fix stuff

Reviewed-on: http://git.nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/nihilist/opsec-blogposts/pulls/3

0_template/index.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2001-09-11
 gitea_url: "http://git.nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/nihilist/blog-contributions/issues/260"
 xmr: 8AUYjhQeG3D5aodJDtqG499N5jXXM71gYKD8LgSsFB9BUV1o7muLv3DXHoydRTK4SZaaUBq4EAUqpZHLrX2VZLH71Jrd9k8
 ---
-# Tutorial Title
+# Template Tutorial Title
 
 In this tutorial we're going to explain A,B,C and showcase how to do X,Y,Z.
 

cloud_provider_adversary/index.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 author: Mulligan Security
 date: 2025-02-06
 gitea_url: "http://git.nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/nihilist/blog-contributions/issues/36"
-xmr: None
+xmr: 86NCojqYmjwim4NGZzaoLS2ozbLkMaQTnd3VVa9MdW1jVpQbseigSfiCqYGrM1c5rmZ173mrp8RmvPsvspG8jGr99yK3PSs
 ---
 # **When the Adversary is the cloud provider himself**
 

high_availability/index.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 author: Mulligan Security
 date: 2024-12-30
 gitea_url: "http://git.nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/nihilist/blog-contributions/issues/186"
-xmr: None
+xmr: 86NCojqYmjwim4NGZzaoLS2ozbLkMaQTnd3VVa9MdW1jVpQbseigSfiCqYGrM1c5rmZ173mrp8RmvPsvspG8jGr99yK3PSs
 ---
 #  Why is High Availability Important for Deniability ? 
 

index.md

@@ -19,6 +19,8 @@ With this new mkdocs blog version, we have completely changed how you can find b
 (Check out [this blogpost](whytheblog/index.md) for more details on our mission)
 
 ## Our latest contributed tutorials:
+- 2025-05-16: [The State is the Enemy](stateistheenemy/index.md)
+- 2025-05-16: [Why can't I use signal to chat anonymously?](signalnoanonymity/index.md)
 - 2025-05-02: [Convert Monero into other Cryptos Anonymously (XMR -> LTC)](haveno-crypto/index.md)
 - 2025-05-01: [How to get your first Monero ? (xmrbazaar.com, crypto swaps, p2p chats, or work)](monerofirst/index.md)
 - 2025-05-01: [Why should I self-host my own services ?](selfhosting/index.md)
@@ -27,8 +29,6 @@ With this new mkdocs blog version, we have completely changed how you can find b
 - 2025-04-27: [Anonymous Monitoring (Grafana, Prometheus, Node-exporter)](anonymous_server_monitoring/index.md)
 - 2025-04-21: [Self-Hosted LLM Hidden Service](openwebuilocalllms/index.md)
 - 2025-04-20: [Where to Hide your Monero Wealth?](monerowealth/index.md)
-- 2025-04-16: [Public Chats / Private Chats / Anonymous Chats / Deniable Chats](chats/index.md)
-- 2025-04-13: [How to Verify One's Identity While Maintaining Anonymity Using PGP Canaries](pgpcanary/index.md)
 ## Our upcoming tutorials:
 
 To know what's in store for the future of the Nihilism Opsec blog, you can check out our [Forgejo opsec project board](http://git.nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/nihilist/blog-contributions/projects/1)

offtopic/index.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ date: 2001-01-30
 gitea_url: "http://git.nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/nihilist/blog-contributions/issues/260"
 xmr: 8AUYjhQeG3D5aodJDtqG499N5jXXM71gYKD8LgSsFB9BUV1o7muLv3DXHoydRTK4SZaaUBq4EAUqpZHLrX2VZLH71Jrd9k8
 ---
-# What is on topic ?
+# What's On-topic and Off-topic ?
 
 The Nihilism Blog's Operational Security tutorial category is on purpose restricted to a few topics to avoid the subject from being too vast and to remain fully explorable.
 
@@ -45,9 +45,9 @@ On the clientside, the core scenario is to explore how to ensure that the indivi
 
 On the serverside, the core scenario is to explore how to ensure that a given service can survive multiple server takedowns. (meaning ensuring high availability, how to organize the multi-server setups, etc.)
 
-# Side Topics: Anarchy, and Agorism
+## Side Topics: Anarchy, and Agorism
 
-Anarchy is at the absolute core of Operational Security, because it is about protecting the individual's freedom by using the proper technology, in the proper way, following the proper opsec practices. This entire blog is there to enable individuals protect their freedom from Tyranny, essentially we're telling them how they can become ungovernable.
+Anarchy is at the absolute core of Operational Security, because it is about protecting the individual's freedom by using the proper technology, in the proper way, following the proper Opsec practices. **This entire blog is there to enable individuals protect their freedom from Tyranny, essentially telling them how they can become ungovernable.**
 
 ![](../whytheblog/7.png)
 

signalnoanonymity/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
+---
+author: oxeo0
+date: 2025-05-16
+gitea_url: "http://git.nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/nihilist/blog-contributions/issues/278"
+xmr: 862Sp3N5Y8NByFmPVLTPrJYzwdiiVxkhQgAdt65mpYKJLdVDHyYQ8swLgnVr8D3jKphDUcWUCVK1vZv9u8cvtRJCUBFb8MQ
+---
+
+# Anonymity - Why can't I use Signal to chat anonymously?
+
+## Introduction
+
+For over 10 years [Signal](https://signal.org) has been praised for its security and privacy amongst cybersecurity experts and privacy enthusiasts.
+
+It supports end-to-end encryption (also in groups), disappearing messages, and client app code is [fully open-source](https://github.com/signalapp).
+
+
+## History, Ownership and Affiliations
+
+Signal was initially developed as [TextSecure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TextSecure) and [RedPhone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedPhone) by two US based security researchers - [Moxie Marlinspike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moxie_Marlinspike) and Stuart Anderson.
+Developement started around 2010 under the [Whisper Systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisper_Systems) organization.
+First versions of TextSecure and RedPhone apps were a part of their proprietary enterprise mobile security software.
+
+In 2014 the second version of TextSecure was released which added end-to-end encrypted group chat and instant messaging capabilities.
+At the end of the year, the plan of merging TextSecure with RedPhone was announced.
+It evolved into the standalone Signal app in early 2015 and 2nd version of TextSecure became the basis for the Signal Protocol.
+
+During this time, the partnership with WhatsApp was announced.
+To this day WhatsApp uses the Signal Protocol as well.
+However contrary to Signal app, WhatsApp is not open-source. It's still owned by Meta (formerly Facebook).
+We have no way of knowing how much metadata WhatsApp shares with Meta (especially with recent push for [Meta AI](https://blog.whatsapp.com/talk-to-meta-ai-on-whatsapp) within the app).
+
+In 2018, Signal gained significant momentum with a $50 million investment from WhatsApp co-founder
+Brian Acton, leading to the creation of the non-profit Signal Foundation.
+To this day, Signal Foundation remains a registered non-profit 501(c)(3) organization operating mostly on user donations.
+
+
+## Phone number requirement
+
+One of the most popular criticisms of Signal is that it requires users to provide their phone numbers.
+In fact, early version of Signal (called [TextSecure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TextSecure)) was just a wrapper encrypting SMS messages.
+This meant the app was heavily dependent on user's phone number and cell carrier.
+The SMS messages were encrypted, but the [metadata](../anonymitymetadata/index.html) was still easily accessible to mobile carriers.
+
+In 2015, Signal [started to phase-out](https://signal.org/blog/goodbye-encrypted-sms/) SMS encryption feature in favor of providing their internet connected infrastructure.
+One thing that haven't changed until this day is the requirement for the phone number (which is inherently [not anonymous](../opsec/phonenumbers/index.md)).
+
+
+### Costs
+
+Signal openly states phone number verification is around 50% their [yearly spendings](https://signal.org/blog/signal-is-expensive/#registration-fees).
+Despite that, they keep requirement to **prevent spam and abuse**.
+
+
+### Usernames
+
+In 2024 Signal [introduced usernames](https://signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/) feature.
+It is meant to "keep your phone number private", but only from the people you're talking with.
+Even after the introduction of usernames, users are still required to provide their phone number during registration.
+
+This feature could've been easily implemented so that no personally identifiable information is tied to a Signal account.
+Account would be just username.
+
+In fact nowadays, there are many new secure messaging apps which don't require any personal data to create an account.
+For example [Session](https://getsession.org/) generates a unique random identifier during registration while [SimpleX](https://simplex.chat) uses nicknames - both permanent and temporary ones.
+
+
+## hCaptcha
+
+Another questionable privacy related decision is the use of [hCaptcha](https://hcaptcha.com/) as an anti-abuse measure [implemented](https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/6353#issuecomment-1687388838) in Signal clients. While a bit [more private](https://betanews.com/2020/04/13/cloudflare-ditches-google-recaptcha-moves-to-hcaptcha/) than Google's reCAPTCHA, their [privacy policy](https://www.hcaptcha.com/privacy) is also not ideal.
+
+
+## Centralized Infrastructure
+
+Signal does not have their own datacenter, they rely on Google Cloud Platform, Amazon Web Services and other large cloud providers based in the US.
+
+Server-side code is open source and can be found [here](https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Server).
+In the past users raised some concerns regarding backend code [not being updated](https://linuxreviews.org/Signal_Appears_To_Have_Abandoned_Their_AGPL-licensed_Server_Sourcecode) for over a year.
+
+### Metadata Collection
+
+Signal does not implement any IP address obfuscation or onion routing.
+It's possible to use Signal over a VPN, but it's not a standard feature.
+Some users [reported](https://www.reddit.com/r/signal/comments/144syye/endless_captcha_human_verification_while_using_vpn/) getting CAPTCHA requests when using Signal desktop app with a VPN.
+
+Signal has a clear [transparency site](https://signal.org/bigbrother) for legal request they responded to.
+There is no evidence they hand out user's IP address to law enforcement.
+Assuming they're being honest with us, it would still be possible to get an IP address of customer from logs of their cloud providers.
+
+Law enforcement could technically monitor the connections to the Signal servers and determine which user messaged another user in a given time frame. From there, it would be possible to get IP addresses and phone numbers of both messaging parties.
+
+![hypotethical scenario of LE agents monitoring Signal's centralized infrastructure](4.png)
+
+However for now, we have no evidence that Signal servers are being monitored by law enforcement so that scenario remains purely hypotethical.
+
+### Not Self-Hostable
+
+The server-side code is available on GitHub, but it's not designed for easy self-hosting. Code relies heavily on external services (like Firebase Cloud Messaging or Twilio). The list of Signal servers is hard-coded into client apps. 
+
+There's also a lack of documentation on how to set it up. I found a [blog post](https://softwaremill.com/can-you-self-host-the-signal-server/) where someone attempted to compile their own App version and host their own Signal server. Most issues are detailed in there.
+
+While not inherently a flaw, it's also worth noting that as of May 2025 
+[several countries](https://explorer.ooni.org/search?until=2025-05-14&since=2024-05-13&test_name=signal&failure=true&only=anomalies) 
+including Russia, Iran, Iraq, UAE, Venezuela, Pakistan and China have successfully blocked Signal within their borders.
+
+![diagram showing blocking Signal at firewall level by some large state](6.png)
+
+If not for the centralized nature of the service, the blockage would have been much harder. Users could just self-host their own servers.
+
+To give back to Signal, following the Iranian blockages in 2021 they created a solution similar to Tor bridges. Volunteers can run a TLS proxy server to [help users connect](https://signal.org/blog/run-a-proxy/) with the Signal servers and message freely even when their government blocks Signal.
+
+### Trust
+
+Recently [the government of Sweden demanded](https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/signal-exit-sweden-government/) a backdoor into E2EE apps like Signal. The CEO refused and told the media Signal would leave Sweden if that mandate were in place.
+While Signal has great track record so far, it's not hard to imagine a scenario where the company is forced to comply with some backdoor request (or shutdown).
+
+US national security leaders have been found to use Signal to [discuss military operations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_group_chat_leak) and other strategic topics. Signal is an US made app with all servers located physically within the US, however the app was never meant to serve such purpose. 
+
+## What makes SimpleX Chat better?
+
+### Anonymous Chats
+
+SimpleX supports [anonymous chats](../opsec/chats/index.md#anonymous-chat-example) which allow users to plausibly deny their participation in a conversation by using one-time nickname for each conversation.
+This reduces the risk of being linked to specific messages or conversations.
+
+![diagram showing how simplex anonymous chats prevent chat correlation](3.png)
+
+There's no such feature in Signal. Usernames can be changed at any time, but they change in each conversation user is a part of.
+
+![diagram showing how signal users can be deanonymized using correlation of their chats](2.png)
+
+### Self-Hostable and Decentralized
+
+SimpleX Chat comes with their SMP and XFTP servers preconfigured in client apps, however it's easy to [host your own](../opsec/anonsimplex/index.md) and switch to it. All servers are federated meaning they can talk to each other.
+
+The unofficial list of SMP and XFTP servers is available [here](https://simplex-directory.asriyan.me/#selected-servers=).
+
+Decentralization is important since if someone wanted to monitor SimpleX infrastructure, there's no single place they could go.
+
+![picture showing the federated smp servers and agents wondering who they should ask for data](5.png)
+
+Ease of self-hosting comes handy when someone tries to block the default messaging servers on country-wide firewall. Signal is rather really to block because of their centralized infrastructure. If someone self-hosts SimpleX server on their own network within the country, it's much harder to detect and block.
+
+![diagram showing users hosting smp servers within the network of country blocking external encrypted apps](7.png)
+
+### Reduced Metadata
+
+By default, SimpleX Chat implements [message padding](https://simplex.chat/docs/glossary.html#message-padding) which mitigates sidechannel attacks to some level and [one-way SMP queues](https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplexmq/blob/stable/protocol/simplex-messaging.md#simplex-queue) which prevent the client IP being leaked to destination SMP server.
+
+SimpleX tries to keep metadata to the minimum. To learn why that's detrimental to your anonymity, check out [this](../opsec/anonymitymetadata/index.md) blog post.
+
+### Onion Only Servers
+
+SimpleX Chat has support for onion only servers. That way both your and SMP server's IP is never leaked. Such servers [can communicate](../opsec/anonsimplex/index.md#only-using-your-own-onion-only-simplex-server-doesnt-isolate-you) with clearnet SMP servers without any issue.
+
+There is no client CAPTCHA mechanism that would hurt usability without exposing your IP address (like we saw in Signal).
+
+
+## Conclusion
+
+While both Signal and SimpleX Chat are good secure open-source messaging apps, for our use-case SimpleX Chat offers the best balance between security, [privacy, anonymity and deniability](../opsec/aps/index.md) and usability.
+
+Signal on the other hand only provides security and partial privacy (you're private from your contacts if you use Usernames feature).
+It is clearly focused more on usability and user-friendliness. That's what made the app so popular amongst less tech-savvy users.

stateistheenemy/index.md

@@ -0,0 +1,580 @@
+---
+author: Mulligan Security
+date: 2025-05-16
+gitea_url: "http://git.nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/nihilist/blog-contributions/issues/235"
+xmr: 86NCojqYmjwim4NGZzaoLS2ozbLkMaQTnd3VVa9MdW1jVpQbseigSfiCqYGrM1c5rmZ173mrp8RmvPsvspG8jGr99yK3PSs
+---
+
+# The State is the Enemy
+
+# **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 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.
+
+As we will discuss, whatever form the State takes it always end up with a
+caste, a limited number of families (a political class) sharing dominion over
+swaths of territory and their inhabitants.
+
+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
+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 
+* 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**
+
+Within a country, the State has two main tools it uses to load the economic
+dices:
+
+* its monopoly on violence
+* its ability to counterfeit currency
+
+While the former is the most blatant and spectacular one and is used (in times
+of peace) sparingly to sow fear and distrust among the people living under a
+State it is actually the least powerful of the two.
+
+By mandating the use of a specific currency in mandatory transactions (such
+taxes), a State guarantees itself an easy way to steal from its victims
+through inflation. In order to redistribute the spoils it will embed itself in
+the economic functions through influence on companies.
+
+This is accomplished in the following way:
+
+* print money (through actual printing, interest rate manipulation, ...)
+* use this money to: 
+* purchase controlling shares in private companies
+* subsidize specific companies to help them outcompete their less favored opponents
+* use violence to keep competitors at bay (with State-mandated monopolies, or by favoring regulatory capture)
+For a company to work under a State it must:
+
+* comply with its rule or be the object of violence
+* use its allowed legal currency and none other
+
+
+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
+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.
+
+
+## **How does it play out**
+
+Let's review some history of such forced (or not) collaboration:
+
+
+### Cambridge Analytica and Governments (UK/US, 2010s)
+Cambridge Analytica, a UK private firm legally obtained access to a first layer of facebook users, then, leveraging the broken (perhaps on purpose) privacy model of facebook obtained data from all those users friends and contacts.
+
+
+This data was then used by US and UK politicians for political campaigns.
+
+### AT&T and the NSA (Room 641A – USA, early 2000s)
+
+As revealed by Mark Klein, AT&T had installed a secret room (Room 641A) in one of its buildings where the NSA tapped into global internet communications.
+
+### IBM and Nazi Germany (1930s–1940s)
+
+IBM, through its German subsidiary Dehomag, provided punch-card technology that was used by the Nazi regime to identify and track Jews and other persecuted groups.
+
+### Fiat and the fascist government of Italy (1920s-1940s)
+
+In exchange for outlawing unions, steering investment towards companies owned by friends of the regime and constricting the workers negociating power, Mussolini obtained support from industrialists and companies (such as Fiat)
+This support was through the media, the forced indoctrination of workers, privately funded government propaganda and militaristic developments those organizations wouldn't have undertaken without such influence.
+
+# **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
+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
+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 -
+not necessarily to be these things, but to look like them. The goal? To
+maintain control and obedience.
+
+## **Coercion and Manipulation**
+
+![meme with a puppet - when you are being manipulated and do not even realize it](manipulated.png)
+
+Now, let's consider how a state can manipulate its population while
+maintaining the illusion of being clean, protective, and trustworthy. It's a
+clever combination of early indoctrination, providing a false sense of
+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
+behind the scenes.
+
+And that's exactly the point: people often trust something they don't actually
+understand. Most major decisions are made without the population ever being
+informed.
+
+Because if you don't know something is wrong, why wouldn't you trust it?
+
+
+### **On the Use of Secrecy**
+
+![meme saying - when the government classifies anything - all right, then. keep your secrets.](secret.png)
+
+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 villains - but many
+other countries use similar tactics behind the scenes.
+
+*You can refer to **"State Secrecy and the Control of Information"** by D. P. Fidler.* 
+*This book looks at how all states engage in secrecy and how this is a feature of government worldwide, even in democratic nations, as they protect sensitive information related to defense, intelligence, and state security.*
+
+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
+not everyone is able or willing to take.
+
+
+### **Media and Narrative Control**
+
+![an infographic showing reframing certain events by the media](media.png)
+
+Information is power. And controlling it? That's one of the state's most
+powerful tools.
+
+Social networks are now a key part of these manipulation tactics used by
+states. In reality, they're designed to make you believe you have free speech
+and that you're not alone in your beliefs. But the truth is, they only show
+you what they want you to see.
+
+While it might feel like you have the freedom to express yourself online, the
+algorithms behind these platforms are carefully crafted to filter and
+prioritize content that aligns with specific narratives. This creates the
+illusion of diversity of opinion when, in fact, it's a controlled environment
+where you're subtly pushed in certain directions, often without even realizing
+it.
+
+So, while social media gives the appearance of freedom and connection, it's
+another tool in the state's arsenal to guide thought and reinforce obedience.
+
+*An interesting reading you could have would be **"The Age of Surveillance Capitalism"** by Shoshana Zuboff*
+*Zuboff explores how companies, particularly social media platforms like Facebook and Google, exploit user data to manipulate behavior and control the flow of information. While this book primarily focuses on corporate surveillance, it also highlights how these platforms can be leveraged for political influence, particularly in authoritarian regimes.*
+
+#### **A case Study: the last US Presidential election**
+
+![meme from Toy Story - manipulation - manipulation everywhere](everywhere.png)
+
+Let's take a recent real-life example to illustrate this. In the United
+States, Elon Musk, the CEO of X (formerly Twitter), decided to support Donald
+Trump in his campaign. From that moment, we saw a noticeable shift on the
+platform. Posts highlighting negative aspects of immigration, security
+concerns, and mistakes made by Joe Biden began to dominate the feed. At the
+same time, opposing viewpoints started disappearing, slowly but surely.
+
+This is a perfect example of how social media platforms can be manipulated to
+shape public opinion. By amplifying certain voices and silencing others, the
+platform is steering the narrative in a direction that aligns with the
+interests of powerful individuals or political agendas. In this case, the
+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
+happening right in front of everyone, yet very few seemed to notice how
+controlled the flow of information had become.
+
+As information is manipulated and states gain the ability to control your
+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
+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
+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
+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
+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
+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
+open debate.
+
+*To illustrate this example, you could be interested in **“Disinformation and Democracy: The Influence of Social Media in Politics”** by P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking*
+*This book covers how disinformation spreads through social media platforms and how powerful individuals or groups manipulate these platforms to influence political outcomes. It discusses the broader impact of algorithmic manipulation, which is central to understanding the shifts Musk implemented on X.*
+
+### Rights and Social Control
+
+![ai generated graphics of social media](social.png)
+
+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
+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 -
+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
+believe that these "granted" rights are something they should be grateful for,
+when in fact, the real question is: why should we need permission at all? Why
+not trust that your inherent rights are yours by birth, not by the state's
+approval?
+
+This leads to a dangerous dynamic: trusting a system that has the power to
+define and limit your rights, while masking this as a benevolent gift. And
+yet, this is how many people are conditioned to think about their relationship
+with the state.
+
+In most cases, if you ask a state representative or someone who supports the
+system, the answer will be the same: rights need to be limited and controlled
+to ensure the security of the people. They might say something like, "Imagine
+if anarchy took over, riots would erupt, and you'd all be dead by the next
+morning!"
+
+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
+because they see it as a true protector, but because they believe it's the
+only thing standing between them and anarchy.
+
+This tactic isn't about security at all; it's about consolidating power and
+ensuring that trust in the state grows. By amplifying the fear of disorder,
+they create a need for "protection," which only they can provide. It's a
+carefully crafted narrative designed to make people feel powerless and
+dependent.
+
+*If you want to go deeper in this topic, you could read **"The Social Contract"** by Jean-Jacques Rousseau*
+*Rousseau's seminal work argues that governments, through the social contract, claim authority to grant and limit rights in exchange for protection. However, the very idea that a government can both grant and take away rights can be seen as an assertion of control, not an act of benevolence. This is central to the idea of why rights are not inherent to individuals, but often treated as "gifts" from the state.*
+
+## **Examples from the past**
+
+States have already shown that they cannot be trusted, as they have concealed malicious actions that were later exposed. I'd like to provide a few examples from around the world of state secrets that were revealed and how these situations were handled.
+
+One well-known example from the United States is the Pentagon Papers. In 1971, former military analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked a classified government study that revealed the U.S. government's misleading actions and lies about the Vietnam War. The papers showed that the government had been secretly expanding its involvement in the war, even as it publicly claimed otherwise. This was a major blow to public trust, and it led to widespread protests and criticism of the U.S. government's actions during the war.
+The U.S. government initially tried to prevent the publication of the papers, claiming national security risks, but the case ultimately went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the press's right to publish the documents. This event highlighted how governments can sometimes conceal the truth for political or military reasons, only for the secrets to be revealed later, often with significant consequences.
+
+*Source: "The Pentagon Papers: The Secret History of the Vietnam War" by Neil Sheehan, The New York Times*
+
+Another example is when in 2004, it was revealed that U.S. military personnel had tortured and abused detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which had been used as a detention center for suspected insurgents and terrorists. The abuse included physical assault, sexual humiliation, forced nudity, and the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners.
+The scandal came to light after graphic photographs showing detainees being abused were leaked to the press. The images sparked global outrage and led to widespread criticism of U.S. policies on the treatment of detainees in the War on Terror.
+
+*Source: "The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism" by L. P. Siggins*
+
+A significant example from Russia involves the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. Litvinenko, a former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), defected to the United Kingdom and became an outspoken critic of the Russian government, particularly under President Vladimir Putin. He was a vocal critic of corruption within the Russian state and its use of violence against its opponents.
+In November 2006, Litvinenko fell seriously ill and died after drinking tea laced with a rare radioactive substance, polonium-210, at a London hotel. His death was highly suspicious, and after an investigation, it was concluded that Litvinenko had been deliberately poisoned by Russian agents, with possible links to the Russian government itself.
+A public inquiry in the UK in 2016 concluded that there was "strong evidence" that the Russian government, including individuals linked to the Kremlin, was responsible for the poisoning. The Russian government consistently denied any involvement and refused to cooperate with the investigation.
+The case highlighted not only the danger of state-sponsored assassination of political opponents but also the extent to which the Russian government sought to conceal its involvement in such acts. The poisoning of Litvinenko is still a point of tension in international relations and remains a potent example of how secretive state actions, including assassination, can be hidden or denied, only to be uncovered later.
+
+*Source: "The Litvinenko Enquiry: Final Report" by Sir Robert Owen*
+
+Another notable example involves Italy's involvement in the 1980 Bologna train station bombing, often referred to as "Italy's strategy of tension".
+On August 2, 1980, a bomb exploded in the Bologna train station, killing 85 people and injuring over 200. The bombing, which was one of the deadliest acts of terrorism in Italy's post-war history, initially pointed to far-left extremist groups. However, as investigations continued, it became apparent that the situation was far more complex—and sinister—than originally thought.
+Over the years, evidence began to emerge suggesting that members of Italy's state apparatus—including the military, intelligence services, and neo-fascist groups—might have been involved in orchestrating or at least enabling the bombing. This was part of a broader strategy, sometimes referred to as the "strategy of tension," where violent events were allegedly used by elements within the state to manipulate public opinion and justify repressive measures against left-wing movements, which were gaining significant momentum in Italy at the time.
+In the decades that followed, investigations uncovered links between far-right militants and members of the Italian secret services, as well as possible complicity by high-ranking government officials. However, many of those responsible for the bombing were either never caught, given light sentences, or cleared of charges. For years, the truth was hidden, and the families of victims faced not only grief but also frustration at the lack of accountability.
+
+*Source: "The Strategy of Tension: Terrorism, Italy and the Strategy of Tension" by John Foot*
+
+A recent example is the Myanmar military's crackdown on the Rohingya Muslims in 2017. The military launched a brutal campaign in Rakhine State, killing thousands and forcing 700,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh. The Myanmar government initially denied the atrocities, calling it a counterinsurgency operation. In 2018, two Reuters journalists investigating the violence were arrested, highlighting the government's efforts to suppress information.
+In 2019, a UN report accused the military of genocidal intent, and the International Court of Justice took Myanmar to court for genocide. Despite this, Myanmar's military continued to deny the atrocities, and the situation remains unresolved, with the Rohingya still facing persecution. This case shows how state-backed violence and secrets can be concealed and denied for years.
+
+*Source: "Myanmar's Rohingya Crisis and the Responsibility of the International Community" by the United Nations*
+
+As you can see, all over the world, states are carrying out illegal and inhumane actions while attempting to conceal them from the public. Sometimes, information leaks, and a scandal arises, but how can we ever know how many things have never been exposed?
+
+![meme with Obama president - I told the sheep that this has been a "scandal free" presidency and they believed it](scandalfree.png)
+
+# **Statism: concentration of power in the hands of the few**
+
+![meme - Anarchist what society think I look like vs what I actually look like](anarchist.png)
+
+One of the most dysfunctional aspects of the state is that a small group of
+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
+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.
+
+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
+corporate hierarchies.
+
+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
+simply the way the world works, and most people never stop to think that it
+might be a system of control, not just organization.
+
+Every aspect of your life is designed to make you accept how the state
+functions. By the time you're faced with the state's concentration of power,
+you're already conditioned to accept it as normal.
+
+*An interesting and complete work performed on this topic is **"Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison"** by Michel Foucault*
+*Foucault's seminal work examines how modern institutions (such as schools, prisons, and military structures) have historically shaped individuals to accept hierarchical authority and unquestioned obedience. His theory of disciplinary power argues that the structures in society—from childhood to adulthood—train people to internalize authority and power dynamics. This forms a foundation for understanding how individuals are conditioned to accept concentrated power without resistance.*
+
+![meme - I have the power - he has the power](power.png)
+
+## Statism: a dysfunctional power dynamic
+
+
+
+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
+problem of fairness, autonomy, and personal freedom. ![meme - I have no idea how taxes work - at this point I'm too afraid to ask](taxes.png)
+
+Take something as basic as your salary. A portion of your income is taken by
+taxes to fund services that you may never use or agree with. Imagine having
+money deducted from your paycheck to pay for a service you don't even benefit
+from, or for policies you don't support. It's your money, yet you have no say
+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
+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.
+
+These are just two examples of how states and centralized authorities have the
+power to control aspects of your life without even consulting you. And it's
+not just about money or assets; it extends to laws, regulations, and freedoms
+that impact every part of your existence. When a few people have this much
+control, it undermines the very concept of individual autonomy.
+
+*You could be interested in **"The Road to Serfdom"** by Friedrich Hayek that is an interesting book covering this subject.*
+*Hayek argues that centralized planning and government control, where a small elite makes decisions for the larger population, inevitably leads to the erosion of personal freedoms and individual autonomy. His central thesis is that when the state is granted too much control over individuals' lives, it stifles personal choice and undermines the principles of a free society. The book discusses how the concentration of power, even in the form of good intentions, leads to a lack of accountability and fairness, particularly when it comes to economic decisions like taxation.*
+
+## **Corruption as an eventual norm instead of punctual anomaly**
+
+
+
+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
+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
+decisions in their favor.
+
+So, when the state's power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite, what
+guarantees do you have that they aren't corrupt? What prevents them from using
+their position for personal gain, to benefit their friends, or to further
+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
+opposition, or to manipulate laws to keep themselves in power. And once
+corruption takes root, it becomes incredibly difficult to root out.
+
+This is the danger of having a system where decision-making is limited to a
+few. Without proper checks and balances, and without a system that holds those
+in power accountable, the risk of corruption grows exponentially.
+
+![meme - the state can not fight corruption because corruption is the state](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
+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.
+
+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
+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
+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.
+
+This concentration of power silences potential alternatives and ensures that
+only the voices of those in control are amplified. A healthy, functioning
+society requires diverse, independent sources of power that can act as checks
+on each other. But in a system where a small group of people holds the reins,
+real counterpower becomes just a far-off ideal. ![meme of Yoda from Star Wars saying - when you can fell the power](feelthepower.png)
+
+*The book **"The Anatomy of Power"** by John Kenneth Galbraith covers corruption in small groups.* 
+*Galbraith, in this influential work, explores how the concentration of economic and political power leads to corruption. He argues that when a small group controls key resources, they can manipulate laws and regulations to benefit themselves and protect their power. The more concentrated the power, the easier it is for those in charge to exploit their position for personal gain.*
+
+# **Democracy: a dictatorship in sheep's clothing**
+
+
+
+Now that we've discussed how states lie, manipulate, and abuse their power,
+the big question arises: Are democracies still democracies? If the core
+principles of democracy are being compromised, can we truly call these systems
+democratic?
+
+First, let's take a look at how Wikipedia defines democracy:
+
+"Democracy is a system of government where the citizens exercise power by
+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
+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 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
+when the voices of the majority are drowned out by the interests of a few?
+
+![meme with Neo from The Matrix saying - what if I told you that democracy is just another form of tyrrany](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
+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
+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
+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
+all.
+
+It's no longer about ordinary citizens running for office because they
+genuinely want to make a difference; it's about selecting from a pool of
+professional politicians who are often disconnected from the needs and
+concerns of the population they're supposed to represent. The political system
+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 -
+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
+carefully crafted performance. It's not about real opposition or ideological
+differences anymore.
+
+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
+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
+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
+trained to do.
+
+![meme - "when the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you, you know your nation is doomed. - Ayn Rand"](aynrand.png)
+
+*The book **"The Triumph of the Political Class"** by Angelo M. Codevilla shares my thoughts about it.* 
+*Codevilla explores how the rise of a political class in the United States has undermined true democratic representation. He argues that the political class is increasingly disconnected from the average citizen, creating a divide between the elites who hold power and the general population. The political class, according to Codevilla, is more interested in maintaining its own power than genuinely representing the interests of the people.*
+
+## **An honest look at dictatorship**
+
+Now that we've discussed what a democracy is, let's take a look at how
+Wikipedia defines dictatorship:
+
+"A dictatorship is a form of government in which one person or a small group
+possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations.
+Dictatorships are often characterized by the concentration of power,
+suppression of political opposition, and the absence of democratic processes
+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
+seem like many so-called "democracies" today are operating under principles
+very similar to those of a dictatorship.
+
+The funny part is that most of these "democracies" are openly fighting
+dictatorships, condemning them for exactly what they themselves are secretly
+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
+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.
+
+It's a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do." While publicly criticizing
+authoritarian regimes for their lack of political freedoms, they maintain
+systems that essentially limit true democratic choice and concentrate power in
+the hands of a few elites. In fact, by doing so, they may be more insidious
+than overt dictatorships, as their control is masked behind the facade of
+democracy.
+
+![meme - this isn't a democracy anymore - it's a dictatorship](dictatorship.png)
+
+*The book **"The Origins of Totalitarianism"** by Hannah Arendt describes this process.*
+*Arendt's seminal work discusses how totalitarian systems rise and how they can emerge even in societies that consider themselves democratic. She explores the dangers of concentration of power, mass surveillance, and the suppression of dissent, pointing out that many democracies have the same authoritarian tendencies that dictatorships do, especially when leaders use populist rhetoric and media manipulation to consolidate power.*