Sunday, 28 October 2018

GUEST BLOG @TomLennard Why Aren't We Worrying More About Climate Change? Action not Words


In July, Green Party candidate and academic Rupert Read declined to appear on a BBC programme. The tweet in which he justified this, read as follows: BBC Radio wanted to have me on today to debate a climate-denier in the context of the drought/heatwave. I said NO. I told them it was a disgrace that they still give climate-deniers airtime at a time like this. I won’t be part of such charades any longer. Please RT if you agree. @GreenRupertRead
Read's contention is that giving climate-deniers airtime is a ridiculous move from the BBC, when there are more important debates about climate change; it is here, and is dangerous. This impatience is echoed by other activists, but ones that will not wait for a comfortable discussion around the pros and cons of different strategies. They are unwilling to make polite appeals to our government, when it is clearly in the pocket of big business and major polluters.
On September 25th I chaired a discussion entitled “Why Aren't We Worrying More About Global Warming?”  where one of Extinction Rebellion's main activists, Roger Hallam, spoke. At this event he laid out his arguments – arguments for starting a public rebellion against the government over their climate change inaction - and then he left before the Q & A began. 
Action, he explained, not words, are important in the little time we have to do something. We should not get caught in the over-analysis of the information. He painted a picture of activism as a sacrifice of personal freedom, and the importance of rule breaking to achieve ones goals. And knowing Roger a little, I can corroborate that he lives by these ideals. Here is a link to Roger's speech https://ytcropper.com/cropped/EA5bd4dc118a72b
It is easy to view the non-violent action that Roger proposed as extreme and drastic – it is. It was only a week after the talk, on October 1st, that the IPCC released their damning report: we have only 12 years to keep climate change temperatures under control: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/08/global-warming-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report And this is to put widespread devastation and societal unrest into emotionless facts and figures.
I am no longer convinced that political parties of the Left have enough energy or gumption to turn us toward serious responses and solutions to climate change. Political cycles are short and politicians have even shorter memories. 
Roger's walk away from the discussion, and abandonment of polite convention had a very polarising affect. It generated an emotional response –  and such responses are necessary for going beyond our willingness to rationalise and normalise the impending chaos. 
Whilst the positive stories are definitely something that can keep us going in the darker moments outside activism, many people around the globe are engaged in great projects that facilitate us moving to a more ecological way of living. But these are alternatives, and not the mainstream, socio-political reality
Extinction Rebellion's method is to shock the system. They plan to do this in the coming months, starting with a big demonstration and direct action in Parliament Square, with the backing of George Monbiot https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/18/governments-no-longer-trusted-climate-change-citizens-revolt
The present moment seems terribly fragile and frightening. Even the climate change deniers seem to be keeping rather quiet. But since the IPCC report the media has returned to its regular coverage of minutiae and gossip. It is a fragile moment that we live in, but fragile moments, are ones in which the status quo is broken. How things will look from the other side of a social revolution is much harder to say. But to be climate extremist in these times is nothing but common sense.
 Tom Lennard @TomLennard
Kensal and Kilburn Better 2018 @KKBetter2018
 You can become involved in the necessary campaign to force politicians to account over climate change at Extinction Rebellion - https://risingup.org.uk/XR/
 For a recent, short analysis of the political strategy of Left Wing politics see Graham Jones'  “The Shock Doctrine of the Left” (published by Polity)

Tuesday, 21 August 2018

Edward Bernays: the invisible master manipulator of the West over last 100 years

Few people have had as profound an effect on the Western world over the last century as Edward Bernays, who died in the USA at the age of 103 in 1995. He is often referred to as the “Father of Public Relations”. 

Bernays opened the world’s first public relations office in New York in 1919. He has been the invisible master manipulator of the West over the last 100 years. 

He would not mind being called a “master manipulator”. In fact, he would be proud. Manipulating the thoughts and ideas of ordinary people, whom he often called “the masses”, was his life’s work. 

Nor would he mind being called “invisible”. He saw himself as part of an “invisible government”. 

Here is the opening paragraph of a book he wrote in 1928, called Propaganda.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” 

The invisible governors according to Bernays are “the higher strata of society - the cultivated, the learned, the expert, the intellectual.”  They would not necessarily even know each other but would control the masses,“It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

Bernays regarded rule by the invisible governors as necessary and benign. The alternative he said would be chaos and confusion. He thought the masses were really pretty stupid”, according to his daughter Ann Bernays, quoted in The Century of the Self, a BBC TV series by filmmaker Adam Curtis.

Bernays viewed the power of manipulation as going far beyond politics, “We are governed, our minds moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of”. 

For most of the twentieth century, Bernays manipulated the masses for an extraordinary array of purposes on behalf of those who could afford his services.

At the heart of Bernays’ work were two core beliefs. 

The first was the belief that the masses are too stupid and irrational, too swayed by emotion and impulse, to be trusted to make decisions. This, of course, was the same rationalisation used to justify colonialism and to deny the vote to women, poorer men and others.

After the First World War in most Western countries - after years of struggle - most adults were finally able to vote. This fact made the task of manipulating the masses and ensuring they did not take control, one of urgent and grave importance for Bernays and his clients.

It is striking to read Bernays candour about his views of the masses. Many in today’s elites may share his views but few would be so open about it.

The second core belief was that the insights of Sigmund Freud, the famous father of psychotherapy, could be used to effectively manipulate people on a mass scale.  Freud was Bernays’ uncle. In fact as Bernays’ mother was Freud’s sister and his father was the brother of Freud’s wife, Freud was Bernays’ “double uncle”. 

Bernays was particularly attracted to Freud’s view of the unconscious. Freud believed that people’s thoughts and actions are often motivated - without their being aware - by factors  in their own unconscious, which they have forgotten or repressed. One expert has described the unconscious as being “guided by instinct, by the most primitive dimensions of our essence.”  The emotions found there, according to Freud, are often aggressive, fearful, sexual or needy.

Whereas Freud used his knowledge to try and cure people, Bernays used the same knowledge to manipulate people by targeting their unconscious rather than their rational mind. 

Ann Bernays has said her father thought the masses, “might easily vote for the wrong man or want the wrong thing: so they had to be guided from above. It’s enlightened despotism in a sense. You can tap into their deepest desires or their deepest fears and use that to your own purposes.”

Most of Bernays work was for huge corporations. He was central to an extraordinary change that happened in Western economies in the twentieth century, namely the advent of consumerism. He persuaded people to become consumers, to buy not only what they needed but what they wanted, what they desired.

An early example of Bernays’ work occurred when the giant American Tobacco company  gave him the task of doubling their potential market by getting women smoking.

Bernays enlisted the help of a Freudian psychoanalyst, who suggested the cigarette was a symbol of male power. If women could see it as a symbol of their own power and independence, then they would take up smoking. Cigarettes were to be held out to women as “torches of freedom.”

Bernays organised for a number of stylish young women to take part in the Easter Sunday Parade in New York and for all to light up cigarettes at the same time on a signal from him. 

Bernays ensured nationwide coverage of the women smoking under headlines, “Torches of Freedom”. Millions of women took up smoking. 

Today, we are constantly exposed to appeals - in advertisements and elsewhere - which bypass our rational minds and target our unconscious. 

Bernays techniques are highly effective. He was shocked when he learnt that the infamous Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, used his ideas as the basis for his campaigns. Goebbels targeted the unconscious of the German people and was terrifyingly successful in creating adoration of the Fuhrer and hatred of the Jews.

In 1954 Bernays was central to overturning a democratically elected government in Guatemala. He worked for the giant United Fruit Company and his client was very unhappy with the policies of the democratically elected President Arbenz.

Although, Arbenz was neither a Communist nor had links with the Soviet Union, Bernays convinced the American public that they faced the Communist Menace in Guatemala. He was tapping into the fear in the American people’s unconscious and accomplished this through his manipulation of the US press. In the words of a New York Times reporter, reflecting later, “A hostile and ill-informed American press helped to create an emotional public opinion. This in turn worked on [government].” 

According to Larry Tye, Bernays’ biographer, “He totally understood that the coup would happen when conditions in the public and press allowed for a coup to happen and he created those conditions…Ultimately he was reshaping reality and reshaping public opinion in a way that’s undemocratic and manipulative.”

The technique used by Bernays in Guatemala - to build up an enemy and then demand its defeat - has been used on a number of occasions since 1954.

It is reported that Bernays also persuaded President Eisenhower that fear of Communism should be induced and encouraged, because by unleashing irrational fears it would make people more loyal to the USA. Some might argue that some governments exaggerate the threat of terrorism in 2018 for similar reasons.

Adam Curtis wrote that “in the 1980s, Bernays’ ideas had come of age.” This was the time when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher started the current neoliberal era in the West.

Margaret Thatcher famously once declared, “there is no such thing as society”. This was a description of the kind of society Bernays had helped create. Many individuals had come to believe that their feelings and desires were the most important thing. They had little or no care for the wider society.

In 2016, Donald Trump came to power in a campaign that was almost textbook Bernays. Trump made no real effort to appeal to voter’s rationality. He tapped into some of the most powerful and dangerous unconscious forces, such as fear and hatred.

Bernays provided the world with an effective means of mass manipulation. So that people can be made to do what others, with money and power, want them to do: be that to buy what they don’t need or elect someone who does not represent their interests or to do the bidding of powerful leaders.

Two final Bernays quotes read as if they could have been written in a dystopian novel by George Orwell.  Every day powerful people are using Bernays’ techniques. This is part of modern life. We should at the very least be more aware of what is going on. Then, perhaps, we can start to combat it.

“Universal literacy was supposed to educate the common man to control his environment…But instead of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans, with editorials, with scientific data, with the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each man’s rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others; so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints.

“Propaganda is universal and continuous; and in its sum total it is regimenting the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers.”

Sunday, 12 August 2018

Proposal for a TV programme called PM 1-to-1 to strengthen our democracy

All is not well with democracy in the UK. I propose improving it by letting a far wider range of people into the centre of the political process by means of a new  TV programme on which the prime minister of the day would meet one-to-one with representative members of the public. The "reality TV element" is likely to ensure high ratings.

Just as for centuries, ordinary people were denied the right to vote, now they are excluded from the crucial democratic business of setting the political agenda and holding power to account. These roles are restricted overwhelmingly to a privileged few in our politico-media elite who almost always share all or most of the following characteristics - well-educated, well-off, middle-aged, white, London-based. Their agenda inevitably reflects their own background and experience.

On the proposed new programme, members of the public would be given proper airtime. They can have their say without having to yell a question to the PM visiting a hospital at election time or being packaged in a vox pop or shouting down from the audience to the panel on BBC’s Question Time.

The PM would meet a genuinely representative sample of the public, “the questioners”, in a monthly live show. They would be in one-to-one conversation with each of the questioners, one after another.  

If a questioner is shy, inarticulate or angry it will be for the PM to deal with the conversation as best they can. The PM would demonstrate their own qualities such as empathy (or lack of empathy).

The programme would include all sorts of people from the whole range of our diverse population, who are not currently heard in the national political debate, such as: an 85 year old pensioner, an 18 year old single mother, a deep-sea fisherman, a paraplegic ex-soldier, a corner-shop owner or someone working hard on poverty wages and relying on a food-bank.

The proposal is rooted in the belief that everyone matters in a democracy and everyone has political concerns. It would dramatically widen the range of voices that are heard in the political debate, increase political engagement and help people escape their own information bubbles and better understand their fellow citizens.

In the same way that it is not necessary to be on Twitter to be aware of President Trump’s tweets, the programme would affect the political agenda beyond those who watch it.

Here are details of the proposal.
  1. UK would be divided into 12 areas and the programme would come from a different area each month.
  2. An independent body would select (like a jury) ten questioners per show from the area where the programme is based that month.
  3. The questioners should collectively form a representative sample from that area. The factors used to select a representative sample may, for example, include sex, income, race, age, religion and disability. The selection process must be rigorous and transparent.
  4. If someone selected does not want to take part, then someone else similar would be selected.
  5. Each questioner would have five minutes one-to-one with the PM. 
  6. There would be no chairperson and no studio audience. There would be the necessary security.
  7. The programme would go out live (with usual short delay) and there would be an edited version of highlights.
  8. An independent body would deal with any complaints or other issues
There is an obvious risk for any political leader in taking part. A questioner might launch a furious attack on them and they would be trapped for five minutes and it would all go out live. But the likely benefits for a politician should outweigh the risk and, as for the risk of a furious attack - even if the person attacking them is unlikely to be convinced, they can defend themselves and may persuade some of the watching public.

We should not fear the people, as those who denied them the vote once did. We should trust them to speak on their own behalf and to ask the questions that matter to them and to put their own issues on the agenda.

One day, a programme like this may well be seen as an essential part of any properly functioning democracy. 

If you would like to help turn this proposal into a reality, please email me on tomlondon@rocketmail.com