Well, I knew this day would come eventually and in a way, I’m surprised that it’s taken this long. However, I’ve decided that I’m no longer going to devote any more column space to Andrew Schlafly’s little bastion of insanity and bigotry, Conservapedia… unless they do something of mind-numbing stupidity, of course. But then it would have to be on a level comparable to the Lenski dialogue, or the Conservative Bible, before I’d take note.
Even though Conservapedia is the reason for this blog’s very existence in the first place, we’ve evolved (ahem!) and broadened our scope, and it’s become apparent that there are far better lunatics out there and Conservapedia’s use as an interesting – or even amusing – source has come to an end. Then again, to say “end” would imply there was a beginning and let’s face it, Conservapedia – as the bastion of right-wing knowledge and thought Schlafly fantasises about – never got out of the blocks. From the get go the right-wing masses never appeared, indeed they actively seemed to shun it; it became the laughing stock of the scientific, sane and – after the Conservative Bible – religious community; and even the home-schoolers, for whom it was originally created, have abandoned the project en masse. Even the current batch of students being subjected to Schlafly’s abysmal courses, seem to use the site for the sole purpose of posting their homework answers. Which makes you wonder if they even exist – there’s been a couple of much-hyped courses that have mysteriously stopped after a few weeks. Which makes you wonder if they even existed in the first place.
Not only that, but the format didn’t suit the mentality of his target market – these are people with chips on both shoulders, who really, really want the world to know how pissed off they are that there’s a Black Man in the White House. They have neither the inclination, not the mental capacity, to write articles for something that purports to be an encyclopaedia. That’s why the new Teabagger Facebook will be successful… provided they can raise the funds to keep it going (last month they raised $10,000 out of a requested $30,000. Now they’re asking for another $30,000, but with no expiry date)… there they can post without having to engage what passes for their brains.
When you add the fact that of the remaining hand-picked goons running the site, only Schlafly seems to care. Terry Hurlbut only uses it to promote his own blog; ditto Ken Demyer, who happily clutters up the main page with inane posts linking to his pitiful Question Evolution blog, where he fantasises about crushing atheism and mythical long-haired, creationist sweethearts write him sweet letters, in 2nd grade standard English; Brian Macdonald has taken over from the late Terry Koeckriz in banning everything that moves and Ed Poor shows occasionally, to either destroy what’s left of their maths articles, or to add vaguely disturbing sexual content to the “family-friendly” encyclopaedia’s pages.
So, before I close the book on Conservapedia for – hopefully – the last time, I’d like to close off with a bit more insanity from its founder, Andrew Schlafly – probably the single biggest reason why Conservapedia failed to begin with.
Not withstanding his current fixation on how Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and the underlying e=mc2 formula are all liberal claptrap, designed to stop people reading the Bible – something questions by saying that if he eats a pound of cake, his energy doesn’t increase by the weight of the cake, multiplied by the speed of light squared. This from somebody with a B.Sc, remember, Schlafly has another little pet theory.
It seems that communist are scared to admit their leaders have died, because they “have no incentive to risk challenge to their power by announcing that he passed away.” This is what is says in Conservapedia’s article on Fidel Castro, which is written entirely in the past sense, because Castro “is presumably no longer alive as of December 2009.” Needless to say, once Schlafly has pronounced on something, it becomes the One and Only Infallible Truth and shall not be proven wrong. Which results in much hilarity as Schlafly twists reality to match his Truth. Thus, when Castro met the Pope, Schlafly responded with the hysterical “Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?” – because body doubles are far more plausible than saying “Oops, I made a mistake.”
It seems that Schlafly’s only basis for this death “cover-up” line is that an elderly, ill man hasn’t been seen in public for a while. In fact, he uses exactly the same logic on Hugo Chavez, claiming that “Chavez was not seen in public since he entered a Cuban hospital near death on December 11, 2012. Venezuela’s communist regime engaged in liberal denial about his death for nearly three months, even releasing a photo of an ostensibly fit and smiling Chavez. But on March 5, 2013, likely due to pressure from other nations that knew Chavez had died, Venezuelan communists finally admitted Chavez was dead.”
Because, saying somebody is still alive, when they are still alive, is liberal denial.
It wouldn’t be Schlafly if he didn’t engage in some grave dancing, so when Chavez actually died on March 5th, Schlafly not only posted the following on Conservapedia’s main page:
Conservapedia is proven right: HUGO CHAVEZ IS DEAD, and the lamestream media finally admit it.
Liberal denial crashes again.
He goes on to update the “Conservapedia Proven Right” article with the following:
Prediction: “”The liberal media go along with the communist cover-up about Hugo Chavez, despite how he likely died in a Cuban hospital in December.”
“Liberal claptrap” in response: “The liberal media go along with the communist cover-up about Hugo Chavez, despite how he likely died in a Cuban hospital in December.” (Note how he’s somehow claiming that the media is somehow responding to something Schlafly said, whereas in reality, most of them don’t even know he’s alive.)
Result: “Hugo Chavez is indeed dead, the BBC finally admits nearly two months after Conservapedia had already informed the world of that fact.”
The “logic” behind this is so flawed, that I would seriously not want this Harvard-educated lawyer representing me in court. He’s basically saying that because somebody ill died several months after Schlafly said he had died, that Schlafly has been proven right.
There really isn’t anywhere else to go when faced with this kind of messianic insanity, so I won’t be going here again.