Re-Branding Dissent - The Quiet Destruction Of Democracy

Authored by Golem XIV,

I am one of those who thinks that democracy is being destroyed.  I know its fashionable to play cynical one-upmanship and say – ‘we’ve never had democracy’, or, ‘it was destroyed long ago’,  but that game aside, I think its worth actually thinking about how, many forms of democratic expression, effective dissent and peaceful self-determination are being buried.

In “The Next Crisis” I argued that the Global Over-Class have decided that Democracy is a threat to their wealth and power and have more than likely given some thought to how best to neuter it while appearing to do no such thing.  I suggested they would wish to keep the outward form of democracy, so as to keep us reassured and entertained, but remove any substance from it, leaving us with an empty but colourful stage show. 

In part two  of the series, I offered a list of the various ways this could be done (a sort of manifesto for the Over Class or, as I have called them elsewhere, The Disloyal and noted how many of those things were clearly already underway.

For example item three of the manifesto said,

3) professionalized Governance. Democracy can be and must be neutered, and an effective way of doing this is to insist that amateur, elected officials MUST take the advice of professional (read corporate) advisors. Expand current law to enforce this.

If this seems monstrous now, their argument, I suspect,  will be that in an increasingly crowded, interconnected and globalised world we can no longer leave critically important decisions in the hands of the uneducated, in-expert and amateur.  We must, of course, still be free to choose but must, from now on, be helped to choose ‘wisely’. And how can we choose wisely if we aren’t given wise choices to choose from?  Oh, the Orwellian beauty of it! No prizes for guessing who will decide what is and what is not wise. 

We cannot any longer allow you to choose unwisely! There is so much at stake and so much you and your representatives simply do not fully understand.

You only need think how much legislation is already written by these ‘advisors’ and how many ‘experts’ are routinely seconded from corporations in order to ‘help’ the government departments regulate those same corporations to appreciate how far towards this we have already come. Two examples of ‘expert advice’ spring readily to mind. Back in May 2014  Citi drafted, word for word, many of the ‘amendments’ to the Frank Dodd financial regulation law.  While professional experts from  J PM Morgan did the same for the new derivatives trading law which puts the US tax payer back on the hook for any really serious losses.

Choose wisely

‘Choose wisely’ is a good first step in neutering democracy. It is easy to sell, appears wise, benevolent even, and who could advocate the opposite?  But being admonished to ‘choose wisely’ is quite different to being forced to do so by having ‘experts’ pre-choose your range of choices for you and having your representatives forced to follow the pre-narrowed ‘wise’ choice or choices handed to them by paid-for lobbyists and seconded experts. However I think the Over Class knows ‘Choose wisely’ and Professionalized Governance are not going to be enough on their own – given the scale of unpleasantness which will have to be imposed and maintained on voters if the current structures of power and privilege are to be maintained.

‘Choose wisely’ and Professionalized Governance are an efficient and well camouflaged way to stop radical democratic ideas getting traction in Parliament or Congress or ever making it in to law. But, they leave unaddressed the more urgent task of how to properly neuter the people at source – in their own minds. How much better and stable it would be, for the Over Class, if the people voluntarily shied away from dissenting opinions rather than having  to corral such opinions once they are voiced and people start voting for them.

I began to look at how this second front in the war on democracy might be fought, in part three.  I  suggested that what you and I might call public engagement would be re-branded as ill-informed ‘populism’. And wouldn’t you know it, Prime Minister David Cameron speaking – or should I say condescending – in the House of Commons on 17.11.15 about opposition to the TTIP trade agreement, said,

…when you [Members of Parliament] get that barrage of emails – people sometimes have signed up without fully understanding every part of what they’ve been asked to sign – people want to spread some fear about this thing, and we have a role, I think, of trying to explain properly why these things are good for our country.

Et voila! A wonderful early example. This is the start of the re-branding of political dissent.

But wait , as the  old advertizing saying goes, there’s more!

From ‘Professionalize Democracy’ to ‘Demonize Dissent’

The key problem for the Over Class is that no matter how much they might like to, they cannot just come out and say dissent – AKA radically different opinion – is a bad thing. Being able to hold a dissenting opinion, even a radically dissenting opinion, is, after all, the core of democratic freedom.

So I think the Over Class’ task is two-fold. First, create conditions which will make people want to stifle dissent; other people’s first then even their own – or at least start to see a dark and threatening side to it – and then give them a whole new vocabulary of catchy new phrases and ideas with which to express their new-found caution about dissent and dissenters. Seen this way it is clear that this re-branding of dissent is a psychological/marketing/propaganda problem.

Of course it is relatively trivial to get people to accept that while many kinds of dissent are acceptable, some kinds  just aren’t because, for example, they’re felt to be dangerous. We already accept that certain kinds of ‘extremist’ dissent is dangerous and unacceptable. And while some are uneasy, sensing how the term ‘extremist’ could be softened and inflated to accommodate everyone from animal rights activists, to – oh I don’t know…how about ‘militant peace activists’, or those who oppose austerity, people are just about willing to be bullied and frightened into accepting this ‘extremist’ curtailment of democracy.

‘Extremists’ and ‘Extremism’ have been the millennial threat-du-jour and have done wonders for justifying any and all actions claimed to be essential for ‘protecting national security’. No one wants to be accused of supporting ‘extremists.’ In America, Extremism is the new Communism. The rhetoric and paranoia around the ‘threat from Extremism’ in America and in Europe looks and sounds, to me at least,  very similar to McCarthyism. In the UK another new Bill will soon give the British security services and police yet more powers to stop travel, cancel passports and even ban people from talking at universities.

But the “extremist’ narrative is not going to do what needs to be done. The problem is the terms currently used  to label people as dangerous are less than perfect for demonizing the dissent that worries our leaders most: those to do with economics, finance and globalisation and the environment.  ‘Extremism’ and ‘extremist’ are, perversely, just too …well, extreme. Talking about National Security, is very effective in its sphere, but it is just too specifically military to be very useful when it comes to undermining most peaceful, domestic, democratic dissent. What the ‘extremism’ narrative has done, however, is get people used to the idea that there can and should be limits to democratic dissent.

What I think the Over Class now need is a new label for the  mind-set of dissenters and their dissent which can be applied to those who oppose the ‘necessary welfare and economic reforms’, ‘essential austerity cut backs’,  ‘misunderstood’ trade agreements and environmental problems. They need a label for a mind-set which they will readily admit isn’t ‘extremist’ but which they can argue ‘can lead to extremism’; much as people used to talk about marijuana being the gateway drug leading inevitably to harder drugs.

What will that label be? Well I think the clue is there in the drive to ‘professionalize’ governance. ‘Professional’ is already a shorthand for the  claim that someone or something is rational, balanced and ‘evidence based’. The term ‘Professional’, all on its own, already implies that those opposed to the ‘professional’ opinion/plan, are probably slightly ‘irrational’ and quite likely to be advocating actions and opinions that are without a firm base in scientific evidence. After all if that were not the case the professionals would have advocated it themselves.

Of course this brings us wonderfully back to the questions of who claims to have the authority and expertise to say what is and isn’t good solid rational and evidence-based. We are already mired in such arguments.

The threat from the Irrational

I suggest the new label will be ‘Irrational’. “He’s irrational!” “You’re being irrational.” “That’s irrational.” Irrational is already a term of abuse. What’s needed is to suggest that being irrational can be much more than a personal intellectual short-coming. That in fact, people who support irrational causes, and have irrational beliefs – who are …irrational, can be a dangerous threat when they organise their irrational beliefs into a political cause. Because, the argument will go, irrational fears can be used by those who have ulterior motives to prey upon the ordinary but unwary citizen, by creating irrational fears and then offering a seductive but irrational solutions.

And of course what will be held up as acceptable rational beliefs will be generally those which the Over Class, their media outlets, pundits and paid for political lick-spittles say are rational.

In this new narrative of demonizing dissent,

“It is not what you chose to believe – you are free to believe what you want – but HOW you believe it.

Believe it rationally, based on evidence and with regard for how your belief affects the well-being and security of those around you and there is no problem.

But choose to believe irrationally and without regard for how your irrational belief may harm others and you are an Irrationalist. “

This leaves intact your right to believe what you want but adds a subtle but insidious ‘responsibility test.’

If I’m right then we will soon see a broader new narrative built around the idea that Irrationality and an irresponsible disregard for the well-being of others, together, pose a grave threat to Stability and Safety. These four notions, Irrationality, Irresponsibility, Stability and Safety will form the central mechanism for re-branding dissent.  ‘Safety’  people will recognise from its National Security guise. But by pairing it with ideas of Stability it helps bridge the gap between national security (safety) and national economic security (stability). Security becomes more than simply physical safety and is expanded to include economic stability.

And the enemy of both, of course, is the Irrational Dissenter. Being irrational is, we will be told, particularly dangerous when it is paired with fervent claims that we are in danger and we should all act now to fend off the danger. Such  people will be likened to idiots who shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.

A new mental condition could be coined for them – something along the lines of Attention Seeking Disorder – people who get a perverse pleasure simply from dissenting. How easy it would be to cast doubt on someone’s dissent if you suggest it is not about caring for others but actually a disorder of the ego. A desire for notoriety above all else with total disregard for what effect they might have on the stability and safety of those round them.

Troublesome dissent could be rebranded as a thoughtless and selfish advocating of something knowing it will cause widespread harm to others but not caring.

Extremism is a problem out there on the fringes of society – Irrationalism – The paranoid fear of imagined dangers and those who promote such fears – is the enemy within.  They are the sinister fringe who constantly look to radicalize the inexpert.

So let us all recite the liturgy our leaders would have us believe, that in the 21st century –

1. Democracy is the freedom to choose wisely.
2. In a globalized, inter-dependant world we cannot afford to choose irrationally or disastrously.
3. It is not what you believe but how you believe it.
4. Believe things rationally, based on evidence, with regard to how your beliefs affect those around you.
5. If you know someone who doesn’t, they may be irrational and suffering from a mental disorder in which the personal notoriety of being contrarian matters more to them than any harm they might do to the safety and stability we all depend upon.

Comments

[lesterbegood]

Democracy

Slavery impersonates liberty

The absolute pinnacle of cultural success is to convince people that they are free in their slavery.
Democracy is an invented theory, not a moral truth. It is a construct of evil. It was created to impersonate freedom while still maintaining the grip of law over people. As in every
instance in history, the pattern of tyranny repeats itself by reinventing lies to hide the same slavery.
Democracy is about making slaves and masters of slaves. The teachings of the world's great democracies are those of liberty and a voice for every person. They teach us that democracies are the greatest possible form of government. The reason they give is that democracy offers a voice for the common man. Unlike kings, dictators and communists, democracy allows most people to have say in the affairs of their neighbors.
The evil of democracy knows no freedom. A free person has none to enslave him. Instead, democracies offer everyone the opportunity to enslave you.

Majority rule

Democratic culture teaches the rule of law. It teaches that law created by majority rule is morality. Any law, any demand, any punishment is moral when implemented by the majority. Perversions of democracy such as democratic republics and super-majorities are no different. Any law able to be passed by representative, majority, super-majority or any other group becomes morality.
If you can convince 50% of a people to enslave themselves or their neighbors, is it moral? If you can convince 66%, 75%, 99% or everyone, is it morality? The affliction of law is a game to evil. Evil seeks control over people in order to destroy their worth. It does not care who enslaves whom, or why.
There is no morality in law. Democratic teaching says that as soon as the legal voting block approves a law, it is right and proper to inflict it upon a people. Why should the destruction of your freedom be acceptable just because someone else says so? Does evil become righteous when more people desire it? Would evil be righteous if all people desire it? Tyranny by one king is the same as tyranny by a hundred million kings. It is the nature of compulsion in law that is evil; how the law is achieved is meaningless.
Hiding tyranny in the constructs of representative government and majority rule is commonplace in our modern world. After so many millennia of royalty and warlords, people have learned to see some of the evil in tyranny. Thousands of years were required to discard the notion of nobility and divine right of rule. Today many in the world have an understanding that there is no birthright to rule over others as a king. But the deviousness of evil has pushed that burden upon individual concepts, instead of upon itself. Evil teaches modern peoples that royalty and dictators were a mistake, but that submission to your neighbors is right.
In early US history, the majority allowed the enslaving and systematic dehumanization of Africans. Did the law of democracy moralize slavery? Theories such as “majority rule”
are inherently evil. Evil would have you believe that evil is good, and that freedom is anarchy.
From the position of a free individual, it is horrendous to watch members of a democracy not only swallow the “rule of law” as inflicted in all manner and form upon their lives, but also to witness the selfsame victims inflict differing versions of morality upon their neighbors.
Some people believe that democracies are a safe and proper form of government since the majority of people are decent. They believe that the majority will set proper rules for the minority. This belief teaches two lies. First, that there is nobility in law; that it is right to force the minority to obey. Second, that the minority, if left to themselves, will destroy the lives of everyone else. The minority are controlled and forced by a system of police and law to conform to the correct manner of behavior defined as crime. None of this has anything to do with defending the liberty of the majority. It is about controlling the minority. It is about conditioning the majority to the taste of evil. The thirst for power over others is the lure of democracy.

There is no majority

The modern history of powerful democracies has shown that there is no such thing as “the majority” or “the minority”. Factions of ideologies within populations fragment democratic societies into countless splinters. Different approaches, compromises and rules break apart any possibility of a single majority, while still creating endless compulsion via law.
Because of this, you are guaranteed, regardless of who you are, to be in some majority circles, and some minority circles. You will taste of both the control over others in dictating law, and in the slavery of having law dictated upon you.
Your neighbor, who may otherwise think like you, will be willing to sacrifice your liberty to achieve some of his means. Likewise, in a democracy, you will be tempted to make
criminals of your neighbors. As soon as culture teaches people that it is right and proper to destroy liberty under any premise, authority splinters and tyranny grows.

Violence and destruction

Democracy creates violence and destruction. Democracy teaches people that it is proper to inflict your will by force upon others. Indeed, it teaches people that they are entitled to take anything from their neighbors by force.
Democracies are always welfare states, because everyone is able to create laws legitimizing theft. The strongest democracies have the highest taxation and the most regulation. Government employees are able to influence laws to benefit their own positions and salaries. The more regulation created, the more opportunities for pirating in the name of propriety.
Many wish to control behavior in the name of religion, environment, economics, decency and safety. Democracy teaches that these things have more value than human beings.
Evil always teaches that achieving specific behaviors from people is more important than the people themselves. Evil would have you believe that righteousness is found in propriety, instead of in you.
When democratic cultures strengthen, it is obvious to everyone that the legitimacy of law is a farce. Any law is noble as soon as it becomes law. What would be considered the crimes of kidnapping, mugging and murder are now committed for you, in proxy by police. Mature democracies will find certain people who begin dispensing with the excuse of law and simply take what they want when they want it. This is no more evil than law, just more efficient.
The height of democracy is the chaos of men stealing from men, destroying each other's liberty at will, and crushing the human spirit simply because they can. The height of democracy is an inability to think, to speak or to act for fear of law. This is not anarchy, this is tyranny. Tyranny is always disguised as culture and law.

Perfect evil

To understand the nature of democracy, it is essential to understand that evil is the destruction of freedom. The stability of control is the engineering design of culture. The more stability that authority can be exerted with, the better.
Stability in history is non-existent. Wars have been fought continually, empires have been born and destroyed throughout the millennia. Nearly every excuse for tyranny has been tried, and eventually overcome.
Human beings seek liberty in their lives, because liberty is the nature of humanity; liberty is life. Our continual struggle against evil has been recorded by history. Evil has eventually lost every war it started. This is a testament to the strength and goodness of humanity. It is also a testament of the adaptability and evolution
of evil.
Every form of tyranny has failed because people eventually recognized it and retrieved their own liberty. Evil has found a solution to its losses in making partners of its slaves.
Democracy is the greatest evil that can possibly exist. It is a greater evil than communism, and a greater evil than royalty. All other forms of tyranny are obviously evil because they allowed a few to control the lives of all. Freedom was destroyed for nearly everyone. Democracy, however, teaches that you are free enough to vote, a seemingly better system. Unfortunately, it legitimizes other people voting away your freedoms. This makes it evil. What makes it pure evil , and the greatest form of evil that can possibly exist is that you also vote to take away freedoms.
Everyone becomes a slave – and everyone becomes a master
of slaves. Perfect evil.

The End of All Evil - Jeremy Locke

[Niall Of The Ni...]

Well, of course normal people are irrational. Things like love and loyalty aren't rational. Neither are the concepts of right and wrong. Our masters are rational to the extent they have no genuine emotions, beyond murderous fury when they don't get what they want. To them, everyone else is a means to an end, to be discarded when no longer useful or destroyed when they become a bigger threat than they're worth.

To Hillary Clinton, just for example, murdering everybody who posed a threat to her political ambition was perfectly rational. For George Soros, helping pack his fellow Jews off to death camps was the sensible thing to do to assure his own survival. What do you suppose are the last things Hillary and George cared about?

[beaglebog]

You vote because you  want to impose your personal preferences upon your neighbours, using the force of State. 

That is the whole of it.

So, fuck you and your "democracy".

[Gene Watson]

The #1 dissident article I read the past week wasn't even published in the USA, it was published in Russia.  Heroin Dealer In Chief about US government reasons for the Afghanistan War, why there's a heroin epidemic and how the heroin is getting to US.

Dissent is patriotic. Freedom of the press is US news sites publishing dissent.

 http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/29-12-2015/132958-heroin-0/

[GreatUncle]

I am a rational dissenter I choose to ignore all those who pretend to represent me now. Democracy is a tool by the elite to control populations, a pretence, a fake, revealed time and again for the lie that it is. Do you think talking to a representative even if there are thousands voicing the same opinion as you will make any difference? Nope!

THEIR METHOD. (Keep in mind they already know before they start they are not going to keep their promises).

1, What you get first is the promises...

2. Then you vote for them ...

3. Then they take office on those promises ...

4. Immediately renage on all those promises because they were not going to keep them anyway.

What you did by electing them though is allow them to shout in justification "we won all in accordance with the electoral process" glossing over the lies.

Best to ignore the promises or even better treat them all as lies and the rest is not needed then. They do not get to pontificate they won over who was the better liar.

[dizzyfingers]

Fight organized crime, don't vote?

[dreadnaught]

anyone remember the right/neocon joy when Cheney/Bush pushed the meme at the start of the Iraq war: "IF you are not FOR us, then you are AGAINST US" no room for dissent there. Idiots filled column feet in the newspaper letters pages defending that kind of Neandrathal thinking, and the first whif of Fascism came to be...they didnt want to see any Vietnam style protests again

[dizzyfingers]

http://www.restoretherepublic.org/2015/03/recognize-the-enemy/

USA -- NOT a democracy.

[theyjustcantstop]

america is a constitutional republic.

though it's running as a democracy.

for all those who've voted for a heavenly democracy, you seen it in action last week, and for you voting for a democracy, lybia, Egypt, syria, Iraq, afganistian, and Ukraine are democracies also. 

Obamas illegal immigration, and green card decision, and the preferential treatment for hiring them.

all he left out was the Obama-care slogan, if you like living in your parents basement you can keep it, and save $2,400.00 in rent savings.

constitutional republic party, it's what america needs.

with angry  tea party members, and libertarians, it's time, within a few elections American could put our country back to before 1913 constitutionally, please read how this constitutional republic that we have should, and could work.