A Disease Governs Decisions 

What if a disease took control of the government? We would become victims of control, alienation, and gradually lose our personal autonomy, feeling as if we were part of a strange, separate world. This view isn’t just yours; others share it. In this context, a disease transcends its physical effects on the human body and becomes an aggressive force that dictates life, shapes decisions, and impacts both individual and collective freedoms.

Let’s observe how the freedom to think, the pursuit of personal goals, and the rights to possession, health, and education—rights that should be completely inalienable—become distorted. What should enable us to grow and expand as integral parts of the collective body now drifts away from us.

A government like this, embodying a disease, can be interpreted as an entity completely foreign to humanity and its interests. This entity lacks empathy, understanding, or respect for the desires and needs of individuals. It seeks only to maintain control, operating through fear, chaos, deception, and alienation. Within this framework, individuals are not seen as citizens in the traditional sense; they are reduced to mere organisms whose existence is dictated by the rules imposed by the "governing disease."

This raises the following questions: Do these circumstances, instigated by authority, align with what is healthy or beneficial for us? Are they truly in the interest of all? And if they seem absurd, could a disease be what governs us? And if it is a disease, what kind of disease is it? A disease is something that afflicts us and causes discomfort.

How can we not suffer from a lack of education for a vast majority, uncertainty in the electoral system, or a departure from healthy values? The state has become more invasive towards individuals, to the point where we have arguably lost what could be called "basic" capabilities in exchange for purported scientific social truths—all in the name of progress and social well-being. But to what extent does this progress reflect only the views of something foreign and strange?

It’s no coincidence that governments across various countries are so similar, facing the same problems and delivering similar speeches when in reality, they shouldn't be. The so-called "docile material" should be cultivated and encouraged by governments, yet their practices now infringe upon individuals.

We regard these current circumstances as a disease. Some interpret it as an alien government or hidden authority acting against individuals. However, it exhibits more symptoms of a disease. It is crucial to consider such manifestations of power when analyzing the forms of discourse and practices of domination.

Imagine a scenario in which the disease acts as a dominant entity, capable of dictating the social and political structure of a society. This transforms the disease into something beyond a mere biological ailment; it evolves into an omnipresent system controlling human beings.

In Eduar Chiap’s novel DEPRADAC, the mention of "domesticators" or "modern dementia" refers to the influence exerted on docile material by factors that may converge with reality, a similarity not entirely coincidental. As the author suggests, we believe it is unhealthy to force children to attend a school system for 12 years to transform them into docile material, only to have most of them "reading without knowing how to read." It is also detrimental to maintain a healthcare system primarily based on pharmaceuticals, knowing it is highly harmful. Equally, it is not healthy to completely disorient people regarding their spiritual reach—all in the quest for docile material for easier governance.

Listening to all this, we are traversing the path of disease. Are we not becoming cancerous? Because if we diagnose it, this truly is a form of brain cancer.

The disease as government symbolizes a critique of current power systems, where real governments seem to exploit diseases or disasters as excuses to implement policies that infringe upon bodily freedoms. They want docile material that does not react, which sounds easy, right? But when discussing the quest for dominance in digital currency, docility may become true submission, and there will be no turning back for us. The small freedom provided by circulating money—having the power to save it and not relying on anyone or anything to access it—can be regarded as one of the few bastions of individual and collective freedom. Though governments may show little interest in the individual, this is a crucial step, as we are talking about complete subjugation. The individual will not be the practical owner of what they actually possess—their physical money; banks and government, which are essentially the same when it comes to exercising power, will display their dominion. We are discussing a real transfer of control for the sake of enjoying fictitious comfort to benefit the banks, which is dangerous.

It is also a mistake to think that the body can be subjected, utilized, or transformed with the aim of perfecting it without being aware of its true dimension by being deemed "unscientific"; this could render it ineffective.

"Let it pass, let it flow, obey," exclaim the modern Adam Smiths. This could lead to an unsustainable path for the benefit of a few. Such a focus on total subjugation will carve a narrowing groove. On this path, it may take a few generations to lose what is socially healthy if it isn’t happening already. There may be people who desire this because their interests are aligned with it.

AI is treading a similar path; its implementation in mobile devices poses significant threats to communication privacy. Currently, it is uncertain whether a message was answered by the right person or by AI, because the response came within only a few seconds. The right to privacy, as it has been since the advent of telephony, is now in the ears of others. Thus, AI will soon categorize and classify each user based on opinions differing from the norm, putting that information at the mercy of a simple decision. This affliction that governs us apparently just needs time because it works silently.

This type of allegory connects deeply with the question of who holds true control—the churches, the governments, or something else entirely. It highlights the fragility of social order and the severely diminished vulnerability in the face of forces that cannot always be understood or controlled.