The Police, False Neutrality and the Rhetoric of Submission

If you've ever argued with someone on the internet, you're probably aware of certain logical fallacies - there's nothing the internet loves more than point out an ad hominem, a naturalistic fallacy or an appeal to authority. I'd like to submit a new addition to the list of fallacies: false neutrality. This is the argument that is most common among police apologists whenever the actions of the police at demonstrations are questioned. Whenever protesters decide to go beyond peaceful, polite, closely-regulated protest - whenever, in other words, they decide to do something that will actually have an effect - the police respond with batons, CS spray and the other tools of their trade. And, predictably enough, liberals are the first to defend them - they argue that they were "just keeping order". This is what I mean by false neutrality - the idea that the police are a neutral force, that they don;t take sides, that they are merely "keeping order". But let's unpack that phrase, shall we? What, exactly, does "keeping order" really mean?

Well, in its most basic sense, it means keeping things as they are. To keep order is to prevent turbulence, prevent upheaval, make sure noone rocks the boat - to keep order is to maintain the status quo. This argument is borne out by facts. The police have never been shy when it comes to controlling the actions of protesters - if you so much as try to walk down the wrong street, they'll be on you like Prince Andrew on an unprotected child. But they seem strangely unwilling to take the same approach when it comes to those in power. Where were the police when the government were implementing benefit cuts that have killed appalling numbers of innocent people? Where were they when Jimmy Saville was abusing unknown numbers of children? Where were they when peers and MPs were doing the same? Allegedly, some of them were taking part in the abuse. When you look at the long history of the police ignoring or covering up the crimes of the rich and powerful - not just on the level of "a few bad apples" but on an institutional level - how can you possibly believe that the police are on anyone's side but their employers'?

But I'm getting off topic. The point I'm intending on making in this post is that liberal attitudes to the police exemplify what I term false neutrality. Liberals assume that, at a protest, the police are a neutral force - that they do not take sides, but simply "keep order". Of course, keeping order inherently involves preventing anything from changing, as all significant change creates disorder - how could it not create disorder to throw out one system and replace it with another? When the police prevent protesters from blocking a road, or occupying a building, or carrying out property damage, they are taking the side of the government and the capitalist class against the protesters. You may argue that this is a good thing, but it is indisputable that this is what they are doing.

So we've established what false neutrality is - the assumption that something is somehow neutral (morally neutral, unchangeable, or exempt from judgement in some way) when it is not. But what do I mean by the rhetoric of submission?

By rhetoric, I mean language intended to have a persuasive effect. The rhetoric of submission is the language, the narratives, the lines of argument that persuade us to submit to authority. When those on the right say that, now that the Tories have been re-elected, we should obey the democratic process, they are using the rhetoric of submission. When liberals tell us we mustn't challenge the wealthy too much for fear that they will leave the country, they are employing the rhetoric of submission. When pacifists condemn those who engage in violent struggle against oppression, they are employing the rhetoric of submission. This is because all these people are telling us to obey, and submit - to bow to the will of the government; to allow the rich to hold us to ransom; to restrict our resistance to the methods sanctioned by our rulers. These people, make no mistake, are telling us to give in to the will of the enemy; if we want to break the British left's cycle of failure, we must refuse.

Review - Lightning Bolt

Lightning Bolt
Fantasy Empire

Lightning Bolt are not the kind of band you forget. Once you've heard their trademark combination of pummelling drums, distorted bass and garbled, incomprehensible vocals, they will remain stamped on your mind. So I was understandably excited when I found out they had a new album out. My enthusiasm waned a little when I noticed it was 48 minutes long - that shouldn't work. Lightning Bolt's style permits very little variation in song structure, and over the course of an album, this long they should get really, really boring. But the normal rules of music don;t apply to Lightning Bolt. They make this album work through sheer kinetic energy - somehow, despite every song being basically the same, my attention never drifted, nor did I get bored. These guys know how to keep things fun - the rhythms are perfect, the bass notes range from almost guitar-like highs to the kind of lows that I'm used to hearing in dubstep; and the interplay between the two instruments is perfect. I don't know whether these songs were carefully written out beforehand or improvised in the studio, but the dynamic between the two band members reminds me of the tightest jazz musicians. Their playing is unpredictable and technically adept without being wanky, and the entire album feels about half as long as it actually is. If you like fun, groove-based noise rock, check these guys out.

Rating: 7/10