Thread: How To Smash the State

Originally Posted by Hoplite

How to Smash the State

A very interesting article. I cant say I agree with the precepts and I find Anarchism to be an inherently contradictory ideology, but the ideas presented in the article are...interesting to say the least.

What do you think?

Right here:

At some time you will discover that an associate close to you is a secret police agent. People you thought were friends will slowly reveal themselves as latent politicians or thieves trying to rip off movement funds. Don’t tremble or become discouraged – fight on – write on.

Never trust anyone. Nobody but you can be depended upon to carry out projects you conceive, so learn how to do everything yourself. That way, no matter if everyone abandon you, all will continue as before. Propaganda will roll on with no lessening of intensity, and the Anarchist idea will be broadcast without even a moment’s dead air.

This has "cult" written all over it.

The State is necessary and natural but one must always remember that the power of the State must always be through the individual. It is when the State becomes an advocate primarily for itself that it must be taken down a notch...or two.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Right here:



This has "cult" written all over it.

It's a little weird, but I wouldn't go far to say "cult". I'd say it reflects a rather extreme view in the Anarchist community and is a touch on the paranoid side. However, it may be a little more understandable if the author is a little older from somewhere like Eastern Europe or Africa where concerns like police informants and secret police were not uncommon in the recent past.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

It's a little weird, but I wouldn't go far to say "cult". I'd say it reflects a rather extreme view in the Anarchist community and is a touch on the paranoid side. However, it may be a little more understandable if the author is a little older from somewhere like Eastern Europe or Africa where concerns like police informants and secret police were not uncommon in the recent past.

Isolate. Adopt. Reinforce.

It's a classic example of the kind of 'brain washing' that occurs in cults, long term abductions and, when on a grand scale, closed societies such as those you mentioned.

First you convince the subject that they are unable to fend for themselves...that the whole world is against them.

Next you set yourself up as the sole source of support. In essence, you offer to adopt this newly isolated being.

Finally you reinforce points one and two until the subject willingly abandons all points of view that don't stem from you.


The strange thing is that many times the predator doesn't even have a conscious realization that this is what (s)he is doing. They tend to actually believe that they really are the only answer to isolation.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Isolate. Adopt. Reinforce.

It's a classic example of the kind of 'brain washing' that occurs in cults, long term abductions and, when on a grand scale, closed societies such as those you mentioned.

First you convince the subject that they are unable to fend for themselves...that the whole world is against them.

Next you set yourself up as the sole source of support. In essence, you offer to adopt this newly isolated being.

Finally you reinforce points one and two until the subject willingly abandons all points of view that don't stem from you.


The strange thing is that many times the predator doesn't even have a conscious realization that this is what (s)he is doing. They tend to actually believe that they really are the only answer to isolation.

I'm aware of cult psychology, however I've spoken to a number of people and read dozens of accounts of people who have lived in conditions that are extremely stressful because of repressive government and the mentality they display is similar to the tone the article is written in.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

How to Smash the State

A very interesting article. I cant say I agree with the precepts and I find Anarchism to be an inherently contradictory ideology, but the ideas presented in the article are...interesting to say the least.

What do you think?

I never heard of him before but I say that one article is brilliant indeed, and very well said, so I liked that very much.

I just did a search for him and I can not find any website for himself or his paper "The Match" and I find that unsettling.

Otherwise I thank you for sharing that info and link as it is well done, IMO.

Of course I see nothing there to connect it to a "cult" in any way shape or form.

Ehh, just more drivel written by some one from a 'movement' to cowardly to act

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Ehh, just more drivel written by some one from a 'movement' to cowardly to act

I disagree with this claim above, but more-so it troubles me that so many Americans do not seem to know the meaning of such concepts as courage or cowardice.

The story given in this thread has a Man who is preaching his message and trying to promote his ideals which is the essence of courage, especially when so many other people remain silent, and just because he does not have the power to succeed then that is not a cowardly act.

The opposite of hate is to encourage - to give courage.

The meaning of cowardice is given by the Mahatma Gandhi as he derived it from the Chinese Confucius, which goes like this:

Cowardice is when a person knows right and has the ability to do right but then does not do the right, as that is true cowardice.

It does not even necessarily include fear, because if a person is truly afraid to act then that means they do not have the ability to act which means fear is not true cowardice.

Fear is a normal human feeling so that every person has at times feelings of fear, and fear teaches people wisdom.

Courage is actually an emotion as like a decision, because each person can decide to act with courage regardless of how we feel. This is why true courage needs to be based on wisdom, because some times it is wise to fear and not to act brave.

Originally Posted by Hoplite

It's a little weird, but I wouldn't go far to say "cult". I'd say it reflects a rather extreme view in the Anarchist community and is a touch on the paranoid side. However, it may be a little more understandable if the author is a little older from somewhere like Eastern Europe or Africa where concerns like police informants and secret police were not uncommon in the recent past.

Tuscon Arizona, written in 1971 by a then ? 30ish yr old.

It's American as apple pie.
It's all about spreading your ideas and rejecting violence.
It's from the seventies, of course, we had the advantage of a certain moral clarity.
Nixon resigned because Republican senators told him they would vote guilty at his impeachment.
There wasn't a big partisan divide, back then, Kennedy had a 60% approval rating from Republicans, Eisenhower was very popular with Democrats, there was an idea that something was right or wrong that crossed party lines.
You didn't have the ideological extremism of today's Republican Party.

Originally Posted by goober

You didn't have the ideological extremism of today's Republican Party.

JFK couldn't be a Democrat these days. Neither could Adlai Stevenson, or Harry Truman. Joe Lieberman can't. I question if George Mitchell, Pat Moynihan, or Bill Bradley could.

Since 1968 it is the Democrats that have moved ever further to the left... leaving the GOP in the center right.

Yup... center right. Think that many here today are the equal of Berry Goldwater?

Originally Posted by tsquare

JFK couldn't be a Democrat these days. Neither could Adlai Stevenson, or Harry Truman.

You might want to review the tenets of the Fair Deal and the New Frontier before you repeat nonsense like that. The current Democratic party is to the right of where the party was for most of the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Greenbeard

You might want to review the tenets of the Fair Deal and the New Frontier before you repeat nonsense like that. The current Democratic party is to the right of where the party was for most of the 20th century.

And you might want to study history. Truman broke the strikes of two different national unions. He was put on the ticket in 1944 the first place because even FDR was afraid of Henry Wallace was too far left.

JFK was solidly pro-life, cut taxes, ran to the right of Nixon on defense in 1960, approved the Bay of Pigs invasion, moved more troops into Vietnam, and didn't fight too hard to get civil rights passed.

And neither the Fair Deal or the New Frontier proposed a welfare state.

Originally Posted by tsquare

And you might want to study history. Truman broke the strikes of two different national unions.

And your point is what? The guy who vetoed Taft-Hartley was anti-union and thus wouldn't be a Democrat today?

Let's recall Truman's policy agenda:

The measures that Truman proposed to Congress included:

1. Major improvements in the coverage and adequacy of the unemployment compensation system.[4].
2. Substantial increases in the minimum wage, together with broader coverage.[4]
3. The maintenance and extension of price controls to keep down the cost of living in the transition to a peacetime economy.[4]
4. A pragmatic approach towards drafting legislation eliminating wartime agencies and wartime controls, taking legal difficulties into account.[4]
5. Legislation to ensure full employment.[4]
6. Legislation to make the Fair Employment Practice Committee permanent.[4]
7. The maintenance of sound industrial relations.[4]
8. The extension of the United States Employment Service to provide jobs for demobilized military personnel.[4]
9. Increased aid to farmers.[4]
10. The removal of the restrictions on eligibility for voluntary enlistment and allowing the armed forces to enlist a greater number of volunteers.[4]
11. The enactment of broad and comprehensive housing legislation.[4]
12. The establishment of a single Federal research agency.[4]
13. A major revision of the taxation system.[4]
14. The encouragement of surplus-property disposal.[4]
15. Greater levels of assistance to small businesses.[4]
16. Improvements in federal aid to war veterans.[4]
17. A major expansion of public works, conserving and building up natural resources.[4]
18. The encouragement of post-war reconstruction and settling the obligations of the Lend-Lease Act.[4]
19. The introduction of a decent pay scale for all Federal Government employees--executive, legislative, and judicial.[4]
20. The promotion of the sale of ships to remove the uncertainty regarding the disposal of America’s large surplus tonnage following the end of hostilities.[4]
21. Legislation to bring about the acquisition and retention of stock piles of materials necessary for meeting the defense needs of the nation.[4]

Many of these proposed reforms, however, were never realized due the opposition of the conservative majority in Congress. Despite these setbacks, Truman's proposals to Congress became more and more abundant over the course of his presidency, and by 1948 a legislative program that was more comprehensive came to be known as the Fair Deal.[5] In his 1949 State of the Union address to Congress on January 5, 1949, Truman stated that "Every segment of our population, and every individual, has a right to expect from his government a fair deal." Amongst the proposed measures included federal aid to education,[6] a large tax cut for low-income earners,[7] the abolition of poll taxes, an anti-lynching law, a permanent FEPC, a farm aid program, increased public housing, an immigration bill, new TVA-style public works projects, the establishment of a new Department of Welfare, the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, an increase in the minimum wage from 40 to 75 cents an hour, national health insurance, expanded Social Security coverage, and a $4 billion tax increase to reduce the national debt and finance these programs.[8]

Sure, sounds like a modern-day Republican to me.

JFK was solidly pro-life, cut taxes, ran to the right of Nixon on defense in 1960, approved the Bay of Pigs invasion, moved more troops into Vietnam, and didn't fight too hard to get civil rights passed.

This is your case for why JFK would be a Republican today? He was a Catholic hawk facing marginal tax rates in excess of 90%?

The reality is that Kennedy pushed fiscal stimulus, raised the minimum wage, strengthened the Fair Labor Standards Act, gave federal employees collective bargaining rights, made significant investments in education (from infrastructure to student loans), increased Social Security benefits, expanded AFDC, expanded school lunches, piloted the original food stamp program, pushed the original Medicare legislation, created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, pushed for a major revamp of federal housing policy and urban renewal, signed the original Clean Air Act, and so on. He believed very firmly in the positive power of government to solve collective problems and wasn't shy about using it (see his speech accepting the New York Liberal Party nomination in 1960: "I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.")

If lowering tax burdens and deploying troops makes one a Republican, then Barack Obama must be a Republican .