A Weaponized Intellects review of Christopher Simpson’s Science of Coercion, exposing the Cold War origins of communication studies as a psychological warfare project, tracing how liberal academia became an auxiliary arm of empire, and recovering this buried history as a weapon for revolutionary struggle in the age of technofascism.
Communication as a Battlefield
Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945–1960 is not a book about media in the abstract. It is a forensic reconstruction of how a specific form of knowledge was built, financed, and operationalized to serve U.S. imperial power at a decisive historical moment. Christopher Simpson does not approach communication research as an intellectual tradition evolving through debate and discovery. He approaches it as a state project—one that took shape in the aftermath of World War II, hardened during the early Cold War, and left behind an academic discipline that still presents itself as neutral while carrying the imprint of its origins.
Simpson’s intervention begins with a refusal. He refuses the liberal assumption that communication studies emerged organically from democratic curiosity about public opinion or mass media. Instead, he situates the field inside the political crisis facing the United States after 1945. Formal colonialism was collapsing, revolutionary movements were advancing across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and mass politics at home threatened to exceed the narrow channels of acceptable participation. The problem confronting U.S. planners was not ignorance, but instability. Communication research entered the picture as a solution to that problem.
The book’s core move is archival, not rhetorical. Simpson reconstructs the field by following contracts, budgets, classified memoranda, and institutional partnerships linking universities to the military, intelligence agencies, and philanthropic foundations. What emerges from this record is not a story of accidental entanglement, but of deliberate construction. Communication research was shaped from the outset by the needs of psychological warfare—understood broadly as the management of perception, morale, and behavior in populations the United States sought to dominate, influence, or contain.
This is why Simpson treats “communication” not as a medium of mutual understanding, but as a technology of power. The questions that organized the field—how opinions form, how attitudes shift, how messages travel, how belief can be stabilized or disrupted—were not politically innocent. They were dictated by the strategic requirements of empire. Knowledge about communication mattered insofar as it could be used to anticipate resistance, fragment solidarity, and guide intervention without the constant use of overt force.
Against the mythology of neutral academia, Simpson shows that postwar U.S. social science functioned as an auxiliary branch of the national security state. Universities provided expertise, legitimacy, and cover. Scholars supplied methods and models. Foundations moved money and set priorities. Together, they produced a body of “objective” knowledge whose object was never simply understanding society, but managing it. The authority of science did not restrain power; it extended it.
What makes Science of Coercion indispensable is not simply that it exposes this history, but that it explains how forgetting it became part of the system’s success. By severing communication research from its origins in psychological warfare, the discipline could reproduce itself as benign, technical, and apolitical—even as its methods migrated into advertising, political consulting, development policy, counterinsurgency, and, eventually, digital surveillance. Simpson’s book restores the suppressed genealogy that makes those continuities visible.
This opening chapter establishes the stakes for everything that follows. If communication is a battlefield, then the study of communication is never neutral terrain. Simpson does not ask the reader to abandon research or retreat into cynicism. He demands something more difficult: that we recognize how knowledge has been organized as a weapon, and that we read the discipline itself as a historical artifact of imperial rule. From this point on, the question is no longer whether communication can be used to dominate. It is how, when, and in whose interests it was built to do so.
The Conceptual Trapdoor Called “Psychological Warfare”
Simpson begins his substantive analysis by insisting on something that most liberal scholarship avoids at all costs: taking the state at its word. Instead of treating “psychological warfare” as a rhetorical excess or a Cold War paranoia, he reconstructs how U.S. military planners formally defined and operationalized the term. What appears immediately is that psychological warfare was never synonymous with propaganda alone. It was a comprehensive doctrine that fused communication with coercion, persuasion with sabotage, messaging with violence. The boundary between words and weapons was not blurred accidentally; it was erased deliberately.
In the military documents Simpson excavates, psychological warfare is described as a coordinated effort to influence the behavior of target populations by any means necessary short of—or in preparation for—open force. Leaflets and radio broadcasts sit alongside economic pressure, covert action, and targeted terror. “White,” “black,” and “gray” propaganda are not moral categories but tactical ones, differentiated only by whether the source of the message is acknowledged, obscured, or falsified. Truth is irrelevant except insofar as it is useful. What matters is effect.
This is the conceptual trapdoor on which the entire discipline turns. Once communication is defined by its capacity to produce compliance, it is no longer a social relation between people. It becomes a tool applied to them. Meaning is stripped of its collective, historical character and reduced to stimulus and response. Audiences become targets. Culture becomes terrain. Communication research, from this moment forward, is organized around a single imperative: how to shape behavior at scale without triggering resistance.
Simpson shows that this shift was not an abstract theoretical development. It was a response to concrete political limits. The United States could not permanently occupy every territory, suppress every movement by force, or openly govern every population it sought to influence. Psychological warfare promised a way around those limits. By acting on perception rather than directly on bodies, the state could extend its reach while minimizing visible repression. Communication became the ideal instrument for an empire that needed to rule indirectly.
Crucially, the doctrine never restricted its targets to foreign enemies alone. The same texts that describe operations abroad also make clear that psychological warfare applies wherever morale, opinion, and behavior matter—which is to say everywhere. Allies, neutral populations, and domestic audiences all fall within its scope. Simpson makes no sensational claims here. He simply observes that once communication is militarized, there is no principled boundary preventing its application at home. The techniques travel inward as easily as they travel outward.
What Simpson exposes in this chapter is not just a policy choice, but an epistemological break. Communication is no longer understood as something people do together, rooted in shared experience and struggle. It is recast as a means of control exercised by experts over populations. This reduction—communication as domination rather than social relation—is the founding crime of the discipline. Everything that follows, from survey research to media effects models, presupposes this initial act of abstraction.
By grounding his analysis in doctrine rather than theory, Simpson closes off easy evasions. Psychological warfare is not a misuse of communication science; it is the condition under which that science was built. Once this is grasped, the discipline’s later claims to neutrality collapse. The field did not wander into power by mistake. It was born through a door that only opens one way.
When Liberalism Learned to Fear the Crowd
Simpson’s next move is to rewind history to the moment when the problem that psychological warfare would later claim to solve first announced itself. Long before the Cold War, long before the language of “information operations,” liberal states were already struggling with the consequences of mass politics. World War I did not invent propaganda; it exposed how fragile elite rule became once millions of ordinary people were mobilized, armed, unionized, and politicized. The war turned the population itself into a strategic factor, and for those who governed, this was less a triumph of democracy than a threat to order.
The United States’ own response to this crisis took shape through institutions like the Committee on Public Information, directed by George Creel. Simpson treats the CPI not as an embarrassing wartime excess, but as a proving ground. Here, the state learned that opinion could be mobilized systematically, that fear and patriotism could be engineered, and that consent could be organized at scale. The lesson drawn was not that propaganda was dangerous, but that it worked—and that it required professional management rather than improvisation.
Out of this experience emerged a new class of thinkers tasked with making sense of what had just happened. Figures like Walter Lippmann and Harold Lasswell did not write as reactionaries nostalgic for monarchy. They wrote as liberals confronting what they perceived as democracy’s excesses. The masses, newly enfranchised and politically active, appeared to them as volatile, emotional, and susceptible to demagoguery. Left unchecked, popular participation threatened to spill beyond the boundaries that property and empire could tolerate.
Simpson is unsparing in showing what followed from this diagnosis. Lippmann’s famous notion of the “manufacture of consent” was not a cynical aside; it was a proposed solution to the problem of mass democracy. Lasswell’s formulation—who says what, to whom, with what effect—translated that solution into an operational framework, explicitly linking persuasion to coercion and, when necessary, to violence. These were not neutral theories of communication. They were early blueprints for governing populations deemed incapable of governing themselves.
What matters for Simpson’s argument is not the personal morality of these thinkers, but the role their ideas played. They provided liberal democracy with an alibi. If the public could be guided scientifically, then elite control need not appear as domination. It could present itself as expertise. Social science emerged here not as a vehicle for popular empowerment, but as a means of disciplining mass politics while preserving the formal shell of democratic institutions.
This prehistory is essential because it shatters the myth of a democratic communication tradition later corrupted by Cold War hysteria. Simpson shows continuity, not rupture. The same fear of popular agency that animated World War I propaganda planning flowed directly into interwar theories of public opinion and later into Cold War psychological warfare. The target was always the same: the unpredictable capacity of ordinary people to act collectively in ways that threatened existing power.
By the time psychological warfare received its military name, its intellectual foundations were already in place. Liberalism had learned to speak the language of democracy while quietly constructing techniques to contain it. Communication research did not arise to deepen collective understanding; it arose to make mass politics manageable. Simpson’s excavation of this moment makes clear that the science of coercion was not an aberration of empire, but a rational response to liberalism’s own unresolved contradictions.
War as the Forge
World War II is where the tendencies traced in the previous section cease to be intellectual arguments and become permanent machinery. Simpson treats the war not as a moral turning point, but as an institutional one. Under the pressures of total war, the distance between scholar, soldier, and spy collapsed. Communication was no longer something to be theorized after the fact; it became something to be engineered in real time, under conditions where success and failure were measured in lives, territory, and political outcomes.
Social scientists were pulled directly into the apparatus of war. Agencies like the Office of War Information and the Office of Strategic Services embedded researchers inside planning structures where morale, rumor, persuasion, and perception were treated as operational variables. Scholars studied how populations responded to bombing, occupation, scarcity, and propaganda, not to understand suffering, but to anticipate behavior. Communication research functioned here as battlefield intelligence, aimed at weakening enemies and stabilizing allies.
What Simpson makes clear is that this work was not marginal. It was central to how the war was fought. Understanding belief and morale was seen as a way to shorten conflicts, fracture opposition, and manage civilian populations without resorting to constant brute force. Communication proved its worth precisely because it could operate alongside violence while remaining less visible. The bomb shattered structures; the message organized what came after.
The war also transformed the academy itself. Wartime funding created careers, reputations, and entire research programs that would not have existed otherwise. Scholars learned how to write proposals that spoke the language of national necessity. Universities learned how to administer classified projects and navigate secrecy. What began as emergency collaboration hardened into routine practice. By the time the war ended, the institutional habits were already set.
Simpson is careful not to romanticize this moment as a tragic necessity later regretted. The antifascist cause provided moral cover, but it also resolved lingering doubts about alignment with state power. Techniques developed to fight fascism were absorbed without serious reflection on how they might later be used against workers, colonized peoples, or political dissidents. The tools were retained because they worked, not because their future applications were benign.
When peace arrived, the infrastructure did not dissolve. The research teams, funding channels, and professional networks built under wartime conditions carried forward intact. The enemy shifted from Axis powers to communists, national liberation movements, and unruly publics, but the logic of intervention remained the same. What had been justified as emergency became precedent. World War II did not interrupt the trajectory of communication-as-domination; it completed its institutionalization.
In Simpson’s account, this is the decisive hinge. The fear of mass politics identified in the interwar period now had tested techniques, trained personnel, and powerful patrons. Communication research emerged from the war not as a temporary expedient, but as a standing capacity of the U.S. state. From here on, the question was no longer whether such knowledge would be used, but how deeply it would be woven into the fabric of peacetime governance.
When a Discipline Was Assembled
With the war over, the problem facing U.S. planners was not whether communication research should continue, but how to stabilize it under peacetime conditions. Simpson shows that the early 1950s were not a period of demobilization, but of consolidation. What had functioned as an emergency wartime capacity was reorganized into a permanent academic discipline. Communication research was formalized, professionalized, and endowed with legitimacy—so long as it remained useful to national security priorities.
This was the moment when communication studies acquired its institutional shape. Federal money poured in, not sporadically but systematically, underwriting departments, research centers, conferences, and graduate training programs. Academic credibility became inseparable from strategic relevance. Research that could be translated into guidance for policymakers flourished; work that could not was quietly sidelined. The field did not grow through open intellectual contestation. It grew through patronage.
Simpson maps this consolidation through a small number of key institutional nodes. At Columbia University, the Bureau of Applied Social Research, under the direction of Paul Lazarsfeld, became a model for large-scale, method-driven research explicitly oriented toward application. At Princeton, the Institute for International Social Research, led by Hadley Cantril, specialized in studying foreign populations, attitudes, and susceptibility to influence. At MIT, the Center for International Studies, associated with Ithiel de Sola Pool, bridged academic work with military and intelligence planning.
These were not marginal outfits operating on the fringes of the academy. They set the standards for what counted as rigorous research. Quantification, survey methodology, and behavioral modeling became markers of seriousness. The prestige of these centers helped define the discipline’s common sense: communication was something to be measured, predicted, and optimized. Questions of power, history, and class receded into the background, not because they were refuted, but because they were irrelevant to the field’s patrons.
Simpson is explicit about what this meant for the university as an institution. It became a research arm of empire, supplying knowledge that could circulate smoothly between classrooms, briefing rooms, and policy offices. Academic independence was not abolished; it was redefined. Scholars were free to explore problems so long as those problems aligned with the strategic concerns of the state. Intellectual autonomy survived as form, while function shifted decisively.
The social scientist, in this configuration, did not need to see themselves as a propagandist or a planner. They could understand their work as technical contribution to “understanding” communication. But Simpson shows that this self-understanding rested on a narrowing of vision. By bracketing off the political uses of their research, scholars helped normalize a discipline whose central purpose was to make populations legible and manageable under conditions of imperial competition.
By the mid-1950s, communication research no longer needed to justify itself as an emergency response to war. It had become a field with journals, departments, funding streams, and professional hierarchies. Its success lay in this normalization. What had begun as a weapon of psychological warfare now presented itself as a neutral science of information, even as its methods and assumptions continued to serve the same ends. Simpson’s account makes clear that this transformation was not a betrayal of the field’s origins, but their fulfillment.
The Priests of Neutrality
With the discipline assembled and funded, Simpson turns to the figures who gave it moral cover. What made communication research durable was not only its utility to the state, but the way its leading scholars learned to describe their own role. They did not present themselves as agents of power. They spoke instead as technicians, humanitarians, and problem-solvers—people concerned with understanding communication, not directing it. This posture of neutrality was not incidental. It was the discipline’s most effective ideological shield.
Simpson shows how leading communication researchers consistently framed their work as apolitical, even as it was designed for explicitly political ends. By emphasizing method over purpose and technique over consequence, they displaced responsibility upward and outward. Decisions belonged to policymakers; scholars merely supplied data. In this way, research that directly informed psychological warfare, counterinsurgency, and population management could be narrated as ethically detached, even benevolent.
Positivism played a decisive role here. By reducing social life to measurable variables, communication research stripped power relations of their historical and class content. Inequality became an attitude problem. Resistance became a failure of messaging. Domination disappeared behind correlations and models. Simpson is clear that this was not simply bad theory. It was theory that functioned perfectly within the needs of empire, because it naturalized hierarchy while claiming scientific objectivity.
The language of humanitarianism reinforced this effect. Communication research was often justified as a way to reduce violence, promote stability, or prevent misunderstanding. But Simpson demonstrates that these goals were defined entirely from the standpoint of those already in power. Stability meant compliance. Peace meant the absence of organized opposition. Understanding meant predicting how populations could be guided away from unacceptable forms of political action.
What emerges from Simpson’s analysis is a picture of scholars who were not coerced into collaboration, but who actively advocated for the relevance of their work to state objectives. They testified before government bodies, advised military planners, and shaped funding priorities—all while insisting that science itself remained neutral. This was not hypocrisy so much as professional common sense within a field whose survival depended on appearing above politics while serving it.
The effect of this posture was profound. By presenting themselves as neutral experts, communication scholars insulated their work from democratic scrutiny. Critics could be dismissed as ideological or unscientific. Ethical questions could be deferred indefinitely. The discipline acquired authority precisely because it refused to acknowledge its own political function. Neutrality did not restrain power; it sanctified it.
Simpson’s lesson here cuts sharply against liberal self-image. The problem was never that scholars were unwitting tools of the state. It was that they understood their role and justified it through a vocabulary that made domination appear technical rather than political. In doing so, they helped construct a field that could intervene deeply in social life while claiming innocence. These were not passive instruments of counterinsurgency. They were its ideological clergy.
Universities as Forward Bases
Once neutrality had been ritualized and the discipline secured its moral alibi, the infrastructure of collaboration could expand without friction. Simpson shows that universities did not merely advise the state from a distance; they functioned as forward bases of government power. Funding, agenda-setting, and secrecy moved through academic institutions in ways that allowed intelligence and military agencies to operate without the visibility or accountability that direct state action would have required.
The money trail is decisive. Research on communication, persuasion, and public opinion was financed by the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the State Department, often indirectly. Philanthropic foundations—most prominently the Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller foundations—served as intermediaries, translating strategic priorities into grant language acceptable within the academy. This arrangement allowed universities to maintain the appearance of independence while aligning research agendas with imperial needs. The state did not have to issue commands; it funded problems it wanted solved.
Simpson documents how secrecy became routine under this system. Classified projects existed alongside open research, sometimes within the same institutions and even the same research teams. Scholars moved between overt academic work and covert government contracts with ease. What could not be published could still be briefed. What could not be acknowledged could still be rewarded. The normalization of secrecy insulated this arrangement from public scrutiny and internal dissent.
The university’s role was not limited to producing theory. It generated operational knowledge. Opinion surveys were conducted to inform State Department lobbying campaigns. Audience research shaped overseas information programs. Behavioral studies fed into interrogation techniques and psychological pressure strategies. Simpson makes clear that this was not peripheral activity carried out by rogue units. It was embedded in respected institutions, conducted by credentialed scholars, and justified as socially responsible research.
What emerged was a new kind of public–private partnership, one that blurred the line between scholarship and statecraft. Universities provided expertise, legitimacy, and plausible deniability. Government agencies provided funding, access, and influence. Together, they created a system in which knowledge production could be mobilized for coercive ends without appearing coercive at all. Power learned how to speak in the language of research.
Simpson’s account anticipates later developments with unsettling clarity. The structures he documents are prototypes. Think tanks, policy institutes, the NGO–industrial complex, and modern “public diplomacy” initiatives all inherit this model. The university-as-forward-base becomes a template for hybrid warfare, where influence operations, development programs, and cultural exchange are woven together to manage populations without formal occupation.
The significance of this section lies in its exposure of how deeply imperial power penetrated institutions that present themselves as public goods. The university did not lose its autonomy in a dramatic confrontation. It traded it incrementally for resources, relevance, and access. By the time the arrangement was visible, it had already become normal. Simpson shows that the greatest strength of this system was not secrecy alone, but respectability. Coercion, once routed through the academy, could pass as knowledge.
Barrack and Trench Mates
By the time communication research was fully embedded in universities and government agencies, a quieter but more durable bond had already been forged: shared experience. Simpson shows that the wartime collaboration between scholars and the security state did more than produce techniques; it produced relationships. Academics who had served together in information offices, intelligence units, and planning staffs carried those ties back into peacetime institutions. Trust was not abstract. It was personal, routinized, and rewarded.
These networks mattered because they governed access. Jobs, grants, invitations, and promotions flowed along lines of familiarity established during the war. Scholars who had proven reliable under pressure were marked as safe hands. Those without the right connections—or with the wrong political reputations—found doors quietly closed. Communication research did not need formal loyalty oaths to enforce conformity. It had a professional culture shaped by shared service and mutual dependence.
Simpson situates this process inside the broader climate of Cold War repression without reducing it to paranoia or hysteria. Anti-communism functioned less as an external threat than as an internal sorting mechanism. Approaches that questioned U.S. power, foregrounded class struggle, or treated communication as a social relation rather than a control problem were increasingly labeled irresponsible or subversive. The narrowing of the field was enforced not only by fear, but by career logic. Survival favored silence.
The effect on the discipline was decisive. Alternative theories of communication—those rooted in labor struggle, colonial experience, or collective agency—were marginalized or erased. What remained were frameworks compatible with the needs of power: models that emphasized individual attitudes over social structures, persuasion over coercion, and stability over transformation. Communication research became less curious about how people organized themselves and more concerned with how they could be guided.
Simpson emphasizes that this was not simply repression imposed from above. It was internalized. Scholars learned which questions were safe to ask and which were best avoided. Departments learned how to present themselves as politically reliable. Journals learned how to police the boundaries of seriousness. The discipline disciplined itself. What could not be assimilated was pushed out, not through dramatic purges, but through professional neglect.
This is where the metaphor of “barrack and trench mates” earns its weight. Shared service created shared assumptions about the world, about enemies, and about responsibility. Those assumptions traveled invisibly through hiring committees, peer review, and funding decisions. Communication research did not simply align with the security state; it mirrored it. Hierarchy, secrecy, and command logic seeped into academic life under the cover of normal procedure.
The political result was a field increasingly incapable of hearing dissent as anything other than noise. By the late 1950s, communication research had narrowed to what power needed to know. Everything else—history, class antagonism, colonial violence—was treated as external to the discipline’s remit. Simpson shows that this narrowing was not an accident of intellectual fashion. It was the predictable outcome of a field forged in war, consolidated in fear, and sustained by loyalty networks that made critique professionally hazardous.
Exporting Control Without Occupation
Once the discipline had narrowed itself to what power needed, its application moved outward with remarkable speed. Simpson shows that psychological warfare was never conceived as a domestic specialty to be cautiously adapted abroad. It was built for export. As formal colonial rule became politically untenable, communication research offered a way to manage distant societies without the costs and risks of open occupation. Influence could travel where troops could not, or should not.
The targets were clear. Anti-colonial movements, militant labor organizations, and national liberation projects were treated not as legitimate political forces, but as problems of perception and morale. Communication research helped map belief systems, identify internal divisions, and test messages designed to fragment solidarity. Where revolution threatened to exceed elite control, psychological warfare stepped in to slow momentum, confuse alliances, and buy time for other forms of coercion to do their work.
Simpson documents how these techniques were folded into programs that presented themselves as benign or developmental. Information offices, cultural exchanges, and aid initiatives carried the same logic under softer names. Development theory became a particularly useful vehicle. By framing political struggle as a deficit of modernization, communication research helped repackage domination as assistance. Resistance could be explained away as misunderstanding. Compliance could be celebrated as progress.
What mattered was not persuasion in the abstract, but containment. Psychological warfare did not need to convince entire populations of imperial benevolence. It needed only to prevent democratic forces from “going too far.” Confusion, division, and delay were often sufficient. Simpson is careful to note that these operations did not always succeed. But even partial success—fractured movements, postponed reforms, weakened leadership—served imperial interests.
The internationalization of communication research also reshaped the discipline itself. Overseas operations generated data, case studies, and “lessons learned” that flowed back into academic centers. The Global South became a testing ground where theories of persuasion and control could be refined under real conditions. Knowledge produced through intervention returned as expertise, further entrenching the field’s orientation toward management rather than emancipation.
From the standpoint of those on the receiving end, none of this was mysterious. Simpson’s archive confirms what anti-colonial revolutionaries had long argued: development discourse and communication strategy were inseparable from counterinsurgency. The language changed, but the objective remained the same—to neutralize popular forces without granting them power. Communication research functioned here as a means of ruling at a distance, preserving imperial influence while denying responsibility for its consequences.
By following psychological warfare beyond U.S. borders, Simpson closes the loop between theory and practice. The discipline did not simply study communication; it reorganized it as an instrument of global domination. This was not an accidental misuse of knowledge. It was the realization of a project designed from the beginning to operate wherever people struggled to control their own futures.
The Victory That Did Not Look Like Victory
Simpson closes the main arc of his book by asking the only question that matters once the smoke clears: what endured? The answer is not a world obedient to U.S. messaging. It is something more durable and far more dangerous. Communication-as-domination survived its moment of overt militarization by shedding its uniform. The discipline learned how to forget where it came from, and that forgetting became its greatest achievement.
By the late 1950s and early 1960s, the language of psychological warfare had begun to recede from public view, replaced by a softer, professional vocabulary. “Influence,” “media effects,” “public opinion,” and “information” took the place of coercion and command. The methods did not disappear; they were normalized. What had once been justified as necessary for war was rebranded as common sense for governance, marketing, development, and administration.
Simpson is precise about the nature of this success. The United States did not achieve total control over populations, either at home or abroad. People resisted, adapted, and broke through imposed narratives again and again. But the discipline achieved something arguably more decisive: it captured the terms through which communication itself would be studied, taught, and understood. By defining what counted as legitimate inquiry, it disciplined intellectual life even where it failed to discipline society.
In this sense, the real victory was epistemic. Communication research succeeded in presenting its assumptions as neutral and its methods as technical, placing them beyond political contestation. Once domination could be described as “effects” and “outcomes,” responsibility dissolved. Power no longer appeared as power. It appeared as data. The problem was no longer injustice, but miscommunication.
Simpson shows how this narrowing of vision protected the discipline from reckoning with its own consequences. If communication is treated as a variable rather than a social relation, then exploitation, colonial violence, and class struggle can be bracketed as external factors. The field becomes incapable of asking why people resist, focusing instead on how resistance might be redirected or neutralized. Intellectual life adapts itself to the needs of order.
This is why the book refuses triumphalist conclusions. Psychological warfare did not produce a docile world. It produced a disciplined profession. The enduring impact of the Cold War was not universal persuasion, but the normalization of a way of thinking that treats populations as objects of management rather than subjects of history. Communication studies became one of the quiet mechanisms through which empire learned to live with its own limits.
By ending here, Simpson makes clear that the danger is not behind us. The techniques may change, the platforms may evolve, and the language may soften, but the underlying logic persists. Once knowledge itself is organized around domination, it reproduces that domination long after the original battlefield has disappeared. The legacy of psychological warfare is not a closed chapter. It is the ground on which contemporary information power stands.
This Book Is a Weapon—If You Know How to Hold It
Science of Coercion is not valuable because it tells us that propaganda exists. Everyone already knows that. Its power lies in showing how domination learned to disguise itself as knowledge, how empire stopped speaking in the language of command and began speaking in the language of expertise. Simpson’s archive reveals that the decisive terrain was never simply public opinion; it was the organization of thought itself. Once communication could be framed as a technical problem, it could be removed from politics, stripped of accountability, and handed to specialists whose loyalty ran upward by design.
This is why the book matters now. The systems Simpson dissects did not disappear when the Cold War shifted registers. They metastasized. What began as psychological warfare migrated into advertising, political consulting, development policy, and counterinsurgency doctrine. Today it lives inside platforms, algorithms, metrics, and “content moderation” regimes that claim neutrality while shaping perception at planetary scale. The difference is not intent, but reach. Silicon Valley did not invent this logic; it inherited it.
For revolutionary movements, the lesson is bracing and clarifying. The problem is not misinformation alone, nor is it simply censorship. The problem is that communication itself has been reorganized as a tool of rule. To challenge empire on the informational terrain requires more than fact-checking or alternative media ecosystems. It requires breaking with the epistemology that treats people as audiences to be influenced rather than as collective agents capable of producing meaning through struggle.
Simpson arms us by refusing academic innocence. He models a method that treats archives as battlegrounds and disciplines as political formations. His work reminds us that revolutionary theory does not emerge from clever interpretation alone, but from material excavation—following money, institutions, and power until their coherence becomes undeniable. This is not scholarship for citation counts. It is scholarship for demystification.
Within the framework of Weaponized Information, Science of Coercion occupies a foundational place. It provides the missing prehistory of contemporary technofascism: the moment when monopoly power learned to govern through data, expertise, and psychological management rather than overt terror alone. The surveillance state, the platform economy, and cognitive warfare are not deviations from liberal order. They are its logical extensions under conditions of imperial decline.
The strategic value of this book lies in the clarity it forces upon us. Empire does not merely repress; it educates. It trains intellectuals, disciplines fields, and produces common sense that makes domination feel inevitable. To fight that process requires more than counter-narratives. It requires rebuilding the capacity for collective sense-making from below—rooted in class struggle, anti-colonial resistance, and lived contradiction rather than managed perception.
Simpson does not offer a program, and that is precisely his strength. He hands us a map of how power thinks. What we do with that map is a political question, not an academic one. Science of Coercion is not a book about the past. It is a field manual for understanding the present—and a reminder that the first step in any struggle is learning to see the battlefield clearly.
Weaponized Information 
Leave a comment