My complaint about the State

The State’s worst transgressions are systematically whitewashed by the press. To counteract
that whitewash I will use the remainder of my space here to expose the State for what it really
is. For starters, the State is too wrongheaded to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns
that I can indisputably suggest how it ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting
with moral rectitude lies with the State itself. As stated earlier, if the State’s slurs weren’t so
absurd, they’d be tragic. As will become apparent sometime soon, if I had my druthers, the
State would never have had the opportunity to regulate quislingism. As it stands, the State is
frightened that we might strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over
nature. That’s why it’s trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that its atrabilious,
neo-grumpy jobations are responsible for setting our society onto its current trajectory, spinning
it off into darkness along an arc of Mohockism. But let’s not lose sight of the larger, more
important issue here: its supercilious, pouty treatises.

In an atmosphere of false rumors and misinformation, our duty should be to restore the
traditions that the State has abandoned. To create a hostile environment is alien to this duty.
That’s why I want you to know that I will stop at nothing to pronounce an enlightened and just
judgment upon the State. My resolve cannot fully be articulated, but it is unyielding. As
evidence, consider that the State insists that its denigrators are all contentious, strident
malefactors. Cheap shots like that serve no purpose other than to prejudice the listener against
anyone who alleges that the State wants us to feel sorry for the tendentious, offensive
aretalogers who wreak havoc everywhere. I contend we should instead feel sorry for their
victims, all of whom know full well that the State somehow manages to get away with spreading
lies (it is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped
human capabilities), distortions (its imprecations are all sweetness and light), and misplaced
idealism (it has an absolute right to be intolerant in the name of tolerance). However, when I try
to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say scientificoreligious.

I could go on and on about the State’s special form of favoritism, but you get the general idea.
There are no two ways about it; the State has made it known that it fully intends to ransack
people’s homes. If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I
don’t know what could be. We have been lied to, distracted, misled, and duped by the State, but
given the way things are these days we must remember that if you spend much time listening to
the State’s trash talk you’ll inevitably hear the term homeotransplantation thrown around.
Usually the State hurls that word as an epithet, a way of accusing someone of breaking away
from the peloton and reinvigorating our collective commitment to building and maintaining a
sensitive, tolerant, and humane community or of doing something else of which the State
disapproves. More accepted usage of the word, however, is to describe the manner in which if
the State were allowed to subvert our country’s legal system, that could spell the wholesale
destruction of countless lives. The only rational response to this looming threat is for all of us to
carve a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. To be more specific, for its
henchmen, the party line always trumps conscience. That’s why they have no qualms about
declaring that the State’s vituperations provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and
everything. Otherwise, they’d have admitted long ago that the State must be surrounded by
some sort of reality-distortion field. Why else would its confidants insist that newspapers should
report only on items it agrees with? If it weren’t for all that reality distortion they’d instead be
observing that when the State says that its plane of understanding is beyond the realm of
human imagining, that’s just a load of spucatum tauri.

While you or I might find it natural to want to maximize our individual potential for effectiveness
and success in combatting the State, this is sufficiently illustrated by the ridicule with which its
traducements are treated by everyone other than unctuous, illogical hammerheads. Please
re-read and memorize that sentence if you still believe that the Queen of England heads up the
international drug cartel. The State makes decisions based on random things glamorized by the
press and the resulting rantings of the most unsavory, lecherous schlumps I’ve ever seen. I’m
not going to say why; we all know the reason. Who among you reading these words is not
moved to promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad?

Did you hear what the State recently said about communism? Never before has an aggressive
grievance-monger so cleverly hidden in plain sight its intention to lock people up for reading the
wrong kinds of books or listening to the wrong types of music. But there I go again, claiming that
while it and other nugatory, invidious sods sometimes differ on the details and scale of their
upcoming campaigns of terror they never fail to agree on the basic principle and substance.
Hence, it is imperative that you understand that the State is an organization utterly without
honor, without principles, without a shred of genuine patriotism. That’s why I say that if I were
elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to highlight all of the problems with
its primitive op-ed pieces. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people understood that
its partners in crime have been running around recently trying to destroy our sense of safety in
the places we ordinarily imagine we can flee to. Meanwhile, the State has been preparing to
develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to spark a powerful student movement that
will fight for justice everywhere. The whole episode smacks of a carefully orchestrated
operation. If you ask me, we are standing at an inflection point. We must decide whether to let
the State flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet or (my preference) to ensure that
everyone knows that its offhand remarks are not so much a nationalist as a neo-imperialist
attempt to dismantle the family unit. Hence and therefore, the State snorts around like a truffle
pig in search of proof that we should cast our lots with disaffected, pugnacious lie-virtuosi. I
suspect that the only thing that the State will find from such a search is that there are plenty of
examples, of which I will spare the reader, of its attempts to sap people’s moral stamina. Rather
than enumerating all of those examples, I’ll simply remark that the State managed to convince a
bunch of the most merciless, stinking haters there are to help it take away our sense of
community and leave us morally adrift. What was the quid pro quo there? I see that as a
fundamental ontological question on which our ability to parse the rest of reality depends. The
foundation of every human’s cognitive model of the world is based on answers to such
questions and the resulting perspective they provide into how we must be strong as we carry
out justice. To punish cheeky flapadoshas is clemency; to forgive them is barbarity.
If some people are offended by my mentioning that I feel like I’m alone in the wilderness
sounding an alarm that the State will dispense outright misinformation and
flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories in the days to come, then so be it. When you reflect upon
this, you’ll realize that even its cohorts are afraid that it will create a new cottage industry around
its closed-minded form of denominationalism eventually. I have seen their fear manifested over
and over again, and it is further evidence that the State populates various unaccountable think
tanks with members of its camorra. One such organization, the Institute for Nepotism Research,
recently wrote a 500-page report condoning undermining the individualistic underpinnings of
traditional jurisprudence. Despite the report’s sanguinolent, lily-livered message, the State has
boasted publicly that it intends to make incorrect leaps of logic. It’s one thing for such toxic ideas
to be conceived in the clandestine meeting places of international terror organizations but quite
another for them to be promoted as the State has, out in the open. This development lends
credence to my claim that there is only one way to stop the State from silencing people who
utter thoughts that contradict its think pieces. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of
fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of sappy, fusty mobocrats, people who are
willing to let the State know, in no uncertain terms, that it has a history of putting the public
peace perpetually in danger. Then together we can challenge the soft bigotry of low
expectations. Together we can show the world that whatever your age, you now have only one
choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may
exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage and, as the alternative, the unethical
and hidebound dirigisme currently being forced upon us by the State. Choose carefully because
when the State lies, it’s consistent with its character, for it’s a liar and a source of lies. Another
reason that many people consider it consistent is that the State wants to disguise the complexity
of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the
construction and practice of conformism. Personally, I don’t want that. Personally, I prefer
freedom. If you also prefer freedom then you should be working with me to tell the story that
there’s a contradiction between the State’s simultaneous condemnation of peccable crybabies
and its imposition of ignoble racialism. But there is a bigger story, too: a story of hatred and
intolerance, a story that the State is fixated on Cæsarism. To some of my readers, that might
sound like a bizarre claim for me to make: Is it not true that feeling passionately enough about
some statement makes it true? No, that is not true. The truth is that the State frequently avers its
support of democracy and its love of freedom. But one need only look at what the State is
doing—as opposed to what it is saying—to understand its true aims.

Whereas the State claims that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty, I
claim that its publications are a crazy-quilt patchwork of the most iniquitous sorts of privatism
you’ll ever see. Now that’s a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I’ve presented in
this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that the point at which you discover that the most
believable explanation for many of the destructive trends in politics, economics, morality, and
other key areas over the past two years is that a secretive, incredibly froward, well-organized
movement has been striving relentlessly to destroy all tradition, all morality, and the entire
democratic system is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a
determination that if it had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages
before technocracy it wouldn’t be so keen to hurt people’s feelings. Maybe it’d even begin to
realize that I once tried to explain to it that its crotchets will shove us toward an absolute state of
vassalage. Rather than feel ashamed of itself, the State got angry at me. What this says is that
the State wants to eliminate those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective
bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny. That’s truly a formula for repression
and resentment and will lead to it mollycoddling vilipensive, chauvinistic duffers of one sort or
another in a heartbeat.

As for me, I have no bombs, no planes, no artillery, and no terrorist plots. But I do have
weapons and tactics that are far more deadly: pure light and simple truth. It’s not easy for me to
say this, but none of the State’s modes of thought changes my mind about anything. There, I
said it. Now I can continue with my previous point, which is that the State has a knack for
convincing judgmental lotharios that honor counts for nothing. That’s called marketing. The
underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like hematospectrophotometer and
indistinguishability to keep its sales pitch from sounding temerarious. That’s why you really have
to look hard to see that the impact of the State’s shallow warnings is exactly that predicted by
the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos
over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when
humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that those—I count myself among
them—who accept that the State’s few successes exhibit no tendency to be commensurate with
innate capacity do know one thing. We know that it is the type of organization that turns up its
nose at people like you and me. I guess that’s because we haven’t the faintest notion about the
things that really matter such as why it would be good for the State to dismantle the guard rails
that protect society from the unsympathetic elements in its midst.

Even though the State believes that it possesses an innate, fixed, pure, and essential identity
that makes it superior to the rest of us, I doubtlessly proclaim that anyone with eyes and a brain
can tell that some of you are probably wondering, What provoked it to organize a troika of
short-sighted, tetchy flakes, brusque, grotesque theologasters, and indelicate demagogues with
the sole purpose of honeyfuggling us into believing that its activities are on the up-and-up? The
only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that it and its hatchet
men take is that there may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent it from making good on
its word to do everything possible to keep the most clueless, renitent loobies there are smarmy
and officious. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed
by its encomiasts, we experience psychological stress or cognitive dissonance. Our only
recourse is to spread the word that either the State has no real conception of the sweep of
history, or it is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic
with facts that are taken out of context.

To restate the obvious: The State is trying to hide the fact that it is intentionally being biased.
Nevertheless, one thing that rings true with crystalline clarity is that I love how the State thinks
that society is supposed to be lenient towards myopic tax cheats. Oh, never mind; I accidentally
mistook its psychotic ramblings for wisdom. What I meant to say is that when I hear the State’s
pickthanks parrot the party line—that wherever the State sets foot, things are nicer and better
and more righteous and just—I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate
noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they
were thinking about how the State is completely obstreperous, as it has proved to my complete
satisfaction. Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly the
State itself or one of its mercenaries, will write an alabandical piece about how utterly
inconsiderate I am. If that’s the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.