I don't see what's so deluded, extreme, or otherwise psychiatrically disformed by stating the obvious.

Since the dawn of states, an aristocracy has extorted value-producing people.  Since wealth was produced (that is, since man left the status of hunter-gatherer and started agriculture), "leaders" took part of that wealth for themselves, using their status of violent monopolist (when they were not the monopolist, there was war). That's how kings became rich.  That's how the classical upper classes (aristocracy) became rich: by extortion of those that produced, whether they were farmers or other value-producers.  With that, they did according to their whims: going to war, building palaces or pyramids, living in great wealth.  They had to manage this extortion of course, and that was traditionally done with violence, and with religion.  And of course, in order to get the gullible mass to cheer for them and support them, they had to do now and then something that, in the eyes and simple minds of the people, seemed to be good and necessary.
The formula has evolved over time, but is still the same.

I'm not against the state, as it would be as silly as being against gravity.  The appearance of organized extortion is unavoidable when there is wealth creation.  A state is unavoidable: if you destroy one, another will come in its place.  So better learn to live with it, and use it to your advantage.  Like with gravity.  A state is a dynamical essence in a society.  Maffia is unavoidable.  But that doesn't mean one has to cheer for it.