Apologetics Into The Vacuum

Dear XXXXX

Translated — Dear (fill in name here)

It is a form letter. It is a form, “kind of, but not really apology” letter. There is probably one of these laying on the table of many many other readers around the county at this very moment.

“Thank you so much for your recent communication in which you express concern re “The Gonfalon” publishing of two controversial articles. We appreciate very much your response and receive it in the spirit of helpful and constructive reflection on the best way to conduct our conversations on such topics.”

Translated — We have to say something to the complainers that will make them think that their letters add some kind of impact so we’ll use words like “appreciate,” “helpful,” and “constructive.”

Note the Psychological tone here. Soft words. Disarming.

Note also one is never told in the whole letter, “We were wrong,” or, “Please forgive us,” or, “we are sorry for our error against you,” or, “We ask you to forgive us for promoting positions that violate our club charter and our club membership vows to defend the club charter.”

“We want to assure you that we hear you. It had been our intention, from the outset, to answer the opinions expressed in these recent articles. For example, in the September issue we have Dr. Perry Crook, a well-known NWO biologist, challenge Sellout’s assumptions re “Abiogenesis.” And my September editorial will address the issue raised by Dr. Alfred Kinsey. We have also reserved space in future issues of the magazine to publish further responses on these topics.”

Translated — We are going to make it all better by having some good works balance out our bad works. Does anyone believe that the good articles will be as strongly “traditional,” as the bad articles were strongly “Cultural Marxist?”

Note — Does anyone really believe that Hefner is going to repudiate Kinsey, root, branch and twig? We shall see. Further, I doubt Crook’s article will completely repudiate all notions of Macro Hypo Maturation that include the necessity to re-read our origins.

In the end the seed planted by these two articles that were published will remain firmly planted. The take-away, at best, will be …“You can be a evolutionist like Sellout and be a member of our club, or have the views that everyone in the club had prior to 1850, like Crook and be in the club.” Similarly, what is communicated is, “One can advocate fornication like Kinsey did in his article and be in the club, and one can be a sexual traditionalist and be in the club. All of these options are valid options. The club is big enough for every contradiction.” Hence, the Cultural Marxists win because the club charter and membership vows are seen as irrelevant.

On this paragraph we have to say also that the Editor, in our opinion, reveals that he is either incompetent or dissimulating. The reason we advance such a theory is that the Editor is telling us that in an article written in April there was a design to print a answering article in the September issue … and this without even announcing with the publication of the April article that there would be a forthcoming article to provide “balance.” If the Editor here is not dissimulating it proves he is incompetent, and if he is not incompetent it strongly suggests he is dissimulating. It stretches credulity for one to believe that the Editor is not either incompetent or dissimulating.

“Upon reflection, we realize that that’s too late and also that our selection of these articles did not help us to frame the discussion well. Although we believe such concerns may and should be raised if, as in these cases, they are being expressed widely among our club members, they should be raised (and answered) in a more constructive way that does not leave our readers wondering and concerned about the direction of the magazine.”

Translation — We got caught pushing the envelope to hard and to fast. That was not wise of us. Better to continue with our Fabian incremental approach.

Note — What discussion were they trying to frame? Were they trying to frame a discussion on whether or not our founding document is true? Were they trying to frame a discussion on the necessity to embrace modernity in all its glory? Just what discussion were they trying to frame?

How do they know these concerns are being raised among club members? Did they take a poll? Was their impression that these concerns existed from random conversations? Is their evidence for these concerns anecdotal?

Do they believe that if, for example, the desire to sleep with one’s dead Mother (Necrophilia and Incest) were a concern to some club members they therefore could write articles advocating for having sex with one’s dead Mother?

“In short, as editor I should have done better and I have learned from your response and the responses of others. Again, my sincere thanks for expressing your concerns. I pray that they will help us to serve you and our readership better in framing these conversations.”

Translation — More required groveling. “Are you satisfied yet?”

The Articles and the Editor’s response is a classic case example of how Marxist dialectics work. The Marxist keep shoving in the bayonet until they meet resistance whereupon they withdraw ever so slightly only to recoup their strength for the next bayonet charge. The Gonfalon is the hammer of the dialectic. It hammers so far and when the nail (readership) finally resists a blow, it recoups for awhile in order to marshal their strength for the next hammer blow.