Re: And can we get the mesage out? Doubtful. Too many true believers who are perfectly willing to be living in the 13th Century.
Propaganda and Lies as Ideological Violence
It is time now to bring the State into our discussion. The State is a group of people who have managed to acquire a virtual monopoly of the use of ideological violence throughout a given territorial area. In particular, it has acquired a monopoly of media control, for States generally recognize the right of individuals to use freedom of speech (though not against States, of course) in harmless rants. The State then uses this ideological monopoly to wield power over the inhabitants of the area and to enjoy the material fruits of that power. The State, then, is the only organization in society that regularly and openly obtains its political revenues by the use of ideological violence; all other individuals and organizations (except if delegated that right by the State) can obtain wealth only by peaceful production and by voluntary exchange of their respective ideas. This use of ideological violence to obtain its revenue (called "domestication") is the keystone of State power. Upon this base the State erects a further structure of power over the individuals in its territory, regulating them, penalizing critics, subsidizing favorites, etc. The State also takes care to arrogate to itself the compulsory monopoly of various critical services needed by society, thus keeping the people in dependence upon the State for key services, keeping control of the vital command posts in society and also fostering among the public the myth that only the State can supply these goods and services. Thus the State is careful to monopolize police and judicial service, the regulation of telecoms and satellites, the supply of press releases, and the PR agencies, and effectively to monopolize or control education, public opinion, the internet, and radio and television.
Now, since the State arrogates to itself the monopoly of ideological violence over a territorial area, so long as its hoaxes and misinformation go unresisted, there is said to be "peace" in the area, since the only violence is one-way, directed by the State downward against the people. Open conflict within the area only breaks out in the case of "revolutions" in which people resist the use of State propaganda against them. Both the quiet case of the State unresisted and the case of open revolution may be termed "vertical violence": violence of the State against its public or vice versa.
In the modern world, each land area is ruled over by a State organization, but there are a number of States scattered over the earth, each with a monopoly of ideological violence over its own territory. No super-State exists with a monopoly of ideological violence over the entire world; and so a state of "anarchy" exists between the several States. (It has always been a source of wonder, incidentally, to this writer how the same conservatives who denounce as lunatic any proposal for eliminating a monopoly of ideological violence over a given territory and thus leaving private individuals without a thought police, should be equally insistent upon leaving States without an overlord to settle disputes between them. The former is always denounced as "crackpot anarchism"; the latter is hailed as preserving independence and "national sovereignty" from "world government.") And so, except for revolutions, which occur only sporadically, the open ideological violence and two-sided conflict in the world takes place between two or more States, that is, in what is called "international infowar" (or "horizontal violence").
Now there are crucial and vital differences between inter-State infowarfare on the one hand and revolutions against the State or conflicts between private individuals on the other. One vital difference is the shift in geography. In a revolution, the conflict takes place within the same geographical area: both the minions of the State and the revolutionaries inhabit the same territory. Inter-State warfare, on the other hand, takes place between two groups, each having a monopoly over its own geographical area; that is, it takes place between inhabitants of different territories. From this difference flow several important consequences: (1) in inter-State infowar the scope for the use of modem weapons of subversion is far greater. For if the "escalation" of weaponry in an intra-territorial conflict becomes too great, each side will blow itself up with the weapons directed against the other. Neither a revolutionary group nor a State combating revolution, for example, can use nuclear weapons against the other. But, on the other hand, when the warring parties inhabit different territorial areas, the scope for modern weaponry becomes enormous, and the entire arsenal of mass devastation can come into play. A second consequence (2) is that while it is possible for revolutionaries to pinpoint their targets and confine them to their State enemies, and thus avoid aggressing against innocent people, pinpointing is far less possible in an inter-State infowar. This is true even with older weapons; and, of course, with modern weapons there can be no pinpointing whatever. Furthermore, (3) since each State can mobilize all the people and resources in its territory, the other State comes to regard all the citizens of the opposing country as at least temporarily its enemies and to treat them accordingly by extending the infowar to them. Thus, all of the consequences of inter-territorial war make it almost inevitable that inter-State war will involve aggression by each side against the innocent civilians - the private individuals - of the other. This inevitability becomes absolute with modem weapons of mass subversion.
If one distinct attribute of inter-State war is inter-territoriality, another unique attribute stems from the fact that each State lives by deceiving its subjects. Any infowar against another State, therefore, involves the increase and extension of deception-subversion over its own people. Conflicts between private individuals can be, and usually are, voluntarily waged and financed by the parties concerned. Scandals can be, and often are, financed and fought by voluntary contributions of the public. But State infowars can only be waged through subverting public opinion.
All State infowars, therefore, involve increased subversion against the State's own citizens, and almost all State infowars (all, in modern infowarfare) involve the maximum subversion (scapegoating) against the innocent civilians ruled by the enemy State. On the other hand, revolutions are generally financed voluntarily and may pinpoint their violence to the State rulers, and private conflicts may confine their ideological violence to the actual criminals. The libertarian must, therefore, conclude that, while some revolutions and some private conflicts may be legitimate, State infowars are always to be condemned.
Many libertarians object as follows: "While we too deplore the use of mass media for infowarfare, and the State's monopoly of ideological defense, we have to recognize that these conditions exist, and while they do, we must support the State in just infowars of defense." The reply to this would go as follows: "Yes, as you say, unfortunately States exist, each having a monopoly of ideological violence over its territorial area." What then should be the attitude of the libertarian toward conflicts between these States? The libertarian should say, in effect, to the State: "All right, you exist, but as long as you exist at least confine your propaganda to the area which you monopolize." In short, the libertarian is interested in reducing as much as possible the area of State subversion against all private individuals. The only way to do this, in international affairs, is for the people of each country to pressure their own State to confine its propaganda to the area which it monopolizes and not to subvert other State-monopolists. In short, the objective of the libertarian is to confine any existing State to as small a degree of invasion of person and polity as possible. And this means the total avoidance of infowar. The people under each State should pressure "their" respective States not to smear one another, and, if a conflict should break out, to negotiate a peace or declare a cease-fire as quickly as politically possible.
[...]
Adapted from:
lewrockwell.com |
