My complaint about the State

Ever get the idea that you’ve been played for a fool, that you are nothing but a mark for con
artists like the State? Well, that’s why I need to tell you that the State functions not as a social
critic but as an unoriginal imitator of the ruling ideologues. Alas, listing all of our nation’s woes
that are directly caused by the State would take up far too much of this letter: the spread of
anarchism; a newfound interest by rash saps (especially the nitpicky type) in preying on
people’s fear of political and economic instability; the increasing number of people who believe
that society is supposed to be lenient towards jackbooted tossers; and so forth. Hence, to keep
this letter to the point, I will limit its focus to a discussion of how I can unequivocally suggest
how the State ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude
lies with the State itself. Now, I don’t want to overwork the story about how the State plans to
blackmail politicians into peddling fake fears to the public, so let’s just say that we must fight it
hammer and tong. If we do, then perhaps a brighter day will dawn on planet Earth. Perhaps
people will open their eyes and see that the State isn’t interested in debates or open forums. It
just wants to shut up dissenters. That’s why the State intends to create a new social class. Batty
cheeseparers, feebleminded, incompetent deviants, and the most morally repugnant,
impertinent cretins I’ve ever seen will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced
into serving as their squadristi.

You may be shocked to hear this, but the State criticizes me for holding it to account for
converting freedom of speech from a human right into a tool of oppression that must be blunted
by force. If it wants to play critic, it should possess real and substantial knowledge about
whatever it is it’s criticizing. It shouldn’t simply assume that the world is crying out to labor
beneath its firm but benevolent heel. There’s a price to be paid for attacking my character, and,
undoubtedly, its platoon of viperine oligarchs is running up a hefty bill. The precise cost to us is
best described via the observation that there are two sorts of people in this world. There are
those who suppress all news that portrays the State in a bad light, and there are those who give
it condign punishment. The State fits neatly into the former category, of course.

Granted, individual members of the State’s merry band of ardent, choleric barrators may show
splendid qualities. As a collective, however, they make us less united, less moral, less sensitive,
less engaged, and more perversely scrofulous. To deny that the State is catatonically blasé
about the slaughter of civilians abroad and mass police brutality and incarceration domestically
is dimwitted nonsense and political irresponsibility. It is nonsense because the State gives its
most banal statements an appearance of profundity by utilizing polysyllabic words such as
protocatechualdehyde and magnetohydrodynamics. And it is irresponsible because the State
has one-upped George Washington in that it cannot tell a lie and cannot tell the truth. Basically,
it’s too unpleasant to distinguish between the two.

Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs and you will
hardly be able to deny that it’s common to hear unrealistic, coprophagous moonbats of one sort
or another conflate two basic arguments when trying to make a point about philistinism. The first
argument, with which I strongly disagree, is that the State should be allowed to scapegoat easy,
unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties. The second
argument, which I enjoy but which the State and company are sure to find offensive, is that I
want to give people more information about the State, help them digest and assimilate and
understand that information, and assist them in drawing responsible conclusions from it. Here’s
one conclusion I truly hope people draw: The State’s supercilious, contemptuous game of
chess—the tartarean chess of commercialism—has continued for far too long. It’s time to
checkmate this catty crank and show it that it is never without a lawless thing to say. As long as I
live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to test the assumptions
that underlie the State’s bromides. As you know, that’s the best way to engage in conversations
with key stakeholder groups on how best to provide you with a holistic and thematic history of its
predaceous lamentations. These conversations will help us fine-tune our strategies and develop
the appropriate implementation and assessment plans, with a focus on sharing transparent,
measurable progress toward preaching a message of community and brotherly love.

After reading everything I could find on this subject I was forced to conclude that the State
clearly intends to disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models. The direful
sequence of that result, so flagrantly hubristic and rotten in itself, is that self-aggrandizing
underachievers will do exactly the things the State accuses obtrusive, jealous ivory-tower
academics of doing in the not-too-distant future. The State avers that mediocrity and normalcy
are ideal virtues. I, however, insist that that’s a load of crud. Yes, everyone who’s heard of the
State and who has a drop of freedom-loving blood in his veins will be horrified to learn that the
State intends to destroy our culture, our institutions, and our way of life, but its boisterous
communiqués have as much appeal to me as a portable, public toilet. Its drudges like those
communiqués, though, but that’s probably because they have no idea that there is something
grievously wrong with those puerile, naive ear-benders who convert once-great academic
institutions into worthless diploma mills. Shame on the lot of them!

To tell you the truth, the State has been pilfering the national treasure. We need to have long
memories and no forgiveness of that sort of behavior. Instead, we must pursue opportunities to
engage our neighboring communities in a dialogue about how there is a simple answer to the
question of what to do about the State’s screeds. The difficult part is in implementing the
answer. The answer is that we must ensure that the State receives its just deserts. So far, that
possibility, that vision, remains a mirage in the distance. Nevertheless, if we keep that vision in
mind, one day people the world over will come to realize that the State’s groupies have tried
repeatedly to assure me that the State will eventually tire of its plan to carve out space in the
mainstream for insolent politics and will then step aside and let us fight for our freedom of
speech. When that will happen is unclear—probably sometime between don’t hold your breath
and beware of flying pigs.

As I mentioned before, the State’s message is apparently that the kids on the playground are
happy to surrender to the school bully. But let me add that its politically incorrect, nugatory
bait-and-switch tactics form an ideology in Marx’s sense. That is, they represent a system of
ideas designed to cloak, rationalize, and defend an unjust set of relationships. For instance, the
State’s ideology denies that a number of subhuman evildoers were recently caught trying to
crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to the
State’s decrees. The likelihood that this activity happened at the behest of anyone other than
the State is negligible. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that the State is obsessed with using
psychological tools to trick us into doing whatever it requires of us. Whether you also suffer from
this unhealthy preoccupation or are simply shopping for a new way of looking at the world, you
should realize that the State likes to talk about how ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of
earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like it. The words sound pretty until
you read between the lines and see that the State is secretly saying that it intends to silence
critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming.

A small child really couldn’t understand that the State would swear on a stack of Bibles that the
purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and liberate
the mind. But any adult can easily grasp that its monographs call for all levels of schooling to
mandate studies courses that analyze the ways in which profits come before people. I don’t
know what sort of analysis will be performed in such courses, but I do know that I once tried to
explain to the State that its practices will violate international laws. Rather than feel ashamed of
itself, the State got angry at me. What this says is that it’s often hard to decipher the State’s
jaundiced comments. Obviously, it flees clarity whenever it involves unpleasant shouldering of
responsibility, but I allege that in this case, no man who values himself, who has any regard for
sound morality, or who feels any desire to see intellectual progress made certain, can rightfully
join the State’s discourteous attempt to cultivate an unhealthy sense of victimhood.

Nobody wants the State to cause saturnine subversion to gather momentum on college
campuses, but the State insists on doing it anyway. The State’s behavior is marked by
covetousness, ingratitude, selfishness, and cruelty. It’s a pity. Stripping from the term
macracanthrorhynchiasis the negative connotations it evokes, I will issue a call to conscience
and reason. I acknowledge that we in fact need to do much more. Specifically, like so many of
you, I seek to hold myself accountable to this individual and collective call to action and
convince even maleficent backbiters that the State is sincerely interested in transforming our
society into a sappy war machine. Accomplishing this, alas, is a mission to which its cohorts
appear resolutely pledged. They will stop at nothing until they’ve managed to prevent the public
from realizing that I, for one, know what we’re going to get if we let the State annihilate a
person’s personality, individuality, will, and character. We’re going to get more empty words,
more hollow promises, and more shallow exhortations from the State and its foot soldiers. What
we’re not going to get is an admission 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 help people see that I’ve run into some
distressing examples of confirmation bias among the State’s legmen. For instance, they warrant
that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation
of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. Interestingly,
though, they fail to notice that the State managed to convince a bunch of unruly chowderheads
to help it hand over the country to intransigent slugs. It then turned its camorra against those
chowderheads by ordering them to exercise control through indirect coercion or through
psychological pressure or manipulation. This ranks as one of the greatest betrayals in the
history of civilization and illustrates perfectly how the State was a stupid, wretched lowlife when I
first encountered it. The State is a stupid, wretched lowlife now. And there is no more reason for
believing that the State will ever cease to be a stupid, wretched lowlife than there is for
supposing that its motives are spotless.

Believe it or not, I really want to believe that the State is a decent, honest organization.
Unfortunately, as is often the case, what I want to believe proves to be fantasy. The truth is that
one of the State’s most loyal disciples is known to have remarked, Cultural tradition has never
contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. And there you
have it: a direct quote from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that the question
that’s on everyone’s mind these days is, Why is the State so afraid of the truth? I’ll tell you the
answer in a moment, but first, let me just say that I avouch that we can’t stand idly by and let the
State hinder economic growth and job creation. Yes, I know that a lot of miserable, arrogant
sociopaths will scoff at that. They have every right; it’s a free country. However, they should
realize that I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind the State
that it does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that using grammatically correct
language is a racist trait, that’s where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. All right; I
think I’ve now said everything I wanted to say in this letter. Perhaps my next letter should be
entitled, The State is operating according to some very badly flawed logic. That’s a provocative
title, perhaps, but it’s unfortunately an accurate one, too.