What a state you're in

But you may say what is this state you speak of that in the past we were offered liberation from.

Margaret Thatcher said “there is no such thing as the state” the state for her was not a monolithic entity, but a composite of individuals, collected together by force of geography, politics and time. A reasonable argument, and entwined with her insistence that the state did not have nor own any property or wealth, rather there was a joint holding and administration of individual taxpayers wealth. But yet we also know the state does exist and does holds power, is self replicating and acts with representative rather than mandated power. We know this because we can see the outward manifestation of it within politicians and the armed forces which maintain them. So the state is both a collective of ourselves and also has a distinct face that is not ours. We should also say here what the state is not, for we must not fall into the trap of believing that a conspiracy state exists that automatically vests power and interest, as this almost religious view of dark or benign hidden forces at work, is clearly farcical (and those who believe it are generally of the belief also in the Jewish world order lie).

I would say that Thatcher was essentially right today. We are we all now in the position to claim, like Louis XIV who is reputed to have said, ‘Le etat c’est moi’. We cannot escape that conclusion any more, the co-option of the entire population into the idea of a state is complete. We must also realise that the population did not go unknowingly into this compact, but actively sought it out through many years of negotiation, via the destruction of oligarchic power, political enfranchisement and property law. So secure is the apparatus of the state that now you may even with the state’s blessing opt out of the system, but you can rest assured that somewhere down the track a representative of the state will come find you, not to imprison you for your views, but to offer you the golden handcuff of social welfare.

The state rarely if ever acts now against majority will (you may say here what about the second Iraq war, but you would be wrong, there was majority support for such, you just didn’t pay attention enough). But you may think majority opinion is not valid, democracy fails by preferencing the opinion of one group over another, therefore the state does not represent you or your opinion, and thus you are outside of the state, which is valid to a point. But your opposition to the state (or any part of its current orthodoxy) is actually a fundamental part of the functioning of it, the state contains within it all opinion, it allows you to pull it in whatever direction you want, and can thus adapt and grow to incorporate any view. The state is not an agency, with a set of goals or an opinion it is an evolving creation and it develops as you mould it. So you remain a part of the state, and even in your most complete disagreement with one aspect of it, you will continue to support the whole by complicit activities such as taxation, by voting, by obeying the laws, by taking any action that legitimises the state. And actually, even if don’t do these things you will still serve the state’s purpose, by allowing it to project another aspect of its co-operative power, either through violence or beneficence.

So if you take the argument that you are the state, how then is the state opposed to your freedom and why should you seek liberation from it? Firstly I would say that the state is not opposed to your freedom - you are, and secondly, you have brought the state into being and given it power merely to draw an intercessionary mask between what you may think you want and what you really want. Funny that. Sorry did you want a real answer?

p.s. the you is a universal you.

p.p.s is clear I is joking, yes.