“Us” vs. “Them”
When the drums of the war machine are being banged, what is the overarching theme? Some would say that it is about winning, while some would say it is about defeating evil. True, but these can all be restated as being “us” vs. “them.” The State, in its ownership of informational and symbolic capital (See Pierre Bourdieu’s Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field), creates this dichotomy to win wars. After all, a less-than-united nation-State in times of war will surely lose.
The reader may be tempted to restrict war as something external. War, in its traditional and historical picture, is painted as a battle between opposing nations, with gunshots being fired and bombs being showered. Propaganda runs endlessly to discredit the other side, creating the image that “our side” is the benevolent actor. The funny thing is that both nation-States believe to an almost, if not, absolute certainty that their side is the “right side.”
Treason is a weapon used by the State to quell dissent. Conspiring against one’s own team by “helping” the opposition is considered a war crime and may be punishable by death. How funny is it that even the slightest bit of skepticism toward the war or with activities of the State is considered a crime, when it is the State that orders the showering of bombs, and would even go as far as to rape the men and women of the opposition and kill their children. Despicable.
War also manifests itself in other forms. It is short-sighted to believe that the State only wages war against other people, and never its own. The State masks its democidal tendencies in a way that makes it look benevolent to the citizenry. Oftentimes we hear the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and so forth. It sounds benevolent and acting in kind, but the true nature of the activities of the State are evil and utterly reprehensible.
Applying the pattern of traditional warfare, we see some odd and disturbing implications as to what the State is doing.
Those who are on the opposing side of the war on drugs, for example, are deemed as criminals, terrorists, or even scums of the Earth. The State’s propaganda machine is used to such an extent as to rile up the “fan base” to create the dichotomy. Once the dichotomy has been established, it will be easier for the State to target its enemies. Police brutality and militarization, arbitrary expansion of State power, and so forth are common observations. Drug users, abusers, sellers, and everyone else are at the opposing end here— including the nonviolent ones.
What about those peaceful people who are dissenting against the State? They are traitors that deserve to either be silenced or punished. All hail the great power of the State and its moral absolutism. “Traitors” are castigated, labeled, and dismissed. Some are mocked to such an extent that their truth becomes a lie, with the combined efforts of the “fan base” and State propaganda. One only needs to read George Orwell’s 1984 to understand how this goes.
In the case of the Philippines, the opposition, in any shape or form, is labeled as “dilawan” or “yellowtards.” Name-calling becomes a weapon instead of sticking to the argument. To some, this may seem petty or childish, but for the State, this is all but beneficial. The all-seeing panopticon that is the State uses this artificially created dichotomy to keep track of who are its allies. It will also use its propaganda arm to fully weed out dissenters. When the time comes, it will target those it deems as the enemy.
How does the State maintain its grip on its so-called “legitimacy” despite all these reprehensible acts of violence? In the words of Dr. Robert Higgs, in his essay entitled State Power and How It Might Be Undermined, he states that,
To maintain their grip on power, state rulers (1) bamboozle as many subjects as possible; (2) co-opt those whose cooperation or support is essential by bribing them with various sorts of payoffs; (3) intimidate those who are not essential and not fooled by threatening them with fines, imprisonment, and other punishments; and (4) kill those who are not essential, are not fooled, and will not bend to intimidation.
Propaganda is used to make the drug war look and sound “beneficial.” Using public or private funds to bribe other government officials to obey and follow orders is to showcase artificial “unity” or “bipartisanship.” Threats and other institutional means are used to make dissenters either bow down and follow along or utterly powerless and irrelevant. The final option would be to kill, by either using capital punishment or staging a crime scene. There are many ways to go about this.
The danger of giving more and more power to the State is giving it more capabilities to keep an eye on you, and when the time comes, destroy you. We cannot abolish this monstrosity overnight, but over time, continually limiting its capabilities and delegating most of its powers back to the people is the only way to contain this leviathan. Perhaps in time, we will not be needing the State anymore. That would be nice.
