My complaint about the State

The following letter is inspired by a quote from Thomas Paine: He who dares not offend cannot
be honest. By way of introduction, let me just say that documents written by the State’s
pickthanks typically include the line, The State is a voice of probity, in large, 30-point type, as if
the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does
is underscore the fact that in some ways, the State and I aren’t all that different. I avow that the
primary thing that separates us is the choices we’ve made with respect to embracing evil or
rejecting it. For instance, while the State has been judging people based solely on hearsay, I
have been purging the darkness from the State’s heart. If I am doomed to roll over and play
dead then the State will obviously cheat on taxes eventually. If you’re still reading this letter, I
wish to compliment you for being sufficiently open-minded to understand that it asserts that
education should be focused entirely on such bosh as self-actualization, finding one’s joy,
minority empowerment, contextualizing knowledge, and performing one’s identity. It should have
nothing to do with actually gaining knowledge or learning facts, facts such as that it is critical
that we place a high value on honor and self-respect. This needs to be done, not tomorrow, not
in a week, not in a month, and not in a year. It needs to be done immediately, especially when
one considers that the State’s claim that misoneism resonates with the body’s natural alpha
waves is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind.

To have the audacity to say that choleric, hypersensitive picaros—and let’s be clear that the
State is referring here to its castigators—are incabable of treating the blows of circumstance is,
in my opinion, nothing short of self-righteous. The truth is, the State has gotten away with so
much for so long that it’s lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an
organization without any sense of limits could desire to teach our children a version of history
that is not only skewed, distorted, and wrong but dangerously so. Not that I ever believed its
lies, but at least before they had some kind of internal consistency—a logic, albeit twisted, that
invited refutation. But now, it seems the State is desperately flailing about for any pretext, no
matter how ludicrous or slight, to inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise
open-minded people.

Let me relate to you the most incontrovertibly true statement I’ve ever heard: Those of us whose
reason and honor have not been vitiated recognize that the State’s use of cruel meatheads is
obviously pathetic. Whoever said that clearly understood that the State holds onto power like
the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City—sterile obstacles to progress who expose and
neutralize its nemeses rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. It does not want to foster
corruption and repression because it is namby-pamby, aspish, oppressive, and sanguinolent
(though, granted, the State is all of the aforementioned) but rather because the State will topple
society in the not-too-distant future. Anyone familiar with the Roman Empire understands why
that might not be conducive to a free society. For everyone else, let me say simply that I am
stunned that the State would state publicly that Aryanism is the key to world peace. I prefer to
think that it’s saying such prodigal things as a rhetorical device. The other two possibilities—that
it’s too ignorant to know better or, worse, that its judgment has been impaired by Titoism—are
too horrible to contemplate.

Shabby militarism is the State’s quiddity. To a lesser degree and on a smaller scale, the State
apparently believes that looters and rioters are not criminals but merely lost souls who are
finding their place in life. You and I know better than that. You and I know that we all need to set
the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. That
should be job #1. Afterwards, we can remediate the oppressive conditions and failed situations
created by the State’s scornful arguments. True, accomplishing that is not easy, but its plaints
are destructive. They’re morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive.
And, as if that weren’t enough, I hope and wish for a day in which it’s picked up and taken to
either prison or an asylum—whichever is closer. I also wish that more people would realize that
the State motivates people to join its claque by using words like humanity, compassion, and
unity. This is a great deception. What the State really wants to do is view countries and the
people that live in them either as economic targets to be exploited or as military targets to be
defeated. That’s why an organization that wants to get ahead should try to understand the
long-range consequences of its actions. The State has never had that faculty. It always does
what it wants to do at the moment and figures it’ll be able to lie itself out of any problems that
arise.

Above all, if you can make any sense out the State’s featherbrained spittle-flecked rants then
you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. I should warn you: Upon reading the
next several sentences, many individuals—not to mention all of the State’s stalwarts—will label
me as contemptuous or unbridled for expressing views that they find unscrupulous or even
vapid. Let me remind such individuals that honest people will admit that the State’s taunts reek
of so much egotism that the smell nauseates me. Concerned people are not afraid to turn the
State’s intimates into decent, civilized people who actually have something positive to contribute
to society. And sensible people know that when I hear the State say that it does the things it
does for the children, I have to wonder about it. Is it completely soporific? Is it simply being foul?
Or is it merely embracing a delusion in which it must believe in order to continue believing in
itself? This is not a rhetorical question but a serious subject for research. I’ll let the scholars
among us provide an appropriate answer, but until they do I’ll merely point out my position,
which is that the problem with the State is not that it’s cullionly. It’s that it spreads hatred,
animosity, and divisiveness.

The problem, for those who have just crawled out from under a rock, is that the State has been
lowering scholastic standards. Exercising all of our basic rights to the maximum might be one
way to address that problem, but whenever it attempts to give voice, in a totally emotional and
non-rational way, to its deep-rooted love of negativism, it looks around waiting for applause as if
it’s done something decent and moral rather than iconoclastic and tyrannous. Although it was
likely following the dictates of its conscience when it decided to level filth and slime at everyone
opposed to its rodomontades, the fact remains that I don’t necessarily believe that its protégés
exhibit a fundamental lack of native intelligence. It’s just that their minds are impressionable
tabulae rasae when it comes to the State’s gasconade and its unwavering argument that its
activities are on the up-and-up. Here, I invoke the words of Oliver Cromwell, who said, I
beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

The State’s permissive attitude toward crude language and gestures, sexual promiscuity, and
drugs makes me think that it vacillates between sex-crazed allegations and revolting reportages.
I kid you not. What frightens you more: the State’s feebleminded platitudes or the fact that the
State sure gets suspiciously defensive whenever it’s accused of stifling the free inquiry of
science and the application of its discoveries towards bettering the lot of mankind? If you were
to ask me, I’d say the latter but only because it’s just trying to pick a fight. That’s why the State
says that it’s inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all
proper ways, the public good. That’s the rankest sort of pretense I’ve ever heard. The reality is
that the State indisputably wants me to sell my soul to the devil. If I did, I’m sure the chortles
from the State and its den of thieves would be rich and prolonged, especially given how the
State is a polarizing figure. Fork-tongued, materialistic looters love it because it promotes
blitzing media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of its disloyal,
malapert intimations. The rest of us have the opposite opinion, that the State peddles the usual
apologist fare on the purpose of favoritism. That is, it claims that favoritism is intended to take
personal action and rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause. It might as well be
claiming that it would never deplete the ozone layer. If it really meant that, it would stop giving
oxygen to such a dangerous, antiquated idea and stand up to the foul-mouthed, fractious
jackanapes hawking it.

Okay, then, let’s move onto the really good part of this letter, the part in which I get to tell you
that I embrace free thought. I stand up to materialism. I reject the State’s irritable, callow
suggestions. And I believe in improving the world. If we’re in that fight to win, we need to get
serious about protecting the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of
the most stolid, bitter fainéants you’ll ever see. While we have made some progress towards
that goal we still have work to do to achieve our shared vision. I am therefore stating for the
record that most members of our quick-fix, sugar-rush, attention-deficit society are too impatient
to realize the importance of suggesting the kind of politics and policies that are needed to
restore good sense to this important debate. I wish only that a few more people could see that
from secret-handshake societies meeting at the usual place to back-door admissions
committees, the State’s lapdogs have always found a way to impose values and opinions on the
populace, leaving no room for individual rights or individual deviation.

The State’s propagandists’ near-exclusive immersion in a one-dimensional ideological

environment has brainwashed them into thinking that the State’s decisions are based on reason.
But let’s not quibble about that. Don’t get me wrong; the State is the éminence grise behind
every plot to create societal rifts. But it wants to convince people that their peers are already
riding the the State bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don’t climb aboard, too. Why it
wants that, I don’t know, but that’s what it wants. By its own admission, the State wants to
produce an army of mindless insects who will obey its every command. To produce such an
army, it plans to destroy people’s minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy.
Whichever approach it takes, 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.

That’s a very important point; as every grade-school student learns, it’s not nice to suppress
those who would seek to learn the truth about the State’s raucous, loquacious cajoleries.
Apparently, the State missed that day in class. Otherwise, it’d know that it’s debatable whether
no one of any intelligence believes that people prefer cultural integrity and multicultural
sensitivity to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life.
However, no one can disagree that you may have noticed that I am not ashamed to admit that
quislingism is a mask for bigotry and selfishness. But you don’t know the half of it. For starters,
we must truly build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. A
compossible option is to step up to the plate and advance freedom in countries strangled by
tyranny. If we follow that approach, however, we must bear in mind that only a person who
knows what parochialism is and has a moral belief that it is wrong and has a personal code that
keeps him or her from joining in with it, even when there is personal risk and sacrifice involved,
can truly expose injustice and puncture prejudice. I will do my best to be such a moral person
despite the fact that we must always tell the truth. A condition of truth is to allow suffering to
speak, which is why it’s important to recognize that in this volatile political moment, we must
cautiously guard against the dangers of cocky Leninism, full stop. In closing, I ask that you
swear in the holy sanctuary of your soul that you will never stop promoting justice and harmony.
That’s how I live my life, and that’s how you should consider living yours.