The Labour Party has created a jargon of violence that antecedes a fascist dictatorship and the next five years of Labour government will be a test in the resilience of the remaining State institutions which have not yet been captured by Labour Party as it expands it monopoly over state institutions and the information society.
In its very exhaustive theoretical work on the rises of fascism, the Frankfurt School delved deeply into the jargon of violence and anti-Semitism that preceded the Nazi dictatorship . The dogmatic and ideological fervour that preceded Nazism found expression in an elaborate political jargon designed not to sustain rational discourse, but to inflame fear, resentment and violence. Its ritualised slogans and pseudo-concepts resisted mediation through democratic debate, directing social anxiety instead towards the authoritarian absolutism of the Nazi Party.
The Labour Party also has its own jargon of violence, propagated through its political influence and through publicly funded entities and media outlets. This fascistic jargon constitutes conspiracy theories and accusation, as in the refrain, “Where is the laptop?” It also relies on outright disinformation and misinformation, a manufactured intimacy with the party leader, and a hostility towards the unknown, critical inquiry and rational thought.It also portrays its narrator as a permanent victim while directing perpetual hostility towards the perceived source of its grievance: from Jews to journalists.
Ever since the Labour Party stoked hatred against Daphne Caruana Galizia, journalists, dissidents and opposition critics have remained among its greatest sources of grievance. Its supporters repeatedly and aggressively complain that these supposedly “evil” journalists and critics will not allow their favoured leaders to indulge in widespread corruption, cronyism and the dismantling of state institutions: “Ħalluhom jgħixu.”
The Labour Party is not engaged in a substantive, reasoned debate about society’s future, nor is it able to articulate a coherent vision without reducing it to its jargon of violence. Its populist policies including its bonanza of subsidies are only rationalised as contrarian positions to the previous Nationalist administrations. If the economy is doing so well, then why does the government need to issue massive rounds of subsidies?
Labour’s defining cultural trait has become its hostility towards the Opposition. Devoid of organic cultural or intellectual development, it offers little cultural expression beyond resentment and hatred. Its justification for remaining in power has likewise been reduced to the preservation of power for its own sake. Labour struggles to speak truthfully about its condition and underlying beliefs, and this is why, both figuratively and literally, it can only present itself with an over-glossified and highly-edited video-image.
As so often happens, this jargon of violence has been normalised through the absence of meaningful opposition and its repeated toleration, especially by those supposedly most skilled in the use of words.
Website Editor
Historian and Publisher
Leave a Reply