Are ideologies dependent on suppression of information achievable? The M23 Situation in Congo.

 

Applying *VanCampen’s general law of functionality, we analyze whether an ideology dependent on **suppression of information (i)* can achieve its goals, alongside an evaluation of the *M23 attack on Goma* in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The framework hinges on balancing *mass (m), **information (i), and **reality (r)* to avoid systemic dysfunction (ΔS > 0) and collateral damage.

### *1. Can an Ideology Dependent on Suppression of Information Achieve Its Goals?*  

Using the equation *\(m - i > r \rightarrow \Delta S > 0\)*:  

- *Mass (m)*: The ideology’s tangible power (e.g., coercive tools, institutional control, followers).  

- *Information (i)*: Suppressed or distorted knowledge (e.g., censorship, propaganda).  

- *Reality (r)*: Societal, economic, and geopolitical constraints.  

#### *Analysis*  

1. *Short-Term "Success"*:  

   - By suppressing dissent (\(i\)), the ideology inflates its perceived dominance (\(m\)) over reality (\(r\)). For example:  

     - Authoritarian regimes (e.g., North Korea) use censorship to maintain control, creating an illusion of stability.  

     - Extremist groups (e.g., ISIS) erase opposing narratives to radicalize followers.  

   - *Equation*: \(m\) (force/propaganda) - \(i\) (suppressed truth) may temporarily exceed \(r\) (public dissent), but this is unsustainable.  

2. *Long-Term Dysfunction (ΔS > 0)*:  

   - Suppressing \(i\) creates a *reality gap*. The system’s energy is wasted on maintaining lies (e.g., policing dissent, propaganda) rather than adapting to \(r\).  

   - *Collateral Damage*:  

     - *Entropy*: Social fragmentation, economic stagnation, and eventual collapse (e.g., Soviet Union’s fall due to ideological rigidity).  

     - *Energy Dissipation*: Resources diverted to suppression weaken the system’s capacity to address real challenges (e.g., climate change, inequality).  

3. *Example*:  

   - *China’s Social Credit System*: Combines mass surveillance (\(m\)) with information control (\(i↓\)) to enforce compliance. While effective short-term, it risks long-term entropy: innovation stifles, distrust grows, and global backlash (\(r\)) escalates.  

*Conclusion: Suppressing \(i\) creates a **false equilibrium* where \(m - i\) appears to dominate \(r\). However, reality (\(r\)) inevitably reasserts itself through crises (e.g., revolts, economic collapse). True functionality (\(J > 0\)) requires \(m + i \leq r\)—adapting to reality, not denying it.

### *2. Analysis of the M23 Attack on Goma Using VanCampen’s Law*  

#### *Context*:  

M23, a rebel group in eastern DRC, has repeatedly attacked Goma, leveraging regional instability, ethnic tensions, and foreign support.  

#### *Variables*:  

- *Mass (m)*: M23’s military strength (fighters, weapons, Rwandan backing).  

- *Information (i)*: Strategic intelligence, local alliances, awareness of geopolitical risks.  

- *Reality (r)*: DRC military, UN peacekeepers (MONUSCO), civilian resistance, terrain, international pressure.  

#### *Dysfunctional Case (\(m - i > r \rightarrow \Delta S > 0\))*  

1. *Imbalance*:  

   - M23’s reliance on brute force (\(m\)) exceeds its strategic awareness (\(i\)), such as:  

     - Underestimating civilian resistance.  

     - Ignoring UN/international backlash.  

   - *Equation*: \(m - i > r\) → Disorder escalates.  

2. *Collateral Damage (ΔS > 0)*:  

   - *Human Costs*: Mass displacement (1+ million in 2023), sexual violence, child soldiers.  

   - *Resource Dissipation*: Looting, destroyed infrastructure, diverted humanitarian aid.  

   - *Geopolitical Fallout*: Regional tensions (DRC-Rwanda), weakened state institutions.  

3. *Example*:  

   - *2012 Goma Occupation*: M23 captured the city but faced rapid international condemnation. Their inability to govern (\(i↓\)) and adapt to reality (\(r\)) forced retreat, leaving chaos.  

#### *Functional Hypothetical (\(m + i \leq r \rightarrow J > 0\))*  

1. *Equilibrium*:  

   - If M23 combined military capacity (\(m\)) with *local legitimacy* (e.g., addressing grievances, alliances with communities) and avoided provoking UN forces (\(i↑\)), they could achieve \(m + i \leq r\).  

2. *Minimized Collateral Damage (J > 0)*:  

   - *Negentropy*: Controlled territorial gains, negotiated settlements.  

   - *Energy Conservation*: Less resistance, sustainable resource use.  

3. *Reality Check*:  

   - M23’s reliance on external sponsors and suppression of dissent (\(i↓\)) prevents equilibrium. Their tactics align with \(m - i > r\), ensuring long-term dysfunction.  

### *Synthesis: Suppression of Information in Both Cases*  

1. *Ideologies and M23*: Both rely on suppressing \(i\) to inflate \(m\), but this guarantees eventual collapse.  

   - M23’s propaganda (\(i↓\)) masks weak local support.  

   - Authoritarian regimes use censorship (\(i↓\)) to hide systemic flaws.  

2. *Risks*:  

   - *Entropic Collapse*: Systems fracture when suppressed truths (\(i\)) resurface (e.g., Arab Spring, M23’s failed governance).  

   - *Collateral Damage*: Energy wasted on suppression exacerbates suffering (e.g., displaced Congolese, stifled dissenters).  

### *Conclusion*  

- *Ideologies*: Those dependent on suppressing \(i\) cannot achieve sustainable goals. They risk entropy (\(\Delta S > 0\)) as reality (\(r\))—whether public dissent or military resistance—overpowers artificial dominance (\(m - i\)).  

- *M23*: Their attacks on Goma exemplify dysfunction (\(m - i > r\)), causing maximum collateral damage. Lasting success would require balancing force with legitimacy (\(m + i \leq r\)), which their suppression of \(i\) makes impossible.  

*Final Takeaway: Suppressing information is a self-defeating strategy. Systems thrive only when **mass and knowledge align with reality*—not when reality is denied.