Silk Stalinism

by Beauchamp Art

Ian Driver

In response to:

Police monitored political activities of candidate standing against Nigel Farage

“Officers have been keeping tabs on Greens candidate standing against Ukip leader Nigel Farage, as police face questions over monitoring of elected politicians.”

 


What do you call it when the police label political undesirables “domestic extremism”?  Sounds like Totalitarianism to me.

I wonder what happens if they labelled other Green MPs as ‘domestic extremists’, or Feminist activists, or LGBT campaigners, or Ethnic Equality speakers?

What happens when the government uses anti-terror policies against the domestic populous? The Police State rises.


This is why political censorship is problematic, because it is the current establishment that gets to decide what is acceptable to speak about and what isn’t. Sending away migrants and refugees is seen as fine because it is politically useful, it makes scapegoating easier, and defers responding the actual issues facing people. Whereas the modest claims of the Greens and the left for equality and a response to climate change is totally unacceptable, because it shows the real flaws in the current hierarchy that seeks only to suppress the masses and hold on to power for grim life.


Greens are designated “domestic extremists” whilst UKIP, a genuine extremist party, are fine because the current government and media see them as within acceptable political boundaries, because alienating the ‘other’ in demonising immigrants, homosexuals, women, and ethnic minorities does not destabilise the current order, it reinforces it. This shows how keen the politicians and police of fear are to keep their position secured, to totally disallow possible upheaval by criminalising the possibility of opposition, but allow the appearance of discord to satisfy the populous without threatening undesirable change. As Chomsky observed:

 “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate” [Chomsky, 1998: 35]

This is a new Silk Stalinism; appearing like soft interventionism, whilst tying a noose around the People’s neck, and rocking the platform just enough to keep them terrified, to think that change means the ground is taken away beneath them and that chaos and death will follow, rather than offering a change that means untying the knot that threatens to strangle them.

Do not ask for someone else to kick the stool away, ask them to cut the chord.


Reference:

Advertisements