Glug, glug, glug. That’s the sound of our freedom going down the plug hole, by the way.
Want to impose totalitarian control on a nation? No problem. Here’s how you do it.
Secret police? Martial law? No, that’s so yesterday. Thought control is the way. If you want to be more highfaluting you can call it ‘manipulation of moral perspective’.
The objective is to impose uniformity of thought on the public – a uniformity aligned with your agenda. The ultimate in political power is to be able to control what everyone thinks. You may imagine that controlling people’s thoughts would be tricky. Not at all. It just takes a few decades, that’s all.
First of all you need to sever the ties which anchor a culture to its moral values. Hence you need to undermine religion, make a mockery of traditional values, deny valid authority any recognition, and demean your cultural heritage. This is easier than you might imagine. You merely have to present these traditional issues as old fashioned, stuffy, unprogressive and arbitrary. It helps to point out that all these things are different in different cultures – and so obviously have no absolute merit. Do also promulgate a view that your cultural past is little other than elitist, colonialist, racist, sexist, etc. It also helps that the young will automatically rebel against tradition and authority, so full advantage should be taken of this natural inclination. Driving a wedge between the generations is ever so easy, and reinforces the message that traditional perspectives are outmoded and can by ditched.
That achieved, you have successfully removed society’s anchor, leaving it morally adrift. This you can now work with. Since society is now adrift, even a relatively small push will move it in your desired direction. The moral re-alignment is achieved as follows.
There will be some inertia to be overcome. People do have an irritating sense of fairness, and they do value their liberty. These tendencies must be subverted. The basic strategy is the oldest one of all: divide and conquer. The trick is to repackage this as “identity and protection”. Yes, it is actually a protection racket. You can even use that word and get away with it. But it’s executed with a little more finesse than the Mafia. Instead of threatening the target “protected identity group” yourself, you inculcate the notion that other “identities” within society are the threat. You, of course, offer the protection. Once under your protection, they are under your control.
One should pause to admire the elegance of the strategy. The benignly paternal state has only the best interests of the identity groups, defined by “protected characteristics”, at heart. Under the aegis of protection is the division achieved, and with it the subversion of fairness.
The strategy is assisted by the tendency, in some people, to value safety above all. By offering safety from the threat that you yourself have inflamed, you work on many people’s weakest spot. Women tend to value safety particularly highly, so the strategy works best on women. Feminism is, therefore, your chief ally.
Setting one identity group against another is inevitably a win for the state, which grows bigger due to the ever increasing need to protect people from imagined harm. Equality Quangos emerge, and more police and lawyers are needed to log and prosecute new categories of crime – invented as part of the miasma of protection. So it may not matter which identity group is chosen as the villain and which as the victim. But the big win lies in choosing appropriately. Your objective is power, which means toppling existing power. In the West, most people in power are white men. So you make white men the universal villains, and set all other identity groups against them.
Let no one object that the vast majority of white men are not at all powerful. This is irrelevant. If you are serious in your pursuit of power, being concerned about collateral damage is a weakness. Do not become confused. Setting group against group has nothing to do with reality, truth or justice. It is a mechanism, a stratagem, that is all. It is a means of depowering those from whom you wish to take power. Stay focussed.
The best means of turning the chosen identity group into Bad People is by concerted denigration. This should focus on their being the undeserving recipients of privilege. By this means the people’s fairness instinct is turned from a liability into an asset. Moreover, if this undeserved privilege can be presented as having been won by oppression of the other identity groups, you can simultaneously excite the care-and-protection response. To achieve this distortion of reality is remarkably easy so long as you capture the means of mass communication. People will not question what they hear repeatedly and without contradictory views. Moreover, members of the “deserving” identity groups will be very willing to hear how very deserving they are, especially when it has been explained to them how the Bad People have been cheating them for centuries.
The more the “deserving” groups are pushed forward as deserving of greater care and consideration, the more the Bad People are, by their exclusion, presented as undeserving. Eventually some of the Bad People may start to complain that they are the ones subject to discrimination – or, perhaps, that some very tiny minority does not deserve such a strong focus of attention. But by this time, the changed moral perspective of the bulk of the public will interpret such complaints as the mewling of the privileged and have scant sympathy. The more the Bad People complain, the more justified their destruction apparently becomes. This is an excellent outcome, and much to be encouraged.
So powerful is this manipulated moral outlook that even the ruling faction of the Bad People will be frightened to speak against it. By this time, dissent will be met with shaming and sacking. So these turkeys will be obliged to vote for Christmas. Some will sing very loudly about the merits of eating turkeys, hoping that thereby they themselves might be saved. There will be no counterattack by the Bad People because, by this stage, they also believe themselves to be Bad.
What more direct evidence could there be of adherence to this programme of collectivist totalitarianism than the invention of ‘hate crimes’. These are, explicitly, part of the ‘protection’ being offered to the identity groups. But they also provide ‘proof’ of the threat to these groups, and hence the need for protection. Here’s how it works,
- Invent a category of hate crime with a sufficiently low bar, or lower the bar on an existing hate crime;
- Train the police in asking whether there was a hate element involved in all crimes they attend (thus providing a very easy target for the police to meet);
- Prosecute said crimes as hate crimes, thus compiling statistics on successful prosecutions to ‘prove’ that hate is a serious problem;
- Compile data of recorded hate crimes which are not prosecuted, thereby providing evidence that hate crime is not being treated seriously enough, justifying tougher action and tightening of the hate crime definition (lowering the bar);
- Repeat from .
This brings me, finally, to the reason why I am regaling you with this bit of political analysis. It is because Alison Saunders, our much revered Director of Public Prosecutions, has decided to create another hate crime. We have already had the speaking-to-women-without-being-spoken-to-first hate crime declared in Nottinghamshire and North Yorkshire. This time the move is to treat online ‘hate crimes’ as seriously as offences carried out face-to-face. The CPS will be seeking stiffer penalties.
The much beloved Ms Saunders says, “the crackdown is needed because online abuse can lead to the sort of extremist hate seen in Charlottesville in the United States last weekend”. Her claim is that verbal abuse in the virtual world has real-world consequences, with the spreading of fear online resulting in acts of physical violence. As far as I am aware there is no evidence that this is true.
And it is curious that Ms Saunders chose Charlottesville to justify her action, an incident in another country in which one person was killed. Have there not been atrocities enough in the UK from which to choose? Any number of terrorist attacks leaving dozens of people dead and injured – I can’t even list them all any more. And what about the thousands of girls raped by Muslim gangs?
I cannot imagine why Ms Saunders chose Charlottesville to motivate her new hate crime rather than these local events with far greater numbers of victims – honestly, I really can’t. But you, my friend, may be mindful of what I said about the careful choice of Bad People. Demographic is everything.
The police and the CPS have agreed the following definition for identifying and flagging hate crimes:
“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.
There is no legal definition of hostility so we use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.”
The definition is further amplified in this hate crime leaflet, which states,
“Remember, if the words or behaviour make you feel bad, upset, annoyed or insulted and target something personal such as disability, ethnicity, gender identity, nationality, race, religion or sexual orientation, then you can report it to the police.”
Call me naïve but I thought it was parliament – you know, those people we elect – who made the law? Apparently it’s Alison Saunders and the police.
Compare this definition of hate crime with the above 5-point list of how the hate crime stratagem works. Note in particular how the bar is made preposterously low by,
- Depending entirely on perception – which is not objectively verifiable;
- Requiring only a third party’s perception – not even that of the victim;
- The actual motivation – or perception – of the ‘criminal’ is irrelevant;
- ‘Hostility’ is defined by terms that are not hostile, such as contempt (which might well be deserved);
- The ‘crime’ consists of being made to ‘feel bad, upset, annoyed or insulted’ – which is also not objectively verifiable.
In 2015/16 there were 62,518 hate crimes recorded by the police, about 15,000 hate crime prosecutions with a conviction rate of about 85%. Those are huge number. But they don’t tally with my experience walking about the streets. There is ample evidence that the ‘hate crime’ label is thrown at incidents without any real reason. Gratuitous inflating of the statistics to suit an agenda? To quote Brendan O’Neill in The Spectator,
“Why are our authorities so willing to push this deceptive agenda? Why is our country determined to see itself as bigoted? It’s because creating a panic about hate crime gives officials and others a sense of purpose and history. But the squalid search for, and exaggeration of, hatred is dangerous and, to use a word so popular on social media, divisive. It is a slur on the white working classes to claim that what they think and say — on immigration, Europe, life in general — is racist. Such a perception convinces minorities that they should live in fear. It spreads anxiety and silences discussion. It rips Britain apart.”
Indeed. It’s about time that the public woke up to the fact that this wedge is being driven between us by people with an agenda. Otherwise it’s…well, glug, glug, glug.