PROPAGANDA, THE WAY IT WORKS, THE HARM IT DOES US

16 June 1022

They say that truth is the first victim of war, and nuance the second. So from one or two starting points, we adopt a whole position which can be very black and white - they are the monsters, we are the saviours. A few words can set off many automatic reflexes that might evade our capacity to think rationally from raw facts about a subject and develop a different, even opposite to our feelings, point of view. This would be a good thing because we must see reality if we want to change it or adapt to it. It's no good accepting unthinkingly the narratives of others because if we do we risk being hung out to dry.

Some of those starting points, or triggers, may be untrue, yet if repeated often enough, they become accepted. And behind these leading ideas, each time we hear them we reinforce a whole coherent narrative with "the latest from the battle front". So we are pushed into the short term and into agreeing with ourselves, where we could re-consider in the light of new data (difficult to obtain true, new, data, granted).

For example, "this unprovoked invasion". Or "Russia is a great power", "world's second most powerful army", "atrocities", "genocide", "Russian interests", "recreate its former empire", "Russia must be de-integrated", "plucky little Ukraine"... these are all trigger words that can lead us to misread real-world events, build a tale based on the hopes of others. We become "biaised". 

This is how propaganda works. Key words trigger reflexes that inhibit thought and lead us to analyses and positions that may not correspond to reality on the ground. This is how decision-makers who need our cooperation can exert control over us. Oftentimes, these decion-makers are not acting in our interests, or "the national interest, but in their own.

Read More

POLITICAL DIRECTION OR CRISIS MANAGEMENT - WHAT FUTURE DEMOCRACY?

         17 April 2022

We are led by managers responding to crises with technical solutions that are costly and limit our freedom. Instead, what we need is what he had, politicians responding to the people with programs and policies.

For anyone following the French elections the campaigning and has been very very thorough and everyone all the candidates have had plenty of time to present their particular programs and the electorate has had a lot of time and still more to come to reach their conclusions and vote.

But it is interesting to note that the traditional moderate left and the right have faded out and all we have is extreme political views on the left and the right and then a crisis manager in the middle.

So the fundamental problem we have with democracy these days - and I mean since the the financial crisis let's say - is that the world has become a very complex place. This complexity has produced just a series of crisis and we roll from one criss to the next. If all you have is a series of crises, then all the electorate can do is pick rhe competent manager and then suffer his or her apolitical pragmatism.

The point is that democracy needs democrats, it needs potential leaders with a political philosophy and a vision of the good life, from which is derived their program and policies, and then competition at the hustings over different visions to actively create the future.

But all we have is reactive politics, crisis managers spending our money on short-term technical programs and we do not really have a choice about the quality of life and the culture that we want for us and our children. We have views about the ki d of world we want to live in, but only the elite, the oligarchs,are listened to; and the rest of humanity is flanneled and smothered in propaganda and given nonsense to believe such as The Woke or The Singularity.

Read More