not quite what i was expecting, but still interesting in its own way. the author's voice is incredibly strong and entertaining, making this an easy and entertaining read for most folk. i found it to be more opinion-based than research-based, though that does not necessarily diminish its quality.... some off citations, unbalanced comparisons, i believe/unsubstantiated claims BUT AGAIN: it's reading like a personal commentary (avoiding the word 'manifesto', here)
-----------
A few of my favorite points/ideas that spark discussion...
- bringing up early biases (family, school, church, media, etc.) -- with an emphasis on authority and conformity... submission, not challenging authoritative figures or even rules/institutions + how the school system (dubbed "compulsory education system") reinforces this behavior right under our noses. Indoctrination at this stage of development, in particular, is quite effective and normalized.
- Grades and 'regurgitating' answers for positive grades/approval (however, I disagree with the argument made about those with higher grades perpetuating the status quo/systems -- some 7 post-it notes worth of counter arguments)
- Relation between self-esteem and conspicuous consumption, connecting imagery of success/beauty/wealth/opportunity to the attainment of a product + low self-esteem = easier to coerce into conformity, less likely to go against the grain
- "Never underestimate the power of rationalization" and, girl, does this ring true + continue to surprise me every single day... cognitive dissonance/inconsistent beliefs -- people double dow even harder in the face of a challenge to their beliefs, contorting (sometimes contrary) ideas to 'fit together better', justifying themselves... "this is particularly true when a person's self-esteem is threatened" WOW! INCREDIBLE! certainly applicable. reminds me of how my mom will argue anything if it sounds like i'm lecturing her...
- I just about jumped out of my seat at the mention of dehumanization as a "preferred method of resolving that dissonance" (between being the 'good guy' with the 'just gov't' that also commits crimes against humanity/human rights violations at home and abroad)... this dehumanization allows for cruelty, deepens the rationalization trap and ppl will go further than they normally would, rationalizing racism, hate, death.
- Strong propaganda campaign
1. pre-persuasion (establish the climate, frame message)
2. source credibility (appeal to ethos)
3. focus audience (through distraction or highlighting)
4. emotions (evoke & manipulate)
- "glittering generalities": "freedom fighters" vs. "terrorists", reframing and catchy titles
- "factoid": asserting a "fact" that is not evidence-based... factoids are effective because (1) most people don't do the work to verify the truth, (2) factoids meet a psychological need... they entertain, confirm, justify... (3) factoids direct attention
- *Particularly* relevant -- drawing from Le Bon and Goebbels -- 'reduce problems to the simplest terms and keep forever repeating them despite the objections of intellectuals'... where do we see this
- fear & guilt, in particular, distract from critical analysis... relief applied post-fear primed a person to be more compliant with any following request (think of getting stopped on the street by a cop)
- Groups behave differently than individuals! Invincibility, belonging/conformity bias, group default, "crowds have lower intelligence than the individuals involved" = a gov'ts dream... an individual can 'sacrifice his personal interests to the collective' -- I wonder if size is proportional to this effect or at what point does it occur... FASCINATING... also how it operates in person v. online -- like when people get into comments and see what others say. A great point, one that is terribly important to understanding protest rhetoric and mob-like behavior in politics
- Infotainment! And other ways Hollywood perpetuates propaganda -- we're not critically thinking when we watch that cop show or military movie, but the effects can still be measured
- Not me being on level 3 (maybe even stage 5.5 or 6) of moral development 🤭
- LOVE the point out that institutions--businesses, churches, gov'ts-- are basically just groups of people, but are given authority to engage in acts illegal for individuals
- Lots of interesting connections to history & narratives I hadn't heard before
- Definition of a state as 'a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a territorial area' that 'obtains its revenue...by coercion...use of compulsion; that is, by the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet' -- saving this definition from Murray Rothbard
- I think some comments and stances were from someone who has much privilege. I recognize the arguments that freedom in anarchy and propaganda indoctrination could pose -- but at this point in time: (156ish) reads like a white man... while i dont entirely disagree (in fact, i quite agree that voting 'gives' the feeling of power and can be a distraction from other forms of political change), where i diverge is that voting doesn't matter and we flippantly switch parties depending on general sentiments. I think many people vote to survive, esp. women, BIPOC, LGBTQ+ peoples (historically), people who don't have the same stability or power in systems, where a "lost election" could greatly increase the chances of harm/death (from political machines and from the sentiment it perpetuates amongst masses). To note, i tend to argue even the smallest of nuances. i recognize the point of the argument and the general ideas, just adding some thoughts that had popped up while i was reading.
- Solid argument that we vote "hoping our candidate will win and violently enforce our point of view." i apply a rawlsian habit to most political decisions, would be interested in this comparison.
- coerced monopoly: lobbying, bribes, protectionist laws; vs. non-coerced monopolies: superior products and affordability, quality, etc.
- Would like to engage in more ideas of an alternate society (certainly get the current ills, but, as author shares, missing suggestions of what the society would look like) -- think this conversation could address the 'wouldnt a new gov't form? how would you maintain the conditions of anarchy? would you even?' + other questions like how could we be sure some ppl wouldn't sell out for future benefit/power? it's giving 'concepts of a plan'
- "The difference between positive influence and propaganda is TRUTH"... propaganda may contain some truth, but it distorts and decontextualizes
- law often equated with morality -- fascinating train that can really be seen in convos btw
- note that interviewees often introduced 'complexity when the simple argument ran counter to their worldview' LOL i wondered if that was me, how complexity can be 'used as a rationalization to resolve the cognitive dissonance created by these ideas' HOWEVER!!! i think complexity and nuance are a fact of life, the nature of reality and of these conversations. of course, i'm arguing again. what can i say. it's fun. beyond personal entertainment, is it not thinking critically? considering one's claims without willingly accepting just because it's printed?
- I really liked the interview portions, contrary to what i initially expected (that it may be a bore) -- the author's conversations were illuminating and i appreciate the empathy he demonstrates
- "if you think most of the people are bad, the last thing you want is a centralized authority that has power over everyone with huge amounts of weaponry to do whatever they want" real!
- it is here that i found myself most aligned with the author's "vision" of "utopia" (from my undergrad essay) -- 'we can never vote out', the author takes great issue with the way the gov't takes through violence -- valid!
- with propaganda & abstract thought/cultivated feelings, 'we can convince very moral people to do very immoral things', cognitive dissonance -- this will never cease to fascinate me
- Former Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman: 'the nixon campaign in 1968, and the nixon white house after that, had two enemies: the anitwar left and black people. you understand what i'm saying? we knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against hte war or black, but, by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. we could arrest those leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. did we know we were lying about the drugs? of course we did' (233) omg. need to save this.
- "a stateless society isnt a place wihtout rules, its a place without rulers" OKAY!
- qualitative interviews seem to spark a lot of arguments around taxes, the most cognitive dissonance across the board -- has been sold really well, then!
- our belief in gov't, institutions, morality, help to sell the narrative/image of the gov't that allows it to get away with crimes and otherwise immoral acts, justifying them & continuing on (278)
- Fascinating on the Milgram study (shocking because commanded)
- "most people have no idea what freedom really is.. i know this because they talk about freedom as if they already have it" AND WHY DO WE BELIEVE THIS? land of the free, home of the brave..
- "I refuse to make it easy on them... thye may have my freedom, but they will never have my respect & consent" YES! "we've all been subjected to propaganda that makes us proud of our chains" tea.