Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

The Politics of Inversion

Kingfisher | 10.12.2005 15:16 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Repression | World

A fundamental feature of extremist regimes is the absolute requirement of an adversary. If a real or perceived enemy loses its opponent status then a bogeyman (under the bed) mentality is cultivated until the negative effects of that strategy (fear, loathing etc.) can be successfully superimposed onto a suitable ‘candidate’. The ‘successful’ candidate would then immediately attract the fear, loathing and violence of the extremist society (or group) in question.

Full story:

 http://cleaves.zapto.org/clv/newswire.php?story_id=138

Kingfisher
- Homepage: http://cleaves.zapto.org/

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

Perhaps good, perhaps circular

10.12.2005 17:42

The "circular" problem comes in because just how do we recognize that a society is behaving in an "extreme" fashion unless they are doing something like that? Would there ever be some sort of "absolute" crtieria for "extreme"?

What I am saying here is that what has been said SEEMS to be reasonable. We do tend to see "extremist" socieities defining themselves and their desired way of life in terms of contrast to some "others" > But the question I have to consider is were a society to be "extreme" but not doing this behavior would I/we notice? Would we not perhaps simply classify that society living by a QUIET extremism as simply weird, quaint, peculiar, but not "extremist"?

Or taken in the other direction -- is it perhaps precisely when we see a society defining themselves in contrasting the "vast difference" between themselves and some other group, that other group being composed of persons we do not greatly distinguish from ourselves that we consider the society "extremist".

Mike
mail e-mail: stepbystpefarm mtdata.com


Extreme

10.12.2005 20:08

You on acid Mike? Say again.

ist


News?

11.12.2005 17:02

Is this really news? So why post it here?

Jason Cortez
mail e-mail: redandblack@btinternet.com


News

12.12.2005 16:10


In the age of info overload impartiality has given way to propaganda.
News? Whose news? Or perhaps you may care to define 'news' for us Jason.

baron