Series: Modern Statecraft is Stagecraft

An Elite Expert Class Directing Public Perception is Democratic Reality

“The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.”

Niccolo Machiavelli

The Necessity of Narrative in a Profane World

Yes, this is an attempt at a Geopolitical Realist blog, but sometimes a general overview of basic philosophy seems necessary in order to establish a framework to ground ideas rather than simply blurting out a stream of axioms into a vacuum. So, with this disclaimer in place, lets very briefly turn to Plato and the Theory of Forms.

Plato asserted that Ideas exist in their purest form in a higher realm. Knowledge, to him, was knowledge of the eternal forms. Plato believed that long before our bodies ever existed, our souls existed and inhabited heaven, where they became directly acquainted with the forms themselves. But knowledge of the forms cannot be gained through sensory experience because the forms are not wholly present in the physical world. Thus, it is only in this higher realm that a concept or idea can exist unmolested by the degradation process that occurs in this profane realm.

If one subscribes to Plato’s perspective then this theory of Forms can offer an esoteric explanation as to the nature of the unsolvable problem of human communication. It suggests that it is a fool’s errand to seriously attempt to perfectly express an idea because among other causes, language and abstract thinking are processes of distortion that degrade essential concepts. The very fabric of human reality doesn’t allow for flawless expressions. Think of the game “telephone” as a very simple example of this concept in action. Neither language or thought can contain the fully expressable content of any idea attempting to travel from one mind to the next. It’s rather depressing to think about actually. We are bound to only express degraded forms of content, which actually rings true in the era of texting and social media.

Social Scientists on Language as a Barrier to Knowledge

Several prominent thinkers have argued that language itself can distort, degrade, or limit access to knowledge. Ferdinand de Saussure emphasized that meaning is constructed through language, warning that signs and symbols are arbitrary and can obscure intended concepts. Jacques Derrida, with his deconstruction theory, asserted that language is inherently unstable and meaning is always deferred, making absolute knowledge impossible. Michel Foucault explored how language and discourse shape power and knowledge, contending that truth itself is constructed through dominant narratives. Ludwig Wittgenstein proposed that the limits of language are the limits of our world, suggesting that many philosophical problems stem from misunderstandings of language. Noam Chomsky investigated how propaganda and language structures influence public perception, highlighting how language can function as a tool for both expression and manipulation.

The Democracy Delusion

Because of this inherent conceptual limitation, societal cohesion requires shared digestable narratives to approximate deeper truths and galvanize collective action. This necessity was central to the works of American political scientist Walter Lippmann, particularly in Public Opinion and The Phantom Public. Lippmann argued that democracy was largely an illusion—a 'phantom'—because the public, fragmented and uninformed, could not meaningfully engage with complex policy decisions. From his realist perspective, public perception must be shaped by an expert class capable of guiding mass opinion.

Lippmann’s critique extended to the nature of democratic participation, suggesting it was more symbolic than substantive. He contended that mass opinion is molded through narratives crafted by those who control the machinery of public perception. His concept of the 'bewildered herd' reflected his belief that the public could be directed into alignment with elite-driven policies. Lippmann viewed modern democracies as stage productions, where the public observes carefully curated illusions rather than participating in genuine decision-making.

Edward Bernays, the pioneer of public relations and a contemporary of Lippmann, expanded on these ideas in Propaganda and Crystallizing Public Opinion. Bernays examined how emotions, symbols, and mass media could be harnessed to influence the collective will, turning individual impulses into cohesive societal movements. His concept of public relations framed propaganda not as deception, but as an essential instrument for manufacturing consent.

Manufactured Consent

In Manufactured Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman reveal how mass media shapes public opinion to serve elite interests through a “propaganda model” built on five filters: media ownership, advertising dependence, reliance on official sources, suppression of dissent through flak, and fear-based ideological framing. This process constructs a narrow range of acceptable discourse, guiding public perception to align with power structures. Within the concept of Stagecraft is Statecraft, Chomsky’s insights expose how public opinion is engineered, with media narratives acting as the set design and dialogue of a grand geopolitical performance—one where reality is curated, and consent is manufactured rather than freely given.

Neo-Propaganda: The Age of Palaver

In The New Propaganda: The Dictatorship of Palaver in Contemporary Politics, Combs and Nimmo introduce the concept of 'New-Propaganda,' describing mass communication as a form of rhetorical play that blends poetic allure with pragmatic messaging. They argue that modern propaganda is less about deception or information-sharing and more about shaping societal behavior through emotional and symbolic appeals that charm, beguile, and captivate. In this view, all mass communication becomes propaganda, as the line between entertainment, persuasion, and education blurs into a single form of social conditioning.

Mass Formation and Psychological Control: The Insights of Mattias Desmet

Mattias Desmet, in his book The Psychology of Totalitarianism, analyzed the societal response to draconian measures during the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of mass formation psychosis. Desmet argued that large-scale societal crises create fertile ground for mass formation, where collective fear, isolation, and confusion drive populations to embrace authoritarian policies. Desmet observed that the pandemic-era restrictions were justified through intense narrative control, with dissenting voices marginalized and public discourse narrowed to align with official orthodoxy. His work highlights how mass formation, driven by isolation, anxiety, and a lack of social cohesion, can transform democratic societies into compliant, totalitarian states under the guise of safety and public health.

The Labyrinth of Modern Mass Communications

The modern age of mass communications presents an unprecedented dilemma: information is everywhere, yet individuals can become lost in a labyrinth of malformed ideas, fantastic conspiracies, and hidden agendas. The overwhelming volume of conflicting perspectives creates disorientation and destabilization within society, leaving the public more vulnerable than ever to mass manipulation. Without developing sophisticated proofing methods or appealing to trustworthy institutions capable of competently distinguishing fact from fiction, society risks descending into information chaos.

The Elite Expert Class and Radical Imposition

Additionally, for a state to govern its populace effectively, it must cultivate a unifying ethos—a vision of society's values that the majority finds acceptable. Failure to do so, as in force-feeding an elitist cosntructed “top-down” culture, invites reactionary backlash. For example, radical ideologies such as far-left neo-Liberal 'wokeism' have provoked a populist revolt in America. This miscalculation and overambitious attempt at socially engineering a globalist ethos that does not resonate naturally with the native population it is imposed upon, should have been predicted to fail. There is simply too much natural resistance to abstract ideologies when pitted against experienced realities.

The incoming reactionary populist ideology with its sharp hostility to the resented elitist agenda, could reject outright any of its principles regardless of their potential utility towards collective societal health. For example, authentic liberal values such as genuine attempts at racial sensitivity and honest acknowledments of historical social injustices in general are not antithetical to a healthy “realist” society. If collective healing is the goal and national unity the desired outcome then such social justice pursuits very well may be prudent for social cohesion in America. But, unfortunately this has not been the case with Neo-Liberalism. When these social justice pusuits are instead leveraged into political power tools against opponent political blocs and their dominant demographic groups through tactical demonization and racial scape-goating, then as recent developments have shown, they can end up sowing the seeds of their own political destruction.

Conclusion

In an era defined by information overload and narrative warfare, it becomes clear that perception is not a passive reflection of reality but a battleground where power is asserted and maintained. From Lippmann's expert-guided democracy to Bernays' manufacturing of consent, from Desmet's mass formation to the recognition of new paradigms such as New-Propaganda, the forces shaping public opinion operate largely beyond the public’s awareness. As narratives become both the tools and the terrain of modern statecraft, understanding their construction is vital for resisting manipulation and preserving intellectual autonomy.

This series will continue to examine how these dynamics influence modern governance and public consciousness, illuminating the tension between perception, power, and truth.