I live in a world that does not exist. Apart from this I do not exist in the world that does exist. I know that what I know is unknown, while what I know does not exist, and the unknown certainly is existent.

You get that ?

Facing developments so rapid and fundamental as well as unprecedented, there are a lot of terms that are obsolete terms. The object to be described with these obsolete terms has partly or completely vanished, in other cases the term remained existent, but the object of description has been so largely modified  that the meaning has altered completely while the visible form remained the same.

In the information age, as I pointed out already, the term " secrecy "  for example, has a dramatically modified meaning. What is a secret today ? Is there something that can be kept secret at all ?

We do face, at least in the highly industrialised and computerized areas, a surveillance system that easily beats that of the passed away GDR out. It is not possible to do anything without being videotaped / archived hundreds of times per day.

Whenever you walk into a post office, you are being videoed ( does this word exist ? ), when you get money in the bank, they video you, you get videoed while shopping, in train stations they video you, apart from this you get videoed in a porn store, brothel,  in every public building, at least most of them, and there are surveillance cameras en masse in public places.

Adding to this, many workers in the workplace get videoed, and the number of cameras in the hands of private persons / organizations cannot be verified. " Data protection " in this world can be defined as an almost obsolete term. There is nothing like that. "Limitless data availability " would describe the situation in a better way. To maintain a certain level of confidentiality, I recommend the usage of doves to transmit messages, and sign-language for the deaf. Couriers are also an alternative. Because clients have a tendency to reveal data that is of potential use for police agencies, their competitors, the mob, and so on, law offices are particularly insecure, and the term               " confidentiality " has in part become obsolete. The legal demand to NOT wiretap telephones has resulted in the opposite situation in the real world. This world does not exist.....

Presumably, as in the case of GSM mobile phone standards, or computer system security standards, the penetrability ( what a word is this ? ) of video systems is intentionally high, their safety low. This enables info-agencies to conduct mass surveillance easily. Why ISDN telephones can easily be turned into microphones, you may possibly wonder. It is admitted, confirmed, printed and many times alleged that the Echelon surveillance system covers almost every phone call in the world just to mention one of the aspects of it. The same could be done, presumably, turning the phones into microphones – thereby intercepting indoor conversations easily on a mass scale.

What can be done will be done. This is real, too.

In effect, probably most of the video systems can be  milked  ( like a cow ) by centralized supercomputer systems, as in the case of the entire telephone system.

George Orwells 1984 described a communist fictitious dictatorship, a superstate in the age of hyper-totalitarianism     ( viewed from 1948´s perspective....not today´s ), that imposed total surveillance on the members of the inner party. This caste of socialist bureaucrats was controlled this way, NOT the entire population. The existing democratic individualistic liberal caste of bureaucrats that tends to define itself as free and that e.g. defined the former ( former ?? ) GDR communist  ( better socialist, because communism never has existed on this earth ) mass surveillance system as  " insane ", created a system even more crazy, according to its own standards. This peculiar logic has to be explained. It is clear enough that a less generous government / political system is to be expected because of the existing network. So we have to expect a tightening of societies´ straightjacket even more, because power tools tend to be used when available, even in the case of obvious uselessness, for the sheer sake of enhancing a feeling of being powerful. Also: The machine may possibly demand more power. Oppose that, if you want. It may switch you off....

So, we handle a bunch of terms that do not have a descriptive function any more, but serve as a cover, or as a form of opium for the masses. Also, there is a tendency to use terms for exclusive manipulation purposes ( leading to word-jugglery with no relation to reality ), and the shift of political priorities from the real to the surrogate – something has to sell when presented on TV, no matter whether this stuff is useful or not. In this sense, a lot of political action is mere theatre, a play for the extraordinary & intelligent. Also, a variety of legal terms are constantly being used for cover purposes. A considerable amount of the legal framework functions this way. A cover to distract attention and mislead the public. If you expect the precise opposite of what is pathetically announced, you could be better off. General rule of practical political alchemy.

A good example: Terms that originate in the 18th century......lost their object of description.

I wonder how property rights can be protected in this somewhat glassy world, facing the unpleasant fact that privacy rights do not count as a matter of fact, and therefore intellectual property is being stolen before even released – in the normal case. A massive expropriation mechanism. And: No one really dares to notice.

What in the middle ages was described as tyranny ( e.g. a police force that could invade houses whenever it wished, and do with taxpayers whatever it wanted ) is the normal case of police practice today. They walk in your appartment, take away what they believe to need, you are confronted with the fact that something is missing, most likely documents, disquettes, letters, or likewise, and later surprised by the reappearance ( after usage     somewhere ).

This does not exist. This is propaganda. I live in a world that does not exist.

Officially existent is something called " rule of the law ". Error. In reality it does not exist. What rules is the "normative power of capital, facts and – military – force ". This definition now exists, or doesn´t it ?

I have to make predictions. I deal with infos. I even get paid for that. So, if I cannot predict what will happen in certain cases, this job is obsolete.

Anyway, if you analyze the legal aspects of a case or situation, and construct prophecies based on the assumption that the law is being enforced, you get somewhere....

What will happen if you walk into a police station to drop off a complaint about a burglary ? Well, a file is being generated, then another, and in the normal case that was it. An important role does play the production of crime rate statistics.

If you wonder now for what reason you pay taxes ? If you are not even  recognized ? Well, in the evening you can lean back and watch cute supercops chase the baddies till they get sacked. They always get sacked. This leads to the belief, thanks to god, a very widespread belief, that if someone commits something too naughty to be legal, he will get caught. The prime time crime shows probably  have the effect of reducing the real crime rate. If the real figures and statistics would be published on a broadscale level, anarchy would be the result.

If people got told, how high the probability of getting punished for a criminal deed really is, even murder.....if  the real hit-rate, so to say, in murder cases got published, well, well, the population could possibly shrink.

Thanks to the TV show in the evening many or most people believe there is a 90%-risk of getting caught, jailed, or even killed by rivalring mob gangsters. Well, the latter....

So, the surreal world of shiny law enforcement heroes has the real effect of disciplining the masses, rather than the law enforcement system with its incredible efficiency itself. Reality,  believe me,  looks rather s***ty than shiny. A forensic expert concluded that if there was a candle lit on top of every grave of an unrecognized murder victim, Germany´s graveyards would be illuminated places at night. This was a rare statement perfectly contradictory to the primetime mystery show.

Censorship does not exist....... You probably tend to believe that. Why do you believe that ? Smokers do not want to believe that cigarette smoking is unhealthy. Well. What is belief ? According to a German  philosopher ( that due to the nonexistence of censorhip is dangerous to quote ) belief is the will to NOT recognize the truth, the facts.

What you believe in therefore is something you would like to have, but does not exist. This is your belief. Or, you believe in something that is not existent, because you dislike the idea of the existence of something you simply dislike.

Based on this belief system the info-industry ( a nonexisting term ) produces images of reality. Secret service spies    ( millions and millions ) produce facts their employers want to believe in. Something that makes them feel good and serves the purpose of proving that the reader of the report is the owner of a superior belief system, better than the rest of the world, superior to even history, a fantastic guy that rules them all.

The same tendency  is existent – of course – in the infotainment branch of the info-industry.
People that come home from work, pretty badly f**ked up  , do not want to see how ******* they are.

They enjoy the perspective of being superior to the rest of mankind, in total possession of freedom, justice and so on. The market, so to say, is there. What do they feed you  with ?

Stuff that increases the likability of the belief that you are safe, free, superior, rich and happy.
And, sure, that those who " deliver " these goods are superior etc. as well.

Consequently, there is a strange absence of certain news. Anything that makes you believe that you are, e.g. NOT safe at all, is somehow omitted. Do you feel safe ? Well, after a few Aspirin.....or Ciprobay.....or whatever.

For example, the quotable statement that it is not possible to foresee the result of a civil lawsuit in a German court      ( of a professor in 1996 ) printed in a legal journal,  was never seen in the infotainment section. Other statements about anticonstitutional criminal behaviour of mainstream politicians in – ironically - mainstream legal journals were never seen in the infotainment area. The interesting statement ( in a mainstream legal journal ) that the Supreme Court ceased to function of course never was an issue in a newsshow. There, and elsewhere, you could observe the Spaßgesellschaft=fun society, that lost its rights by x~70 % and finds this funny. Why bother, hahaha.

What you get today, and what is very popular, are somewhat  sex-stuffed  court shows ( note that live transmissions of court sessions that are real are not permitted here in Krautland ...and elsewhere.... ).    I need not mention that I never saw a trial, a court session comparable to the court show, although the formalities were roughly met. I dare say, arousing trials are a rare event. In the real, the nonexisting world.

In fact, predictions can be made, but based on empirical and statistical data. It can always be predicted that it is possible to quell every lawsuit down, one way or the other, sooner or later. The art of sabotage including the reliable system malfunctions lead to that conclusion. It is always, in this legal scenario, better to get sued instead of having to sue someone yourself. Based on the assumption that the system does not function, you can make predictions. If you tell someone that some failure will occur, you are almost always right. Good for the debtor, bad for the plaintiff. The result of this: A payment culture of lousy and decadent nature. You better get advance payments for your stuff if you can. Your client may be one of these many figures that run a „ profit maximizing strategy of systematic cost reduction and efficient legal management„, or, in other words, a crook.

If you like it somewhat exaggerated: Grab the money, get out of the place, and let ´em sue you.....and run after you. Logically, the private law enforcement sector has boomed and is booming, but this again is the normative power of facts that rules, not in particular the law, because hiring a gunman is illicit, as a general rule. Anyway, there are people that did not pay after getting run over by a car as a motivating measure to make them pay....due to rumours that did not exist. In this scenario it also became a fashion to hire convicted / released killers and show that off in order to achieve payment discipline.....guess where they work ? In certain law offices. Did you see already a lawyer with a killer aide on TV ? Probably not. I do not really like to sue these people, I admit. Would you ?

The really existent ( what is that ? ) " rule of the law ", apart from a certain non-predictability of  events is characterized by the impressive but strange looking fact that the lawmakers themselves, as a general rule, do not stick to it. Whenever found necessary or profitable, they ignore it, provided they are in a position to do so. Many are.

The local policeman may be a drugdealer. You daughters´ teacher a pimp selling kiddie pornography, as well as the priest around the corner. Members of government may be junkies.

So we have three spheres:

The invisible existent ( the power structure ),
the visible existent ( the stuff it produces ),
the virtual existent ( say, the sum of info generated in the info-industry ),
the nonexistent ( the legal framework on paper ).

Heavily programmed by the virtual existent ( another nonexisting definition ) you believe that it and its content exist, but, the overall image is at least somewhat incomplete, too shiny.

Everything of potential danger for the ( invisibly existent ) power structures is not mentioned, defined as lunacy, idiocy, nonexistent.....criminal, terrorist, deviant...dull...stupid....irrelevant.

Daily you get confronted with data and further data that indicates you are on the road to the golden age. Visibly existent is the troubling fact that your pockets seem to get emptier and emptier and emptier, the clothing you wear cheaper, and mood of your affiliates getting continously worse. Resources are getting scarce.

In the virtual world then you face terms like " felt inflation ". Other good examples of newspeak / doublespeak......" peace & prosperity " describing a total war on all fronts, or, " sexual freedom " associated with a declining birthrate and a shrinking population, combined with incredible psychiatrists´ incomes, " special garbage " for toxic waste, or even "open society " for a system of maximized police and military surveillance of the entire population.

In times of recession– you are confronted with something called " negative growth ", the ultimate doublespeak term. So, growth always exists, even when it obviously does not. We all grow, even when we shrink. Genial.

Something like " negative growth "  is comparable to the rule that censorship does not exist in the freest world ever. Censorship is associated with something that does not exist.

But: The official version relates to something almost omnipresent in all sectors of society that is nonexistent.

Strange enough, when you confront people with this fact, they somehow censor you ( was that correct ? ) and point to their belief that something believed ( absence of censorship ) is existent, because they believe in it.

What you encounter REALLY ( where is that ? ) is a thought police.

You get registered when you take books from a library. Your web traffic gets monitored. Your activities analyzed. If  you engage in, say, hobby gardening, deep-sea-fishing, political abstinence, pay your taxes and do not develop anti-government beliefs, well, you will not really be aware that censorship exists.

But, on the other hand, why do you not develop anti-government beliefs ?

The censorship system of the 21 st century is based on preemptive censorship, targeting the production of unwanted theories itself to stop unwanted material from being  produced. So far, this has been quite successful. The presently dominant ideology was developed in the 18th and 17th century. The results are visible in various constitutions. Marxism is a nineteenth-century-product, as well as ( national ) socialism. So far nothing that is comparable to
these theoretical groundworks was produced  later. I dare not even imagine what would happen to Marx if he lived today. And tried to publish something. Adam Smith´s anti-slavery approach could be viewed as politically unwanted. What the ideological base of the present censorship regime really is ? There is none..... The doglaw aspect of it: If the preemptive measures failed ( and they really do fail), you may get s*itkicked  ( another failure ) by someone somewhere that somehow snatched info pieces of your projects, and then reacts to this covertly and in a clandestine fashion, maybe using psywar methods ( in less severe cases ), may poison you    ( with a lethal dose in the case of definitely "knowing too much " , with a less than lethal dose as a shock therapy....), may block your internet traffic, send you virus e-mails, or deliver murder threats.....

What happens when the communist-subversed Gestapo machinery destined to preserve its very opponent                   – democracy - handles cases of ideological misconduct or tendencies, you cannot predict. A neonazi bureaucrat may sabotage the production of seemingly leftist material on term limits. A hallucinating communist subversive in the same machinery may  be driven by the desperate need to create a nazi legend to justify his own existence, and remove you from a public function. Or any function.

While producing an article on hotter issues surveillance staff may show up and threaten you.

Preemptive censorship means that in a very unpredictable way you get " punished " by various means depending on the importance  of the case, continuously, and over long periods, so that a conditioning effect is  intentionally  reached.....you watch out what you produce, expecting potential trouble.

This nonexisting system exists.

Also, the omnipresence of surveillance facilities leads to modified decisions while e.g. checking the books in a bookstore, the TV-program, and so on.

The ultimate censorship was  the brain – implanted chip device. Is that existent ?

It exists ( yes it does ! ) for decades now.

The latest release is a videocamera for the blind....connected with a brain implant, making the blind see.

The implanted chip / camera can very well be connected with a transmitter, and the vision of the blind ( or the normal ) could even be broadcast on TV in realtime.

Imagine a soldier sitting on an Afghan mountain, connected with a remote computer system by satellite, using a chip like this for reading a map stored in the computer ´s database.

The computer could be handled by concentrating on certain keys.

Now imagine the nonexistent:

Millions of people remotely controlled by – a computer system. HAL is there. Big Brother is gone, history. Outdated.

Due to newer allegations the chip technology as before mentioned is out of date already – the indicator: It is used for treating e.g. disabled people, using thought-executed commands in a computer system for the completely motionless. Camera-connected chip implants for the blind.

Calculation: Military technology used now in the " civil sector " ( where that is, I do not  really know  ) got declassified 20 or 30 years ago. And released today.

And: The most revolutionary developments in the computer area took place – within the last 20 or 30 years.

But – these do not exist.