Albert Jay Nock is one of the intellectuals at the root of modern American
conservatism. (Believe it or not, this sensible, conciliatory, humane man
actually deeply influenced William Buckley.) However, besides some
lip-service to individualism his vision goes unheeded in these circles
today. It's ironic, but it would seem Chomsky fans might be sympathetic to
much of what he has to say.

Below are excerpts from Nock's May 1928 _Harper's_ article "Peace by
Incantation". It can be found in its entirety at:

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~ckank/FultonsLair/013/nock/incantation.html

A Nock page, including other essays and a bibliography can be found at:

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~ckank/FultonsLair/013/nock/nock.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Under the shamanistic social organization,] First, the people do not have
to think; they merely assent. The shaman himself does not have to think;
he merely goes through certain stated motions. ...

One of our newspapers presumably well informed, says that what Messrs.
Borah, Capper, and Burton really want is general public discussion of the
policy of the United States in respect to war, not only in Congress, but
in the press and at public meetings. This statement is what has heartened
me to say my humble say about their peace plans; and I hope it is true.
Nay, I believe that it is true, provided the discussion be carried on
within the well-established limits of a strict shamanistic orthodoxy. No
doubt these gentlemen would gladly welcome, and the press gladly publish,
any discussion that did not impugn the essentials of shamanism or the
specific value and appropriateness of shamanistic practices. I am not
quite clear about their willingness to go beyond this. A liberal-minded
Eskimo tribe might welcome a free discussion of the merits of one set of
incantations over another. Even the shamans themselves might take a hand.
But if someone showed cause for the thesis that no sort of incantations
amounted to anything against a plague, and that the way really to get at
the matter was quite different -- well, one is not so sure. ...

Here at last we are brought in sight of the real trouble with our peace
plans. All our prospects for peace are permitted to hang on the works and
ways of men who serve, and who must serve, economic interests whose
furtherance does not make for peace, but on the contrary, against it. Any
major collision of those interests, any interference with them, results
inevitably in war, provided there is, or is thought to be, "something to
be got by it." ...

The establishment of permanent peace presupposes an entire revision of the
purposes and functions of political government.  More than this, it
presupposes a radical revision of our existing economic system. A pretense
for anything short of this is a mere reversion to shamanism; and our
politicians and our peace societies are simply incapable of contemplating
anything of the kind...But at all events, let those of us who dislike war,
and who are neither politicians nor propagandists, be realistic about war.
If we are unable or indisposed to examine the causes and conditions of
war, and to speak in terms of those causes and conditions, let us be
silent and leave the subject. If we can not talk sense, let us promote a
salutary surcease of nonsense.