opsec-blogposts/stateistheenemy/index.md

author	date	gitea_url	xmr
Mulligan Security	2025-05-16	http://git.nowherejezfoltodf4jiyl6r56jnzintap5vyjlia7fkirfsnfizflqd.onion/nihilist/blog-contributions/issues/235	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

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

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

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

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

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?

Statism: concentration of power in the hands of the few

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.