Share on Facebook Share
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Google Plus Plus
Governments are still using “terrorism” as a scareword to get any insane law passed – like Britain’s digital book-burning law. But with its other hand, those same governments are expanding the definition of terrorism way beyond what the public could possibly imagine: the government’s own training material says that peaceful street protests in disagreement with administration policies are examples of terrorism.
“Terrorism” is still a fnord. If you look up the word “fnord” in a somewhat modern lexicon, you’ll come across an explanation that says it’s a word, any word, that makes people break out in a fearful sweat everytime it’s mentioned on the news and agree to any insane laws. “Communism” filled the same role in the early 1950s in the United States, and it’s an actual studied phenomenon in manipulation of public opinion.
When we hear a fnord, like Terrorism (or Communism), we’re supposed to fill in the blanks with our most fearful images, regardless of what the word actually means. When the British Home Secretary says people will be imprisoned for fifteen years for “repeatedly watching terrorist material”, we’re supposed to interpret that as Middle Eastern jihadists promoting cutting people’s heads off with a dull knife for being too happy. (Don’t watch those videos. Watching them is punishment enough for watching them.)
And so, the public agrees to insane laws that target “terrorism”, all while the government has a completely different definition of what these laws cover.
It is in these moments that is it crucial to remember that street protests are labeled “low-level terrorism” in actual government training material. Yes, you read that right: the word “terrorism”, according to the government, includes peacefully disagreeing in