You can find themes in the West that are hard to question without running the risk of receiving sharp criticism.
For the following themes, for example , there is a position considered “ correct” by Western collective opinion: “ Welfare State, ” “ climate policy, ” “ multicultural society, ” or “ covid-19 vaccination. ”
It is implied that the “ acceptable” position to each one of these themes can and should become adopted without any prior important analysis at the individual degree.
The list of these themes is not static; new ones rise to dominance in society, while others turn out to be less important over time. Recently two new themes possess emerged: “ authoritarian Russia” and “ communist China, ” which is not surprising given that Washington, and thus, by expansion. the West, has decided to treat these two nations because strategic enemies. A recent study shows, for example , that in a really short time the percentage of Americans with a negative watch of China increased significantly, from 46 percent to 67 percent. This is not the coincidence, but the result of the media communication strategy.
The Evaluate of the Antiwar Position
As far as The ussr is concerned, the “ correct” attitude to have in the West, especially since the start of the Ukraine issue on February 24, 2022, is no less than an absolute condemnation of that country. Support designed for Ukraine must be comprehensive and can receive social confirmation with a small blue and yellow-colored flag on Facebook. Absolute, wholehearted support for the economic battle waged by Western leaders against Russia is also socially required for Europeans, even though they will be the first to suffer from it.
It is for this reason the Amnesty International report associated with August 4, 2022, which confirmed that “ Ukrainian causes putting civilians at risk and violating the laws associated with war when they operate in populated areas” became the media bomb , not only in Ukraine but additionally in the Western . This report disturbs many people because it is not in line with the monochrome view of Russia like a criminal aggressor and Ukraine as an innocent victim.
The people who usually do not take the “ correct” position on the conflict in Ukraine are often accused of being “ pro-Russian, ” even when this particular stance simply consists in being objective; by considering the recent history and conduct of the various protagonists. They may be considered “ pro-Russian” because they do not express unconditional assistance for Ukraine, but more frequently, propose conditions for peacefulness. Indeed, the position of most of these critics is not at all “ pro-Russian, ” but “ pro-peace” by supporting active Western efforts to reach a ceasefire, thus sparing as many Ukrainian lives as possible.
Western media did not react when, on July fourteen, 2022, the Ukrainian government published a black list of Western politicians, academics, and active supporters and workers who, according to Kiev, “ promote Russian propaganda. ” This list includes top Western intellectuals and politicians, such as Republican Senator Rand Paul , previous Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard , military and geopolitical analyst Edward N. Luttwak, the political realist John Mearsheimer , and award-winning freelance journalist Glenn Greenwald .
Though this particular Ukrainian blacklist should obviously have been condemned in the West, it has hardly elicited any responses at all, because the Western media already agree with its bottom line: the people on the list already are criticized in their own countries for not adopting the pro-Ukrainian position. Moreover, would the particular Ukrainian government have dared to publish such a list if it had not had the prior contract of Washington?
The Formation from the Collective Opinion
What is happening in the case of the attitude toward Russia, in addition to in the other themes mentioned above, is not surprising or brand new. In his famous work, On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill is probably today best known for their prescient early warning from the dangers of the “ group opinion”; the “ tyranny of the majority” in the form of “ the dominant opinions plus feelings that society is trying to impose” on a minority.
Society’s majority is naturally intolerant of nonconformism, because thinking like everyone else gives psychological comfort and strengthens social connections. Yet, though society depends upon collective opinion for its interpersonal cohesion, paradoxically it also depends for its well-being on views that run counter for this majority opinion. Just as organic science progresses only with the sometimes tortuous but generally well intentioned process of peer review, community also needs minority opinions and dissident voices to curb the permanent look for consensus on the part of the majority.
But minority views will suffocate if there is no deeper understanding of Mill’s concept. Fortunately, this understanding is present today. To Mill’s “ collective opinion” were additional fundamental sociological concepts, like “ crowd psychology ” (Gustave The Bon, 1895), the “ political formula ” (Gaetano Mosca, 1923), “ propaganda” (Edward Bernays, 1928), the “ function of the intellectuals ” (F. The. Hayek, 1949), the “ banality of evil ” (H. Arendt, 1963), the “ manufacturing of consent ” (Chomsky and Herman, 1988), and recently the concept of “ mass formation psychosis ” (Matthias Desmet).
This accumulated knowledge in the reference above leaves no doubt about the will certainly and the ability of Western political and financial elites to form and direct group opinion through the control they exert explicitly and implicitly on the editorial boards associated with traditional media and on social media marketing platforms. The development of the views of Western majorities to the themes mentioned at the beginning of this post is largely the result of these elites” influence on Western general public opinion. The collective opinion with respect to climate change is probably the most glaring example of this influence today, considering the significant economic consequences that it will have for Western society.
Libertarianism Will be the Only Solution
Political globalization, an antiliberal process which has been underway for several decades, has the effect of aligning national political centers and thus reducing plurality. Steadily, Western political power is flowing toward supranational organizations (like the UN, the EU, the World Economic Forum). This centralization of politics power, and the resulting financial concentration of business, including concentration of press groups this has entailed enables and facilitates the formation of community opinion by the Western elites.
The political philosophy that theoretically is better placed to solve this dilemma of modern society is libertarianism, because it clearly argues for the significant and definitive reduction of political power, both nationally and internationally.
One of the strengths associated with libertarianism is precisely the importance it places on the social and intellectual plurality of the free society. This is the well-known “ marketplace of ideas” which, like the free market in goods and services, can only exist partially with the pervasive crony capitalism and massive State intervention that most Western communities are subject to today. In a free society, that is, a highly decentralized society with a weak State having at most the night watchman role, the formation of public opinion by political elites then becomes impossible.
The present moment in history represents a particular threat to independence, because the ruling globalist elites now have an unprecedented opportunity to shape the attitudes and opinions of their societies, in their own, often twisted, passions. At the same time, the new and easy gain access to by the general public to alternative analyses and independent information, can counteract this nefarious trend. In these social situations, Western voices of freedom must continue to present libertarianism, not only for its economic benefits but also as a means of publishing Western peoples from the chains of directed collective opinion.