There is a long list of reasons why national states have lost quite a bit of their credibility. The world has globalized. The internet accelerates this process. The 19th-century concept of national state, as the successor to the medieval feudal state that preceded it, is losing its control over the arrow of enforcement. Any attempt at saving the national state from its inevitable demise, will only accelerate the process.
I have just written a blog post
about how the national state apparatus in Belgium has no other option than to release control over islamic matters. If they do not, Belgium will simply become ungovernable. If they do, Belgium will still become ungovernable, but they will have bought more time, before the odometer will tick over.
The national state cannot be saved.
Everything is globalized. Enforcing national borders is an exercise in futility, and not just in matters of religion.
In 1993, John Gilmore already warned that the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it
. It is trivially easy to demonstrate that on the internet every form of government enforcement will always translate into a form of censorship. At the same time, software is eating the world
, guaranteeing that every human activity will sooner or later land on the internet.
For people who are used to the old days, it is very hard to understand that, on the internet, one single individual can happily defeat the entire State and its full enforcement apparatus. The internet does not measure muscle power but brain power. It is absolutely not unthinkable that one single individual shuts down all electricity plants in the country and refuses to switch them on again. The State would be utterly powerless to do anything about that. The only hope they may have is that there will be at least one individual on their side who can match or exceed their attacker's brain power.
Physical State power is increasingly irrelevant on the internet, and therefore in society. Without the power to enforce, the State is meaningless. In other words, technology has thoroughly reshuffled the existing 19th-century societal axiomatization, from which the national state can no longer be derived as a valid theorem.
It is clear that anybody who is too deeply invested in the idea that a national state exists -- and that it can successfully enforce its views on its population -- is in for bad surprises. In order to survive, people must adapt. In this case, it means that they must learn how to trade and interact with each other without national state to control the outcomes. Therefore, it is always a good idea to learn how to trade and do business in an entirely stateless environment such as the tor network
, using cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin
to settle payments. It allows you to hedge your business against the ongoing collapse of the national state.
Furthermore, bitcoin, just like gold, is antifragile
. This means that bitcoin gains in value with every calamity in the realm of the national state. For example, I have booked myself quite a bit of capital gains from the brexit. By being long on antifragile assets, the harder the national state implodes, the more money I make. Since the national state is just a false, pagan, 19th-century belief, its ongoing collapse also gives me a moral boost. In the One God we trust and in nothing else. The national state is clearly something else than the One God. Therefore, the national state can only be a detestable pagan belief.
In search of absolute truth, we can ask ourselves the question if there are theorems that can always be derived in a valid fashion from the societal axiomatization, regardless of how it has been reshuffled? Are there abstract theorems that are oblivious to the actual societal axiomatization in use?
I personally believe that such absolute truth exists. In fact, this is the essence of religion -- which is pretty much the belief that there is exactly one absolute truth. This one true belief, as a mathematical object, always reemerges from the fray. All of this indeed means that Islam will happily survive the ongoing change, but that the national state will not.