fix small mistakes

stateistheenemy/index.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ xmr: 86NCojqYmjwim4NGZzaoLS2ozbLkMaQTnd3VVa9MdW1jVpQbseigSfiCqYGrM1c5rmZ173mrp8R
 # **Why societies have given birth to the State**
 
 The modern, centralized State is an institution that is relatively new when
-put into historical perspective. For most of human history States had been
+put into historical perspective. For most of the human history States had been
 quite decentralized and uninvolved in the day-to-day of their citizens, mostly
 content with collecting taxes and waging war on each other or their own
 citizens.
@@ -20,15 +20,16 @@ With the modern era and industrialization, information and productivity grew
 exponentially, allowing states to seize more and more prerogatives and powers,
 grow ever fatter, powerful and oppressive.
 
-**Societies do not give birth to the State.** Clans, castes, families
-believing that their interest can be best served by a monopoly on violence
+**Societies do not give birth to the State.**
+
+Clans, castes, families believing that their interest can be best served by a monopoly on violence
 coalesce into a State and are allowed to do so by the rest of their society
 through the trading of favors in exchange for allegiance.
 
 While it was explicit during the medieval era, today's rituals in democratic
 countries are very similar in nature:
 
-* by voting, one gives assent to the policies that will be implemented (culturally shown by the chestnut "if you didn't vote you don't get to complain): as in the medieval era there is no alternative to an allegiance to the current power structure 
+* by voting, one gives assent to the policies that will be implemented (culturally shown by the chestnut "if you didn't vote you don't get to complain"): as in the medieval era there is no alternative to an allegiance to the current power structure 
 * the same cast of politicians "compete" on a regular basis with very little change in its makeup, with promises that always boil down to "I will take money and status from your opponents and give them to you". This is reframed as "we will subsidize X or Y" or "we will crack down on such and such for the common good"
 
 # **How does the state dictate what companies can and can't do**
@@ -63,24 +64,24 @@ For a company to work under a State it must:
 
 By controlling the currency and being able to counterfeit it at will, together
 with its monopoly on violence, the State is able to favor or destroy companies
-independantly of the value they bring to society, very much like a local mom'n
+independently of the value they bring to society, very much like a local mom'n
 pop shop has to comply with the mob demands or face escalating violence.
 
 # **Why Do People Mistakenly Trust the State?**
 
 Here's a valid question: Why do people trust the state? There isn't just one
-answer — in fact, there are many reasons, and they deserve to be examined in
+answer - in fact, there are many reasons, and they deserve to be examined in
 detail.
 
 Let's start with education. Most people are taught to obey from the moment
 they're born. They have to obey their parents, their teachers, and other
 authority figures. Obedience becomes ingrained in our minds, and the state
 knows this. There's a strange connection, deeply rooted in childhood, between
-obedience and trust — people tend to trust those they've been conditioned to
+obedience and trust - people tend to trust those they've been conditioned to
 obey, including institutions.
 
 This dynamic goes back further than modern democracy. Over time, states have
-learned how to manipulate populations to appear protective and trustworthy —
+learned how to manipulate populations to appear protective and trustworthy -
 not necessarily to be these things, but to look like them. The goal? To
 maintain control and obedience.
 
@@ -96,7 +97,7 @@ freedom, and controlling the media.
 For example: if a state allows people to communicate freely (within limits),
 choose their careers, offers free healthcare, and uses media to highlight only
 the positive aspects of its decisions while hiding the negative, people will
-end up trusting the state — even without truly understanding what it's doing
+end up trusting the state - even without truly understanding what it's doing
 behind the scenes.
 
 And that's exactly the point: people often trust something they don't actually
@@ -110,17 +111,17 @@ Because if you don't know something is wrong, why wouldn't you trust it?
 
 ![](secret.png)
 
-Take countries like Russia, China, or North Korea — secrecy is extreme, and
+Take countries like Russia, China, or North Korea - secrecy is extreme, and
 those who try to expose the truth risk disappearing or spending the rest of
 their lives in prison.
 
 But here's the uncomfortable truth: this kind of information suppression
 happens everywhere. The only difference is how it's presented. Media in the
-West often paints Russia, China, and North Korea as the vilains — but many
+West often paints Russia, China, and North Korea as the villains - but many
 other countries use similar tactics behind the scenes.
 
 Always remember: when you rely on the media, you only see what they choose to
-show you. Getting the full picture is a long and difficult journey — one that
+show you. Getting the full picture is a long and difficult journey - one that
 not everyone is able or willing to take.
 
 
@@ -165,7 +166,7 @@ change was so evident that it became almost impossible for users to ignore the
 bias in the content they were seeing.
 
 What's important here is not just the content being highlighted, but the way
-the platform was actively shaping the political conversation — and this was
+the platform was actively shaping the political conversation - and this was
 happening right in front of everyone, yet very few seemed to notice how
 controlled the flow of information had become.
 
@@ -174,24 +175,24 @@ fears, they can position themselves as the heroes and saviors that will
 protect you and make your life better. They exploit these fears, presenting
 themselves as the only solution to the dangers they've helped amplify.
 
-This is a powerful strategy — by controlling the narrative and shaping public
+This is a powerful strategy - by controlling the narrative and shaping public
 perception, states make themselves seem indispensable. People, caught in the
 grip of fear or uncertainty, start to trust the very institutions that have,
 in part, created the conditions for their anxiety. It's a cycle of control:
 the state stirs up fear, then offers itself as the only way to overcome it.
 
-And this is exactly how trust in the state grows — not because the state is
+And this is exactly how trust in the state grows - not because the state is
 truly benevolent, but because it's positioned as the only force capable of
 protecting you from the very threats it has amplified.
 
 In addition, it's important to highlight that what happened on X didn't just
-impact the United States — its effects spread worldwide. Many other countries
+impact the United States - its effects spread worldwide. Many other countries
 are seeing radical political parties gaining prominence on the platform. This
 isn't just a matter of shifting political opinions; it's leading to a larger
 ideological evolution among populations.
 
 The algorithms that amplify certain voices don't just push certain viewpoints
-in one country — they have a global reach, influencing political landscapes in
+in one country - they have a global reach, influencing political landscapes in
 places where radical ideas are gaining traction. This creates a ripple effect,
 where ideas that were once considered fringe start to become more normalized.
 As a result, people everywhere are being exposed to, and sometimes even drawn
@@ -199,7 +200,7 @@ toward, extreme ideologies.
 
 This goes beyond the United States' borders, showing how powerful social media
 platforms can shape political discourse and potentially push societies toward
-more polarized and extreme positions — all under the guise of free speech and
+more polarized and extreme positions - all under the guise of free speech and
 open debate.
 
 
@@ -209,11 +210,11 @@ open debate.
 
 One last reason people trust states is because of the rights they're granted.
 When a state gives its population rights, people tend to trust it almost
-automatically. But this is where things get tricky — because, in reality, this
+automatically. But this is where things get tricky - because, in reality, this
 is nonsensical. If a state is "giving" you rights, it also means the state is
 withholding others.
 
-This is where many state opponents disagree. Why should anyone — or anything —
+This is where many state opponents disagree. Why should anyone - or anything -
 have the power to decide what rights you do or don't have, without consulting
 you first? The very concept that a government can grant or take away rights
 implies a level of control that undermines true freedom. People are led to
@@ -237,7 +238,7 @@ This is the typical response used to justify the state's control over
 individual freedoms. But when you break it down, it's still just another way
 to manipulate your fears. The state presents itself as the only entity capable
 of keeping you safe from chaos, painting a picture of disaster if control is
-loosened. And with that fear, people begin to trust the state more — not
+loosened. And with that fear, people begin to trust the state more - not
 because they see it as a true protector, but because they believe it's the
 only thing standing between them and anarchy.
 
@@ -252,15 +253,15 @@ dependent.
 ![](anarchist.png)
 
 One of the most dysfunctional aspects of the state is that a small group of
-individuals hold the majority of the power. This concentration of power often
-goes unchallenged by the population — but why does it work this way? Why are
+individuals holds the majority of the power. This concentration of power often
+goes unchallenged by the population - but why does it work this way? Why are
 so many people willing to accept a system where only a few have the real
 influence?
 
 The answer is actually quite simple: people accept it because they're used to
 it in almost every aspect of their lives. From the moment we're born, we're
 conditioned to live in a world where power is concentrated in the hands of a
-few. Take, for example, when you're a child — all the power is in the hands of
+few. Take, for example, when you're a child - all the power is in the hands of
 your parents. They make the rules, they set the boundaries, and you obey, not
 because you understand the system, but because you've been taught to.
 
@@ -268,10 +269,10 @@ Then, when you enter the workforce, the same dynamic applies. Power is
 concentrated in management. You're expected to follow orders, often without
 questioning them. In the military, the power is held by the officers, and
 soldiers are expected to carry out commands without hesitation. I could go on
-with example after example — from schools to religious institutions to
+with example after example - from schools to religious institutions to
 corporate hierarchies.
 
-These systems — all designed to concentrate power in the hands of a few — are
+These systems - all designed to concentrate power in the hands of a few - are
 ingrained into us from a young age. They create a mindset where authority is
 just part of life. By the time we're adults, we've internalized this structure
 so deeply that we don't even question it when it comes to the state. It's
@@ -288,8 +289,8 @@ you're already conditioned to accept it as normal.
 
 
 
-Now that we understand why this system works the way it does — and why it's
-accepted by populations — let's dive into why it shouldn't work like this. At
+Now that we understand why this system works the way it does - and why it's
+accepted by populations - let's dive into why it shouldn't work like this. At
 its core, what's happening is that a small group of people are making
 decisions about every aspect of your life without even consulting you. This
 concentration of power isn't just an issue of practicality; it's a fundamental
@@ -303,7 +304,7 @@ in how it's allocated.
 
 Now, think about the rise of cryptocurrencies and the freedom they represent.
 You've spent time and effort mining or investing in a crypto that you believe
-has value — only for the state to decide, without your input, that the
+has value - only for the state to decide, without your input, that the
 cryptocurrency is no longer valid or legal in your country. Suddenly, the
 asset you've worked for is rendered useless, and your financial choices are
 dictated by a group of people who don't have to answer to you.
@@ -319,7 +320,7 @@ control, it undermines the very concept of individual autonomy.
 
 
 Having such power concentrated in the hands of a few individuals raises
-another major issue: corruption. Think about it — it's far easier to corrupt a
+another major issue: corruption. Think about it - it's far easier to corrupt a
 small group of people than a large one. When power is spread out, it becomes
 more difficult to manipulate the system. But when it's concentrated in the
 hands of just a few, those few have the ability to shape the rules, laws, and
@@ -332,7 +333,7 @@ entrench their own power?
 
 The reality is, the more concentrated the power, the higher the risk of
 corruption. History is filled with examples where a small group of leaders or
-officials abused their power — whether for financial gain, to suppress
+officials abused their power - whether for financial gain, to suppress
 opposition, or to manipulate laws to keep themselves in power. And once
 corruption takes root, it becomes incredibly difficult to root out.
 
@@ -343,7 +344,7 @@ in power accountable, the risk of corruption grows exponentially.
 ![](corruption.png)
 
 Small groups of people holding most of the power also create a serious issue
-when it comes to counterpower — the ability to challenge or oppose that power
+when it comes to counterpower - the ability to challenge or oppose that power
 effectively. In a system where power is concentrated in a small group of
 individuals, it becomes incredibly difficult to form a strong and effective
 opposition.
@@ -351,13 +352,13 @@ opposition.
 For one, those in power can easily stifle dissent. They control the key
 institutions, the media, and the channels through which opposition voices can
 be heard. In a system with distributed power, opposition can come from various
-corners — from civil society, the media, grassroots movements, or even within
+corners - from civil society, the media, grassroots movements, or even within
 the system itself (e.g., checks and balances). But when a small elite controls
 everything, the avenues for meaningful opposition are severely limited.
 
 Think about it: How can an opposition movement succeed if it has to fight
 against not only the policies but also the very institutions that enforce
-them? From law enforcement to the judiciary to the media — all these
+them? From law enforcement to the judiciary to the media - all these
 institutions are often under the influence of the powerful few. It's a
 situation where the opposition is outgunned, outmanned, and outresourced,
 making it nearly impossible to challenge the status quo effectively.
@@ -384,12 +385,12 @@ voting. In a direct democracy, the people decide on policies directly, whereas
 in a representative democracy, the people elect representatives to make
 decisions on their behalf."
 
-On the surface, this definition sounds ideal — people having the power to make
+On the surface, this definition sounds ideal - people having the power to make
 decisions or elect those who represent their interests. But when you dig
 deeper into the functioning of modern states, especially in systems that claim
 to be democracies, we begin to question whether the reality matches the ideal.
 
-If a small group of elites are making the key decisions and manipulating
+If a small group of elites is making the key decisions and manipulating
 public opinion through media and social networks, can we still say the people
 truly have power? Are elections even fair if they are influenced by money,
 media, and algorithms designed to sway voters? Can we call a system democratic
@@ -398,21 +399,21 @@ when the voices of the majority are drowned out by the interests of a few?
 ![](tyranny.png) There's one main aspect that should convince you that
 democracies, as we once understood them, are over. If you look at who people
 are actually voting for, you'll start to realize that they're not choosing
-real representatives from the population — they're choosing people who have
+real representatives from the population - they're choosing people who have
 been specifically trained to be politicians.
 
 In many cases, those running for office aren't necessarily the ones who
 understand the struggles of the average citizen or who have lived the same
 experiences as most voters. Instead, they're individuals groomed for politics,
-often with backgrounds in law, business, or elite institutions — far removed
+often with backgrounds in law, business, or elite institutions - far removed
 from the day-to-day realities of most people. They're trained in the art of
 rhetoric, strategy, and persuasion, but not in the genuine representation of
 public interest.
 
 This creates a significant disconnect between the people and the politicians.
-When you have a system where only a select group is prepared to lead — and
+When you have a system where only a select group is prepared to lead - and
 that group is more skilled at political maneuvering than actual governance for
-the people — you have to question whether the system is still democratic at
+the people - you have to question whether the system is still democratic at
 all.
 
 It's no longer about ordinary citizens running for office because they
@@ -423,12 +424,12 @@ becomes more of a career path than a genuine service to the people.
 
 Now, think about it: All these politicians, despite their supposed "political
 orientations," have been trained in the same way, by the same institutions,
-and with the same ultimate goal. They're not really opposed to each other —
+and with the same ultimate goal. They're not really opposed to each other -
 they're just acting.
 
 If you look closely, you'll realize that most of them are friends. They eat
 together, socialize, and even text each other all day long. The political
-drama that we see on TV, the speeches, the debates — it's all part of a
+drama that we see on TV, the speeches, the debates - it's all part of a
 carefully crafted performance. It's not about real opposition or ideological
 differences anymore.
 
@@ -436,11 +437,11 @@ In fact, ideas and personal convictions have become secondary in the world of
 politics. What matters is winning. And to win, politicians are trained in how
 to market themselves, how to present the right image, how to manipulate the
 public into believing they are the right choice. Their job isn't to genuinely
-represent the people or to put forward a set of principles — it's to play the
+represent the people or to put forward a set of principles - it's to play the
 game, secure votes, and stay in power.
 
-This is why, despite their different labels — liberal, conservative,
-progressive, etc. — they often end up serving the same interests, passing
+This is why, despite their different labels - liberal, conservative,
+progressive, etc. - they often end up serving the same interests, passing
 similar laws, and supporting the same systems of power. The lines between them
 blur, because at the end of the day, they're not really on different sides;
 they're all part of the same elite political network, doing what they're
@@ -462,7 +463,7 @@ such as free elections."
 At first glance, this sounds like a system where a single individual or a
 small group holds unchecked power. But when you look closely, it begins to
 sound eerily familiar, doesn't it? The concentration of power, suppression of
-real opposition, and a lack of genuine democratic processes — it starts to
+real opposition, and a lack of genuine democratic processes - it starts to
 seem like many so-called "democracies" today are operating under principles
 very similar to those of a dictatorship.
 
@@ -473,7 +474,7 @@ doing behind closed doors.
 These nations, which claim to uphold democratic values, often position
 themselves as the defenders of freedom and human rights, rallying against
 authoritarian regimes. Yet, in reality, they exhibit many of the same
-practices — the concentration of power, the suppression of dissent, the
+practices - the concentration of power, the suppression of dissent, the
 manipulation of information. They call out dictatorships for curbing free
 speech and stifling opposition, but at the same time, they're doing much of
 the same, just in a more subtle or disguised way.