdressing the stand-in as though it were cold weather is needed to conceal the relative lack of wrinkles
- rather than pontificating about himself as the real Fidel Castro would have done, the stand-in uncharacteristically asked the pontiff numerous questions about the pontiff’s own job
The last point is a classic Schlafly-ism: He knows more about how Castro would act, than Castro himself.
Now Schlafly might not be as batshit insane as former mental home inmate Ken Demyer, but he’s certainly ramped up the crazy over the past few weeks. Maybe it’s a lame attempt to get the “lamestream” media (exactly the kind of phrase you expect to see in a serious encyclopaedia) to give him the attention he craves; maybe it’s a result of the building pressure, knowing that he’s looking at 4 more years of an Obama Presidency – the man who quite likely thwarted Schlafly’s own dreams of being the Harvard Law Review President; or maybe the perils of keeping himself in an isolated echo chamber of crazy are finally coming to the fore.