The Cold War Against the Mind
Many individuals are blissfully ignorant of the brainwashing that occurs within their own societies. Because they agree with their ideology, even if it is in a superficial way of believing their way of life is proper, they regard institutions that indoctrinate individuals as having a positive social influence. Schools, prisons, and asylums teach people the proper way to live, punish them for doing or thinking otherwise, and put them back on the "right" track to be a productive and supporting member of their society. It is often disturbing who even moderately intelligent people do not seem to recognize this bias and its consequences.
(EN: This is actually quite interesting in the modern context, where many political issues are actually cultural ones - people seek the help of the state in spreading their personal beliefs, and cry foul when the state appears to be supporting a different ideology. This is most blatantly obvious when religious extremists attempt to seize control of the weapons of the state to serve their agendas.)
There's a brief reference to the Asch experiments, in which test subjects were placed in a lab with two patsies who would give the wrong answers to questions - and in which a majority of test subjects (75%) would agree with the wrong answer even when they were aware it was incorrect, doubting in their own judgment and going along with the will of the majority. Even when there is no fear of retribution or punishment, people tend to comply.
Our decisions as people are less frequently the result of sound reasoning than they are the result of taking whatever path seems easiest in the moment - and it is easier to obey someone else's orders than to think about what we want to achieve, discover the best way to achieve it, and motivate ourselves to keep to plans that no-one else will hold us responsible for completing. It is only when following the orders of others lands us in a bad situation that we resent being imposed upon.
If we are to learn to defend our mental integrity, we must examine not only the external forces that attempt to take away our liberty, but the internal compulsion we feel to give it away. Ultimately, control is about consent - and while in some instances a person who wants to control another must result to extreme and intrusive methods to break down their victims' resistance, it is very often the case that the "victim" offers no resistance at all and is even quite cooperative in his own subordination.
Public Opinion Engineering
There is already widespread acceptance of the notion that propaganda can be used to sell the public on any object or idea that someone wishes them to buy, and that the great mass of the public consist of zombies who simply do as they are told. In both commerce and politics, people believe that they are being subjected to manipulation and deceit - to the point that they doubt that anything they see is really true. (EN: This often comes with a heavy dose of narcissism - people who make such claims believe they are smart enough to recognize and resist deceit and that "other people" are stupid and gullible.)
There is some substance behind this belief: advertisers and political candidates are no longer satisfied to present the honest truth and hope it is appealing because their sales and votes depend on being appealing regardless of what the truth happens to be. Some are proactively deceitful - they mean to cheat - whereas others perceive being deceitful as necessary to compete with others who practice deception.
Many people wish to declare themselves experts in public opinion - that they know the will of the masses, and speak with the authority of all of society. But in truth, few even know what the public believe. Even those who conduct market research are seldom interested in gauging what public opinion is, and more interested in validating what they assume or wish it to be. Even objective research is tainted and flawed - and if it does not agree with preconceptions, it is often ignored.
The author concedes that in the commercial sector, there is a great deal of interest in valid research because of the free market (in terms of consumer choice) - companies that skew or ignore research to suite their preconceptions often find that their marketing campaigns are spectacular failures, and that they need to understand what consumers genuinely want in order to provide it. The psychologist working in service of the commercial sector may discover and pander to the lowest motivations of the public, but they are at least valid motivations.
But in the political sector, there remains great interest in telling the public what the public wants, regardless of what it really does want, because there is no voter input into granular decisions and day to day operations to test this assertion. The politician does what he pleases, claiming that it is what the public wants, and the public does not have the ability to object until he is up for re-election.
An in both cases, the public is very much to blame for what it gets. Consumers and voters make unreasonable demands, they want everything for nothing, and flock to whomever promises to give them the most value for the least cost - even knowing that such promises often will not be kept. Were people rational, reasonable, and realistic, then lying to them would not be effective.
We also live in an era of satisficing - people no longer demand perfection, nor expect anything particularly good, but decide to be happy with whatever they get, believing that there is no better option (or being unwilling to make the effort to obtain a better option). They accept dishonest candidates because they do not believe there is an honest candidate, choose between the lesser of two evils, and then seek to convince themselves they have made a smart choice. It is the a much easier path to lie to oneself about being happy than to work to establish the conditions that would create true happiness.
Psychological Warfare as a Weapon of Terror
When truth is misrepresented, it is either because of limitations in perception and memory or an attempt to distort the perception of others. We describe things such as they could be instead of the way they really are in order to evoke a reaction. The leader describes a possible future that is desirable in order to give people hope that will motivate them to achieve it. The terrorist describes a possible future that is undesirable in order to give people fear that will motivate them in order to avoid it.
If the leader/terrorist is successful in convincing them of the plausibility of the future state he describes, his work is half done. The other half is to convince him of the plausibility of his methods. (EN: he must also convince them that the future state is desirable/undesirable. A "so what?" reaction prevents any motivation, even if they audience agrees the outcome is plausible.)
Fear is easier to provoke in others than desire, which is why the strategy of frightening others into submission is the basis for many long-standing social institutions. Fear of supernatural forces is the basis of religion; fear of strangers is the basis of government. The promise of protection is what binds a fearful people to a leader, even when that leader is a tyrant.
It's also noted that fear is a distraction that can cause a person to ignore lesser problems. If a politician can terrify the voting public of immigrants, then he does not need to do anything about the corruption in his own government, or the poverty of his people. So long as he is protecting them from the thing they fear the most, he can get away with doing very little else to help, and will be forgiven for the harm he does.
If there is no actual threat, all the better - the fact that nothing bad happens is "proof" that the leader has been successful in protecting people from the things that threaten them. However, the leader cannot go so far as to declare victory, because people will no longer feel the need to cling to him if the cause of their fear has been eliminated: their gratitude will not last.
The Indoctrination Barrage
In a silent setting, a single voice gains attention - but in a crowd, voices blend together into a carpet of noise and it is not possible to give attention to all. This is the current state of indoctrination: people are constantly bombarded with propaganda, and cannot pay attention. If a single voice ever does manage to make itself heard above the rabble, it gets little attention. It is only temporary, and will soon be replaced by another.
It is particularly problematic that the media has become so alarmist: there seems to be a constant threat and a constant crisis, never a peaceful day. As such, people have become inured to alarmists and is skeptical of anyone who seems to want to stir them up. This makes them more difficult for manipulators to influence, but it also makes it more difficult to convince them when a real crisis really does exist.
It's also noted that politics is entirely divisive. There is not much agreement on anything, so for every "leader" who is attempting to convince people of anything, there's another who is attempting to convince them of the exact opposite. They attempt to outdo one another with volume and histrionics, but the constant escalation leads to the former situation: with everyone shouting, no-one can hear what anyone is saying, and most people have lost interest in trying to figure it out.
The Enigma of Coexistence
Coexisting with totalitarianism generally means accepting a subordinate role. The way that prisoners coexist with their jailors, or slaves with their masters, is simply to accept the situation. And this is the option that most people pursue.
Our desire to be left alone is not as strong as their desire to control us, and eventually we accept a compromise to allow a totalitarian to control us in some ways so that we may be left alone in others. When the totalitarian has all he wants, he ceases his onslaught, and coexistence is achieved.
The notion that coexistence represents a balance of interests is propaganda: in most instances, the balance favors the stronger party and is to the detriment of the weaker. It is sustainable so long as the weaker party is not deprived of the bare necessities, but this does not mean it is acceptable and it certainly does not mean the arrangement is fair.
Biologically, symbiosis is a relationship in which both creatures benefit from their coexistence. Parasitism is a relationship in which one benefits from the other. Parasitism is not beneficial to the host - it is detrimental, but it is not lethal.
Conflict is seldom a disagreement among people, but is more often a disagreement among ideologies. The people involved in political conflict are merely pawns, as their actions are not of their own choosing but dictated by the leaders of ideologically defined camps. The ideology that has the most followers does not always win, but the one that motivates its followers to go the furthest. Ten people who believe in something strongly enough to fight for it will easily overcome twenty who are not interested enough to defend against it.