Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I don't know what the heads of state think. Citizens always need a predictable policy towards them. Citizens form a state for specific purposes: to protect themselves from external threats and some order within the country. Internal order is the subject of a social contract. Protection from external threats is a mandatory component for the state. There is no “right to the minds of citizens” and never has been. Citizens always think with their own minds, even when they delegate their powers to the tsar.
For the state, the monopoly on violence is critically important, if it does not exist, then the state will be torn to pieces, into several smaller states that will already have their own monopoly on violence.
And mind control, it was, is, and will be. The advent of the Internet is just another way to communicate. I would advise you to forget all these illusions about the anonymous Internet, it has never been like this. Just because you can't identify the person you're communicating with doesn't mean they can't.
they didn't lose it. Conversely. We have acquired an additional tool for shaping and manipulating public opinion. High technologies. High political technologies. However, not all states are able to use it successfully. Well, this is as usual – not everyone can immediately master a high-tech tool.�
Concerning
Then my opinion is, so to speak, its own theory in the order of general nonsense:
Initially, the basis of most states is a simple banal racket. That is, collecting tribute from the roofs of the city in exchange for protection from other roofs. The basis is violence. As the famous Ilyich said, ” the state is an apparatus of violence and coercion in the hands of the ruling class.” Initially, everything developed on the right of the strong, on violence. Later, this very violence was embellished and preened with various wrappers and wrappers to hide the essence. And it turned out over time that such deception is a wrapper hidden behind beautiful things, unpleasant but honest, much more effective than direct outright violence. Deception is more effective than violence. People want to be deceived. But they don't want to be forced. All the advantages of democracy are based on this. Which, in my opinion, is just a beautiful wrapper, a hoax. It's great to realize:
It's like we hired the authorities to serve us. We pay them for it. Yes? Now try to stop paying. Taxes. Refuse the imposed services. And immediately the wrapper falls off and violence floats out.
But a democracy is a democracy. Do they not disperse rallies there, where many people are guided by them:
They even shot rallies not so long ago. But it is more important to master minds, it is more important to influence public opinion, to shape it, and then even violence is forgiven.
For the state, that is, for the authorities, anything can be important. The problem of the government is that when it is not controlled and it is not re-elected, it begins to arbitrarily justify all possible rights for itself and expand them, which ends in totalitarianism – this is when people are deprived of their rights, cease to be people and turn into cogs in the power mechanism.
The state and the authorities are not independent living entities, they are specific people who, in our Russian conditions, for some reason considered that those who support them at their own expense (in the form of taxes) should remain silent and feed them and at the same time tolerate arbitrariness in relation to themselves. Some strange picture is obtained.�
The state, the authorities should not worry about our minds, and even more so about violence against us – they should worry about raising our standard of living and solving those problems that citizens cannot solve individually and are ready to transfer them to the state for solution.
The task of normal citizens is to limit the rights and powers of the state in every possible way, to prevent them from expanding beyond the limits established by the Constitution, to stop violations on the part of the state and to control its activities, demanding full accountability.�
This was the essence of the protest, with which citizens came to a legal rally on July 27, which the government, which got out of control, declared illegal contrary to the Constitution and arbitrarily appropriated the right to disperse this rally.