Proph
Member

What distinguishes propaganda from advertising, though? I mean, you could just as easily -- and validly -- say that, "Successful propaganda campaigns apply the science of advertising." (They both have an end goal to persuade the viewer, but propaganda sells ideologies instead of products or services?)

If legacy -- yet, still somehow mainstream -- media did it's job correctly, such atrocities wouldn't be so obscure. (Though, if the Eye of Sauron did happen to focus on these tragedies, slanted and biased coverage would almost ensure war to follow.) Self-defense is the only justifiable use of violence. Compartmentalization of injustice -- and legal mechanisms like sovereign immunity -- complicates rectification, but commutation becomes possible with communication. (My attempt at alliteration reads more like plagiarism from a thesaurus!) Resorting to preemptive, offensive, physical attacks automatically turns you into an aggressor, and you become no different than any other rights-infringing being. (Forgiveness is the way out, but only the victim possesses that power; no one else.) I'd never heard of Ellul, either! (Christian anarchy seems right down my alley!)

This is the crux, and what I want to emphasize. Unintended consequences from utilizing violence are the normal, not the exception. Governments aren't exempt from it, and neither are you. Neither is anyone. ("Live by the sword; die by the sword.") Live by the word; die by the word? It's funny that you mention Tienanmen Square. I think propaganda is responsible for the Mandela Effect. (Again, propaganda is not limited to the government sector; arguably, all messages are just advertising.) I might revisit this post later, when -- if! -- I have more time. (Honestly, I've never even heard of Louis Althusser. I'll have to look into him and his works.)

Wi-fi, Bluetooth, and other forms of communication have become so ubiquitous that controlling them all is impractical, if not impossible. (So have people!) I can agree with the notion that ideological domination is the foundation of physical domination; however, attempts at physical domination mean you have already lost. Really, resorting to outright violence usually isn't necessary, because people police themselves enough already via propagandized fear. (Better or worse, nothing ever lasts!)

This is the post I would like to highlight the most. And more specifically, discuss the above.

It already is that day; has always been; and will always be. Governments target the weak, like a predator. (Know your rights!)

The case I'm trying to make is that you're always living in anarchy, regardless of location. "The State" only manifests itself when enforcers are actively coercing you or others in your vicinity, otherwise you are free. (Freedom within the mind is a discussion for another time?) Ideas ebb and flow, but are never completely eradicated. The era of the internet changes this atavistic reliance on physical domination, doesn't it? "Power" in that context could be synonymous with liberty; freedom of choice; the ability to do what you want, presuming you don't hurt others of course. (The "No man is an island" bit was to emphasize voluntarism, which is more plainly spoken in that last descriptor of the previous sentence.) Don't apologize; thanks for participating!