View source for A bit of telegram political philosophy

Once upon a time, I studied at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University and was fond of French postmodern philosophy. Of course, among those whom I actively read was Jean Baudrillard. The ideas of simulacra and hyperreality seemed to me very interesting and well superimposed on what I myself observed in the social and political life of Russia. The essay that made Baudrillard famous is called "There was no Gulf War." The key idea is simple: the mass media breeds simulacra of war, what exactly happens in the war itself no one knows or understands, the media field is saturated with frames that are more reminiscent of a movie or show, and not what the war actually is.

And now, more than 10 years later, I am reading a text by A. Pertsev<ref>[https://mailchi.mp/getkit.news/worldwarz why in Russia is there such support for the so-called SMO] Pertsev and Gaase</ref> about why in Russia there is such support for the so-called NWO. And this is a very curious roll call with Baudrillard. However, there are many important differences that a French philosopher accustomed to the Western way of life could hardly grasp.

1. Baudrillard considered the generation of simulacra of war as a kind of spontaneous result of socio-political and economic processes. While in reality he caught the media tool for creating virtual reality, which as a result began to be actively used by information autocracies.

2. Simulacra of war are produced not because they are well consumed by the passive majority. On the contrary, they are necessary for the majority to become passive. Informational autocracies like to produce simulacra because they are the ones who foster the passivity that allows society to be deprived of real political life. Simulacra of parties, NGOs, discussions, special military operations and even your own army. People were seated on the sofa with all their might. And on the couch, as you know, you can actively participate without doing anything.

3. Impressed by all kinds of The Generation Pi and Dog-wagging tails, we unanimously supported Baudrillard's metaphor, as if taking out of brackets that in reality, no matter how hard they try to virtualize it, real wars are going on, real people are dying, and real OMON is beating real people with truncheons protesters. The metaphor came out harmful, because in reality it is not a metaphor of reality, but a completely working tool for propaganda of informational autocracies. Moreover, the purpose of such propaganda is not to mobilize, as is customary in totalitarian regimes. The goal is to make you watch a reality show, where everything seems to be real, but still pretend.

4. If Baudrillard believed that the media has a key role in creating simulacra, then reality shows us - no, the state apparatus has the key one. And the production of these simulacra is needed primarily by the state apparatus itself. Inside the state apparatus, everyone pretends to be great politicians and managers, everyone lies to each other, everyone imitates politics, and at the same time everyone does not want real politics. And so that society does not demand it, they already use the media. Watch the new episode of our reality show White House-2.

Of course, a system where propaganda works to imitate politics and civic participation, and does not mobilize forces to achieve its goals, is not totalitarianism. This is also tyranny, but it would be better to call it nihilitarianism - the realm of deceit, simulacra and the silent majority (not my term, thank you).

[[Grigory Bazhenov]] 2022-04-13
[[ru:Немного телеграмной политфилософии]]