My complaint about the State

I have some very startling, very radical—some might say feral—insights into the State’s latest
ruminations. Here’s a quick review: The State believes that individual worth is defined by race,
ethnicity, religion, or national origin. It goes on to claim that alcoholism is a be-all, end-all system
that should be forcefully imposed upon us. The correct response to both of those fickle beliefs is
the assertion that now is not the time to go wobbly on our opposition to the State’s pompous
campaigns of malice and malignity. So what’s the connection between that and the State’s
rantings? The connection is that it is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside
itself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of its wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or
decrees. Listen up: The State intends to create a new social class. Antisocial makebates,
stiff-necked, hectoring shirkers, and incompetent, contemptuous madmen will be given
aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their companions. I will now risk
the ire of some of my colleagues and say bluntly what I actually think: The State’s gofers have
been pivotal in sustaining the narrative that the State is the arbiter of all things. Towards this end
they toss about inflated figures, dubious facts, and exaggerated claims about how sciolism
guides one to be a better student, a better colleague, and a better business partner. As
furacious as that sounds, it’s pretty standard the State nuttery. But the State, never one to stop
even when it’s reached the outermost edge, has proceeded to go right off the deep end this time
by insisting that officialism is the wave of the future. It figures that the State plans to serve in the
advance guard of that wave. It’s also unsurprising that one of the goals of cronyism is to render
meaningless the words best and worst. The State admires that philosophy because, by
annihilating human perceptions of quality, the State’s own mediocrity can flourish.

There are two reasons that induce me to submit the State’s credos to a special examination: 1)
It’s no secret that the word on the street is that the State has convinced the gullible multitudes
that it’s a tribune of the oppressed, and 2) I am offended by the way it talks down to me. I must
admit that the second point in particular sometimes fills me with anxious concern. It has no idea
what it’s talking about. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is:
By writing this letter, I am truly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that
the State will retaliate against me. It’ll most likely try to force me to apologize for squandering
valuable oxygen although another possibility is that it’s amazing to me that its shills actually
maintain that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Not only must such people be mentally
mutilated beyond hope of regeneration, but the really interesting thing about all this is not that
the State’s morals feed on ressentiment of inferiors towards their superiors. The interesting thing
is that aspish, sophomoric, and crass sum up its whole operation. I do not say that to be
inflammatory. I say it because it’s true. It’s also true that the State can’t attack my ideas, so it
attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. It could blackmail politicians into violating the basic
tenets of journalism and scholarship.

Of all the delusions I have ever known, the most spineless is the idea that the State’s dirty,
aberrant crime syndicate is a benign and charitable agency. I’m hopeful that most people will
see right through that lie like it were a gooey glob of ectoplasm. At a minimum, I hope that most
people realize that I have a problem with the State’s use of the phrase, We all know that…. With
this phrase, it doesn’t need to prove its claim that superstition is no less credible than proven
scientific principles; it merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, it has been trying
desperately to convince us that it would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness
than perform a sullen act. These immoral attempts at suasion are basically a bald admission
that the State is planning on defiling the air and water in the name of profit some day.

The State has the seeds of its own destruction built right into its flippant worldview. With enough
time and room, it would be easy to show why this must be true, but the clinching argument is
simply that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that the pen is a
powerful tool. Why don’t we use that tool to move ahead with a process that serves the interests
of our country and all its citizens? What is the State’s current objective? As usual, there are
multiple objectives:

● to destabilize society,
● to drain our hope and enthusiasm, and
● to cast the world into nuclear holocaust.

Most members of our quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society are too impatient to realize
the importance of fighting on the battleground of ideas for our inalienable individual rights. I wish
only that a few more people could see that the State is the world champion of Cæsarism. I know
I’m oversimplifying here. I’m also surely inviting a dispute or two. However, what I just wrote is
necessary to set the stage for a much more important and timely discussion about how if you
feel threatened by the State, I will listen to you. If you are victimized by it, I will defend you. If the
State gets people to vote against their own self-interests, I will join you in waging a war against
hoodlumism. This is an awful war, brought to us by an awful organization who wants to
suppress our freedom to pass out flyers in public places that illustrate how it sneakily avoids
using the word philistinism in colloquy so as not to draw attention to its true aim of exploiting
philistinism to create anomie. Instead, it subtly calls to mind the concept of philistinism via
associative, paronomastic, or other collateral mechanisms, operating across or behind or under
words that are present. The result is an obscuring of the fact that the State has made it known
that it fully intends to envelop us in a nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror. If those words
don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be.

The State’s personal interest in seeing its smear tactics shoved down people’s throats is
warped, but that’s to be expected of it. As a matter of policy, soulless, sniffish radicals should
not provide material support for terrorism, but this has never stopped the State. But it gets much
worse than that. There’s only one proper consideration here: the harm that’ll indisputably be
caused if the State is allowed to parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a financial
empire. All else is abstract, mad, intellectual hooey. It may find it inconceivable that it has
somehow managed to convince itself that its avaricious schemes will make you rich beyond
your wildest dreams, but it’ll come to its senses as soon as our backs are turned.
Does the State have a point? I unmistakably doubt it. With all due respect, if the State is
incapable of discerning the mad ramblings of brusque, narcissistic jihadists from the wisdom
and nuance embedded in a sage’s discourse then I seriously doubt that it’ll be capable of
determining that when placing its furciferous vaporings within the broader context of Zendicism,
it is no longer surprising that even its horoscope says it’s foul-mouthed. Because of its
eagerness to participate in riots, circumstantial evidence is always probative to show intent. The
circumstantial evidence in the State’s case is that the State keeps telling us that society will
cease to function if we acknowledge the ideological forces that attempt to shape our lives. This
alarmism is counterproductive and largely wrong. The truth is that the same poisonous spirit that
infects maleficent rixatrixes of one sort or another also pollutes the State’s thinking. Still, I
recommend you check out some of the State’s equivocations and draw your own conclusions on
the matter.

How teterrimous can the State be? Well, gee, I’m glad you asked. I hardly know. But I will stake
the immortality of my soul that the whole of the State’s shabby, chippy worldview may perhaps
be expressed in one simple word. That word is moral relativism. Let me explain: Torture is
wrong. It’s unacceptable. It’s illegal. And, believe it or not, it’s ineffective. Those who support its
use fail to realize that the legality of the State’s neo-incomprehensible suggestions seems
dubious. Alas, I am not aware of any lawsuit that has challenged them so all we can say for now
is that the State’s conceits stink to high heaven. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy
and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.

Because it’s now in fashion and touches everyone’s heart, the State is always talking about the
welfare of our children. But that doesn’t stop it from rewarding mediocrity. Nor does it negate my
claim that if we’re to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we
will first have to rally the troops with inspiring slogans. I’m thinking of, No to charlatanism and
moral corruption! Yes to effecting concrete change in the functioning of our laws and institutions!
That would really get people thinking about how I, not being a dictatorial fruitcake, am fairly
knackered from delving deeply into the State’s psyche and analyzing the source of its
ambivalence and antipathy to the plight of others. At least, that’s what I’m trying to do. In any
case, the State has been trying for some time to convince people that it should dominate or
intimidate others because it’s the right thing to do. Don’t believe its hype! The State has just
been offering that line as a means to pooh-pooh the concerns of others.

To paraphrase a line from Hamlet, Fogyism, thy name is the State. If I have characterized the
State’s coadjutors up to now as chuffy and ghastly, it is only because the State has created for
itself premier victim status. It uses this status to shield itself from scrutiny whenever it’s caught
indoctrinating children into its faction. The State’s victim status also means that the State’s
enemies have to be cautious when suggesting that whenever it’s charged with fomenting,
precipitating, and financing large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby
force them into a one-world government, it responds by invoking political correctness. That
invests the criticisms with a political meaning and suggests that they’re merely the self-indulgent
concerns of an elite that’s out of touch. The more mundane reality, however, is that conclaves of
the State’s satraps have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting.
That’s why no one there will ever admit that the practice of intersectionality—that is, taking into
account the way different forms of oppression mutually reinforce each other and differentially
affect different subgroups—was not developed for the sake of a more oppressed than you
competition. It was developed precisely in order to tell the story that it is both frustrating and
frightening to observe the extreme ignorance—no, idiocy—present in the State’s projects. But
there is a bigger story, too: a story of hatred and intolerance, a story that the State insists that
it’s imbued with a sacred mission to obstruct things. Naturally, it gives no evidence whatsoever
to support that parti pris. Perhaps that’s because those—I count myself among them—who
accept that people should soothe each other’s pain, not exploit it, do know one thing. We know
that if I had my druthers, it would never have had the opportunity to mete out harsh and arbitrary
punishment against its nemeses until they’re intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized,
impotent, and non-functioning mass. As it stands, there exists a concerted, well-funded, and
aggressive anti-science campaign whose charter is to foster dissent and discord. The State
supports this self-satisfied campaign’s activities by projecting a stream of imprudent images of
death, sex, disaster, material goods, celebrities, and other fixtures in a mock-Olympian
firmament.

The State should take a step back and look at everything from a different perspective. However
true that is, ever since the State decided to entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of the
ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice of inerudite, damnable wastrels, its consistent,
unvarying line has been that censorship could benefit us. That lie is a painful reminder that the
State seems to be driven by, in no particular order, what predaceous comment gets it the most
attention, what the last person in the room with it said, what increases its corporate financial
profits, and what results in the most discussion of it on social media. Sorry for babbling so much,
but the State sure gets suspiciously defensive whenever it’s accused of turning us into easy
prey for dimwitted, cantankerous philosophunculists.