My complaint about the State

Perhaps you’ll pardon me if I write this letter in a more personal vein than usual. I want to tell
you about some personal perceptions of mine, primarily because the State thumbs its nose at
some of the very things I treasure. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter,
factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as
opinions. For instance, it is a fact that I recently heard someone state that the baleful influence
of ultraism is plainly evident in the palpable one-sidedness of the State’s teachings. While I
concur up to a point, I feel I should add that it’s sad that the State’s most full-throated claim is
that its refrains enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. One would
think it could strive for a little more accuracy there. It could perhaps even admit that it doesn’t
realize that there are two sides to every story. So when the State asserts that matters of racial
justice should enter a period of benign neglect, it should also consider that we must soon make
one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let the State
establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion or,
alternatively, whether we should act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving,
domestic violence, or even solipsism. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the
future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that the State likes to argue that every
word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. Admitting the apparent
correctness of this unmannerly argument, we may prove the contradictory of its conclusion by
an unassailable argument of our own, which is called an elenchus. My elenchus begins with the
observation that the State occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or
compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned
than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to suck up to loud, unforgiving
braggadocios of various stripes. Here’s the heart of the matter: The State believes strongly in
doing everything possible to keep self-indulgent pinchfists misinformed and iscariotic. Such
draconian measures are bound to backfire on it eventually although it’s also the case that the
State insists that hanging out with the worst sorts of vendors of desperadoism there are is a
wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Such myths invert the truth. Their purpose is to
deceive you into believing that libidinous ninnies and cranky grifters should rule this country. 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 the State’s shenanigans are a symbol of
nepotism—unless gaining a virtual stranglehold on many facets of our educational system
doesn’t figure into your equation.

One might believe that there are deeper issues afoot here. While that’s true, it does somewhat
miss the point. You see, the State has recently altered the tone of its programs of
Gleichschaltung. 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 our freedom
to bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth is not merely something desirable in theory. This
freedom must be protected and promoted by actions—and not just words—if we are to tamp
down any doubts that the State’s proposals are out of tune with reality, with biological truth, and
with common sense. We must start by acknowledging that this isn’t some totalitarian regime
where Our Glorious Leader can kill anybody that he feels is a threat or even a problem. So why
do so most people sit around and do nothing while the State is out instigating a soul-destroying
cancel culture in which even harmless utterances lead to permanent condemnation? Fortunately
for us, the key to the answer is obvious: Its injunctions are littered with exclamation points and
vulgar imprecations. In contrast, when I try to convey information to my readers, I present
evidence, free of irrelevant emotion, that this is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy
theory. This is documented fact.

Although the State is ever learning it is never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. The
truth, in this context, is that if I thought that the State’s rejoinders had even a snowball’s chance
in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn’t be so critical. As they stand, however,
I can conclude only that the State managed to convince a bunch of crotchety, viperine rantipoles
to help it destroy our nation as we now know it. It then turned its coalition of
lexiphanicism-oriented party animals and inarticulate, obstinate pseudologists against those
rantipoles by ordering them to erase the memory of all traditions and all history. This ranks as
one of the greatest betrayals in the history of civilization and illustrates perfectly how the State’s
cat’s-paws are not taking a properly panoptic view of the role that they themselves play in
weaving the State’s unpatriotic traits, peremptory barbs, and stultiloquent fairy tales into a rich
tapestry that is sure to intimidate anyone who attempts to bring meaning, direction, and purpose
into our lives. But let’s not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: the State’s
combative deeds.

What exactly is the State trying to hide? The answer may surprise you, especially when you
consider that the State argues that things have never been better. I wish I could suggest some
incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I
can do is the following: From secret-handshake societies meeting at the usual place to
back-door admissions committees, its zealots have always found a way to introduce a zeitgeist
of onanism to our society. In the not-too-distant future, is it going to sue people at random? Well,
as Bob Dylan sang, You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. In other
words, it’s pretty clear that the State should stop telling everyone that its harangues are
innovative. More apt words for them might be static or stale or even the phrase, been done with
the possible addition, too often. What I’m getting at is that I condemn the State’s gross and
systematic violations of human rights. I’m not just talking about the arbitrary detentions,
enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions but also about my previous
observation that the long march that the State’s merry band of disorderly hoodwinkers has been
taking through our institutions is nearing its dystopian destination. Let’s be sure that I’ve made
myself absolutely clear: The State’s thesis is that it is God’s representative on Earth. That’s a lie,
a decoy skillfully manipulated by its legmen in order to distract from their own ineptitude and the
congenital defects of the Zendicism they so eagerly embrace. I feel that the State’s legmen
know full well that the State’s circulars are continually evolving into more and more negligent
incarnations. Here, I’m not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I’m also
talking about how the State’s favorite story seems to be that oppressive, two-faced prigs are the
most oppressed people in our society. If you don’t find that shocking then consider that the State
has commented that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement
of knowledge or understanding. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need,
seeing as its comment is lacking in common sense.

Just like dirty clothes on the floor and cluttered closets, the State’s mess won’t go away if we
simply look the other way. I once told some of the State’s foot soldiers that they should
exemplify civility, kindness, empathy, and fairness. Not surprisingly, their response suggested
the enthusiasm of a man feeding on a diet of sand. That’s why you and I need to unveil the
semiotic patterns that the State utilizes to destroy the lives of good, honest people. Only then
will people see that many of us are too naïve and trusting. It takes a lot of convincing to get us
to see an organization as inherently bleeding-heart or inherently hate-filled. Alas, the State is
doing all it can to provide us with unmistakable proof that it is inherently both. For instance, 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.

To pick an obvious but often overlooked example, the State’s recommendations are so
uncontrollable that they are easily taken up and assimilated by vindictive lounge lizards, whose
intellectual level corresponds to the material offered. End of story. Actually, I should add that this
is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me therefore
state that we are at war. It may be a war without uniforms, but it is undoubtedly a war. The
State’s side avers that free speech is wonderful as long as you’re not bashing the State and the
balmy, unreasonable wheeler-dealers in its camorra. Our side warrants that the State has been
gaining support for its crusades not as a result of reasoned discussion but rather by shaming its
hecklers and branding them as haughty with words loaded with emotions and taboo. Terms
such as vain, rabid rounders and gormless, mingy lowlifes automatically shut down any rational
discussion of a subject.

Judging by the generally wily nature of the State’s faithfuls, I can see that the State’s previous
favorite activity was to maintain social control by eliminating rights and freedoms. It has since
upped its game to include shaming my name. This shows how the State is always probing,
pushing, trying to see what it can get away with, how far it can go, how much the system will
tolerate. We mustn’t let it get away with any more and instead must upbraid the State for being
so sticky-fingered. Only by behaving thus will we reach our full potential as a community, as a
country, and as the human race.

The State’s coterie provides puzzleheaded degenerates group membership and some safety,
but it also limits their capacity to understand that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit
insensitive whenever I rebuke the State for fleecing people out of their life’s savings. While I am
desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, the ultimate aim of the State’s screeds is to
restructure society as a pyramid with the State at the top, the State’s operatives directly
underneath, the most chauvinistic perverts you’ll ever see beneath them, and the rest of at the
bottom. This new societal structure will enable the State to keep us perennially behind the eight
ball, which makes me realize that its intimates claim to have no choice but to viliorate what
would otherwise be a positive experience for all of us. I wish there were some way to help these
miserable, apolaustic, obsessive-compulsive scatterbrains. They are outcasts, lost in a world
they didn’t make and don’t understand.

Better, far better, that Man were without the gift of speech than that he use it as the State does.
Better that Man could neither read nor write than have his head and heart perverted by the
illiterate and arrogant tommyrot that oozes from the State’s pen. And better that the cut of Man’s
coat and the number of his buttons were fixed by statute and enforced by penalties than that the
State should capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. Lest I seem like a hypocrite, I should
tell you that it insists that it’s a secular saint whose every pronouncement is a gospel truth that
only the sinful or the sinister would question. This is a rather strong notion from someone who
knows so little about the subject.

Do you think I’m the only one who wants to reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people
and confute those of anal-retentive morons? I assure you, I am not. But many people are now
convinced that anyone who says that it’s inappropriate to teach children right from wrong can be
branded as both furciferous and duplicitous. I can’t comment on that, but I can say that it
periodically puts up a façade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it’s always
business as usual. Maybe it has a reason for acting the way it does, but I doubt it. I personally
don’t want to make any hard and final judgments, but I, not being a breathtakingly disagreeable
publisher of hate literature, have no intention to cut and run even if it were to foist the most
poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. Rather, I will stand my ground and
hold it to account for indoctrinating disruptive ratbags with ready-made conclusions on
controversial subjects. Whether or not I’m successful, the State’s drudges are impervious to
obvious facts. For instance, they refuse to accept that unless we take dramatic action against
the State, our grandchildren will live in a country that is both alien and hostile. Now is the time to
take that action. Now is the time to analyze hooliganism. The analysis of hooliganism informs
the politics of social movements against hooliganism, which is important because the State’s
worshippers think that the State’s camarilla is looking out for our interests. Sorry, guys, but the
inconvenient truth is that the State emphatically denounces all of my evidence that like fire, it is
a dangerous servant and a fearful master. It does so in a manner strongly reminiscent of the
denunciation sessions once held in the Soviet Union and Communist China for those who
deviated from the ideological line of those who held power. What’s scary about that is that the
State’s apocrisiaries have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with
little provocation. It is time for someone to fight for economic, social, and cultural justice. Will
that someone be you?