wip proofreading

individualreignssupreme/index.md

@@ -4,19 +4,33 @@ date: 2025-05-19
 gitea_url: ""
 xmr: 
 ---
-# How the state manipulate masses
+# How the state manipulates the masses
 
 ## The voting system
 
-First, let’s take a step back and examine how states operate against the interests of individuals. If you look at the voting system, you'll see that it functions as a powerful tool of manipulation used by governments. By making people vote to elect their leaders, states essentially justify their own existence, even when it may not be deserved. Moreover, it creates an illusion of choice, when in reality, people have little to no influence over what will actually happen. From the moment the voting phase begins to the moment it ends, the outcomes are already largely predetermined.
+First, let’s take a step back and examine how states operate against the interests of individuals.
+If you look at the voting system, you'll see that it functions as a powerful tool of manipulation used by governments.
+By making people vote to elect so-called leaders, states essentially justify their own existence.
+Moreover, it creates an illusion of choice when, in reality, people have little to no influence over what will actually happen.
+From the moment the voting phase begins to the moment it ends, the outcomes are already largely predetermined.
 
 To illustrate this, let’s take a real-life example:
 
-Consider the French Fifth Republic. Since its establishment in 1959, French citizens have elected eight different presidents and governments, each representing different political ideologies. However, despite these changes in leadership, no significant transformation has occurred in the country’s fundamental structure. Some may argue that the abolition of the death penalty under President François Mitterrand was a major reform. But if we look closer, we can see that this decision was driven more by the fact that many other European countries had already taken similar steps, and France needed to keep up with the evolving norms in the international community. 
+Consider the French Fifth Republic. Since its establishment in 1959, French citizens have elected eight different presidents and governments,
+each representing different political ideologies. However, despite these changes in leadership, no significant transformation
+has occurred in the country’s fundamental structure. Some may argue that the abolition of the death penalty
+under President François Mitterrand was a major reform. If we take a closer look, we can see that this decision was driven
+more by the fact that many other European countries had already taken similar steps, and France needed to keep up with the evolving norms in the international community. 
 
-Despite this, no real change has been made. For instance, there is still a military police force in the country, which is technically forbidden, but no one seems to care. People continue to be heavily taxed to fund state decisions, yet they aren't even consulted about how that money is spent. A prime example of this is the ongoing defense spending—citizens are taxed to fund military operations abroad, yet they have little say in whether such interventions are necessary or beneficial. Another example is the lack of direct input from the public when it comes to decisions about economic policies, like austerity measures or corporate bailouts, which often prioritize state interests over the well-being of ordinary citizens.
+Except for this, no real change happened. For instance, there is still a military police force in the country,
+which is technically forbidden for EU members, but no one seems to care. People continue to be heavily taxed
+to fund state decisions, yet they aren't even consulted about how that money is spent. A prime example of this
+is the ongoing military operations abroad citizens are taxed to fund with little say on whether such interventions
+are necessary or beneficial. Another example is the lack of direct input from the public when it comes to
+decisions about economic policies, like austerity measures or corporate bailouts, which often prioritize
+state interests and corporatism over the well-being of ordinary citizens.
 
-*Interesting reading:* 
+### Further Reading
 
 Article: "The Politics of Electoral Systems" by Michael Gallagher
 
@@ -26,15 +40,35 @@ Article: "The Politics of Electoral Systems" by Michael Gallagher
 
 ## State power
 
-Now that we’ve established that people have little real power within the current system, let’s turn our attention to the immense power states wield. First and foremost, states have the authority to write, pass, and enforce laws. This gives them the ability to make almost anything illegal without consulting the population. Conversely, they can also make anything legal, particularly if it serves to justify actions they've already taken. When you combine this with control over the media, you have one of the most effective ways to maintain control over the masses. States can shape public opinion, control the flow of information, and even manipulate perceptions of legality. By doing so, they create an environment in which the public’s understanding of what’s right and wrong is constantly molded to fit the interests of those in power.
+Now that we’ve established that people have little real power within the current system,
+let’s turn our attention to the immense power states wield. First and foremost, states 
+have the authority to write, pass, and enforce laws. This gives them the ability to 
+make almost anything illegal without consulting the population. Conversely, they can also
+make anything legal, particularly if it serves to justify actions they've already taken.
+When you combine this with control over the media, you have one of the most effective ways
+to maintain control over the masses. States can shape public opinion, control the flow of
+information, and even manipulate perceptions of justice. By doing so, they create an environment
+in which the public’s understanding of what’s right and wrong is constantly molded to fit the interests of those in power.
 
-A historical example of this dynamic can be seen in Brazil's 1964 military coup. In 1964, Brazil underwent a military coup that ousted the democratically elected government of João Goulart. The military regime that took power justified their actions by claiming they were defending the country from a communist threat. The coup itself was backed by the United States, which feared the rise of left-wing governments in Latin America during the Cold War.
+A historical example of this dynamic can be seen in Brazil's 1964 military coup. In 1964, Brazil
+underwent a military coup that ousted the democratically elected government of João Goulart.
+The military regime that took power justified their actions by claiming they were defending the
+country from a communist threat. The coup itself was backed by the United States, which
+feared the rise of left-wing governments in Latin America during the Cold War.
 
-Once in power, the military government quickly passed laws that made it illegal to oppose the new regime, including the censorship of media and political speech. Newspapers, radio, and TV stations were directly controlled or forced to adhere to the government's narrative. They framed the coup as a necessary action to protect the nation from communism, and any opposition was portrayed as unpatriotic or subversive. This manipulation of the legal system and media ensured that the public had little access to alternative viewpoints and were largely unaware of the true nature of the military regime’s actions.
+Once in power, the military government quickly passed laws that made it illegal to oppose the new regime,
+including the censorship of media and political speech. Newspapers, radio, and TV stations were directly controlled
+or forced to adhere to the government's narrative. They framed the coup as a necessary action to protect the nation
+from communism, and any opposition was portrayed as unpatriotic or subversive. This manipulation of the legal system
+and media ensured that the public had little access to alternative viewpoints and were largely unaware of the true
+nature of the military regime’s actions.
 
-The Brazilian military dictatorship lasted until 1985, during which time state power was not only maintained through military force but also through the systematic control of information and the manipulation of legal frameworks to suppress dissent. Even after the regime ended, the long-lasting effects of media control and legal manipulation can still be felt in Brazilian politics today.
+The Brazilian military dictatorship lasted until 1985, during which time state power was not only maintained
+through military force but also through the systematic control of information and the manipulation of legal
+frameworks to suppress dissent. Even after the regime ended, the long-lasting effects of media control and
+legal manipulation can still be felt in Brazilian politics today.
 
-*Interesting Reading:* 
+### Further Reading
 
 Article: "Brazil’s Military Dictatorship: How the Press Was Suppressed" by Robert M. Levine, The New York Times (April 2, 2014)
 
@@ -44,15 +78,41 @@ Article: "Brazil’s Military Dictatorship: How the Press Was Suppressed" by Rob
 
 ## Controlled companies
 
-Given that states have the power to create and enforce laws as they see fit, they also have a significant influence over private companies. These companies can only survive if the state allows them to operate within the legal frameworks set by government. The issue arises from the fact that states can use their legal and regulatory power to pressure companies into complying with their demands. One of the primary interests that states have in private companies is their ability to manipulate and control the masses. In many cases, governments use private companies to spy on citizens, censor information, manipulate public opinion, and make individuals more vulnerable to state control.
+Given that states have the power to create and enforce laws as they see fit,
+they also have a significant influence over private companies. These companies
+can only survive if the state allows them to operate within the legal frameworks
+set by government. The issue arises from the fact that states can use their legal
+and regulatory power to pressure companies into complying with their demands. 
+One of the primary interests that states have in private companies is their ability
+to manipulate and control the masses. In many cases, governments use private companies
+to spy on citizens, censor information, manipulate public opinion, and make individuals
+more vulnerable to state control.
 
-With the right legal authority, most states can compel private companies to share confidential information about their users, bypassing any privacy laws or regulations. This often happens under the guise of national security, anti-terrorism efforts, or law enforcement. For example, intelligence agencies or law enforcement can request access to private data—such as emails, phone records, or online activity—from tech companies like Facebook, Google, or Apple, without requiring the user's consent or knowledge. These companies often comply with government requests, sometimes even without a warrant, which raises serious concerns about privacy and the balance of power between the state and the individual.
+With the right legal authority, most states can compel private companies to share confidential
+information about their users, bypassing any privacy laws or regulations. This often happens 
+under the guise of national security, anti-terrorism efforts, or law enforcement. For example,
+intelligence agencies or law enforcement can request access to private data—such as emails, 
+phone records, or online activity—from tech companies like Facebook, Google, or Apple,
+without requiring the user's consent or knowledge. These companies often comply with government
+requests, sometimes even without a warrant, which raises serious concerns about privacy and the
+balance of power between the state and the individual.
 
-A real-world example of this dynamic is seen in the case of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its relationship with tech companies during the PRISM program. PRISM was a mass surveillance program revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013. Through this program, the NSA was able to directly access data from major tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Apple, among others, without the companies' users being aware. These companies were essentially forced to comply with government demands for user data, and many of the requests bypassed traditional privacy safeguards.
+A real-world example of this dynamic is seen in the case of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA)
+and its relationship with tech companies during the PRISM program. PRISM was a mass surveillance
+program revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013. Through this program, the NSA
+was able to directly access data from major tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook,
+and Apple, among others, without the companies' users being aware. These companies were 
+essentially forced to comply with government demands for user data, and many of the requests
+bypassed traditional privacy safeguards.
 
-Despite legal challenges, the government was able to leverage the laws related to national security to justify its surveillance activities, highlighting the extent to which states can pressure private companies to relinquish private information. The ability of states to use private companies as tools of surveillance and manipulation is a potent example of how power dynamics between the state and private entities can lead to significant erosion of individual freedoms.
+Despite legal challenges, the government was able to leverage the laws related to national
+security to justify its surveillance activities, highlighting the extent to which states
+can pressure private companies to relinquish private information. The ability of states
+to use private companies as tools of surveillance and manipulation is a potent example
+of how power dynamics between the state and private entities can lead to significant
+erosion of individual freedoms.
 
-*Interesting reading*: 
+### Further Reading
 
 Article: "Revelations on NSA Surveillance: The 2013 Edward Snowden Leaks" by Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian
 
@@ -65,9 +125,20 @@ Article: "Revelations on NSA Surveillance: The 2013 Edward Snowden Leaks" by Gle
 
 ## Is the state representing you ? 
 
-As we've seen, the state is not an ally for individuals. Yet, most people continue to believe that states are acting on their behalf. The reason for this misconception is that states present themselves as structures designed to carry out the will of the people, implementing the policies they were elected to enforce. However, this is far from the truth. In reality, most of what states do is not based on the promises made during elections, but on decisions that have already been made without consulting the public.
+As we've seen, the state is not an ally to individuals. Yet, most people continue
+to believe that states are acting on their behalf. This misconception is rooted in how
+states present themselves as structures designed to carry out the will of the people,
+implementing the policies they were elected to enforce. However, this is far from 
+the truth. In reality, most of what states do is not based on the promises made 
+during elections, but on decisions that have already been made without consulting the public.
 
-Candidates often present a program to the people during election campaigns, outlining the actions they claim to prioritize if elected. Once in office, however, less than half of that program is typically realized. Instead, much of the government's energy is spent on decisions that were not part of the campaign platform. These decisions often serve the interests of elites or external powers, rather than the general population. The public is left with the illusion of democratic choice, while the state operates according to a different agenda—one that was never debated or voted on by the people.
+Candidates often present a program to the people during election campaigns, outlining
+the actions they claim to prioritize if elected. Once in office, however, less than
+half of that program is typically realized. Instead, much of the government's
+energy is spent on decisions that were not part of the campaign platform.
+These decisions often serve the interests of elites or external powers, rather
+than the general population. The public is left with the illusion of democratic choice,
+while the state operates according to a different agenda—one that was never debated or voted on by the people.
 
 In Argentina, the 2015 presidential election is a clear example of the gap between campaign promises and the policies that were actually implemented after the election. Mauricio Macri, a businessman and candidate for the center-right Republican Proposal (PRO) party, ran on a platform promising economic reforms that would address inflation, reduce poverty, and end the protectionist policies of his predecessor, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Macri's campaign emphasized the need for "change" and promised to open up Argentina’s economy, reduce subsidies, and improve relations with international financial institutions like the IMF.
 
@@ -75,7 +146,7 @@ However, once Macri took office, his administration shifted from the promises ma
 
 Despite these promises, Macri’s government was accused of catering to neoliberal policies and multinational corporations, rather than addressing the needs of the Argentine population. Public dissatisfaction grew as poverty and inequality increased, leading to a sharp contrast between the electorate’s expectations and the government's actions.
 
-*Interesting reading:* 
+### Further Reading
 
 Article: "Argentina's Macri to End Protectionism in Economic Shift" by Jonathan Gilbert, The New York Times (December 10, 2015)