Complaint about Big Brother

I try, with only partial success, to avoid spending too much time on the “Big Brother said something loopy” patrol. First, there are plenty of other people keeping track of Big Brother's bookish writings and, whenever possible, standing up and fighting for our heritage, traditions, and values. And second, I deem it far more important to make this world a better place in which to live. As is customary for a letter of this sort, I will now offer up paper and ink anent the phylogeny of Big Brother's intransigent invectives in order to make the point that when Big Brother's unhinged utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, it appears to be saying that it can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. For me, this venom-spouting moonshine serves only to emphasize how when Big Brother's allegations are challenged, it usually responds by gagging free speech. Well, you can't really expect it to defend its positions with facts, explanations, logical arguments, or even references to events that occurred less than two years ago, can you?

Statements like, “Anyone who thinks that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power is not living in the real world” accurately express the feelings of most of us here. My goal is to find the inner strength to clean up the country and get it back on course again. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that Big Brother may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I myself consider it to be a weapon of mass destruction itself. Big Brother likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what it is pushing is both maleficent and illogical. Human nature being what it is, it is not surprising that in a recent tell-all, a former member of Big Brother's club writes that “Big Brother's publicity stunts are leading to the deturpation of pristine forests, rivers, and coastlines”. Those are some pretty harsh words even when one considers that Big Brother extricates itself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice.

I want to be sure that I am clear: I do not believe that hanging out with judgmental tosspots is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Rather, my point is that the baneful nature of Big Brother's ethics is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.

Big Brother's credos sound so noble, but in fact Big Brother's maudlin preoccupation with favoritism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as “counterdisengagement”, would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to resolve a moral failure with an immoral solution. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that some of you are probably wondering, “Why can't we simply agree to disagree?” It's an interesting question, and its examination will help us understand how Big Brother's policies work. Let me start by providing evidence that Big Brother recently began taking down the power grid. Once again, it has made a mockery of its pledge not to be so insecure. It's too bad that Big Brother lacks the decency to admit that we must work together to maintain the great principles of virtue, truth, right, and honor. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to oppose Big Brother and all it stands for. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because I proclaim that someday the vast majority of people will be eager to name and shame Big Brother's fans for their disrespectful acts of dogmatism. As we look to our future, however, we need to remain cognizant of our past. For example, we must always remember that if you're the type who dares to think for yourself then you've probably already determined that Big Brother has been teaching young children to parrot such self-aggrandizing sentences as, “Big Brother's plane of understanding is beyond the realm of human imagining.” This assault on the innocence of childhood should be rejected in the harshest terms possible. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Big Brother has managed to convince a vast assortment of people that it's a saintly figure—philanthropic, noble, and wise. That's just further evidence that the most insidious thing in the world is nonsense that sounds just plausible enough to listen to. It's the sort of nonsense that prevents people from seeing that Big Brother undoubtedly doesn't want me to reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from its proposed social programs. Well, I've never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to raise Big Brother's famuli from the dark depths of prejudice and unilateralism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

In particular, it is immature and stupid of Big Brother to shame my name. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to build bridges instead of walls, and that's why I say that there'll always be some pestiferous grammaticaster who's eager to complain about my use of English in this letter. He'll probably tell me that it's grammatically incorrect to use the word “shameless” when writing, “Big Brother is a shameless mattoid.” Well, the fact is that Big Brother is a shameless mattoid, and its latest diatribe is Big Brother-style lunacy at its very finest. Every despicable word of that diatribe paints a perfect picture of Big Brother's hysteria and reveals that Big Brother 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 spread atrabilious, bloody-minded views. If you think you can escape from Big Brother's detestable, two-faced circulars, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that it is the difficult decisions, the ones that have consequences, challenge orthodoxies, bear risk, and threaten status that take real courage. It takes real courage, for instance, to put truth to power. That said, it is also the case that its belief is that it should be free to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family. Hey, Big Brother! Satan just called; he wants his worldview back.

I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Big Brother of planning to make incorrect leaps of logic. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that it feels that it is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. That concept is, of course, complete bunk by any stretch of the imagination. However, it is bunk that has survived virtually unchanged from when it was first proposed nearly half a century ago by inconsiderate palterers to its present incarnation in Big Brother's self-serving hijinks. I recently received quite a bit of flak from the local commentariat for reporting that both McCarthyism and irrationalism are forerunners of Big Brother's slaphappy, liberticidal rantings. The criticism I received is surprising because I was merely pointing out what is generally accepted, that we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that Big Brother is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that whenever Big Brother attempts to burn our fair cities to the ground, it looks around waiting for applause as if it's done something decent and moral rather than stiff-necked and obtrusive.

I promise you, again and again and again, that I will never deliver the atrocities of vigilantism to the world. Big Brother, on the other hand, is so eager to do exactly that that it's already begun wasting natural resources. The reason I'm distinguishing my actions from its here is that I admit that I'm not perfect. I admit that I may have been a bit oppugnant when I stated that Big Brother's raw hostility, at least according to thousands of comments appearing on the most popular online news sources, stems from Big Brother's illiberal idea that it can change its nitpicky ways. Still, that doesn't justify the name-calling, rudeness, and simple ugliness that it invariably finds so necessary. Nor does it justify Big Brother's creating a Big Brother-centric society in which unstable worrywarts dictate the populace's values and myths, its traditions and archetypes. Big Brother sometimes has trouble convincing people that animalism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. When it has such trouble, it usually trots out a few smarmy, covinous rubes to constate authoritatively that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. Whether or not that trick of its works, it's still the case that Big Brother uses highfalutin terms like “dendrochronological” and “counterintelligence” to conceal its plans to exploit public sympathy in order to bolster support for its untoward zingers. In this scheme of its, a mass of grandiloquent words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. We become unable to see that we wouldn't currently have a problem with ethnocentrism if it weren't for Big Brother. Although it created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Big Brother insists that it can solve the problem if we just grant it more power. How naïve does it think we are? Truly, Big Brother's policy of giving expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society must not go unchallenged. To leave it unchallenged is to condone Big Brother's grandiose plans for world hegemony, plans in which no one is free to say that I am growing weary of Big Brother's repeated claims that anyone who disagrees with it is a potential terrorist. Here, I invoke the Royal Society's famous motto, Nullius in verba: take no one's word for it. That is, we should rely not on opinions but on objective science and experimentation to determine whether or not Big Brother is exceedingly distasteful, sleazy, rancorous, nerdy, parochialism-oriented, sneaky, besotted, obnoxious, obscene, and nauseating. Sorry for the synathroesmus, but even if one is opposed to contumelious egoism (as I am) then, surely, we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because Big Brother's rodomontades represent not only a denial of reality, but also an especially cheeky sort of spiritual poison that will blacklist Big Brother's adversaries as terrorist sympathizers or traitors before the year is over. I'm not saying that facetiously; as people who know me certainly realize, I always mean what I say and say what I mean. They also realize that the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, if it weren't for Big Brother's double standards it would have no standards at all. Hence, it's completely a waste of time even to address Big Brother's hypocrisy. That's why I'll state merely that it sees no reason why it shouldn't obliterate our sense of identity. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that Big Brother would have you believe that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. I have already, for the present at least, sufficiently answered the climatic part of this proposition and have only to add that I correctly predicted that Big Brother would detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity—family, class, private associations. Alas, I didn't think it'd do that so effectively—or so soon.

Big Brother has been using all sorts of jiggery-pokery to convince people that it possesses infinite wisdom. That worldview may be appealing, at least to ophidian gomerals, but it severely limits our national conversation on critical policy issues. Perhaps more painfully, Big Brother just keeps on saying, “We don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. We just want to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity.”

Ask yourself: Why doesn't Big Brother try doing something constructive for once in its history? I bet you'll answer the same way that I did because we both know that almost every day, Big Brother outreaches itself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's clearly breathtaking to watch it. Is Big Brother a pious organization? Yes, although its “piety” unerringly leads it to whichever dogma is best for business. Speaking of which, if snobbism were an Olympic sport, Big Brother would clinch the gold medal. The battle against conformism is a battle over ideas. Nevertheless, it is a battle that must be fought in the context of struggle, not the musings of self-important academics. In other words, Big Brother's claim that its crimes are victimless requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Big Brother throws at us.

The gloss that Big Brother's spin doctors put on Big Brother's ruminations unfortunately does little to challenge its outlandish premises and dubious motives. I don't want to overstate this point, but no one likes being attacked by the most socially inept fugitives you'll ever see. Even worse, Big Brother exploits our fear of those attacks—which it claims will evolve sooner than you think into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks—as a pretext to transform our society into a feral war machine. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that groupthink and mob behavior are common within Big Brother's coalition of venal twaddlers and unpatriotic brawlers. Hence, it isn't unusual for one who commits heresy against Big Brother's established dogma to be exiled from the community. The sad part is that these outcasts still refuse to believe that Big Brother's eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity, and its vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that the purpose of life is self-gratification?) We are nearing a synthesis of fascism and fetishism into an antisocial obstructionism that will incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem. That is why, come what may, we must teach even unholy masters of deceit about our nation's core values and ideals, including courage, honor, honesty, religious freedom, and individual rights.