A sinister Left-wing cabal is turning Britain into a dystopia

Telegraph

9 hours ago

Who would have thought that a generation after the collapse of communism, freedom of speech would become controversial? Surely we had definitively settled this question of whether governments should prohibit or limit the expression of opinions. The Free World, as it was then known, had won the argument without even having to take up arms. Those peoples who had been subjected to the official suppression of ideas and information had repudiated that tyranny of their own accord. In East Germany, they simply walked out from under it. In Soviet Russia, Gorbachev's attempt at a more open, liberalised regime ended in ignominious collapse because a little bit of freedom just increased the longing for more. So surely there can be no doubt: liberty of thought and expression is what modern peoples demand.
Yet here we are. A democratically elected government in a nation which gave the world Magna Carta has apparently installed a dedicated bureau to monitor all opinions put forward in public discourse. Further, it proposes legislation which would compel any forum that gave a platform to opinions considered to be unacceptable, to remove them. This is, prima facie, outrageous: a betrayal not only of the historic principles of open democracy but of the victories of freedom over totalitarianism that marked the last century. So how on earth could anyone – any political party or governing class – in the Western world possibly think that such a move was necessary or desirable? It would be easy (indeed it is easy) simply to condemn it as the arrogant imposition of what a smug elite considers the limits of morally acceptable opinion. Any statement or assertion that appears to be encouraging or condoning racism, or even prejudice against an approved social minority, must be policed out of existence.
It is scarcely necessary to warn where this policy could lead – or what it implies about the attitude of the current Government to its own population. But perhaps this is a more complex and confusing situation than it appears and paradoxically, some of the factors that contribute to it may be the result of precisely the ideological successes of which the West is most proud. What is it exactly that has produced this panic over unlimited public expression? It is the unbridled, unchecked and irresponsible dissemination of supposed 'information', or opinions based on deliberately deceptive information, on publicly accessible platforms often augmented by fake videos, AI doctored photographs and false 'evidence'.
This is a new thing for which traditional democratic societies have no previous experience. We have become aware quite suddenly of the possible consequences in terms of civil disorder and mortal risk that the dissemination of such material can produce – and that it now spreads remarkably, and terrifyingly, quickly. Suspicion, distrust and their anarchic effects can be ignited and propelled at a speed that those responsible for keeping order in the streets have not previously encountered. So yes, as you will have gathered, I do believe that the rise of social media – which has no enforced codes of practice or legal liability – is presenting civil authority with an unprecedented set of problems.
That observation, of course, is not original. It is, in fact, the official justification used by the government for its repressive measures. The added element in this toxic mix which has received less attention is the use that these media serve in the infiltration by professional activists of any convenient social cause. As a youthful Trotskyite, I was tutored in the techniques of exploiting any social discontent as a force for undermining trust in capitalism and what was considered to be the sham of democratic freedom. At the end of every meeting of what was then called International Socialism (IS), now known as the Socialist Workers Party, a list was recited of the latest venues at which we were expected to appear, brandishing pre-printed posters and demonstrating solidarity with whatever protest group was currently disrupting the functions of an industry, government department or public agency.
When I see all those disparate agitator groups now, whether they are demonstrating on behalf of the environment or against racism – carrying identical placards (generally with the words 'Socialist Workers Party' emblazoned at the top), I can guess what instructions they have been given. Make as much noise and monopolise as much of the television news coverage as you possibly can. Try to make the story about you and your message, even if you have been bussed in to compete with a genuine spontaneous protest over a local issue. I thought of this again when the police got into big trouble for apparently offering protection to, or even escorting, 'Stand Up to Racism' counter protestors at the site of a migrant hotel demonstration. Their presence appeared to be endorsed by the police who seemed to be shielding them from the anger of unworthy locals.
But what should be done if, say, an anti-racist group's planned arrival makes it necessary for the police to prevent any potential violent confrontation and breakdown of public order? That would be, in my experience, a classic professional activists' technique. They would exploit the fact that it is the first responsibility of the police to maintain order in the streets whatever the issue.
The ultimate irony may be that this phenomenon has been given extra propulsion by the collapse of communism. Back in the dark days of the Cold War, infiltration by the Left was a serious business run by serious people. The Communist party loathed what they considered to be juvenile, undisciplined Trotskyist messing around. My friends and I were regularly warned that our indiscriminate, ill-thought out negativism was going to discredit the sacred Marxist cause. While IS (now the SWP) handed out copies of the Socialist Worker newspaper on street corners, the Communist Party members maintained their terrifying diligence, their 'cover' identities and their dedicated take over of trade unions and nuclear disarmament campaigns.
That's all gone now. Anti-capitalism in its most inchoate, incoherent and irresponsible form is running the show and it is making use of all the opportunities modern technology offers to spread dangerous lies and inflammatory messages. There is no easy answer to this.