PR

Mind control is a type of “psychological technology” used by con artists, cult leaders, and influence peddlers of all stripes to try and modify human behavior, to twist it to one’s own nefarious and usually opaque ends. Books about cults and how they use forms of mind control to capture victims can help us understand this otherwise inexplicable phenomenon.

Also referred to as undue influence techniques, brainwashing, emotional abuse, or thought reform, mind control is a set of techniques designed to hack in to the brain’s cognitive quirks, biases, and numerous psychobiological “opportunities to circumvent rational and critical thought.”

Cults are a specific structure of social organization formed through the application of mind control. There are at least 2 “layers” and often many interstitial rings that draw members ever closer to a hidden agenda lurking at the center — the true purpose of the organization that most of the footsoldiers know nothing about, because they work for one of the many “friendly PR faces” tacked on to the outside of the group to disguise the malignancy within.

a cult leader illustrating the appeal of books about cults

Here’s the cult leader playbook:

  1. Position himself (and the group — his extension) as the only safe haven to turn to when afraid: “I alone can fix it!”
  2. Isolate followers from other sources of information — i.e. keep them in the Fox News/OANN/Newsmax ecosystem
  3. Arouse fear in the follower — invent invisible boogeymen everywhere! Huge caravans at the border that mysteriously disappear after elections! Evil liberals trying to do their jobs in schools and educate our youth about our history! INFLATION looms as a large spectre every time the left manages to eke out a few pennies from the cold unfeeling hands of the aristocrats!

Rinse; repeat. Stoking fear is “EZ Mode” — it means one of the parties in our two-party system can “de facto secede” from governance by just sitting on the sidelines and heckling all day, waiting for the problems and frustration to boil over so they can harness the abject anger of poor manipulated people into political weaponry, to break their lives on the wheels of history carelessly and for no higher purpose than personal greed and addiction to power, wealth, and status.

Books about cults

In the shadowy corners of society, cults have long thrived, weaving their intricate webs of influence, control, and mystique. From charismatic leaders to the vulnerable souls they ensnare, the study of cults offers a chilling glimpse into the extremes of human behavior. As we navigate an era where misinformation and manipulation are more pervasive than ever, understanding the mechanisms that drive these insular communities is not just fascinating—it’s increasingly essential. The following list of books delves into the psychology, history, and dark allure of cults, providing critical insights into the forces that can both unite and destroy.

Qualities of a cult leader

  • Narcissistic — highly self-absorbed, they demand excessive admiration and slavish devotion to their whims.
  • Charismatic — they have a way of grabbing attention, whether positive or negative.
  • Unpredictable — erratic behavior keeps enemies on their toes and fans “on edge” with desire to please Dear Leader.
  • Insatiable drive — it could be status, money, sex, power, or all of the above, but they feel they deserve it more than anyone else on the planet.
  • Lack of conscience — they have no shame and will demand things a decent human being would not.

…remind you of anyone in particular?!

Read more

The Heartland Institute is a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank that was founded in 1984. Based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, its stated mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. However, it is perhaps most widely known for its controversial stance on climate change and its efforts to question the scientific consensus on the matter.

Early years and focus areas

Initially, the Heartland Institute focused on a broad range of issues, including education reform, health care, tax policy, and environmental regulation. It positioned itself as a proponent of free-market policies, arguing that such policies lead to more efficient and effective solutions than those proposed by government intervention. Later, it would begin to pivot towards advocacy around a singular issue: climate change denialism.

Climate change and environmental policy

The Heartland Institute’s engagement with climate change began to intensify in the late 1990s and early 2000s. During this period, the Institute increasingly questioned the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change, which holds that global warming is largely driven by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

The Institute has been accused of being a key player in the campaign to spread doubt about climate change science — following the disinformation playbook first established by Big Tobacco in the 1950s to fight against public awareness of the lethal dangers of smoking. Critics argue that Heartland has worked to undermine public understanding and acceptance of global warming through various means, including:

  1. Publication of Skeptical Research and Reports: Heartland has funded and published reports and papers that challenge mainstream climate science. Notably, it has produced and promoted its own reports, such as the “NIPCC” (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) reports, which purport to review the same scientific evidence as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but often arrive at starkly different conclusions.
  2. Conferences and Workshops: The Institute has organized and hosted numerous conferences that have brought together climate change skeptics, scientists, and policymakers. These events have served as platforms for presenting and discussing views that are at odds with the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change.
  3. Public Relations and Media Campaigns: Through press releases, op-eds, and social media, the Heartland Institute has actively worked to disseminate its views on climate change to the wider public. It has also attempted to influence policymakers and educators, at times by distributing educational materials that question the consensus on global warming.

Funding and controversy

The funding sources of the Heartland Institute have been a subject of controversy. The organization has received financial support from various foundations, individuals, and corporations, including those with interests in fossil fuels — including the Koch network and the Joseph Coors Foundation. Critics argue that this funding may influence the Institute’s stance on climate change and its efforts to challenge the scientific consensus.

In 2012, the Heartland Institute faced significant backlash following the leak of internal documents that revealed details about its funding and strategy for challenging climate change science. These documents shed light on the Institute’s plans to develop a K-12 curriculum that would cast doubt on climate science, among other strategies aimed at influencing public opinion and education.

Lies, Incorporated

The Heartland Institute’s role in the climate change debate is a highly polarizing one. Proponents view it as a bastion of free speech and skepticism, vital for challenging what they (ironically) claim to see as the politicization of science. Critics, however, argue that its activities have contributed to misinformation, public confusion, and policy paralysis on one of the most pressing issues facing humanity — as well as playing a role in fomenting a broader shift towards science denialism in American culture.

By questioning the scientific consensus on climate change and promoting “alternative facts,” the Heartland Institute has played a significant role in shaping the public discourse on global warming. Its actions and the broader debate around climate science underscore the complex interplay between science, policy, and public opinion in addressing environmental challenges.

Read more

The Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC), which later became the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), plays a pivotal role in the history of the tobacco industry, particularly in its efforts to counteract emerging scientific evidence linking smoking to serious health risks.

Established in December 1953, the TIRC was a key component of the tobacco industry’s coordinated response to increasing public concern and scientific research showing the adverse health effects of smoking. In the long run, the TIRC’s strategy would become a playbook for other industries that wanted to cast doubt on established science, from acid rain to the ozone layer to climate change denial — and beyond.

cigarettes in an ashtray, by Midjourney

Formation and purpose

The formation of the TIRC was a strategic move by major American tobacco companies in response to a series of scientific studies in the early 1950s that demonstrated a link between smoking and lung cancer. This period marked a significant turning point as the public began to question the safety of smoking. In 1952, Reader’s Digest, one of the most widely read magazines at the time, published an article titled “Cancer by the Carton,” which contributed to a sharp decline in cigarette sales.

Facing a potential crisis, executives from major tobacco companies convened at the Plaza Hotel in New York City. This meeting led to the creation of the TIRC. Officially, the council aimed to promote and fund scientific research into the effects of tobacco use. However, its unstated, primary goal was to cast doubt on the growing evidence linking smoking to health problems, thereby protecting the industry’s interests.

Big Tobacco executives gather at the Plaza Hotel in New York City in 1953 to kick off the science denialism craze to deny the adverse effects of smoking on health

Activities and strategies

The TIRC, and later the CTR, engaged in several key activities aimed at controlling the narrative around smoking and health:

  1. Funding Research: It provided grants for scientific studies in various fields, ostensibly to understand better whether and how smoking posed health risks. However, this research was biased in direction and often focused on alternative explanations for the causes of diseases like lung cancer, suggesting they could be due to factors other than smoking.
  2. Public Relations Campaigns: The TIRC orchestrated extensive public relations campaigns to reassure the public of the safety of smoking. It emphasized that there was no definitive proof linking smoking to cancer, suggesting that more research was needed. This strategy effectively used scientific uncertainty to maintain public trust in tobacco products.
  3. Influencing Scientific Discourse: The TIRC/CTR often attempted to influence the scientific discourse by publishing articles and reviews that questioned the link between smoking and disease. They also organized conferences and meetings where they could promote their narrative.
  4. Legal and Regulatory Influence: The organization worked to influence legislation and regulation related to tobacco use. By casting doubt on the science linking smoking to health risks, they aimed to forestall or weaken public health measures against smoking.

Impact and legacy

The legacy of the TIRC/CTR is marked by its success in delaying public acknowledgment of the health risks of smoking. For decades, the tobacco industry managed to sow doubt about the scientific consensus, affecting public health policies and contributing to continued tobacco use worldwide. This strategy of manufacturing doubt has been emulated by other industries facing similar challenges — leading to a wider cultural practice of science denialism.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, internal documents from the tobacco industry, including those related to the TIRC/CTR, were finally made public through litigation. These documents revealed the extent to which the industry was aware of the health risks associated with smoking, and its extensive, decades-long efforts to conceal this knowledge from the public.

Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (1998)

The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, a landmark legal settlement between the major tobacco companies and 46 states, led to significant changes in how tobacco products are marketed and sold in the United States. It also resulted in the dissolution of the CTR and established the American Legacy Foundation (now known as the Truth Initiative), aimed at preventing tobacco use and encouraging cessation.

The TIRC/CTR’s history is a critical chapter in understanding how corporate interests can influence scientific research and public health policy. It serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of transparency, integrity in scientific research, and the potential consequences of allowing economic interests to overshadow public health concerns.

Read more

Science denialism has a complex and multifaceted history, notably marked by a significant event in 1953 that set a precedent for the tactics of disinformation widely observed in various spheres today, including politics.

The 1953 meeting and the birth of the disinformation playbook

The origins of modern science denial can be traced back to a pivotal meeting in December 1953, involving the heads of the four largest American tobacco companies. This meeting was a response to emerging scientific research linking smoking to lung cancer — a serious existenstial threat to their business model.

Concerned about the potential impact on their business, these industry leaders collaborated with a public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, to craft a strategy. This strategy was designed not only to dispute the growing evidence about the health risks of smoking, but also to manipulate public perception by creating doubt about the science itself. They created the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) as an organization to cast doubt on the established science, and prevent the public from knowing about the lethal dangers of smoking.

And it worked — for over 40 years. The public never formed a consensus on the lethality and addictiveness of nicotine until well into the 1990s, when the jig was finally up and Big Tobacco had to pay a record-breaking $200 billion settlement over their 4 decades of mercilessly lying to the American people following the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) of 1998.

smoking and the disinformation campaign of Big Tobacco leading to science denialism, by Midjourney

Strategies of the disinformation playbook

This approach laid the groundwork for what is often referred to as the “disinformation playbook.” The key elements of this playbook include creating doubt about scientific consensus, funding research that could contradict or cloud scientific understanding, using think tanks or other organizations to promote these alternative narratives, and influencing media and public opinion to maintain policy and regulatory environments favorable to their interests — whether profit, power, or both.

Over the next 7 decades — up to the present day — this disinformation playbook has been used by powerful special interests to cast doubt, despite scientific consensus, on acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, the viability of Ronald Reagan‘s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and perhaps most notably: the man-made causes of climate change.

Adoption and adaptation in various industries

The tobacco industry’s tactics were alarmingly successful for decades, delaying effective regulation and public awareness of smoking’s health risks. These strategies were later adopted and adapted by various industries and groups facing similar scientific challenges to their products or ideologies. For instance, the fossil fuel industry used similar tactics to cast doubt on global warming — leading to the phenomenon of climate change denialism. Chemical manufacturers have disputed science on the harmful effects of certain chemicals like DDT and BPA.

What began as a PR exercise by Big Tobacco to preserve their fantastic profits once science discovered the deleterious health effects of smoking eventually evolved into a strategy of fomenting science denialism more broadly. Why discredit one single finding of the scientific community when you could cast doubt on the entire process of science itself — as a way of future-proofing any government regulation that might curtail your business interests?

Science denial in modern politics

In recent years, the tactics of science denial have become increasingly prevalent in politics. Political actors, often influenced by corporate interests or ideological agendas, have employed these strategies to challenge scientific findings that are politically inconvenient — despite strong and often overwhelming evidence. This is evident in manufactured “debates” on climate change, vaccine safety, and COVID-19, where scientific consensus is often contested not based on new scientific evidence but through disinformation strategies aimed at sowing doubt and confusion.

The role of digital media and politicization

The rise of social media has accelerated the spread of science denial. The digital landscape allows for rapid dissemination of misinformation and the formation of echo chambers, where groups can reinforce shared beliefs or skepticism, often insulated from corrective or opposing information. Additionally, the politicization of science, where scientific findings are viewed through the lens of political allegiance rather than objective evidence, has further entrenched science denial in modern discourse — as just one aspect of the seeming politicization of absolutely everything in modern life and culture.

Strategies for combatting science denial

The ongoing impact of science denial is profound. It undermines public understanding of science, hampers informed decision-making, and delays action on critical issues like climate change, public health, and environmental protection. The spread of misinformation about vaccines, for instance, has led to a decrease in vaccination rates and a resurgence of diseases like measles.

scientific literacy, by Midjourney

To combat science denial, experts suggest several strategies. Promoting scientific literacy and critical thinking skills among the general public is crucial. This involves not just understanding scientific facts, but also developing an understanding of the scientific method and how scientific knowledge is developed and validated. Engaging in open, transparent communication about science, including the discussion of uncertainties and limitations of current knowledge, can also help build public trust in science.

Science denial, rooted in the strategies developed by the tobacco industry in the 1950s, has evolved into a significant challenge in contemporary society, impacting not just public health and environmental policy but also the very nature of public discourse and trust in science. Addressing this issue requires a multifaceted approach, including education, transparent communication, and collaborative efforts to uphold the integrity of scientific information.

Read more

Climate Change Denial: From Big Tobacco Tactics to Today’s Global Challenge

In the complex narrative of global climate change, one pervasive thread is the phenomenon of climate change denial. This denial isn’t just a refusal to accept the scientific findings around climate change; it is a systematic effort to discredit and cast doubt on environmental realities and the need for urgent action.

Remarkably, the roots of this denial can be traced back to the strategies used by the tobacco industry in the mid-20th century to obfuscate the link between smoking and lung cancer. This companies conspired to create a disinformation campaign against the growing scientific consensus on the manmade nature of climate change, to cast doubt about the link between the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of the planet’s natural ecosystems — and they succeeded, for over half a century, beginning in 1953.

climate change and its denial, by Midjourney

Origins in big tobacco’s playbook

The origins of climate change denial lie in a well-oiled, public relations machine initially designed by the tobacco industry. When scientific studies began linking smoking to lung cancer in the 1950s, tobacco companies launched an extensive campaign to challenge these findings. Their strategy was not to disprove the science outright but to sow seeds of doubt, suggesting that the research was not conclusive and that more studies were needed. This strategy of manufacturing doubt proved effective in delaying regulatory and public action against tobacco products, for more than 5 decades.

Adoption by climate change deniers

This playbook was later adopted by those seeking to undermine climate science. In the late 20th century, as scientific consensus grew around the human impact on global warming, industries and political groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo began to employ similar tactics around lying at scale. They funded research to challenge or undermine climate science, supported think tanks and lobbyists to influence public opinion and policy, and used media outlets to spread a narrative of uncertainty and skepticism.

Political consequences

The political consequences of climate change denial have been profound. In the United States and other countries, it has polarized the political debate over environmental policy, turning what is fundamentally a scientific issue into a partisan one. This politicization has hindered comprehensive national and global policies to combat climate change, as legislative efforts are often stalled by ideological conflicts.

a burning forest of climate change, by Midjourney

Denial campaigns have also influenced public opinion, creating a significant segment of the population that is skeptical of climate science years after overwhelming scientific consensus has been reached, which further complicates efforts to implement wide-ranging environmental reforms.

Current stakes and global impact

Today, the stakes of climate change denial could not be higher. As the world faces increasingly severe consequences of global warming — including extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and disruptions to ecosystems — the need for decisive action becomes more urgent. Yet, climate change denial continues to impede progress. By casting doubt on scientific consensus, it hampers efforts to build the broad public support necessary for bold environmental policies that may help thwart or mitigate some of the worst disasters.

Moreover, climate change denial poses a significant risk to developing countries, which are often the most vulnerable to climate impacts but the least equipped to adapt. Denialism in wealthier nations can lead to a lack of global cooperation and support needed to address these challenges comprehensively.

Moving forward: acknowledging the science and embracing action

To effectively combat climate change, it is crucial to recognize the roots and ramifications of climate change denial. Understanding its origins in the Big Tobacco disinformation strategy helps demystify the tactics used to undermine environmental science. It’s equally important to acknowledge the role of political and economic interests in perpetuating this denial — oil tycoon Charles Koch alone spends almost $1 billion per election cycle, heavily to climate deniers.

A climate change desert, by Midjourney

However, there is a growing global movement acknowledging the reality of climate change and the need for urgent action. From international agreements like the Paris Accord to grassroots activism pushing for change, there is a mounting push against the tide of denial.

Climate change denial, with its roots in the Big Tobacco playbook, poses a significant obstacle to global efforts to address environmental challenges. Its political ramifications have stalled critical policy initiatives, and its ongoing impact threatens global cooperation. As we face the increasing urgency of climate change, acknowledging and countering this denial is crucial for paving the way towards a more sustainable and resilient future.

Read more

There are many things in life you don’t want to rush through; many experiences you wish to linger. The American cult of efficiency is a kind of over-optimization, and over-fitting of a line that delusionally demands up and to the right every single day, every single quarter, every single time.

The benefits of stopping to smell the flowers have been extolled by sages and philosophers throughout the ages. In all of recorded human history lies some form of the mantra, “haste unto death” — for it is true. We rush headlong off the cliff after all the lemmings ahead of us. We can’t help ourselves — eternal moths to eternal flames.

The slow life

From the cuisine to jurisprudence, from behavior economics to psychological well-being, moving more slowly has numerous well-established benefits. Efficiency should never be the only goal, in any domain or at all times. As James Madison strongly agreed with, “moderation in all things” is the mathematically optimal way to approach life, justice, and governing. Influenced by the Marquis du Condorcet, the invention of statistics, and a distaste for extremism in all forms, The Founders were prescient regarding the later theory of the wisdom of the crowds. They sought to temper the passions of the crowds via checks and balances in our system of governance.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” said Martin Luther King, Jr. That the veracity of the quote remains unsettled is unsettling, like strange fruit swinging in the southern breeze. Yet the “quick justice” barbaric efficiency of slavery, the Confederacy, Jim Crow, superpredators, and mowing down unarmed Black men for traffic violations to name a few, are no examples of fairness. Faster isn’t always better, especially when it comes to justice. It takes time to gather facts, talk to witnesses, piece together the crimes and document them in an airtight way, brokering no doubt in the mind of a single jurist.

More efficiency topics

Areas I’ll be further exploring:

  • Slow thinking — Daniel Kahneman’s behavioral economics and cognition theory about slow and fast thinking systems in the brain, how they physiologically arose, and their implications for bias, decision making, geopolitics, and more.
  • Journey vs. Destination — It’s not just about getting to the same restaurant and eating the same thing. The end doesn’t always justify the means. Traveler vs. Tourist. Go with the flow. Roll with it, baby.
  • An ounce of caution — A stitch of time. He who makes haste makes waste. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. Be careful!
  • Self-reflection — Thoughtfulness. Rumination. Mindfulness. Presence.
  • Being too busy speeds up time, not necessarily in a good way. Leads to the unexamined life, a Stoic no-no. Socrates would not approve, dude.
  • Enoughness — Sustainability. Patience. Non-violence. Whole-heartedness.
  • Hierarchy vs. Fairness — Consensus takes a lot longer. Dictators and monarchs are nothing if not efficient.
  • The appeal of fascism — History and ideology of the Nazis and their obsession with efficiency.
  • PR — soundbites. Simple narratives. Tropes, slogans, repetition.
  • Entertainment — intellectual empty calories. Neil Postman. McLuhan.
  • Automation — AI, bots, robotics, threats to labor
  • Walking vs. Transportation
  • The slow food movement
  • Speed reading
  • Speed runs — video games
Read more