A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic by Laura Dodsworth (feel good novels .TXT) 📕

The weaponisation of fear is a particularly destabilising tactic in the behavioural psychology toolbox because it clouds our judgement, which in turn increases reliance on government, which then creates more fear, which paralyses us further, creating a self-perpetuating doom-loop. William Sargant said that successful brainwashing demands ‘the rousing of strong emotions’. Your pliability is exaggerated by your fears.

Governments understand that fear is an unarguable fact of human psychology. History shows us that they will leverage fear, supposedly in our interests, ‘for our own good’, at the same time as advancing other interests which might not suit us so well. A government that nudges does not trust the people. A government that nudges has given up on debate and transparency and opted for covert manipulation – that is something to be wary of, if not frightened.

During the Covid epidemic, the UK government threatened us with longer lockdowns or tougher restrictions if we misbehaved, and rewards such as the return of the ‘rule of six’ or garden meetings were dangled in front of us if all went well. The relationship between government and citizen was reminiscent of a strict parent and child relationship, with alternating use of the naughty step and then offering sweets for good behaviour. Citizens were not treated like adults. We were told frightening ‘bedtime stories’ every day via the news and Downing Street briefings to ensure compliance with a set of ever-changing and sometimes bizarre rules.

There is something intrinsically infantilising about nudge. The behavioural scientists sometimes let the paternalism show through the chinks with their references to locking up the biscuit tin, or comparing us to children who don’t need to be asked if we want to learn to read, as though whatever they plan for us is exactly the same as reading.

Claire Fox, Director of the Academy of Ideas, has crossed swords with the behavioural psychologists in the past and is also concerned about the impact on democracy. ‘Libertarians have argued in favour of nudge because it avoids state regulation and rules and outright coercion. Instead nudge theories are used to get the outcomes the government wants,’ she said. ‘It’s not a surprise that this government consider themselves to be libertarians and use nudge. And then the political left likes nudge because the left has also lost faith in ordinary people’s decisions. Nudge is worse than the nanny state. The nanny state tells you what it is doing, you can push back against it.’

I agreed with her. You know where you are with a clear regulation, you can debate and dispute and change it, but often we can’t detect the use of nudges. Did she think of nudge as a sneaky way to manipulate people? ‘Yes. You should be free to make decisions about your lifestyle regardless of the outcome. A scientist can tell you not to smoke because it is a killer. That is the right thing to do. They should tell you that and then walk away. You decide whether to smoke or not. But today’s public health scientists have decided how the model citizen lives and, for them, the model citizen is not drinking excessively or eating the wrong food or smoking or all kinds of things. But who agrees that that is the best way to live? The ‘Good Life’ is disputed all the time. It is humanity’s struggle to discover the Good Life.’

In Propaganda, Edward Bernays said: ‘The systematic study of mass psychology revealed the potentialities of invisible government of society by manipulation… the group has mental characteristics distinct from those of the individual, and is motivated by impulses and emotions which cannot be explained on the basis of what we know of individual psychology. So the question naturally arose: If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?’

His work built on Freud’s belief that there is a divorce between a person’s conscious thoughts and their suppressed feelings. According to Bernays, it is this which makes human beings manipulable. Governments can therefore design propaganda or psychological operations that go beneath the conscious and rational mind of the individual, targeting suppressed emotions and desires instead, making it possible to manipulate people without them being aware of the underlying motivations.

The suppressed fear of death is supremely powerful combined with the rationally imposed ideas of solidarity and conformity and protecting others. The unconscious mind is manipulable using the most morally virtuous rational reasons, rendering people pliable. And thus, ‘three weeks to flatten the curve’ morphed into living under a year of emergency laws, to hundreds of statutory instruments passed by ministerial diktat, to the proposal of a potential new medical digital ID. If you believe in democracy you must be suspicious of the use of psychology to manipulate you against your will. Nudge is anti-democratic. The use of fear is a sinister form of control.

18. HAPPY ENDINGS ARE NOT WRITTEN IN THE LANGUAGE OF COERCIVE CONTROL

The vaccine programme appears to be the Happy Ending to the Horrible Story of the Covid-19 pandemic. But I am cautious. Not because I am ‘anti-vax’, but because I have observed that this stage of the story is also being written in the language of emotional manipulation and coercive control.

Some of the vaccine messaging is optimistic, proud and forward-looking. Some is straight from the behavioural science handbook. The message ‘Impfen = Freiheit’ which translates as ‘Vaccination = Freedom’ was projected on a TV tower in Düsseldorf, Germany. Proud optimism or blatant propaganda?

The term ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is now used to describe the attitude of people who have decided not to get vaccinated. It implies a slight pathologisation, that those reluctant to have a vaccine may have some sort of mental condition, rather than be making an individual choice based on risk analysis and rational preferences. It is designed to denigrate the vaccine sceptic, to make them look