Chapter 3 focuses on the politics of the winter of 1642–3, a phase of the civil war that is normally defined in terms of a “peace party” supremacy in the House of Commons and the ultimate failure of official peace negotiations between the Long Parliament and the king known as “The Treaty of Oxford.” This chapter looks instead at a quiet but crucially important diplomatic mission sent from Common Council to the king in late December 1642. The aftermath of this deputation, which unraveled from January 1643 until the late spring and included Charles I’s call for the arrest of seven leading Londoners, and in particular the civic leaders Isaac Pennington, John Venn, Randall Mainwaring, and John Fowke, radically rearticulated London’s relationship to parliament’s war effort. The political manipulation of “the attempt on the seven Londoners,” spearheaded by the accused and their allies in parliament, ushered in a period of unprecedented popular mobilization. This included the introduction of radical new propositions for an alliance between parliament and the City, the pursuit of coordinated iconoclasm, the introduction of radical metropolitan policing methods, the raising of auxiliaries, demands for new loans, and the construction of the Lines of Communication, eleven miles of fortifications built around London, Westminster, and Southwark. Chapter 3 explores how winter 1642–3 – and a previously poorly understood period of London’s wartime narrative – led to a moment of unprecedented action, a time when London’s Common Council behaved like “a third house of parliament,” a body eager to implement its radical agenda.
war memories which emphasises continuity rather than rupture. There is continuity in themes
and preoccupations, for example the post-war politicalmanipulations
of a resistance legacy or the suffering and hardship of life under occupation, as well as continuity of production; research shows a steady flow of
publications over the post-war period with peaks and troughs which can
be attributed to the visibility of memory discourses of war more generally in the public domain. Indeed, the patterns of publication in French
crime fiction about the
outspokenly critical of his own government’s tendency to confuse intellectual exchange
with politicalmanipulation. There were plenty of USIS officers, for example, who saw
their role as seeking to influence Australians to embrace a US-style approach to trade
unions, business management and trade (among other things). Some might ask therefore whether there is evidence that sixty-plus years of Fulbright exchanges have simply
resulted in American domination of Australia, and that facilitating academic exchange
with the United States has not served Australia’s own interests
pursue vigorous forms of politicalmanipulation and propaganda to achieve its objectives.
As politics is highly influenced by transient events, a temporal perspective is required, because the power of the political elite and its responsiveness to public opinion changes over time. This is particularly the case with Britain's membership of the Common Market, because the issue of Britain in Europe presents itself as a political issue differently in each of the decades from the 1950s to the present time. This book, however, merely discusses a twenty
the intrigues of political
opponents and would-be assassins’ bullets and bombs, was remarkable. To
what extent was this transition the result of conscious politicalmanipulation by the Partito Nazionale Fascista (PNF) or, more broadly, by journalists,
writers and other supporters, eager to find new sources of legitimacy after
the parliamentary pillar had been knocked away? Or was it rather, as Emilio
Gentile has argued, a product of Fascism’s intrinsically transcendental character, a spontaneous emanation largely from below of a movement that now
found itself free
Royal, 1492 and All That:
PoliticalManipulations of History (Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center,
Wilfred M. McClay, ‘Religion in Post-Secular America’,
in Martin Halliwell and Catherine Morley (eds), American Thought and Culture in the 21st
Century (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008), pp. 127–8.
Ibid., p. 128.
Ibid., pp. 139, 134
Outbreak anxieties in the United States from the colonies to
Amy Lauren Fairchild, Constance A. Nathanson, and Cullen Conway
the use of fear to manipulate with hyperbolic or untruthful misrepresentation that made authentic judgment impossible.
Philosophers who weighed the threat of chronic diseases were not uniformly hostile to fear. This was noteworthy given widespread scepticism about the Cold War politicalmanipulation of panic and fear that had emerged by the 1960s, the new health consensus that fear always backfired, and, significantly, the ascendency of autonomy as the pre-eminent value in ethical analyses of the clinical relationship in the years after the Nuremberg Trials and
Materialism, 1871–1900 , Hayes had argued that American liberalism had cast aside Christian teachings and become increasingly secular and materialistic. In the process, it had put too much faith in democracy and nationalism, making itself thus vulnerable to politicalmanipulation. In place of hyper-nationalism and the cult of democracy, Hayes advocated a return to Catholic principles and politics.
Similar points were raised by Hoffman, in his 1945 speech before the United States Catholic Historical Association. Hoffman delivered the keynote at the
’, I refer to ‘lived
experience’, or simply the physical fact of living one’s life in a specific
place and time. I am aware that the possibility of understanding the soldier’s
experience was certainly contested at the time – many soldiers believing that it was
impossible for civilians to comprehend the experience of the soldier. George Mosse
eloquently describes this and its politicalmanipulation as the ‘Myth of the War
Experience’ in Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory of the World Wars (New
Islam. ‘Under the pretense of religion’, Addison wrote, ‘he designed an empire; and he was a prophet in show, but a tyrant in project.’ Indeed, Muhammad’s politicalmanipulation of religious truth was so similar to political puritanism that for Addison, the Prophet’s only rival as ‘the only great impostor that ever continued so long prosperous in the world’ was Oliver Cromwell. Muhammad ‘so well managed his ambition and injustice, under the cloak of religion, as never any have yet proved his equal’, wrote Addison. ‘The nearest and most exact transcript of this great