Enter the Police State

With the best of intentions, I hear people repeatedly bellow "'the algorithm' makes things seem worse than they really are";

inflexibly I see people trot the same tired overplayed litanies of "evidence" to this point, "research" and "studies" and "polls" that definitively "prove" that "we 'overestimate' the differences between us and them";

as if optimism at all costs is the solution to hollow and false, easy and romantic, untruths and mistruths.

:eyeroll:

Enter the Police State

(i)

There isn't "a side" that sold us on the "promises" of the "strengths" of the police state. Nor "a side" that guaranteed "protections" from the "weaknesses" of the police state. 

For every "side" sold us.

The "side" that wanted "to save" the "children";

the "side" that wanted "to lock up" the "criminals";

the "side" that wanted "justice" to be "fair" and "informed" by "facts";

the "side" that wanted "to live" without "fear";

the "side" that wanted "to feel safe" within "big beautiful bubbles";

and every "side" that wanted "to swear and affirm": 

"law and order" by definition, will always mean "to serve and uphold" here, where the grass is green and the sky is blue.

(ii)

Such that all the word-wrangling to explain this "house" "promises" built -

to moralize the reality of this "bed" "protections" made -

because what really happens in police states is what is really happening now -

is after-the-fact bullshit laid brick by brick by all of us -

because what really happens in police states is "the public" is pacified by hollow and false, easy and romantic, untruths and mistruths,

until optimism at all costs is at once compulsory and "reasonable". 

(iii)

As for what prayers and what winks and what promises sold us this "house" and this "bed" and this brick "road" of bullshit -

see (i) above and

case in point:

the police state's solution to "a public demand 'to save' the 'children'" isn't to efficiently and materially address "harms" to non-adults across public and institutional environments, but rather, to criminalize any and every non-adult based on "institutional policies and practices" and "official rules and recommendations" that allow disproportionate, asymmetric, prejudicial, etc. treatment of non-adults, as if 

when a police state answers our "payers", we should see nothing but wholesomeness and decency and say nothing but praise and apologisms and do nothing but be grateful and submit; 

the police state's solution to "a public demand that 'justice' be 'fair' and 'informed' by 'facts'" isn't to exemplify transparency or integrity, but rather, to criminalize any and every individual human being and corporation à la fictional "personhood" and organization à la collective of autonomous beings because unilateral power without tangible, realized, actual unitarian power isn't powerful at all! as if 

when a police state "winks", we should laugh at the "joke" because everybody knows that a police state's ride or die is absolute power, hahaha; 

the police state's solution to "a public demand that 'law and order' by definition, will always mean 'to serve and uphold' here" isn't to abide or respect a fair or just legality or jurisprudence in a republic or a democracy, but rather, to criminalize any and every act that defies, opposes, rejects, etc. "legalism" and its dominion in all but name over free people, free states, and free nations everywhere; as if 

when a police state "promises" us the world and everything therein, we should not trust in the sincerity of plainly despot-adjacent hyperbole but fake-adjacent piety should be believed;

etc. 

(iv) 

Such that it bears iterating clearly:

police states are indefensible

because what really happens in police states is not a joke;

it is a reality laid by prayer by wink by promise by all of us sold on "powerful" and "anointed" mortals on gilded thrones 

and it can be undone

when we face what is worse than what wind-up plastic rictus-faced monkeys say things seem, when we face things as they really are, including the differences between us and casually evil cheerleaders of police states because "our differences", at once profound and granular, are self-evident "disunions" between us

and a representative government that disavows its oaths, including, the oath of every republic and every democracy to serve the people;

as if optimism at all costs isn't a gift to police states, arising from the hearts and shores of republics and democracies everywhere,

a gift repaid in hollow and false, easy and romantic, untruths and mistruths, including the hallucinatory homily that

we the people approve a police state for our children, our neighbors, and ourselves because we the people voted for a joke of a republic and a farce of a democracy.

 

More

On "optimism at all costs", #policestatepacifier and #policestateally.

(i)

First, "early adopters" or "forerunners" or "target softeners" of the police state break everything.

Institutions, e.g. traditional or linear news media, public early and higher education, safety nets (food banks, homeless shelters, addiction resources), the economy (banking, currencies, exchange markets), foreign aid (medical supplies, disaster assistance, refugee resources); and

governments, e.g. the legislative branch (à la because an allegiance to "their God" or "their Leader" is "higher" - forswearing an oath "to serve the people"), the judicial branch (à la exploiting asymmetric "lawfare" to prejudicially uphold or "strike down" laws at will), the executive branch (à la despite such "power" not explicitly conferred to "the executive office" - acting unilaterally); and

so on and so forth.

(ii)

Then, the police state declares its "revolutionary" solution:

itself.

It parades litanies and homilies and sermons and preaches the "glorious righteousness" of the police state -

and -

it violently attacks any and all opposition with disproportionate hostility and militancy.

(iii)

Then, all of us

see nothing and say nothing and do nothing - 

or - 

we cheerlead the police state, including, as amplifiers of hollow and false, easy and romantic, untruths and mistruths. 

(iv) 

Which is to say, when we are encouraged or compelled to leap into a bottomless pool of "optimism at all costs" because this repels apathy and paralysis, hopelessness and despair, cynicism and pessimism, and the like -

this is a kind of dishonesty and deception that treats us like we can't handle the truth,

this is a kind of untruth and mistruth that infantilizes us -

such that buying this is little different than buying the hollow and false, easy and romantic, untruths and mistruths of every police state

and tell me: what happens when this illusion is exposed? as a fiction? a fraud? a lie? buyers of illusions simply buy another, including every police state's tried and true 

illusions of success, illusions of approval, illusions of gratitude, that is, 

fictions, frauds, lies -

for this is a willful rejection, if not repudiation, of the truth that police states dismiss and redact and expunge and rewrite, the truth that's worth fighting for, the truth that's real.

M

*

Note or Further Reading

On "the politics" that presage police states and "autocracy-adjacent" precursors of police states, see Seed Con (January 19, 2025, tca).

M

Nothing Worth Fighting For

Do you think cowardice is wise and reasonable? - profitable and productive? - for a wink? for a promise? for a prayer? - and defensible?

Nothing Worth Fighting For

Sure.

Why else would cowardice be so common? so normal? so casually accepted as the acceptable morality of acceptable people?

*

After all: 

isn't courage unwise and unreasonable? 

isn't this why the "advisors", "ear-holders", "closest of close inner circles" of dictators and tyrants are little more than barrels of wind-up plastic rictus-faced monkeys, clapping tin cymbals and bowing at the bidding of hands that wind them?

isn't courage unprofitable and unproductive? 

isn't this why "influencers with followings", "high-net-worth individuals", "captains and titans of industry" sever and silence backbones in surrender?

for the loss and suffering experienced by everyday people being nothing really compared to state-sanctioned persecution and retaliation lobbed with prejudicial fervor at "the powerful"

legitimizes deferential capitulation in the name of powerlessness? and docile servility in the name of "fiduciary care"?

*

After all:

isn't courage, in the end, futile?

for in the real world tangible interests of everyday people who experience measurable material consequences of "appeasement", is there ever a defensible argument for refusal? - denial? - protest? - opposition? - hostility?

which is to say,

is there ever a just raison d'être for warring against cowardice?

in the name of common men and women and children whose freedom have been traded for a wink? because nationalism is ever an ideological refuge for anti-them sentiments that run deep with abandon as "pride"; 

in the name of normal actions and thoughts and beliefs which have been disowned for a promise? because promises are ever the currency of deceivers who traffic in "truths" that lie;

in the name of acceptable principles that denounce and repudiate moral abdications cloaked in "the emperors' new prayers"? because pretentious sanctimony masks are ever the weapons of brittle extremists against human, secular, and ethical interests;

or is a war against cowardice impossible because winks by nationalists and promises by deceivers and prayers by extremists are above all:

eminently tenable?

*

Needless to say:

it is not enough that the "closest of close inner circles" of dictators and tyrants yield their autonomies to their masters -

it is not enough that "powerful people" and "influential personalities" capitulate before pecuniary interests held hostage by state-endorsed harassment and revenge - 

"the majority" too surrender their self-determination when they abide the bidding of hands that wind them at will and "followers" also renounce their self-respect when self-serving nakedly dispossesses their voices of backbone, but above all

when they casually accept the unacceptable, everyday people transform every corner of the world into kingdoms;

* 

kingdoms where it is customary;

kingdoms where it is encouraged;

kingdoms where it is celebrated;

to see nothing! and to say nothing! and to do nothing!

because courage is nothing but a "utopian idea", a "mind virus" that would plainly rob us of something more wonderful than a "utopia", more fruitful than a "mind":

mortals on thrones exercising absolute dominion over

meek and mute multitudes. 

*

As if such kingdoms, 

wrought by people everywhere, 

would cost us nothing worth fighting for. 

As if the cost of cowardice isn't a casual evil that believes it's not.

 

Epilogue

We romanticize who we are.

And.

We romanticize who we aren't.

*

Some of us imagine, as "communities" of "believers", we neither sow nor foment "discord"! because it isn't "divisive" to tout "community", "faith", "grace", and above all, "righteousness"! 

As if "believers" are not everyday people, reveling in the uninhibited turpitude of nationalists who wink and deceivers who promise and extremists who pray as unqualified pillars of "righteousness", "grace", "faith", and above all, "community"!

Like nothing is real!

Like nothing matters!

*

We romanticize courage.

And.

We romanticize cowardice.

*

Some of us imagine, as "neighbors" and "citizens", we neither beget nor rouse "conflict"! because it isn't "nasty" to praise "entitled opinions", stoke "aggrieved feelings", amplify "newsfluencers", and above all, worship "truths" over "fake facts"! 

As if vindictive rancorousness is "courageous";

as if belligerent saber rattling is "refreshingly honest"; 

as if people everywhere know "this is beautiful"!

 *

When seeing nothing and saying nothing and doing nothing becomes

wise and reasonable;

when kingdoms of mortals on thrones exercising absolute dominion over meek and mute multitudes become

profitable and productive;

when romanticization becomes

"the real truth", defensible and applauded;

we imagine

reality is fiction that believes it's not.

M

*

Note

When there are calls to "tone down the rhetoric" because "this isn't who we are" - I think - Seriously? As if by calling "truths" that lie - "rhetoric" - everybody everywhere is on the same page with respect to self-censorship and "decorous speech" across "public halls, squares, and forums". Please. As if calls for unity vis a vis "we" (i.e. "who we are", "who we aren't", etc.) aren't self-important pretensions of "consensus" and "common ground". Come on.

The calling for the assassination of public servants isn't "rhetoric". It's an incitement to exact vengeance, justified by gordian rationalizations and arbitrary legitimizations, and amplified by provocateurs and contrarians, believers and followers, and zealots and extremists.

Notwithstanding that it bears emphatically iterating, "who we are" and "who we aren't", aren't a movie (i.e. Birth of a Nation, etc.) or a television show (i.e. Roots, etc.) or a song (i.e. "Dixie", etc.) or a poem (i.e. "The New Colossus", etc.). For "who we aren't" are main characters in make-believe Mayberry; for "who we are" are authors of "facts" and "truths", romanticized for narrative fictions,

as if nothing worth fighting for is real.

M

Who do you BELIEVE?

More than ever, religion disappoints me.

It promises a godly greatness and delivers an unceasing parade of SMALLNESS as human as the measure of such mortal spirit is meanness.

Who do you BELIEVE?

Apologists tell me that I am an anomaly.

*

That Muslim? Her heart is not hateful. Her posture is not a kind of intimidation. Her stare is not a kind of aggression. Her prayers do not name me - enemy. As for her acts of trespass... 

what are they but violent? 

That Charismatic? Her beliefs are not hateful. Her stand is not a kind of intimidation. Her position is not a kind of aggression. Her doctrines do not pronounce me - demon. As for her acts of false witness... 

what are they but malevolent?

That Extremist? Her thoughts are not hateful. Her disposition is not a kind of intimidation. Her angle is not a kind of aggression. Her convictions do not avow me - inhuman. As for her acts of sabotage...

what are they but cruel?

That Protestant, that Catholic, that Orthodox, that Evangelical? Her words are not hateful. Her attitude is not a kind of intimidation. Her bearing is not a kind of aggression. Her faith does not condemn me - damned. As for her acts of wrongdoing...

what are they but vicious?

*

You see

how apologists promise grace and deliver moral abdication?

*

That Muslim? That Charismatic? That Extremist? That Protestant, that Catholic, that Orthodox, that Evangelical?

I am supposed to be BLIND to their acts. Because a professed faith is a defense. an excuse. a justification. a moral "trump card".

I am supposed to be BLIND to their acts. Not because MY heart. and MY beliefs. and MY thoughts. and MY words. are... theirs.

I am supposed to be BLIND to their acts. Because a mantle of religion is a blank check to be violent. malevolent. cruel. vicious. and

loved. so loved. forgiven. so forgiven. in the name of mercy. most merciful. in the name of grace. most gracious.

*

Never mind

that Jewish human being. she cannot be corrupt.

that Buddhist human being. she cannot be abominable.

that Hindu human being. she cannot be vile.

that Christian human being. she cannot wear religion like a fraud, like an imposter, like a FAKING FAKE.

*

Apologists claim that I see not what I see.

By vowing that I see not what I see, apologists conclude that I lie.

That my trespass is violent. my false witness is malevolent. my sabotage is cruel. my wrongdoing is vicious.

*

By my denial of Muslim, Charismatic, Extremist, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical systems of belief, apologists claim that I deny the truth. By my refusal of Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian systems of belief, apologists claim that I refuse the truth.

By vowing that MY TRUTH is a rejection of what's real, apologists conclude that I am false.

That I am corrupt. abominable. vile. a fraud. an imposter. a faking fake.

*

You see

you are supposed to believe anyone who denies what "religions" insist is true and you are supposed to believe anyone who refuses what "religions" insist is real

cannot be trusted,

cannot be trusted to know what is true and cannot be trusted to know what is real,

cannot be trusted to be honest,

cannot be trusted to be moral.

*

I ask you

can apologists be TRUSTED?

can apologists be TRUSTED to know what is true and can apologists be TRUSTED to know what is real?

can apologists be TRUSTED to be honest?

can apologists be TRUSTED to be moral?

*

Or is it possible

that apologists who promise righteousness and deliver acts of trespass that are violent, acts of false witness that are malevolent, acts of sabotage that are cruel, acts of wrongdoing that are vicious

are SMALL humans;

that apologists who promise sanctity and deliver hateful hearts, beliefs, thoughts, words; and intimidating postures, stands, dispositions, attitudes; and aggressive stares, positions, angles, bearings; and prayers that name enemies, doctrines that pronounce demons, convictions that avow humans inhuman, faiths that condemn and damn

are MEAN mortal spirits;

that apologists who cannot be trusted to be good people are apologists who cannot promise love or forgiveness or mercy or grace, because apologists who deliver an unceasing parade of smallness as human as the measure of such mortal spirit is meanness

are FRAUDS. IMPOSTERS. FAKING FAKES?

*

After all, isn't it possible that "religion" is not a manifestation of "divine inspiration" so much as an execution of mortal invention

of human beings, by human beings, for human beings,

because there is mortal gain to be had by a pretension of "divine creation",

including power, wealth, immortality, etc.

for "believers"?

 

Epilogue

I am not an anomaly.

I see human beings, "members of religious communities", being human.

I see "members of religious communities" parading an unceasing panoply of smallness as human as the measure of such mortal mean-spiritedness is abysmal.

I see sanctimonious and self-righteous parades WEARING RELIGION like JUDGES IN JUDGMENT.

*

You see

how a "professed faith" that insulates "the faithful"

from scrutiny,

from consequences,

from justice,

is LOUD and PROUD and here and now?

*

I am not an anomaly.

Because it is possible that I am not the only one who DENIES and REFUSES and REJECTS prayers that name enemies, doctrines that pronounce demons, convictions that avow humans inhuman, faiths that condemn and damn.

*

I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE who knows what is true and I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE who knows what is real

is not what "religions" and their systems of belief tell me,

is not what apologists and their claims promise me,

because I am not the only one who knows what is true and I am not the only one who knows what is real

is what "religions" and apologists deliver:

love that DENIES love. forgiveness that REFUSES forgiveness. in the name of mercy that REJECTS mercifulness. in the name of grace that LIES with gracelessness.

M

*

Note

The use of "she/her" is not to exclude "he/him", but rather, to state the obvious, "a pretension of 'divine creation'" is as much "her" "execution of mortal invention" as "his". For all the "mortal gain to be had by a pretension of 'divine creation'" is also "hers". 

Or am I the only one who sees "how a 'professed faith' that insulates 'the faithful' from scrutiny, from consequences, from justice" wears "she/her" pronouns like basic b!tches in heat for "power, wealth, immortality"?

M