Guest Post: Yet Another Reminder That Democracy Is An Illusion

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Simon Black from Sovereign Man

Yet Another Reminder That Democracy Is An Illusion

With over 150 million registered users, the file sharing site is one of the most popular on the Internet. At least, it was. 

The site has now been seized by the US government and its homepage converted to an FBI anti-piracy warning. Its founder, a high tech entrepreneur named Kim Dotcom (yes, he had it legally changed), was arrested in New Zealand after his homes were raided and assets seized.

These actions were all at the behest of the US government. And it's just the latest example of Big Brother overextending its authority across the entire world.

Last week, we discussed the grassroots efforts to stop passage of the SOPA/PIPA legislation that would give the US government jurisdiction over the Internet. Wikipedia blacked out its English language pages to raise awareness of the issue, and people went completely nuts.

Congress subsequently withdrew the bills amid popular outcry, and the public rejoiced that their efforts successfully thwarted further encroachment on their liberty. Or so they thought.

On the exact same day that everyone was celebrating victory over SOPA/PIPA, the US government simply used another set of regulations to nab Dotcom and seize his assets. The fact that SOPA was scrapped turned out to be completely irrelevant, they just found other rules to apply (or break).

As usual, it's probably not legal. But such technicalities don't matter in the 'guilty until proven innocent' system in which we live. Executive agencies exercise extreme latitude when confiscating assets, and victims often don't have the opportunity to address the matter in front of a judge for years, if ever.

In Dotcom's case, the man probably won't even successfully make it past the extradition process for at least a year... let alone bring the issue to trial. The government is using its bureaucracy to completely circumvent due process and make an example of somebody that they consider a nuisance.

So why should they care? What interest could the US government possibly have in a silly file sharing site? None. But the entertainment industry does.

You see, we don't live in a representative democracy. Democracy is an illusion to make people believe that they're free. Instead, it's blocs of large corporations who are really in control. If the entertainment business wants Kim Dotcom to go away, the government will invent or break any law necessary to make it happen. They're all in bed together.

What's more, it doesn't matter which group or party is in power. Democrat or Republican, Labour or Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic... they're all for sale. Citizens concern themselves with the outcome of elections, investing heavy emotional and financial support for 'their guy'. Companies just wait it out and buy off whichever candidates win.

Kim Dotcom, though a wealthy and successful entrepreneur, was essentially a lone wolf standing against the entire industry. Rather than find ways to work with him in what is clearly emerging as a dominant media platform, they chose to eliminate him... by having the US government send the New Zealand government to arrest him and seize his assets.

It's mind numbing when you really think about it.

Ultimately, Dotcom may successfully find his way back to a normal life after years in court and perhaps some time in jail. In the meantime, though, his case certainly makes a strong argument for flying under the radar. It's a stark reminder that, if they really want to get you, they'll apply, invent, or break whatever laws are necessary to do so.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
pods's picture

They should do that to the FED!


King_of_simpletons's picture

The solution is simple. Don't go to movies and don't buy music. Movies suck and music sucks anyway..

WALLST8MY8BALL's picture

I agree with you on movies but you can buy music direct from most artist's these days. And alot of it doesn't suck.

Spastica Rex's picture

I download old movies because I'm sure the copyrights have expired. Can you imagine a system where copyright essentially never expires and media works created by long dead individuals provide eternal income for distribution cartels? That would just be crazy.

wretch's picture

Not even Ron Paul can save you.  The cult of Libertarianism promotes and protects the Corporation.  Good luck with that.

tmosley's picture

Shut your lie-hole.  Libertarianism and the corporation are not compatible.  The corporation exists explicitly through government intervention.  A libertarian regime would no more allow the continued existence of corporations than a Communist one would.

Max Fischer's picture



When Ron Paul tells you that he even wants air traffic controllers to be run by private enterprise, you can get a glimpse of what pure libertarianism produces:  an entire country run by corporations who chase nothing more than dollars and profits at the expense of general welfare.  If you want to turn America into a corporatocracy with a multitude of oppressive oligarchies, a Ron Paul presidency would be the fastest, surest route.  It's amazing that people revolt against our oppressive corporate/banking plutocracy by choosing an ideology which would make it worse.

Max Fischer 

GeneMarchbanks's picture

It's official, with this latest treasure MDB's belt is under pressure. Unless of course...

LFMayor's picture

it's threatening those academics you love to extoll, isn't it?

Spastica Rex's picture

What would make it better? Just curious - I'm agnostic.

tmosley's picture

If that's the case, then why do the corporations and kleptocrats hate him so much?

moroots's picture

"If you want to turn America into a corporatocracy with a multitude of oppressive oligarchies..."

The Year 2012 just called ... it said "Wake the fuck up and look around you, Max Fischer"

Sean7k's picture

How do you make the leap to corporations running everything? A private party or partnership caould own an airport, hire air traffic controllers and voila- private enterprise at work.

Of course, you could have what we have now: public corporations (government unions) and private corporations all protected by the police power of the state- creating monopolies and cartels in collusion with each other and the courts look the other way. Oh, that's way better.

It is chasing profits that creates jobs or have you never picked up an econ book? If you would take the time to pluck your left wing out of your ass, you might see it.

Random_Robert's picture

"When Ron Paul tells you that he even wants air traffic controllers to be run by private enterprise, you can get a glimpse of what pure libertarianism produces: an entire country run by corporations who chase nothing more than dollars and profits at the expense of general welfare. If you want to turn America into a corporatocracy with a multitude of oppressive oligarchies, a Ron Paul presidency would be the fastest, surest route. It's amazing that people revolt against our oppressive corporate/banking plutocracy by choosing an ideology which would make it worse."

-Bullshit. You commit the logical fallacy that Private enterprise yields more powerful corporations without even realizing that private corporations have to be run by PEOPLE, and that people are accountale for their actions, and they are liable for damages they cause.

If, in the process of prosecuting a person for their liability, their corporation is destroyed, then so be it. That is a fundamental tenant of free markets.  

Libertarianism is people above corporations, and personal accountability as the cornerstone of civil societies.





stopthejunk1's picture

Random Robert gets it right.  Electing someoen like Ron Paul is only the beginning. 

Once we have constitutional government again, the corporations will be drastically weakened.

And once we have constitutional government, we can amend our constitution - if we so choose - to protect us from corporations if that's what the modern world requires.  For instance, there is no statute or court decision that awards corporations the status of "persons" under the law, and deserving of equal protections.  That doctrine has a shady and storied history going back to the railroad monopolies and robber barons.  Maybe we should make Hillaire Belloc's "The Servile State" required reading for everyone, and then see what kind of "property rights" regime crops up in culture and law - and whether it is as friendly to giant, remote corporations as it is to families.

tmosley's picture

What, you mean the SOCIALIST Republic that has a mixed market China?

bb5's picture

the corporation does no wrong in libertarian speak. It's the government over and over. Have you ever heard Ron Paul blaming the banks by name or otherwise for creating the current crisis?

wretch's picture

Precisely.  In the last debate, Ron Paul painted the banks as victims of the government, and blamed the government for the entirety of the financial crisis.  Do you think that's balanced?  Do you think he's deliberately focusing on government issues (of which there are many) and deliberately avoiding corporate/industrial/banking issues?  It's not an accident.

Dr. Richard Head's picture

You are missing one caveat.  Corporations couldn't go to the public trough for assistance when they fuck up.  Wrap that into your argument as well.

wretch's picture

Under a Libertarian utopia, as envisioned by Ayn Rand and the rest of you sick fucks, corporations won't need the government.  Corporation uber alles, bitches.  McGovernance.

YHC-FTSE's picture

I'll give you a +1 for putting in "sick fucks" with "Ayn Rand", since that disgusting zionist is as libertarian as your average goose-stepping Latvian SS recruit. But you are way, way off the reservation on the brand of libertarianism as espoused by Dr.Paul. All you have to do is LISTEN to his messages about smaller government, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, the Amerikan Empire/militarism, corporate bailouts, and supporting individual liberty and dignity to know that he is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the corporatism that is so pernicious throughout American society today, and the corporist ideals that you so despise with the rest of us.

Sorry pal, but you have it all wrong. Being a libertarian has more to do with the personal freedom to do whatever we wish and taking personal responsibility for our actions, than corporate freedom and power to do whatever they wish without taking responsibility for the crap they bestow on the rest of us. 

Spastica Rex's picture

You sound more like a Thoreuean anarchist -- which is fine by me.

YHC-FTSE's picture

Thanks. I learn something new every day here. ;)

Cathartes Aura's picture

different flavours, different definitions of "personal liberty" and "personal freedoms."

YHC-FTSE's picture

I don't doubt that there are many flavours. Dr.Paul does have a habit of bringing different people together for a common cause. At the risk of ignoring the flavours I dislike, I stated the obvious antitheses of corporatism. Corporatists always want larger government, and bigger government spending. Dr.Paul is of course the exact opposite.

Cathartes Aura's picture

that's a great response.

I'm just outside that "common cause" thing as I've found little in common with most people in general, and have zero belief in the systems at play currently.


goat's picture

Agree with most of this, but I don't think you have much insight or knowledge into the Latvian SS from your post.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

It all depends on which banks you are talking about. There are two types of banks: huge, politicallly connected banks which own and control the Federal Reserve System, and small local banks, which are not politically connected and not members of the Federal Reserve.

Small, local banks are getting absolutely crushed. These banks historically played a critical role in the local economy, and as recently as 20 years ago, were vital sources of small business funding and local mortgage lending. They have been crippled and marginalized in the last decade, all according to plan.

Talk to a small banker to understand exactly what they are up against, and dont lump these good guys in with the Wall Street crowd.

Spastica Rex's picture

All of my family's vast wealth is now held in a local credit union. GESA is really a great outfit.

Willzyx's picture

How much of your vast wealth is insured by the NCUA?  I hope you have different registrations

Spastica Rex's picture

I'm an unemployed teacher and my wife teaches at a Catholic school - that a clue?

Dr. Richard Head's picture

Jesus H. Durden.....The banks go bailed out and the people were kicked out of their homes was, and is, a common theme in his message.  A message that wishes not to bail out the banks and stick the people with the debts.  Cherry pick your asshole instead of an honest man's words.

I would goatse you if I could.

A Nanny Moose's picture

Ummm...Coercion vs. Volunteerism. Corporations don't have all the fucking guns. If you don't like a particualr corporation, you take your $ to another corporation....volun-fucking-tarily. Government is a violent coercive monopoly, that will violate your rights. If you don't like government what are you going to do? Vote? For the same bullshit over and over...Einstein?

Also of interest, is that growth in corporations bears a direct relationship to growth in government. The trend always continues until the two achieve singularity status. The corporation itself a legal fiction, created by whom? Government.

The idea that increasing government would control the very coporations which it has created in order to farm you and your rug rats, as the tax livestock you all are, is simple, fucking idiotic.


xcehn's picture

RP has stated that corporations are not people, my friend.  (Why does Romnuts have to remind us of Mccain with this moron-speak?). 

dolly madison's picture

Ron Paul seems to want many good things, but he does not have all the solutions that we need.  We got here from the beginning of our constitution.  What makes anyone think we wouldn't just get here again if we only stepped back to the beginning again?

The fact that we got here means there was something missing, a check and balance missing.  That check and balance is participatory democracy.  We need to be able to fire bought politicians.  We need to be able to strike down unjust laws, and we even with a supermajority need to be able to change our constitution. 

It is often convenient to let leaders lead us, but because the few will always be subject to bribery and threat, we need the power to be able to stop them.  That is what is missing.

At each of these "turnings" the people gain something.  This time I am hopeful we will gain power over the elite.

crazyjsmith's picture

It's corporate welfare that is the problem, not the corp. itself.
The current Gov't/Regime favors Big Corp, clearly, see Too Big To Fail.
Get rid of the lobbyist control of Gov't, not the Gov itself, and allow for poorly run, sociopathic entities that feast off our economy to fail.
Ron does bash banks by proxy by going after the FED, in which he claims correctly is a private entity owned by World Banks...

See this link on who owns the FED

Sean7k's picture

Ron Paul has been a tireless opponent of the FED- that is the banks you moron.

Second, it is the police power of the state under the control of corpoations that creates the problems we have today. Without that protection, corporations would be subject to the discipline of the market and would not be a problem. 

If you understaood economics, you might realize this. Ron Paul does.

stopthejunk1's picture

Uh, yes: over and over, for years - including before the 2008 crash: (video is from 2007)

Ron Paul voted against the TARP bailout that saved the banks (and their shareholders) from complete collapse due to their bad investments.

Most giant corporations could not exist without corporate welfare. 

Ron Paul does not go far enough, but he goes as far as Libertarianism will let him, and he goes much, much further than anyone else.

ProtectiveFather's picture

"Shut your lie-hole." Haha. That's funny.

Cathartes Aura's picture


A libertarian regime would no more allow the continued existence of corporations than a Communist one would.

the problem is, "libertarian regimes" appear to come in different flavours of late - so one would have to be very specific as to which flavour one favours. . .

we're back to seeking the definitions of words & beliefs.

cgbspender's picture

Quite misinformed.


Many Libertarians take issue with intellectual property.

You might want to look into Stephan Kinsella:



Spastica Rex's picture


I'm Libertarian-curious.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Indeed. Here is Kinsella's "Case against Intellectual Property":

Makes for compelling reading.

Dr. Acula's picture

Outstanding article.

And here's a 1-minute synopsis:


dwdollar's picture

LOL... right... cause that's exactly what we've been living in for the past 100 years. A cult of Libertarianism. I'll help you with the '/sarc' tag.

one man wolf pack's picture

Ron Paul is one of the few honest politicians in Washington. He stands on the side of liberty, the individual, due process, etc etc etc. if people would take the time to learn some history, and then understand the principles that he basis his positions on, most people find they have more in common with him then any other politician. It's bullshit that the media misrepresents, misquotes, and downright calls him unelectable.

Imagine that. The one honest guy unelectable

End the fed and you end the wars