The Control of Information.
How the rich and powerful shape the media and control your mind. By Dr. Judith Brown
The Trump divide – a personal story.
“…the human reality-processing system is vulnerable to exploitation in that it is driven powerfully by emotion. Unless human beings are particularly motivated to be accurate, emotion tends to unconsciously direct our thinking much of the time, such that we accept versions of reality that “feel” true. So pervasive is this tendency that one scholar of cognition has described reason as a “gun for hire” in service of emotion.” Lissa Johnson, Clinical Psychologist, 2019.
Divide and rule.
The Cambridge Dictionary describes ‘divide and rule’ as a way of keeping yourself in a position of power by causing disagreements among people so that they are unable to oppose you. There are two definite camps when discussing the US President Donald Trump. The thought has crossed my mind – does this make people rise against each other, rather than rising against the authoritarian practices that truly need universal action?
What I think about Trump.
There is something unusual about President Donald Trump. People either seem to love him, or hate him. Those who hold a different view are often despised and smeared by those who do not think the same way. It seems that very few have an open mind – they rarely judge Trump unemotionally by evaluating his merits and mistakes, but they also deal with his critics or supporters in the same irrational manner. Instead of reacting logically, I see otherwise sensible people defending and excusing some of the inexcusably contentious actions that Trump has taken, or manipulating any positive things that Trump has done in order to make them appear banal or even evil.
I don’t have a high opinion of politicians or country leaders in general. Trump, just like Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden is a filthy rich politician with friends amongst the immensely wealthy – those that decide policy. I don’t think Trump is any worse than the others, and had I been American, I might have voted for him – whilst holding my nose - for specific reasons. Firstly, I feared his political opponents more than I feared him, and secondly, I liked his stance on censorship, which is an area that I have been researching, and feeling concern about, since 2001. Although it wasn’t a game changer because I’m not American, I also liked Trump’s stance on American sovereignty and the refusal to give this away to the WHO.
I try to judge politicians without emotion, but it is difficult. I hate Blair especially because I voted for him, and in my view, he let me and my country down. He participated in the sanctions regime in Iraq that caused the death of 500,000 children under five, and he then created a fictional story that drew our country into the terrible and illegal Iraqi war. He also drew ‘my’ Labour Party back under the control of the Zionist lobby. I hated Obama because I was in Yemen when he was elected. I saw the joy on the faces of Yemenis at that time because of his victory in the polls, only to see him sending bombs via Saudi Arabia that destroyed the fabric of that country. I had come to hold dear the Yemeni people – tolerant, kind, and immensely welcoming; it was something that they didn’t deserve. Obama also used predator drones for assassination purposes, started seven wars, facilitated the 2014 coup in Ukraine that overthrew an elected government, did nothing for minorities in America, and didn’t release the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, as he promised. As an addition and linked to my censorship concerns, he was in power when with the cooperation of Kier Starmer, then Director of Public Prosecution, Julian Assange was illegally detained and tortured in a UK prison. His crime as accurate journalism.
So, emotion plays a part in my own judgements. As for Trump, for me, the jury is still out. I’m still trying to work things out, and that, it appears, makes me the enemy of both pro and anti-Trump advocates.
My own politics.
I was born into an underclass family immediately after World War Two. My childhood family life was unhappy, violent, and beset with many problems. I ran away from home on my fifteenth birthday, leaving school and my unhappy life behind. It was easier in those days for those who ran away at a young age to survive, as many jobs offered accommodation to their employees. I worked in a hospital and lived in the nurses’ hostel, eventually becoming a registered nurse.
I married, had children, and started a business. Finally, at the age of fifty, with the blessings of my amazing family, I worked overseas as an aid worker in Africa and the Middle East. It was an extraordinary experience and I feel myself to be very lucky.
Throughout this time, I was a socialist because I believed in a fair society, with equity in law, and opportunity. I am strongly against war; in 1982 I was the only person in my last job, in the NHS, to oppose the British action in the Falklands war. Peace negotiations are far better than war, and I also viewed the Falklands as a remnant of British colonisation. I believe that some things are better if they are collectively organised – things like education, health, and transport, and these should be under local democratic control. I think that the things that God provides should be free for every citizen, such as clean water and clean air.
I am not against business, nor profit, but I think that when society allows a small number of people to become so wealthy that a handful of people own nearly half of the wealth in the world, then something is very wrong. I also believe employers should offer fair pay for male and female employees, and safe working conditions, even if it reduces profit.
I stopped voting for Labour when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. I joined the Labour party again when Jeremy Corbyn was leader and campaigned for him, but Corbyn was weak - he appeased those who were trying to destroy him, but threw his true supporters under a bus. I left the party when Kier Starmer was voted as leader. Blair and Starmer are simply not socialists.
My interest in censorship.
When I worked in South Lebanon and Yemen, I fell in love with those places and the people who lived there. I was not expecting to like Arabs; I had a positive view of Israel before I lived under Israeli occupation and saw for myself the suffering it caused. I saw the new graves at Qana in South Lebanon and heard how Boutros Boutros Ghali was told he would never get a second term as Secretary-General of the United Nations if the story got out. It did, and he didn’t get a second term. I saw Israeli warplanes fly overhead, and heard distant bombs fall. I met a British doctor who had been in the Sabra and Chatila camp on the night that the inhabitants were massacred by the Phalange with Israeli assistance. I saw the look of horror on the face of a Palestinian friend when she heard a drone overhead. I met a Lebanese woman who had seen her young son beheaded in front of her after an Israeli bomb blast. I lived in a Palestinian camp where I was treated with courtesy, generosity and kindness – by everyone. I met the old men who still had their house keys and deeds from the houses they had left in Palestine.
All of this made me look for reasons for the differences I could see with my own eyes, compared to the picture I had expected to see, drawn on reports I had heard from the British media and politicians. I read good books about the Middle East conflict, many written by Jews, and talked to peace keeping soldiers and aid workers who had been in Lebanon for some time. I returned to the UK thinking I had been deceived by the media and politicians.
My next job took me to Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. Amazing, beautiful, awesome, whatever words you think to describe this place they are inadequate. I lived close to the Old City, one of the longest continually inhabited cities in the world, where I always felt safe and at peace with the world around me.
Yemen had been punished horribly for voting the wrong way in the run up to the Iraqi war. It had the misfortune to be on the UN Security Council, and took the stand that the invasion of Kuwait was an Arab issue and should be dealt with by the Arab world. As they voted the wrong way in American eyes, all aid was stopped. Yemenis working outside Yemen were returned to the Yemeni coast to live in appalling circumstances in a returnees’ camp. The new industry of tourism was discouraged, with Yemenis described as hostile to Westerners. This was far from the case; the British in particular were made very welcome. In Aden, the statue of Queen Victoria remained on show, the graves of British servicemen were cared for, and the churches were in excellent condition, one even repaired after an attack during the 1994 civil war.
These differences between images of Arab people and the reality I saw with my own eyes intrigued me. I returned to the Uk and undertook a PhD to investigate why I had been deceived by the media and politicians. Following this, I volunteered with a non-profit company that investigated error and bias in the British media, and after the onset of war in Yemen, I undertook further investigation into the media coverage of that war in the UK.
Since then, I have undertaken private research into global censorship legislation, and the worldwide fact checking industry. I believe that freedom of expression is an essential pillar of democracy, and something on which other human rights depend. This censorship of expression especially on social media platforms has been more noticeable since the Covid era. No politician in any country has made any statement to protect freedom of speech, until Donald Trump entered the presidential race in America.
Reactions to my stance on Trump.
Trump is just like every other politician who has reached the top. I evaluate him according to what he has done well, and what he has not done well. I am not tempted to view him emotionally because I have no personal connection with him, as I do with Blair and Obama, for example. Some friends have expressed amazement that I do not hate Trump as much as they do. They express long lists of negative features – his annoying voice, his misogyny and racism, and his conviction as a felon. Mostly, they do not listen to any comments that are contrary to their view.
Other people – especially people in the ‘awakened’ community that I belong to - think that Trump will save the world. If any negative features are expressed, they are not concerned. When his policies that they disagree with are outlined, without evidence they offer complex reasons why he took this line – as if they can see into his mind. As I sit somewhere in between these viewpoints, I am viewed with suspicion by both ‘sides’ – I’ve been called a Trump fanatic, and a Trump denier.
Two months after his inauguration, I see some positive features of his presidency, and some very concerning issues. At the time of his inauguration, he was surrounded by those with immense wealth – the founders and heads of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Palantir, amongst many others; not a good sign, but not much different to other presidents’ inaugurations. On his first day in office Trump signed many executive orders, including one to outlaw censorship, my own interest.
Whatever people think of Trump, clearly, he intends to protect the First Amendment and return to not allowing government interference into the free speech of Americans. As part of his efficiency initiative, the Department of Government Efficiency (GOVE) closed down the US Agency for International Development (USAID). My own research has noted USAID has been a major funder of censorship activities worldwide. Whilst personally I find this a credible move by Trump, others who have a negative view of him have described this as a form of censorship. Most humanitarian aid is a soft power function and personally I am not concerned about the loss of USAID. The US government can fund worthy projects directly via other charitable sources. Other significant global censorship funders such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the German Marshall Fund (GMF) have remained untouched so far. Concerns have also been expressed that the DOGE does not work in a transparent manner and this is an area that needs future scrutiny. In terms of censorship, the speech by Trump’s vice-president at the Munich security Conference was an outstanding contribution to both freedom and to democracy.
Other positive moves from my viewpoint is Trump’s insistence on binary sex, instead of the range of genders and trans ideology appeared in recent years. This includes removing biological men from competing in female sports, again positive as male participants not only cause unfair competition to biological women but also creates risk. This move will have an impact on other countries worldwide, as sport is an international activity, and the USA is a major participant, sponsor and organiser of international sport. It may also have a wider impact through American publications and commerce worldwide.
Trump is also intending to leave the World Health Organisation (WHO); the WHO pandemic treaty takes away sovereignty from participating governments and replaces this with WHO global control. Better, safer and more democratic decisions are at a local level. Doctors should be able to offer their patients any suitable treatment, and patients should have the right to refuse any recommended treatment. The most recent funding of the WHO does not come from contributions from participating countries for general purposes, but from the powerful and immensely wealthy who have pet projects that they will push onto the world’s population.
There are also some very serious concerns about some of Trump’s policy decisions. The most shocking is that Trump seems intent in ethnically cleansing Palestinians from their homeland, pressurising third countries to accept them. Gaza will be turned into a holiday paradise for the wealthy, and Trump will also have access to the vast gas field, the East Levant Basin. So far, this is only an ambition. Apart from the immorality of such a project, it is also unambiguously illegal in international law. Trump is keen to reduce migration to USA, and it is somewhat ironic that he wishes to increase the migrant flow from overseas war zones that have been destroyed by American military weapons, to smaller, poorer countries.
Trump is also implementing a new tariff system on imported goods. The purpose is to protect American industry; Trump claims that other countries apply tariffs to American goods sold overseas. However, tariffs will inevitably cause price increases and inflation; tariffs, sanctions and embargos always hurt the most vulnerable in society. This needs careful monitoring.
Ukraine is another hot button issue. Trump has made some positive moves; previous American administrations have avoided diplomatic exchanges and meaningful negotiations for several decades. Trump has already moved to restore diplomatic relations; whatever one’s view of Trump, inevitably this will reduce the risk of war escalating, including nuclear war. However, Trump has bullied the Ukrainian president into signing away some of Ukraine’s own mineral assets, in order to pay for the weapons that USA provided to Ukraine during the war. As the 2014 Ukraine coup that overthrew the Ukrainian elected government (people had voted for neutrality and peace) was instigated by the USA, and as the USA provoked Russia into invading Ukraine in 2022, this should be an American obligation. Ukraine’s losses in this proxy war have been immense; with land, sovereignty, trade, and human costs.
Securing borders is a popular desire of Trump supporters. Causes of the recent surge in mass migration include war, unfair World Trade Organisation rules, and climate credits. Wealthy countries move subsistence farmers off their own land, in order to plant trees, so that they can continue using as much oil as they want. To stop migration flows, these issues need to be addressed, but so far, no Western politician has addressed the core reasons for migration. Those who offer assistance with crossing borders or seas are not the cause of the problem; they are merely there because there is a demand for their services. If there was fairness and justice in the world, there would be no need to have any border controls anywhere.
Many of Trump’s supporters are concerned by the poor safety profile of vaccines. The person appointed to head the health services in USA is Robert F. Kenedy Junior, a supporter of a safer vaccine programme. Many Trump supporters particularly have concerns about the mRNA Covid-19 injection. Despite this, during his first week in office Trump donated US$500 billion to the Stargate project that includes the development of mRNA technology. Trump has already met with Bill Gates, a vaccine protagonist, to discuss vaccine programmes. One American concern is the rise of chronic diseases in children and in adults, resulting in a US presidential election slogan: ‘Make America Healthy Again’ (MAHA). This will be a challenge for Kennedy due to Trump’s ambiguous position on pharmaceuticals and mRNA technology, and the American population’s addiction to unhealthy processed foods, pushed by a powerful American food lobby. Watch this space!
Lastly, a very important but not much discussed factor is the way that Trump is surrounding himself with AI corporation executives – Elon Musk, Peter Theil, and others. Trump is obviously interested in increasing technocratic control. One of his first acts as president was to invest huge monies into developing America as a technocracy; a frequently stated aim of Musk, who is now part of the Trump administration. It is also a concept included in a recent book by Theil, the head of the data mining company Palantir, who believes that government should be run as a large corporation – remember, corporate government to Mussolini was his definition of fascism. The end goal of complete technocratic control is to combine all humans with AI - turning the population into cyborgs.
This creates a much tighter and stifling authoritarian control of populations than was possible in the pre-technical era. It would certainly not be in the interest of human beings, or human rights. This is the most concerning move by Trump so far that cannot be dismissed out of hand. The issues that Trump’s people favour – relating to borders, health, climate, gender – naturally attract followers, who may inadvertently be leading us into an inescapable entrapment. We all need to be on a very watchful alert to avoid this very, very extreme danger.
Left and right.
The two ‘sides’ – pro-Trump and anti-Trump – view those who think differently with suspicion. Often terms that are merely descriptive – left, right, socialist – are not only used derogatively but are also used inaccurately just to describe those with a different viewpoint. This applies to ordinary people and policy enforcers, or governments. For example, the obvious capitalists Biden, Starmer and Boris Johnson have been hideously and hilariously called socialists. Experts who have raised concerns about the climate narrative and the nefarious activities of pharmaceutical companies have been called ‘extreme right’ – whatever their political view. The censorship programme – applied to covid, climate, gender, war and other issues – has been controlled by those who make policy. They are those with immense wealth who participate in non-democratic organisations such as the Bilderbergers and the WEF, plus the Bank of International Settlements and central banks. This is not caused by ‘the Chinese Socialist Party’ or ‘Communists’. It is capitalism on steroids!
The real division, currently, is between those who follow official narratives and those who are sceptical of everything in the media and governments. Everyone, on both sides, needs to seek for themselves accurate information, going back to original sources. Do not fall for ‘smearing’ tactics when you find a new source of information – read information from a variety of sources, those accredited by governments and fact checkers, and those that aren’t. Debate with those who hold a different view in a non-confrontational manner. Be prepared to adjust your viewpoint if you hear something new that strikes a chord.
To conclude.
We live in an unfair, unjust, undemocratic and heavily censored world. Voting will not change this, but by unifying with those you think you have nothing in common with, things might improve. Trump supporters, Trump critics, and everyone else need to understand that we are all being controlled and manipulated into being a divided society, to fight each other instead of fighting together, in the desperately needed and overdue fight for our rights. All that we have to do is say ‘no’ to things we don’t want, together. Complete non-compliance, as in Berlin and Romania, just changes things overnight.