A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic

by Laura Dodsworth

Bernays wrote: ‘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.’

Bernays created the conditions in the public and the press to reshape political reality through this cleverly crafted campaign using universities, lawyers, the media, business and government. The reason it all worked? He exploited fear and manipulated people. He believed in democracy, he just thought people were too stupid to be trusted with it and that rational argument was fruitless. He called his process the ‘engineering of consent’. Propaganda, as a heavy blunt instrument, had been used for centuries, but Bernays set out a clear scientific framework for how to engineer the consent of the public, even warning that these tools could just as easily be employed by demagogues. The key point is that Bernays saw himself as a true and liberal patriot, helping benevolent governments and organisations to overcome the irrational drives in their people to reach an altruistic goal. Modern politicians and behavioural scientists might agree with his ambition. At around the same time, in 1957, William Sargent explained in his book, Battle for the Mind, how politicians and religious leaders use ‘brainwashing’ techniques, specifically highlighting the importance of fear in causing alteration in brain function to increase suggestibility. He gave China’s Cultural Revolution as a specific example:

An alarmed populace will desire to be led to safety by its government. The more severe the emergency, the more a population will appreciate strong government. In the US, they call it ‘rallying around the flag’.

Boris Johnson said the government would put its ‘arms around every single worker’ during the epidemic. Some might welcome the embrace of the state, while others feel it as a stranglehold.

Robert Higgs, the American economic historian, said, ‘The masses can be turned around on a dime on the basis of a crisis, even a bogus crisis. The politicians will quickly come running round to exploit on a crisis.’

in a pattern he calls the ‘ratchet effect’. Effectively, nothing is so permanent as a temporary government measure.

We should remember that extremism and radicalisation are not illegal, and who gets to define them anyway? Let’s not forget that the Suffragettes were considered extremists in their time.

‘Covid has given the world an electric shock. It’s a time when measures can be introduced and there is little bandwidth for people to oppose. The extent of the changes this year is going to affect everything about being human.

On 26 March 2021, Dr Sarah Jarvis said ‘Breathing is an offensive weapon if you are infected with Covid’ on Channel 5’s Jeremy Vine on 5 show. Even allowing for a bit of dramatic licence on telly, it is impossible to imagine someone saying that pre-Covid.

How do you get your population to take heed? Scare them. Fear suppresses rational thinking and they are more likely to do what they are told.

The person who coined the term ‘nudge’, Cass Sunstein, said, ‘By knowing how people think, we can make it easier for them to choose what is best for them, their families and society.’ Isn’t it great that there are people who know what is best for you? And who can change your thinking and behaviour without you even being aware of it? Rest assured, there are many behavioural scientists and their advocates embedded and advising within the UK government, nudging you towards what is best for you.

Making no bones about it, nudge is clever people in government making sure the not-so-clever people do what they want.

They summarise that ‘an entire academic discipline can succumb to groupthink, and create a professional consensus with a strong tendency to reinforce itself, reject results that question its foundations, and dismiss dissenters as troublemakers and cranks’ and that this ‘particularly affects those fields with obvious policy implications, such as social psychology and climate science.’ The problem is, the scientists in the midst of this don’t see it.

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.

All science is inherently political, and the social sciences are thought to be particularly so. There is a natural tendency for those heading up panels to recruit those who think like them. Checks and balances are needed to make sure that panels include different academic disciplines, industry backgrounds, and political beliefs, and that group participation is structured to permit and encourage challenge and debate.

My own investigation of fear in the last year has taught me that, regrettably, we must evaluate the claims of those in power, and be sceptical of information from even our most trusted sources.

The textbook of tyrants is written in the language of coercion and cajolement. And sadly there is no mythic Happy Ever After. But you know that.