Creating Powerful Narratives

 

If those in power use false narratives to manipulate the public debate, why shouldn't the civil society use facts to create and control new narratives? The option is available to them and it costs nothing.

Those in power spin the facts to control  the stories. Lines, stories, mostly myths, are spread as narratives. The media make heavy use of false lines to promote false narratives and frame any opponent negatively, put it in a bad light. The late Robert Perry wrote a piece about the power yielded by false narratives (here)

In this age of pervasive media, the primary method of social control is through the creation of narratives delivered to the public through newspapers, TV, radio, computers, cell phones and any other gadget that can convey information. This reality has given rise to an obsession among the power elite to control as much of this messaging as possible. --Robert Parry

The political elites constantly use framing tactics to present policies or laws they wish to pass through the executive to disinform, and manipulate people to vote against their interests. Think of the U.S. "Patriot" Act, for example, or the NDAA provision. They are either framed as "patriotic," or in the interest of "National Defense." So they must be good, right? They aren't because they eventually heavily limit civil liberties and dissent.

The practice of manipulating narratives goes on for just about every bill, every domestic or foreign policy. However, no matter how much efforts are invested in raising awareness by organized activism to stop these skewed perspectives, the establishment gets usually what it wants, while independent media and activists' groups keep repeating the same thing over and over, expecting different results. 

However, the elites are not alone at fault in spreading myths and false narratives. In fact, the whole institution of Social Change (the Civil Society) suffers from its own myths and false narratives, that are truly paralyzing for social progress. As long as these fallacies persist, or until somebody suggests more efficient, alternative narratives, the evolution of a collective consciousness will only limp along.

Repeace promotes intuitive narratives as a strategy to reclaim control over language and thought.

The contrast with the narratives you're conditioned to believed in, will hopefully unleash a passionate debate, empower you and create a coherent collective of activists, inspired by a different approach.

These are the narratives promoted by Repeace as part of our strategy. By identifying as a Repeacer, you support these alternative truths, and push them into receive media attention.

Peace is the absence of fear

The old/prevailing narrative "Peace is the absence of wars" is imprecise, because:

All social, economic, environmental conflicts (and more) are wars:

All conflicts are threats to progress and peaceful coexistence. They cause just as much misery and death as bombs and guns. The old/prevailing narrative is that only armed conflicts are wars. According to this heavily promoted fallacy, peace can only exist when wars end! Plenty of evidence underscores how this is flawed logic, because dozens of prestigious authors and academics, call the spade a spade by naming all existing conflicts... "wars": [1],[2],[2b],[3], [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20]. (There are dozens more).

Inciting responsibility prevents all kinds of conflicts

The demand for "peace" has brought a lot of money to vendors who sell everything peace, from shirts to necklaces, shoes, stickers, sunglasses. Peace and its well known "Holton peace sign" have been used to raise money by thousands of organizations, all "committed to peace." We believe that It's not demanding peace ad nauseam that brings peace, but inciting responsibility. The old/prevailing narrative is that "diplomacy" (vague), raising awareness, organizing, imagining peace, prevents violence, conflicts, wars. So, in the wake of the current state of perpetual wars, either haven't people imagining strong enough, or they just can't imagine. It's not working.   

Sustainability prevents local, national, global conflicts impacting earth, nature, oceans, climate

The old/prevailing narrative is that Sustainability is a set of beliefs, subordinated to environmental action, and wasn’t included in the narrative of peace because climate change and irresponsible farming practices were not seen as threats to peace. 

The Peace Movement is ALL Activism, made by all movements aimed at resolving conflicts, and promoting justice, equality, progress for all life.

Similar as the previous narrative: The very purpose of all social engagement is peace, becaue all individuals experiencing distress for percieved injustices, feel fear (and peace is the absence of fear). The goal of engaging in action is to relieve that conflict, hence bringing about peace. The old/prevailing myth is that peace was only the purpose of antiwar/anti nuclear efforts of organized action.

The Antiwar movement is NOT the Peace Movement.

The old/prevailing narrative is that the "Peace Movement" is glued to the idea of War&Peace, which is an extremely unproductive falsity, a dogma that has to be dispelled.

The Peace process is the evolution of the entirety of social change efforts.

The old/prevailing narrative is that a "Peace Process" was defined as "the steps that are taken by countries or groups that are trying to end a war." However, compassionate, responsible, engaged human beings have been preventing all kinds of conflicts, in much larger and real ways than governments and presidents' summits.

Activists' aim is to relieve conflicts, to solve social injustices. They are “Repeacers.”

The prevailing narrative is that engaged citizens are "Activists." Very few, if ever, dare to question the problems tied to this narrative. However, a simple search shows how progressives, or any group that protests, is framed as violent, radical, contemptuous to authority, insurgent. Any person who participated actively in the U.S. wave of OWS events, knows how protests were handled and discussed in the media. The use of an alternative term like Repeacer, tied with the 3 positive commitments, helps the entire institution of activism to avoid this kind of slurs and identify as something positive.

 

 

 

 

Activism, is defined the policy and action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change. But this is not how it works out. Activism is organized by a whopping 2.5 million entities that make up the Civil Society. The truth is that Activism is inefficient at best... erratic and conflicted to be more precise. It's nice to see that every other activist wishes to build his/her own "Save the world-enterprise," but it would be even nicer if all those entities were finally able to become a coherent movement, part of a higher human collective, cohesive and highly functional. 

Chris Hedges, is unequivocal  about the reality American citizens face to see radical change, based on the achievements of past popular movements. In a presentation (here, at 27:00) Hedges reminds us, that no matter how well organized American popular movements were (see: The Liberty Party; The Suffragettes; The old Progressives party (Roosevelt); The Civil Rights Movement), none of them achieved formal and lasting change. At best they managed to create “openings” in American Democracy.

German Professor Rainer Mausfeld, speaking about the asymmetry of the current power structures in our society, uses plain language when he firmly states that the controlled and owned political elites in our governments simply can't be voted off through the existing democratic processes. The mechanisms to spread alternative information and challenge the false narratives spread by the power structures are unavailable to the public. 

Passionate activists are well informed and aware of the many injustices and threats facing humanity and our planet, yet they are overwhelmed, frustrated, often burnt out by so many causes, so much protesting, organizing. How many protests did you attend? How many petitions did you sign and share? And... do you feel like things are improving?

Compassionate, responsible people, investing precious personal time to raise the bar on social and economic justice, not only put in extra time to fulfill the moral imperative of active participating, but they are drawn upon as too political, radical, or too negative (complainers) by their peers.

Only insiders look at activism as something of a moral imperative. However, thanks to targeted campaigns of misinformation and consistent manipulation of public opinion by Main Stream Media (MSM), the image of activists carries a stigma. It’s considered as something radical, violent, disorderly, ignorant and nagging (negative) here. Their proponents are often referred to with derogatory terms, like radical, anarchists, punks, socialists. Nobody wants to be the "party pooper" in Activism, but it doesn’t deliver. But,Chris Hedges, at least, is candid about the reality American citizens face to see radical change, based on the achievements of past popular movements. In a presentation (here, at 27:00) Hedges reminds us, that no matter how well organized American popular movements in U.S. history were (The Liberty Party; The Suffragettes; The old Progressives party (Roosevelt); The Civil Rights Movement), none of them achieved formal and lasting change. All they managed to create were “openings” in American Democracy. Hedges points out that "the Liberal class is functioning inside a system of Capitalism, which grants just enough reforms to keep the underclass acquiescent." A recent NYT Poll, referring to the achievements of Equality reforms of the Civil Rights Movement, proves Hedges' point: 50 Years After MLK's Assassination, Most Americans, blacks and whites, both think many Civil Rights goals are still unmet, and inequality reigns (here).