Total Privacy = Total Destruction Of The Stateby Michael Suede
Jan. 07, 2014
1.The Guardian Says Correcting People On Their Grammar Is Racist
2.Hysterical Bloomberg Columnist: Trump's 'America First' Speech Reminiscent of 'Nazi Era'
3.Student Rep. On Free Speech: "Some People Have More Equal Rights Than Others"
4.Trump Foreign Policy Speech Signals Death of Neocons and Peace With Russia
5."All He Could Say Was 'Sex, Sex, Sex'": Wave of Muslim Migrant Sex Assaults Hits Austria
6.ADL Targets Trump: Saying "America First" is Anti-Semitic
7.South African Sports Associations 'Too White'
8.Prosecutor: "Many People" Will Riot in Baltimore If White Cop in Freddie Gray Case Is Acquitted
The state cannot exist without invasions of privacy. Without invasions of privacy, taxes could not be imposed. If all transactions and accounting records were private, incomes and revenues could not be verified. Tax evasion could not be prosecuted because no proof of incomes could be obtained.
Further, state currencies could not be imposed. If all transactions were private, the state would have no way of knowing what unit of account its subjects may have used to conduct their trades in. If a secret private currency were to run along side a state issued currency, the state issued currency would eventually become worthless.
If a person could be paid in secret, not have to pay taxes or the cost of inflation, and knew they could never be caught because the transactions are totally private, and the private currency was accepted everywhere the state currency was, wouldn’t they try to avoid the state issued currency in favor of the private currency? Because of these facts, all forms of privacy are abhorrent to the state.
The state, which is nothing more than a large group of brainwashed individuals who believe they have been granted the legitimate right to control others through the use of force, depends on having total information of all its subjects doings in order to maintain its own survival. – But survival of what? Survival of the belief system. There is no “thing” that anyone can point to and say, “there is the state!” The state isn’t real. The state is a belief in peoples’ minds.
Since the state is nothing more than a belief that resides in the minds of certain people, the cult members that compose a “state” must continually check their subjects for signs that belief in the cult might be waning. This natural paranoia of cult members is what drives the expansion of the surveillance state. The Snowden leaks have made it clear that the NSA is just as concerned about what its own subjects are thinking as it is about foreigners.
Again, the NSA is just a group of cult members who believe they have the legitimate right to invade the privacy of everyone on the planet to ensure that the belief in the death cult called the American government is not being threatened. Since the state isn’t a physical “thing,” but a belief, the NSA isn’t ultimately concerned about protecting “things.” The cult of the NSA does what it does because they are terrified some other cult belief system will throw them out of power.
Why should Americans be concerned with what the Chinese are doing? “Americans” are simply people who believe that living under the death cult of the American state is superior to that of living under the Chinese state – otherwise why bother having any American state at all? Why not just let the Chinese run things? Why not hand over the American government to the Chinese? What does that question even mean? Does it mean handing over the belief in the legitimacy of one death cult to another death cult? What the hell?
The state is a belief – not a thing. In order to get someone out of a cult, you have to seclude them from the cult group. Privacy is a key component when it comes to the toppling of cult belief systems. If I were to transport you to another human world where all transactions were private (no states), would you stand in terror, waiting to be struck down by terrorists or criminals? Of course not. You would quickly come to accept that as the reality of how things should be.
If the entire world views it as normal to have complete transaction privacy, you would view it as normal. It would be ABNORMAL to assume you, or anyone else, had the legitimacy to peek inside peoples’ pocketbooks. Obviously the death cult called a “state” could not exist in such a world.
Even if an entire population were to fully believe that the human condition could be improved by having people elect leaders from the masses, and then granting those few elected people the power to use organized threats of violence to assume control over resources; in a world where violating privacy was impossible, the public couldn’t impose such a system on themselves even if they wanted to.