I still can't work out if Conservapedia was (a) real, (b) a spoof or (c) a real project that just got turned into a spoof because of all of the nasty smelly liberals out there. I also - before anyone makes any tedious assumptions about my political orientation - wish there was a Liberopedia out there too which said that Clinton was a genius and Kennedy was assassinated by the Bush campaign and all vicars eat children, but sadly we'll have to wait for that one.

There are many examples of uninentional irony on Conservapedia: the irony of using computer technology to bash science; the irony of attacking Muslim fundamentalism; and the irony of declaring that the "truth will set you free" while stating elsewhere that the intention of the site is to be biased - to distort the truth.

Today though, I found the mother of all examples. Everybody knows that Liberals deny things all the time (because they are confused, godless, compulsive liars), and so it's only natural that Liberal Denial warrants it's own article (see [1]). This contains all sorts of important observations - for example, it was only thanks to this article that I learned that some of these bastards actually deny that Reagan's command to tear down the Berlin Wall was the direct cause of its demise. What are they like?!

But what about Conservative Denial? Not only does the article not exist, it's been explicitly blocked from being created [2]! The beautiful irony of this is presumably lost on the editors, who seem like quite simple folk. Not only that, but they've missed a killer opportunity.

You see, by the tortured logic of Conservapedia, any one who denies any of the accusations of liberal denial is, by default, a liberal. As the omnipotent, omnipresent super-editor Aschlafly neatly replies to one poor confused soul who suggests that maybe the economic collapse of Soviet Russia had more to do with the fall of the Berlin wall than one Reagan speech, "See? You help illustrate our point".

Therefore, anyone who denies conservative denial is, themselves, a conservative. Consevapedia have made the ultimate denial by censoring the entry, but they've denied the opportunity to create a liberal honey-trap. They could have created an entry full of clearly ludicrous, unreferenced statements (something they're very good at), and suckered the great unconverted into denying one of them. An unsuspecting liberal walks in, and wham - before you can say "global-warming's-a-big-load-of-pants", they're suddenly an extremist conservative denier, forced to live out the rest of their days buying ammunition, attending church, and looking suspiciously at black folk. Maybe.

Okay, I know Conservapedia is old news, but it's fascinating to me. Wikipedia, the fountain of all crap, meets the cult of neo-evangeliconservoludditism (or whatever it's called), a movement dedicated to stupidity. Wikipedia flirts a bit, she's young, promiscuous, willing to do anything with anyone. The two breed and a freak mutation is born - Conservapedia, the stupid fountain of all stupid crap.

It's like some kind of bizarre experiment in social evolution gone wrong. And like a real freak of nature, I just can't stop staring at it.

[1] Liberal Denial - (Conservapedia).
[2] Conservative Denial - (Conservapedia)