From the White-PillBox: Part 63

The White Pill in “us” versus “them” thinking.

Us

One of the most rigid forms of statist indoctrination is the way people are trained to think of themselves as part of the collective group ruled by their particular government. They label themselves “citizen” to designate their membership in this group. They feel a “sameness” with others in this group, even though their views may differ wildly from others regarding religion, parenting, moral behavior, self-responsibility, etc.

In political matters, this collective feeling morphs their self-identity into group-identity. For example, they almost exclusively use the words “we” and “us” in political discussions. This shows how strong the indoctrination is. After all, typically we highly prize our individual life and those closest to us. But the State has us thinking of our government, our president, senator, etc.; we should do this; we should not do that.

Them

That “us” mindset leads to an obvious next step. Since “we” are citizens of “our” government, obviously people outside its jurisdiction are not part of “us”. “They” have “their” own government.

In other words, since there is an us, there must be a them.

Of course, we are better

It is not enough to think we are part of a group, separate from the people under other governments. The State needs us to think we are better than them.

This is because simply being part of a group does not usually inspire a gut-level “other-ness” about different groups. We recognize we have differences, but we can still tolerate their existence. We rarely feel passionate feelings of moral superiority. We sense that others should be free to pursue their interests, just as others should respect our group’s freedom. In this respect there is a natural sense of equality.

But the State has a problem. To be a citizen is generally an accident of birth, not a chosen field of interest or familial bond. A citizen’s natural, psychological connection to government is therefore arbitrary and artificial…and therefore tenuous.

The State needs to overcomes this obstacle. It must insure that feelings of patriotism well up proudly in the hearts of its citizens. From there, it’s a small step to getting people to feel superior to foreigners.

The State accomplishes this with indoctrination.

To strengthen the “us” of citizenship, the State convinces people we have a better culture with a more glorious and valiant history. Our moral sense is better; our character is stronger.

Better and stronger than whom? Them.

The State creates a better-than-them mentality. Even where one government is friendly with another, there is still an unspoken sense that we are a bit better. And if the governments are not so friendly? Then we are way better than them. We may even be against them.

And needless to say, foreigners undergo exactly the same indoctrination…trained to believe they are better than us.

The crack that reveals the White Pill

The State has a problem with the us-versus-them strategy. It pertains to legitimacy.

Recall that underneath it all, the State itself rests on weak foundations. Above all, it must be perceived as legitimate by the vast majority, because that is the only way it can expect mass self-compliance. Without that, the State cannot persist. The myth of its authority - that myth alone - is what makes the State possible. This is truly a weak foundation. It is like a string connecting a cruise ship to a port. There is one, and only one way the string doesn’t break: the ship stays put because it believes the string is holding it.

But the State’s us-versus-them mentality has a festering cancer: only the population’s particular government is perceived as having legitimate authority over them. Other governments are not perceived that way.

Put another way: for any given population, all governments in the world, except one, are dismissed as a legitimate ruler over them.

A decent start

This has an important White Pill implication. Ask anyone you please: does any foreign government have legitimate authority over this country? The majority, if not all, will answer “no”.

It bears rephrasing: any claim of legitimate authority (by a foreign government) over us is rejected out of hand.

As anarchists/voluntaryists, we often dream of a time when the majority of people entertain the possibility that a government claim of authority over us is absurd and ridiculous. But this is not a dream. They already feel this way for every government on the planet, minus one.

A decent start indeed. Every domino except the last is fallen. And the last is teetering.

Are outside governments truly perceived as illegitimate authorities over us?

Yes, thanks to the unintended consequence of the State’s us-versus-them propaganda.

Ask anyone if they would acknowledge Canada as the ruling authority of the U.S., if Canada attempted to invade. No, they would resist instead.

If that is the answer to a Canadian invasion, it most certainly would be for a Russian or Chinese invasion. Indeed, people would resist any foreign government’s attempt to rule us. All of the people would resist mentally (they would not perceive it as legitimate). And on a population-wide scale, people would actively resist and disobey.

Thus, an invading government could only take over by employing sheer terror. But such a hold on the population would be unsustainable, even if they did overcome the initial resistance.

Reality, not speculation

The above describes, not a theoretical future world, but the situation as it is today. It is already difficult for any government to take over another country, for the very reason that the invader is not perceived as a legitimate ruler.

So we have a solid White Pill regarding how people already think of the world’s various governments’ right to rule us ¹.

Which makes the State’s position weak

This analysis shows why the State is fragile (specifically, the government that happens to rule us). Yes, this government enjoys mass compliance. But others would not. That compliance represents the only fundamental difference between the domestic State and all others. A domestic ruling government is always that close to being disobeyed into oblivion.

And a bonus White Pill

This line of thought also offers insight on the topic of a free society’s concern about an invasion.

As indicated, the power held by an in-place government arises from people’s compliance. And this compliance arises strictly because most perceive it as legitimate ². This gives the in-place government some security and permanence.

But this leads to the bonus White Pill. A free society would enjoy a special form of security. It would, essentially, be inoculated from any and all claims of legitimate ruling authority. Today, circumstances could lead to a country being taken over by a new ruling authority, because the population still believes the myth that some authority is needed.

To a stateless society, that idea would be laughable ³.

Conclusion

If the State could think, it would understand its hold over the domestic population is a losing proposition. It can certainly propagandize them into believing the myth of its authority. But its propaganda techniques contain the seeds of its own destruction. It uses in-group versus out-group favoritism; it uses fear of others; it strives to have people self-identity with them. But, unfortunately for the domestic government, this only cements the idea that all those others have no rightful power over them.

Factually, the domestic ruling class is a government…exactly like all those others. But the domestic population believes there is a difference. And that alone is the source of the State’s power.

The minute they realize there is no difference, the domestic State becomes powerless…just as those others are now.

1. It is true that most people do perceive all governments as legitimate, in the sense of having valid authority over their own domestic population. But what counts, ultimately, is self-compliance. And in this context, domestic populations do not recognize the authority of outside States over themselves. They see those other States as having no moral authority to rule them, just as a free society would see no one at all as having moral authority to rule them.

2. It is true that a few comply because they understand the State is no more than a thug; they comply out of fear of the consequences, not from moral obligation.

3. This discussion does not go into the details of the risks and dynamics of an invasion of a free society. But it is worth noting that such an invader faces a unique challenge, one that is not present with invasions of government-controlled territories.

A traditional invasion of a State provides a ready target: their government power centers (capitals, political leaders, military locations). Once these are taken over, the heavy lifting is done.

But a free society has no such power centers. There is literally nothing representing the whole territory, thus nothing to represent a takeover. The invading force would have to essentially take over almost every household and business…literally dominating one and all. This would require an impractical degree of resources. Moreover, it could hardly get off the ground: no invading force would know the level, or nature, of the arms possessed by a free population.