I designed the Symbol for a Mankind Ruled by the Surveillance State and I named it "Eyelethead".
This is the story of the symbol - told by
A comparison between
The FIVE EYES Empire
Joe the Eyelethead
Eyelet of the Dead Light
Safeguarding of rulership by consolation.
God is the spirit that all humans share. Christian faith is there to strengthen people to stand inequity in society and to accept death and pain.
The new God is safeguarding of rulership by mathematics.
God is the whir of hundreds of thousands of harddrives in the gigantic data center. God is the sociological algorithm, the software that can predict and control any social behaviour to keep the power over the world in the hands of the chosen. 
Die Gedanken sind frei
wer kann sie erraten?
Sie fliehen vorbei
wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen,
kein Jäger erschießen
mit Pulver und Blei:
Die Gedanken sind frei!
- We have 7 billion dossiers.
We do profiling on a large scale and we know your thoughts.
- We have algorithms.
We know what you will do before you know it.
- We own the adjusting screws of your opinion.
We know exactly how many movies, talk shows and comment threads we have to adjust to get a future we like. (Destabilisation or helpful election results, civil war, coup or simply disinformation – whatever.)  
31 - 2013
NOW AND FOR EVER
EUROPE . AMERICAS
What does this Eyelet sign depict?
Is it a tame bear's nose ring
or is it a gloriole - the spirit's light?
Well, it's for hanging.
Death in art. Obscene and..
Dissidents. Emancipators. 
For hundreds of years the papal church effectively had had the monopoly on book production, on images and on written down ideas. That changed radically with the invention of letter- press printing, with printing of books and leaflets.
Martin Luther was in Germany the center of a battle of ideas (which ones will obtain supremacy in the media). – For the church an outrageous provocation. The question of power had to be solved.
The German Peasants' War ended with the defeat of the Bundschuh movement and the process of the Counter-Reformation began.
The evolution of the World Wide Web was characterised in its first 15 years (1995-2010, roughly) by the capability of individuals who outwit attempts of censorship and cover-up tactics. It was the biggest boost for individual freedom of expression ever. People owned the internet. –
"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather." 
State and government (in the US and in many other countries) felt humiliated by this loss of control. With unparalleled efforts the question of power had to be solved.
Today the sentence "The internet is a surveillance state." coined by Bruce Schneier is true. The NSA now owns the internet and people can expose themselves to it or give it a miss.
After Luther started his struggle with the central power of the Western world, the papal church, he was outlawed and excommunicated. He was in danger to life and limb, he had to change his identity and to make use of the protection by the Elector of Saxony.
Thomas Müntzer was captured, tortured and decapitated.
Spying on people to control them has been there since beginning of civilisation. Spying is institutionalised since there is a court, a government or the Catholic Church. In the internet age it is natural spying is automatized and everywhere in the web. It is healthy to expect spying everywhere and to act accordingly.
But that does not mean unconditional spying is 'necessary' or legal (as US press lead people to believe day after day).
Of course spying is a violation of personal rights and of human dignity. – So, at what point institutionalised spying starts to become crime of a terror state?
- When people (citizens and non-citizens) are objects of spying and personalized logging without being under specific suspicion – when this happens: starting dossiers on a massive scale and mass surveillance.
- When acts (or supplementary paper) pass that make this legally possible.
- When it is declared illegal to protect oneself or others from state Trojan software or with the help of encryption.
- When countries and companies that refuse (NSA) backdoor access to their network are demonised by propaganda and threatened with sanctions.
- When non-citizens are generally under suspicion so it's 'legal' anyway to spy on them.
- When law is circumvented by spying from abroad or by agreements with foreign services "We spy on your citizens - You spy on our citizens - We share the data."
- When they claim "This is not Stasi because we are the good guys." 
- When they agree with Hitler : "We will bring to justice those who hate us for what we do."
- When everyone is declared an enemy who doesn't like and accept this or who makes this violation of privacy and human dignity public.
All these points are fulfilled today on the largest possible trillion-dollar scale (yes, the US are a terror state). – What to do?
70 years ago in Nazi Germany Stauffenberg tried the famous bomb assassination.
— If it wouldn't have failed then fascism clearly wouldn't have disappeared overnight but it would have been the signal.
Today it would have been the signal if (for example) a British general had managed to drop A-bombs on Cheltenham, Fort Meade, Wiesbaden-Erbenheim etc. before NSA and GCHQ took over (the world). New Nuremberg Trials could be held after that to accuse Obama and all main perpetrators and to prevent the world from becoming for ever a digital surveillance state – a Five Eyes regime.  
The freeing assassination didn't happen. Once established and tolerated there is no going back from hermetic surveillance state.  (Sad: the light of being human is dead.)
 The outline of the Eyelethead arises from my first etching I addressed to Stasi surveillance 30 years ago.
The sign of the Eyelethead is reduced to the one final truth of the surveillance game: the loser, the controlled one. (I know no one is it. No one wants to see the f.truth.)
 In the Angela Merkel file e.g. appears the definition of her: "Teflon". -- It's not as funny as it may sound in this case. Other files are classified as "Weak person. Not worth the effort." (that's me e.g.), "Damage his life." (that's Swartz, Manning, Assange ..), "Deport him to a secret place and torture him" (that are 119 detainees from 2002 to 2008) or "Kill him." (that's unnamed and countless). – Numbers are not tattooed but digitalised - there are not camps but harddrives - it's just clean. (Although.. I feel the number tattooed on me. - And yes, that's intended and part of the game.)
 This is worse than J. E. Hoover and J. Goebbels together because its target is not domestic control but to control the world.
To spy on states is something different than violation of individuals' human rights (what actually is the topic here). But the nature of Five Eyes can't be divided:
The GCHQ wants to know in-depth what the enemy or the underdog (or let's say the object of surveillance) is doing/ what the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council is doing. – And Germany plays (as it often has been in history) the role of the naive idiot: Germany applied for a Five Eyes membership.
 In an essay (2009, in German) about Stasi I wrote:
The principle of unconditional tracing and collecting knowledge on people for the sake of control and against the own citizens is terror of state.
 This post is about human rights. What the (US) terror of state makes physically with people is not the issue here: the capabilities to destabilise whole countries over the internet, silent killings (of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and thousands others) for what these people could potentially do in the future according to databases and algorithms. -- That is the principle of Auschwitz. But instead of getting sick about it the general public says "wow" and "cool" - thank Hollywood and its glorification of high-tech industrial killing. (It's exactly what the Edward Bernays doctrine 80 years before purported to prevent: "hurray" and "heil" on the streets when crime happens.) (see )
 Will such an A-bomb thought experiment (to stop surveillance terror) be classified itself as terror propaganda and be blocked by a gov. filter? – Well, my article is too irrelevant for that (and I guess I wouldn't even realize I'm blocked). – But basically that's how it works. (a) (b)
 (Added 2014-11) It wasn't Barlow's intention to act social responsibly when he published his Declaration. It seems grandstanding was his goal and to appear as part of the smarter guys. Later he helped the government how to spy on the own citizens and again he made a boast of being the smarter guy. (Discussion 2016)
 (Added 2014-11) Considering mass surveillance and mathematical analysis of the collected data Glenn Greenwald describes today's democracy as an illusion, a cheap joke. Any political process is mathematically predictable and will be rigged if necessary.
Mass surveillance and data-driven personality tests have its origin in the 1940s (Sanford, Frenkel-Brunswik, and Levinson at UC Berkeley), with the intention to fight fascism – but with the result of establishing a fascist data-driven approach to manipulation of the masses.
 (Added 2014-12) Conservative American ideologists like Edward Bernays (BBC documentary 2002) make restrictive control of the masses appear as a blessing. – Research on propaganda in this case with its simplified formula is propaganda itself. It affirms the dark and blind peril from the masses - and how demanding it is to maintain civilisation.
Bernays' work on "Manipulation of the masses" was admirably unvarnished then. The intellectual society everywhere in the 1930's enjoyed itself in the role of "thinking things through to the end". It was chic to appear ruthless in reasoning - also in America. In Goebbels' Nazi Germany the same demands sound just a bit uglier: "kein moralischer Durchfall". In its today's consequences Bernays' research on propaganda is similarly demagogical to some extent (to establish certain interests within the American society).
In fact control is easy and today it complies with simple rules: Revolt of masses that destabilizes regions in the world where so far no US missiles or fire control systems are installed is welcome and can expect oblique or open NATO help (Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan) - no matter how many lives of civilians it will cost. Revolt of masses on the other hand that perhaps nationalizes the oil production of a nation (prevents it from being controlled by the Five Eyes Empire) has to expect a countermovement directed by the Five Eyes Empire (Venezuela, 1999-now) (Mosaddegh / Operation Ajax, 1953) - again no matter how many lives it will cost. It's that easy.
 (Added 2015-04) The latest of the US tactics in propaganda: they like to call themselves a World Empire (Imperialism is no longer an accusation, desirable rather).
Its amazing : 'Be evil and talk about it' works just as fine as it is known from the reverse direction ('Do good and talk about it').
Openness provides always a certain degree of credentials. Communism called itself 'dictatorship of the proletariat', Hilter said openly in his speeches 'Ja, wir sind intolerant'. And Napoleon placed the imperial crown on his own head.
 (Added 2017-05) There are other comparisons Luther / Snowden, I didn't know when I wrote this article:
• Antje Vollmer, interview, 2013-09-01
• Luther exhibition, Augusteum in Wittenberg, Snowden exhibit, 2017-05-13
• Antje Vollmer, discourse, 2017-07-18