The reason why.

Okay, I have to stop using SF Urania titles as the post title. Aside from this, I have shown in the last post how all states dislike people who start sneaking with computers. The next question would be why are those who snuggle with computers are so hated by the state?

And the answer is that we are confusing sufficient conditions for necessary conditions. If you have a passion for computer science, the state hates you. So you will think that the problem is computer science. And I thought so too.

But then I talked to people who have other passions. And I found that states have filled with regulatory barriers pretty much anything you like to do, unless it's very expensive.

You can ask anyone. Anyone who has tried to make a club. A cultural association. As soon as you build one, you discover almost immediately that … you have limits . Oh, of course, all of you will feel that they are necessary. I mean, do you know the Islamic terrorist who attacked the Pope with crochet needles? Me neither. But the state remembers it very well, and will have put a lot of red tape that a crochet club will have to follow. Like they can't sell what they do, or if they sell it they have to make a series of absurd statements, and even if they gave it for charity they would need a lot of paperwork.

Of course, it will be said that the bureaucracy suffocates a little everyone, but who has had a non-profit Cultural Association and has been seen to place the cash obligation, VAT number and the need for an association that follows him (subject to modest consent) knows the proportions of the thing well.

Because the point is that if you have a business and you have to pay an accountant, it is because you make the money. But if you are three people and you have to pay a card or an expert treasurer to do all the paperwork, the weight is different.

The reality is that the state applies a viscous friction to anything done out of passion and not for profit. A police-type friction, however, because in the final analysis the cultural associations of taxes do not pay, but must feel the breath of the state .

They must perceive, moment by moment, the fact that we are on you , that you are not free , that we control what you do .

But the incredible thing is that if you observe the disproportion between the violations of the law NOT pursued and those pursued, you immediately discover a difference.

If pursuing those who drive badly is something that the state does little and unwillingly, pursuing those who do things out of passion is different: here you find an efficient and oiled car.

Years ago I heard of a club of swinger couples who was raided. The police came in, forced everyone to give the general information, obviously they didn't care who was naked or not, and then they left after making the report. They threatened the master of denunciation for obscene acts in a public place, but gave up when the master told them that it was not a public place.

But the point is that at that time for Turin there were prostitutes from the east in almost all the dark areas, often minors.

And then the problem is not benaltrism: if the state always behaved with the same efficiency, we could say "ok, we will get to the Albanian mafia tomorrow". But the problem is that the Albanian mafia continued undisturbed while the club closed, because obviously many couples were clandestine and didn't want trouble.

And even going back to my example, when I was a kid and they came to warn us not to scramble anyone, they could also have some reason, of course. Maybe the scramblers were very dangerous tools that could invalidate the course of justice. I am sure that such technology made any interception impossible.

But at that time we were subject to a devastating heroin problem in the province. We won the Italian record for the youngest drug overdose. And no, the customers of the well-known splitter have never had visits.

What are the forces that push the CCs to register all the fourteen / fifteen year olds who peep with computers, and go scare them one by one, while leaving the others free to take drugs?

Is simple.

The danger is the passions . The things people do to be happy .

States, all states, have a serious problem with the things people do to be happy . To be serious, the state (each state) has a problem with happiness in and of itself.

The point is this: if it is a matter of going to work, that's fine, because work is hard work and fatigue makes you unhappy. (Obviously, the employer must work and ruin your day every morning). If it is a question of living in an apartment for battery chickens, which you only endure because you DO NOT live there (liked your house during the quarantine?), Then it is fine. If it is a matter of running, working out, paying mortgages, everything is ok. Going on vacation is fine, as long as you spend the money you earned.

But you don't have to risk doing one thing just because it makes you happy . This will see the hostile state.

If the state had ever opposed drug trafficking as much as it has opposed homosexual associations, you would have almost no drugs. If the state had ever opposed prostitution as much as it has opposed sex clubs, today thousands of women would be free from their pimps. If they repressed the meetings of the mafia with the same effectiveness and the same capillarity with which they repressed birthday parties after 22.00, you would not have the mafia.

But these are not the priorities. The state, any state, has as its objective to extinguish the happiness of citizens. The most subversive sloagan you can have on a T-shirt says "I'm happy". The state is not afraid of revolution, it is afraid of happiness .

Years ago, a friend of mine and I went with a telescope (a 150 euro stuff, not even the Hubble) to observe the stars. We left the city and went to some Abetone mountains to reduce light pollution. Well. We had been there to calculate elevation and everything, when the forester arrives.

Their problem was not to understand why we wanted to observe Jupiter. They asked us first if it wasn't our job. And when we said that no, it wasn't our job, the answer was that " then you can't be here. In order to take telescopic photographs at great distances, you need a photographer's license. "

It was not clear for what the reason (moreover I checked and there is no such law), but it was "then" that left us perplexed: if we had been there to have a night for work it would have been a shitty job that forces to make the nights, but if it is pleasure … it changes everything. If it makes you happy, everything changes. If it makes you happy, then go off.

But the problem is that if poaching were as discouraged as we were, animals would probably sleep much better.

Someone will write that happiness is some kind of threat to the state, or that the problem is economic: but that telescope had cost, and camping equipment too .

The answer lies, in my opinion, in an aspect of human behavior that has never really been explored on a cultural level. Sadism.

If we observe the behavior of the state as if it were a person, we discover that its most evident character trait is sadism. Presenting yourself as the main obstacle between the person and his happiness is the goal in which the state succeeds best.

And that's why two types of people join the ranks:

  • Those who want to make a career to torment people better and stronger.
  • Those who want to enlist because they hope that surrounded by sadists will suffer more.

In practice, the state man belongs to two categories: sadists and masochists.

The interesting thing though is that the man of the state is not dominant. Indeed, it hides behind the anonymous face of the state, or behind the uniform. And this is not typical of the dominant. It is a distinction that in the BDSM world is absolutely clear to most people: a master's degree can be sadistic, dominant, sadistic AND dominant.

  • For the sadist, inflicting suffering is pleasure, and the transfer of power that this requires is only a means.
  • For the dominant, inflicting suffering is a means, while the transfer of power that this requires and implies is the climax.

Even when the statesman is a masochist, he doesn't love suffering as much as humiliation and bondage . He loves the feeling of suffocation, of being impotent, of being humiliated by superiors.

Ultimately, therefore, the state is an overall sadistic entity, but it is formed (because it attracts them) from a mix of sadists and submissives (but not masochists). This mix usually doesn't work, because the two have different goals: the sadist looks after the pain, while the diver looks for more experiences of submission. As a result, they can only seek pleasure outside.

So when you talk to them you find the little sub employee who lives in asthenia. He would like to be humiliated more often by his superiors, he would like to be tied and asphyxiated even more, but the superiors are interested in suffering. On the other hand, the sadist cannot satisfy himself with his state subordinates because they obey him, they give him all the power relationship they want, but they don't like to suffer in themselves so much.

This transforms the state, when viewed as a person, into a non-dominant sadist, or if you prefer a submissive sadist. Which is nonsense in terms, unless the sadist participates in the orgy with the explicit promise that everyone must make someone else suffer , at the price of receiving suffering from others.

And that's what state employees do. At the price of superiors who destroy their happiness, the sadists dedicate themselves to causing suffering outside, among the citizens. On the other hand, submissives who work for the state love to be humiliated (starvation wages, boring and unrewarding jobs – in BDSM you can achieve the same effect when you order a slave to hold an object in his hand, keeping his arm outstretched. a few minutes it starts to hurt) but they don't like to suffer, and when the suffering inflicted goes beyond simple humiliation, they become insecure and bored .

The point is precisely this: the state behaves like a repressed sadist. There is no drawing. There is no purely political goal. Politics has nothing to do with it.

The reason why an association that walks in the mountains receives more checks than those who transport drugs using the paths of the woods is that the sadist enjoys more .

It is not for nothing that the vast majority of BDSM narratives (police interrogation, uniforms, prison, bootcamps, etc.) almost always refer to … state institutions .

Intended as a person, the state acts like a bored sadist . This is why it attracts sadists and people who do not aspire to submission.

Like all non-dominant sadists, their most cruel men suffer from boredom. like all non-masochistic slaves, their mediocre men want to be suffocated, prisoners and humiliated, and as their leaders do little, they ask society to do it.

Unfortunately, in Italy BDSM is a crime (violence, beatings and injuries can be prosecuted ex officio) so you won't find many clubs of this type. But if you find them, try to check how many people work for the state. And you will discover an unusually high prevalence. Almost worrying.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.