knobmeup wrote:
So....can someone please explain to me why people still can't see that the state is not for the people but for itself? That the state is composed of a self serving bunch of greedy cunts who use and abuse the people any time they want? That the best thing we could possibly do to rectify this is to smash the state to smithereens?
I think the problem you have is that what you're doing here is what sensible people do when they're trying to work out what's going on; ie. looking at the evidence that's available systematically and coming to a reasoned conclusion. This is not how most people form their view of the world.
Most people's worldview is based on a vague impression of what is actually going on that is almost entirely formed from their emotional reaction to it, or particularly their emotional reaction to the way that it's presented to them. In your post, you've given probably the classic example, the 'nasty anarchist'. Most of the country that gets their view of the world through the BBC - which is an absolutely alarming number of people considering the unbelievable crap that they put out - will have got this precise impression from seeing a few people in hoodies smash a bank up, and the BBC, as well as other news media, does their best to demonise any form of social protest or demonstration whenever possible. So instead of people thinking "hold on, why are these people demonstrating?", they've already got a prejudiced view, although it's not actually based on any substance or understanding of what's really happening. Actually if you challenge people on their view on most subjects, you will almost certainly find that they can't back it up.
With regard to the state, the situation reminds me of the Public Enemy album title "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold us Back". It takes years and years of non-stop propaganda and social conditioning to get people to react the way you want them to, and to see issues within narrow parameters that are acceptable. Thus, there's the famous Chomsky quote: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum..." So if you say you're an anarchist, that's it, you're out of the debate. If you say, "maybe 9/11 didn't happen quite the way we were told", you've had it. If you suggest that the British establishment is fundamentally corrupt and we actually already live in a fascist state, it's just a case of how fascistic it's going to become...out of the debate. If you say, "hmmm...I don't like what Cameron is doing with the cuts, I think I'll vote Labour at the next election", congratulations, you're part of the debate again!
And this is how people are kept passive and docile, it's simply by limiting the scope of views that they have access to, and very aggressively attacking anything outside of that spectrum.
