the brilliantly leaping gazelle

Better minds than mine might provide a much more satisfying explanation as to why there has been this sudden outbreak of rioting in parts of England and Northern Ireland, and to also to explain why it has become so widespread so fast. I don’t have one of those minds, on account of how mine is brain damaged. 

Perhaps thats why I focus not on the violent lawlessness itself, but more on the way that its reported. Perhaps that’s why I keep thinking of Humpty Dumpty whenever I come across the term ‘far right and what he said to Alice,

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

The term ‘far right’ is one of those political epithets that is so ubiquitous that the need for any explanation of what exactly is meant by it is never actually specified. It means different things to different people, but crucially the term ‘far right’ has been specifically manufactured for this very purpose. For people to imagine they are thinking about the same thing, when often they are not.

Because to believe that ‘far right’ actually means anything, one first has to believe in a nonsense and then to believe that that nonsense isn’t a nonsense at all. Very quickly, the nonsense soon piles up.

To begin with, one first has to subscribe to the notion that there exists a perfect set of political opinions and that these opinions reside in the middle of the entire spectrum of political thought. Because for some views to be considered to be ‘far right’ to exist, it necessarily follows that there has to be something for the ‘far right’ to be further from. So already there are two nonsenses, 

These two foundational nonsenses both share the same third nonsense, namely no matter how much societies attitudes to certain issues may change over time – think homosexuality and environmental issues – the spectrum will always be the same spectrum. It is the middle precisely because of its ability to adapt, to absorb and to venerate opinions that were not previously included in it. And as the middle expands, so to does the spectrum, meaning that the ‘far right’ becomes even further from the middle

This presents us with yet another nonsense. Who was it exactly decided that there is a political spectrum in the first place? I don’t believe that there is, I think its a fundamentally flawed concept for the reasons set out above, but because of the reasons set out above, the spectrum has to exist for some people. 

So who are they and who gave them the authority to construct one? This then presents another problem; who gave them them the authority and who was it that gave them the authority to give authority and on the nonsense goes.

Then we need to consider those political opinions that make up the political spectrum. Were all political opinions considered or were some political opinions deemed for whatever reason not worth considering? This brings us back to the people who decided on constructing the spectrum in the first place and calls into question their impartiality. 

I’m only joking, there is no impartiality in politics. We are all as much defined by what we do believe in as by what we don’t, and because of this, the term ‘far right’ is functionally meaningless in defining any political opinion.  Would Stalins notion of ‘far right’ be the same as Hitlers?

But as we’ve seen over recent days, the term ‘far right’ is used as a handy way by politicians and the media to effectively negate whatever grievances – perceived or otherwise – the rioters might have. Clearly some of them are just relishing the chance for violence because some people enjoy violence in and of itself and some others might believe in a wide range of opinions so far removed from any semblance of objective reality that we should condemn those who create those beliefs in the first place.

But the vast majority would, I contend share concerns that not only can they cannot properly articulate – and for which they shouldn’t be blamed, after all, it isn’t their job.  But unforgivably, by the people whose job it is to take their concerns seriously, address them and possibly take remedial action. Doing this only achieves only two things, both of which ultimately creates the violent disorder of recent days. 

Firstly, as I hope I’ve made clear, whilst the term ‘far right’ not only doesn’t exist, it paradoxically also makes it much easier to demonise people holding ‘far right’ views. When some opinions and points of view are considered so beyond the realm of reasonable political discourse, this then creates a space for opportunistic agitators to exploit for not entirely noble aims.

But saying someone or their views are ‘far right’ says more about you than them. It says that you’re Humpty Dumpty.

***************************************************************

And then I also think about George Orwell, who correctly predicted the future years before it happened, especially the way in which language can be malleable. How instead of a word having a fixed and universally understood meaning, once set free from notions of linguistic integrity, can mean anything.

Orwell referenced the cynical nature of this when describing the cyclical nature of linguistic laziness. In his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’, he observed out that language shapes our thought as much as thought shapes our language.

“ (Language ) becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”

I know that language needs to evolve and that as new words are created to describe the new, so too words used to describe obsolete things will themselves become obsolete. But when words that used to have fixed meaning are now employed to describe a non-specific and highly subjective corruption of its previously understood meaning, thats when language ceases in its primary function. Words then become functionally meaningless and rather than to aid clear expression of thought, do the very opposite.

And few words have fallen prey to this abuse more than ironically enough, fascist. A fascist, as I’d always understood the word to mean, was someone who believed in fascism. Fascism, according to wikipedia is ‘ an authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.’

But now we live in an age where fascist no longer means  any of that, no longer does it immediately call to mind the worst example of human barbarity ever. Precisely because we don’t live in a fascist state, one in which extreme violence is sanctioned by it, and the threat of it used as a means of social control, precisely because it hasn’t happened here, we can can abuse the word. Now it can mean someone who simply disagrees with someone or is guilty of nothing more than hurting their feelings. It is now a word, which like so many others, are losing their functional meaning and being replaced by an individualistic meaning instead.  

We now live in a world where everything is transactional, so is it that much of a shock when words are? I believe that it is, and because I believe that language is by quite a wide margin the single greatest achievement of humanity, one that we are now constantly undermining if we allow such linguistic folly to become even more prevalent than it already is.

This story, that appeared in ‘The Daily Mail’ earlier this week, typifies both of the phenomena I’ve been describing in todays post.’ Nans against Nazis: Defiant Scouse pensioner, 71, takes to the frontline in Liverpool to protect mosque from ‘far-right protesters’ amid another night of rioting in Britain’

Where to even start with this? ‘Far right’ means only that whoever uses that term as an idiot and ‘Nazi’ is yet another word that has lost all functional meaning – describing something specific – but now can mean anything. If there were Nazis rampaging across England, a pensioner armed only with a cardboard sign wouldn’t  protect anything. 

‘Frontline’ implies there’s a war. There so isn’t. There is as much a war as there is a ‘far right’.

***************************************************************

Hurrah! The real cause of the riots has finally been revealed to us. Ignore the fact that the most of the communities where the riots are happening took place in some of the most deprived in Britain. Forget about the increased burden sudden population growth has on already underfunded and overstretched public services in those communities. Dismiss the idea that some grievances are deemed more worthy than others of being addressed, and that this feeling of being abandoned by the political class and being demonised by the media might exacerbate the tensions further. 

No, the real cause is social media. Plonker said so, so it must be true. “Violent disorder clearly whipped up online: that is also a crime. It’s happening on your premises, and the law must be upheld everywhere.”

Sadiq Khan’t, agrees with him “I think very swiftly the government has realised there needs to be amendments to the Online Safety Act. I think it’s not fit for purpose.” And another chancer, albeit one with no chance getting the thing he wants said that ““Useful idiots” on social media were exploited by Britain’s enemies to stoke rioting around the country.’

Isn’t this all missing the point? And haven’t we been here before? That some people can’t have genuine grievances, grievances that have been borne out by their own experience. Or that for years they’ve been made to feel that their grievances have lesser value than others? 

This is typical of the mindset that negates any proper analysis of what might be motivating the rioters but instead prefer to use a narrative chicanery that worked so well once before. They were lied to. They were duped. Its all the fault of the various kinds of mis-information and fake news one gets on social media. They didn’t realise.  

So we had this on the BBC a few days ago,

‘Ofcom has published an open letter to the (social media) platforms saying they should not wait until it gets enhanced powers under the Online Safety Act before taking action.

Policing minister Dame Diana Johnson agree, saying tech firms “have an obligation now” to “deal with” material that incites violence.

Speaking on Today, on BBC Radio Four, Dame Diana left open the possibility of revisiting the Online Safety Act, which is due to come into force early next year.

“Of course the events of the last few days have meant that we need to look very carefully at what more we can do.”

Its all a bit too Joseph Goebbels and “The Big Lie’ for me, to tell a big enough lie often enough so eventually it becomes the truth. Yes, it’s all social medias fault.

All we need now is a big red bus.