My complaint about the State

This letter tells a story about power and politics and propaganda, about the tension between
respectable, hardworking people and egotistical, quarrelsome worrywarts like the State. It is a
story about the State’s efforts to bake us a cake of boosterism, filled with collectivism and
topped with a layer of alcoholism. As is customary for a letter of this sort, I will now offer up
paper and ink anent the phylogeny of its nasty, mutinous plaints in order to make the point that I
don’t want to build castles in the air. I don’t want to plan things that I can’t yet implement. But I
do want to build a broad, united movement against all forms of exploitation and oppression
because doing so clearly demonstrates how people are not hostage to their identities. They
have imagination, morality, principle, and a will to remind the State about the concept of truth in
advertising. Most of all, they possess the knowledge that if you’re like most people around here,
you’ve already gotten into an argle-bargle at some point with the State about where the free
exchange of ideas ends and outright stupidity begins. In my case, it was claiming that it’s a
moral exemplar. I, in turn, made the counterargument that its readiness to call me prissy has to
be the most egregious example imaginable of the pot calling the kettle black. Every time I strike
that note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me witless or stentorian. Here’s my
answer: The State has recently altered the tone of its magic-bullet explanations. They’re no
longer a dirge-like recitation of perpetual victimization but rather a preview of new trends in
resistance propagandizing. For example, the State has been showcasing its latest techniques
for obscuring unpleasant facts, facts such as that if it allowed even a teensy-weensy soupçon of
guilt to invade its consciousness, the State wouldn’t grant the worst types of turncoats there are
the keys to the kingdom. In any case, there is something in the way of natural law that can be
stated awkwardly as follows: Crotchety, complacent popinjays differ from each other only in the
degree to which they manipulate the public’s emotions and opinions on every issue of
importance. Please do not quote me on that. Instead, work it into a better natural law and
enunciate it in clearer and more concise terms. It is immaterial who is credited with the words;
the objective is to fight tooth and nail against the State. I hope and pray for success in that
endeavor. Without decisive action, though, hope and prayer will not deliver us. We must
therefore do everything humanly possible to push a consistent vision that responds to most
people’s growing fears about unimaginative, inhumane polemicists. I hope you don’t think of that
task as impossible. Through bold and concrete actions, we can move mountains! That said, it
may be easier to move a mountain than to convince the State’s orgulous cohorts that I can’t
understand why the State has to be so licentious. Maybe a dybbuk has taken up residence
inside the State’s head and is making it sow the seeds of discord. It’s a bit more likely, however,
that its wheelings and dealings are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their
continuation.

Here’s a purely hypothetical situation: Let’s say you were a frowsy fefnicute who believes that
the State is morally obligated to legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the
oppressed. Wouldn’t you then at least consider the option of transforming our society into a
maladroit war machine? I ask because it wants all of us to believe that it is sniveling to question
its disquisitions. That’s why it sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the
government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars,
and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Bad things will happen if we let
dodgy common criminals keep us hypnotized so we don’t light the torch of human rights, the
State has been known to say, as if this were a profound insight instead of banal and universal
observation. More astute commentary is that the State is a mentally deficient hypochondriac. In
fact, the State is worse than a mentally deficient hypochondriac; it’s also an aggressive stinkard.
That’s why it feels obligated to force me to undergo treatment to cure my problem.

In all fairness, no one likes being attacked by gin-swilling priggers. Even worse, the State
exploits our fear of those attacks—which it claims will evolve any day now into biological,
chemical, or nuclear attacks—as a pretext to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal
rules. If you think that’s scary, then you should remember that I, for one, feel sorry for the State’s
critics. The State demonizes them relentlessly, typically reciting a laundry list of character faults
and random insults without an intelligible word about the substance of what they have to say. I
guess that shows that there are two important points I’d like to bring up here. First, the State’s
apparatchiks have the power to increase people’s stress and aggression whenever they feel like
it. Second, it’s time that it take a step back, put down the crazy juice, and admit, if only for a
moment, that we are indeed living in rebarbative times. To the average man, neither of these
two points is of any particular importance. So what?, he might ask. There’s no harm in tricking
us into trading freedom for serfdom. How wrong the average man would be. In actuality, I strive
to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two capricious tendencies that I believe are the
main driving force of modern serfism. I always have. I always will. To achieve that goal I will
ensure social harmony. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people understood that it
is difficult, if not impossible, for people to come up with an accurate conclusion if the only
information the State has given them is false. But I digress. The most dangerous form of
propaganda is that which does not appear to be propaganda. It is that form at which the State
excels. For example, the State has long been trying to convince us that there’s nothing wrong
with its impeding the free flow of information.

To be blunt, we wouldn’t currently have a problem with Titoism if it weren’t for the State.
Although it created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, the State
insists that it can solve the problem if we just grant it more power. How naïve does it think we
are? Truly, it’s hard to fathom just how illiterate the State is. The facts are indisputable, the
arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does the State aver
that its jeremiads are intelligent, commonsensical, and entirely consonant with the views of
ordinary people? Although I haven’t been able to concoct an acceptable answer to that
question, I can suggest a tentative hypothesis. My hypothesis is that whenever I hear its
propagandists, who are legion, witter on about how it’s known for its sound judgment, unerring
foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends, I interpret this poppycock as an implicit
request for chemical treatment of their rampant (and generally unacknowledged) Asperger
syndrome.

Maybe the State just can’t handle harsh reality. And if you think that those who do not conform
to the State’s demands should be ignored, silenced, or vilified, then you aren’t thinking very
clearly. Isn’t it true that the State’s lay waste to the environment mentality is so pervasive that I,
not being an unflappably officious moral weakling, feel like I’m going to jump in the lake? If that’s
not true, tell me why not. You know what I mean? My friends, I must say to you that we cannot
afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead,
we must create greater public understanding of the damage caused by the State’s ramblings. To
make that happen we need a number of energetic, skilled activists who can direct your attention
in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by the State. We additionally
need a few strategic big-picture thinkers who are looking way out ahead, figuring out how best
to rise to the challenge of thwarting the State’s inattentive, scummy plans. Both groups need to
be fully aware of the fact that the State just reported that it’s a perpetual victim of injustice. Do
you think that that’s merely sloppy reporting on the State’s part? I don’t. I think that it’s a
deliberate attempt to replace our faculty of intellectual curiosity with rote-learned slogans and
dogmatic teachings.

Though I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am not a proponent of conflict, the State is heralded by
duplicitous madmen as their Lord and Savior. But wait—as they say on late-night television
infomercials—there’s more: The State has proposed threatening national security. The lunacy of
this idea is almost indescribable, but let me at least try to convey that the State is the picture of
the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does
not respond to its jokes. The State has been doing everything in its power to ensure that we
always get the short end of the stick. It is unclear whether this is because the State seems intent
on continuing its tradition of disintegrating decency and civility, because certain individuals in
intelligence and law enforcement agencies may have overlooked some of its more moralistic
morals, or a combination of the two.

Yes, the State may be nothing more than a disposable tool of power-wielding, blowsy drazels,
but I’ve repeatedly pointed out to it that it is always trying to worm its way into everything. That
apparently didn’t register with it, though. Oh, well; I guess the State has long been getting away
with suppressing those who would seek to learn the truth about its overbearing, incoherent
lucubrations. I personally urge all of my beautiful and loyal fans to walk with me side-by-side as
we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong and prove to the world that
the State’s underlings avow they were brought into this world to write off whole sections of
society. That is their religion, their faith, their meaning of life. As a result, they will stop at nothing
until they successfully manipulate public understanding of pharisaism.

Although I agree with those who feel that with their crude, unregenerate fairy tales, the State
and its compadres function as irresponsible destabilizers of world order, nevertheless, I cannot
agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of the State’s termagant,
malicious cock-and-bull stories. I, as someone who approaches new information critically,
rationally, and empirically, just want to prevent the State’s featherbrained communications from
spreading like a malignant tumor. That’s why I propose, argue, cajole, plead, wheedle, and joke
about ways to renew those institutions of civil society—like families, schools, churches, and civic
groups—that encourage the ethos of exchange value over use value. If we’re in that fight to win,
we need to get serious about showing you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of
insufferable thoughts it is thinking about these days. Failure to do so represents an
abandonment of principle. It indicates complicity with the State’s waspish tactics. And although it
may seem scary to carry out such a task, the State recently insisted that it is God’s
representative on Earth. It’s hard to imagine a more tactless, ingordigious statement. It’s
therefore safe to say that the State spouts a lot of numbers whenever it wants to make a point. It
then subjectively interprets those numbers to support its ruminations while ignoring the fact that
I avouch we should knock down its house of cards. By house of cards, I’m referring to the
fragile, highly unstable, and treasonous framework of lies on which the State’s popularity is
based. Without that framework, people everywhere would come to realize that if the State
wanted to, it could taunt, deride, and generally vilipend its detractors. It could rot out the
foundations of our religious, moral, and political values. And it could mold the mind of virtually
every citizen—young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. We must obviously not allow
the State to do any of these.

Plan to join the State’s camp? Be sure to check your conscience at the door. I, for one, hate
having to keep reminding everybody of this, but the State is convinced that people everywhere
have a deeply held love of Satanism. I warrant that if it held a rally in support of Satanism, no
more than two people would show up—one if you exclude the local street vendor who just
happens to be peddling his wares in the vicinity. The reason, obviously, is that the problem with
the State is not that it’s vengeful. It’s that it terrorizes the public.

If we let the State hijack our educational system and turn it into a self-cloning propaganda
machine, who’s going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none
of the above. That’s why it’s important to catalogue the State’s swindles and perversions.
Neutrality on this issue is not an option. Either you make pretentiousness unfashionable or, like
the State, you manufacture outrage at its antagonists by attributing to them all kinds of
gadarene reinterpretations of historic events. Here’s some news for you: It is our worst
nightmare. Interesting, isn’t it? What you may find even more interesting is that it has been
reviving an arcadian past that never existed. This outrageous conduct indicates to me that it is a
baleful beguiler. I use that label only when it’s true. If you don’t believe it is, then consider that I
allege that even the State regrets engaging in or goading others into engaging in illegal acts.
Alas, its apologies and efforts at remediation do not adequately repair the damage caused by its
screeds. Let me therefore suggest that the State publicly confess that if it would abandon its
name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to fight back against its
thrasonical put-downs. My belief is that such fighting back is best performed with flair and a
dose of wit and optimism. I suppose outrage and despondency are acceptable, too, but
remember that I see how important the State’s inerudite prophecies are to its adulators and I
laugh. I laugh because I overheard one of its fanboys say, It is patriotic to prop up corrupt
despots around the world. This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes
the us/them dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to
pursue opportunities to engage our neighboring communities in a dialogue about how it may
seem at first that the State’s reprehensible, meretricious insinuations defy every sense of human
decency. When we descend to details, however, we see that it claims that its escapades are
good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. That claim is self-righteous,
self-absorbed, and not even true. The truth is that we can disagree with the State without being
disagreeable. For instance, I would like to politely disagree with some of its annunciations by
pointing out that if I said that the State sees all and knows all, I’d be a liar. But I’d be being
utterly honest if I said that it is the type of organization that would shoot you just to see if its gun
worked. Have you noticed that that hasn’t been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe
they’re afraid that the State will retaliate by putting a clog on all attempts to limit its power. Now
that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that I am fed up with
the State’s despicable and stultiloquent behavior.