Alright, so Rush Limbaugh is wrong. Unequivocally, indisputably, just-plain-wrong. But is this even a topic that needed clarification? Hardly. When elaborated on, though, Limbaugh represented something which allowed me to discuss any number of related issues. I doubt you could have gotten this far without noticing how my book isn’t even really about Limbaugh, not entirely, and how this is a good thing (at least in moi’s opinion).

If you flipped to the last chapter hoping to find a neat summary or conclusion as to why Limbaugh is wrong, you’ll be disappointed. (Hell, most of my major conclusions can be found in the first chapter.) I could give you some elaborate theory about how Limbaugh is simply looking to assure himself that life isn’t any more complex than the comforting picture of simplicity that is conservatism; or that the reason he blames everything on liberals is because his delusions of order requires an enemy against which to proclaim his own sense of victory; or how he conveniently sidesteps any intelligent debate on the issues by characterizing his opposition only by the most fringe of extremists.

I could tell you these things, but why bother? Most of these conclusions are self-evident. And besides, that’s not why I wrote this.

Other than presenting a few thoughts on how things might be bettered, my underlying intention was to somehow inspire people. My hope was that this book would fill people with a longing to expand on what I’ve written, so that it acts mainly as a catalyst for something real in the real world, rather than just a lot of overly contrived and confused words on these pieces of paper.

Am I a dreamer or what?


The thing I’m probably proudest of this book is that I edited it myself and kept my voice intact, which I fear would have been diluted into some impersonal fact-sheet had this landed into the hands of a major publisher. At least that’s the impression I got from the feedback given to me concerning my book proposal.

I despised having to write a query letter, trying to sell my book via what could only by definition be in crass and commercial terms. The queries I sent out were usually pretty crummy; but I expected people to be impressed with my ideas, not the slickness of my query letter. Most of the rejections I got were anonymous form-letters, but some of the more elaborate explanations I got were real hoots. One person wrote simply that, ‘‘At least Limbaugh is literate.’’ But the most riotous letter I received is that in Appendix VIII.

As you might imagine the letter I wrote back was less than grateful. I don’t know, maybe this person is right, maybe what I’ve written here is more suited for Letters to the Editor than a book. But what I can’t get over are statements like, ‘‘Do you know the powerful machine backing him?’’ and, ‘‘What is more important to an editor is what have you found out about the group backing him, etc.’’ and, ‘‘What is behind his propaganda?’’ My God man, the way this guy talks you’d think all professional book editors were a bunch of conspiracy theorists who believe there’s some underground agency that funds R.L.’s shows. When obviously the only reason he had a television show, much like the same reason he has a radio show, is because there’s an audience who wants to listen to him. The free marketplace is the only force backing Limbaugh’s success. As for what spurns his conservative views, that is the playground of speculation and very much a matter of personal opinion.

My indignant pride aside, it seems only fitting that I also end this with an acknowledgment of the book’s very weaknesses, of which it contains more than its share. The greatest of which probably being a lack of confirmation of facts; I didn’t do a fraction as much research as I could have to confirm or elaborate on many things of which I wrote. But I made a conscious decision from the get-go that I’d rather write something of interest on its own subjective merit, and the last thing I wanted to do was clutter my words up with a lot of boring facts. (Well, that and I’m real lazy.)

What I do feel regret for is the fact that I’ve accused Limbaugh of making broad generalizations against liberals, while at the same I’ve done practically the same thing towards conservatives. I am likewise guilty of using the term conservative in an overreaching and derogatory context. I fully appreciate that religious conservatives are individuals who, like everyone else, hold their own personal opinions and viewpoints, and I’d like to sincerely apologize to anyone whom I might have insulted or unfairly characterized.


It’s just that, often, many of ‘‘conservative’’ creed seem too easily agreeable with popular opinion, too willing to conform to conventional standards, a little too eager to simply go along with wherever their leaders (such as Limbaugh’s tide) may take them. Limbaugh, his listeners, and countless others around the world earnestly believe that through their brand of conservative ideology and religious mythology they have the perfect little truth and simplistic answer to everything. That’s what an ideology does——it oversimplifies everything, takes life and reduces it to the crudest of concepts.

This is the sad legacy of our cerebrally-challenged kind.

But I say no longer. It’s time to educate ourselves about that which eludes us; to confront our fears; and to delve into and embrace the mysteries of life so many faiths conveniently insist are beyond human understanding.

Not to deny that humans need some form of outside guidance in life (other than one’s parents, needless to say). In a ‘‘Mythology’’ course I once took, we read many cultures mythologies dating from time back when, and whereas most were pretty twisted, a few struck me as uniquely uplifting. The Native American mythologies concerning their relationship with the Earth, for instance, struck me as being very wise, for I myself feel a strong connection and love for the natural world. Thereafter I began to realize that having a ‘‘mythology’’ (or spiritual philosophy, as it were) is essential to mankind. Essential in helping us understand ourselves and this life; essential in helping guide us for natural self-guidance eludes us.

But guide us toward what?

Individuality, self-guidance of course. Towards that which eludes us; away from the very ignorance that makes us need these mythologies and religions to begin with.

The most positive philosophy I can envision would be that which helps guide one away from that philosophy, that wants to be abandoned or transcended in favor of self-guidance and self-truth. That wants to guide people to a place so that it is no longer even necessary, away from itself. Not a mythology, philosophy or religious ideology that feeds off of and exploits people’s ignorance and fear, making them increasingly dependent on it for guidance like the mental, emotional, spiritual crutch it so often is.

That’s all I’m saying and the reason I wrote this book. Not to pick on Limbaugh, necessarily, but simply to express something different, another outlook. To encourage people to open their eyes, their minds, and their hearts a little. To look through the illusion of objective, preconceived truth personified by past and modern-day ideologies. And to perhaps take a more realistic look at how things in our society and world might be changed for the better.

But please, don’t take my word for anything. For above all else, my real wish (other than that Limbaugh doesn’t sue my ass into the poorhouse) is that people search for their own answers, their own truths, their own paths of guidance in life.

That’s it ...

That’s why Rush Limbaugh is wrong.


Main    Read the book    Download the book