Saturday, 21 July 2018

The Tactics Of The Government's ''Prevent'' Program





I've often wondered how the British Government's anti-radicalization program ''Prevent'' actually works. If an individual holds what amounts to illiberal ideas, how can they be persuaded out of that by the liberal establishment and its agents. According to Wikipedia the purpose of the Prevent strategy is: 
The purpose of Prevent is to stop people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. This includes countering terrorist ideology and challenging those who promote it, supporting individuals who are especially vulnerable to becoming radicalized, and working with sectors and institutions where the risk of radicalization is assessed to be high.[6] The deradicalisation programme is known as Channel; it is led by the police and uses liberal Muslim mentors who do not espouse any anti-Western violence.
As can be seen above, Prevent's program was primarily geared toward Islamic radicalism but increasingly, in the aftermath of the suspiciously catastrophic ''National Action'' group, the British state now has sufficient casus belli to lump ''Far Right'' or Nationalistic groups and individuals into their program too.

 And so it was with great interest that I watched the stream below,  an interaction between a young Nationalist called ''Christian'' and a pair of Prevent agents. Christian posts historical threads on Twitter relating to Jewish power and history, mass immigration, British history and various other topics of interest to Nationalists.



 This, then, resulted in the Prevent agents arriving at Christian's door which Christian secretly recorded. The video is below, however, given Twitter's tendency to ban people such as Christian I've broken down the stream into bullet-points below.


* The interaction between Christian and the Prevent agents begins amicably and relaxed, the three men discuss Christian's job prospects and future employment opportunities. There's a general air of banter and small talk. Though Prevent do show some interest in where Christian has been travelling to recently.


* Prevent then explained to Christian that they'd pulled a few strings to ensure his activity on Social Media didn't go any further, that they were there to help him.

* Prevent then put some mild pressure on Christian to meet a Jewish man they call ''Jack''. They explain to Christian that they want to him have other perspectives rather than simply believe whatever he reads or hears, presumably on the internet. Prevent advise that ''it would be beneficial'' for Christian to ''see it from a different angle'' which ''Jack'' would provide.

* Prevent then explain that they're ''Not the thought police'' followed by ''But, if you are going to have these thoughts it's best get as much information as you can''. Prevent then give an example of somebody else who was exposed to counter information then changed his views.

* Christian responds that seeking out new information and knowledge is the exact process which put him in the position of having the Prevent agents come visit him. He then goes further and explains in detail the sheer hypocrisy of everybody being allowed to hate white people while whites are not allowed to criticize or ''hate'' any group at all.

* Prevent ignore this line of reasoning completely and instead focus on the fact that Christian's online activities will be frowned upon by future employers and that Christian might find it difficult to get a job. Christian asks why posting Marxist symbols is fine but posting the Swastika is a career killer. Prevent reply that ''People interpret things differently'' and continue to talk about the dangers to Christian's job opportunities if employers become aware of his social media postings.



Given that the British government's counter radicalization programs now cost the tax payer hundreds of millions of pounds per year we can assume that the two agents interviewing Christian were trained, that there was a methodology to their questioning and they had specific aims and goals in mind. Their approach was strictly pragmatic and not overtly ideological, they were not actually challenging Christian's views but rather pointing out the consequences of holding those views. Essentially it was a passive aggressive approach, or what could also be called ''concern trolling''.

 Christian is ''free'' to hold such opinions but it comes with a cost, your life chances will be severely diminished and you'll be a borderline outcast. In other words, Christian has worked against the grain of wider society and formed his own opinions and understanding of the world, despite knowing that most people are uncomfortable with such opinions. The response of Prevent to this is to tell Christian that he needs to ''see it from a different angle'' which is to say, he has to get back in line and think the same as the wider society does, or else. What they mean by a different perspective is simply the liberal consensus which belches out of every mass media platform day and night. 

 However, the question must be asked, are Prevent engaged in enforcing ideological conformity or genuinely trying to prevent young men from committing acts of mass murder? Certainly when it came to Muslims the left were up in arms, they claimed that Prevent was essentially a way for the British state to harass and intimidate peaceful Muslims, this despite the fact that Muslims have actually murdered hundreds of Europeans in recent years through terrorist acts.

But does it logically follow that a young man posting threads on ''The History of Jewish Central Banks'' will go on to commit an act of terror? It certainly doesn't appear to be the case when one looks at who is committing acts of violence and terrorism. Indeed, it looks as if the British state simply doesn't like people knowing about, or discussing topics it feels uncomfortable with. 

Christian knew that the reason the two Prevent agents were sitting in his living room was not because they were concerned about his job prospects or because they actually thought he was violent (they admitted they thought he wasn't) but because it was ideologically problematic for the liberal British establishment and their backers. 

 We can perhaps begin to see the strange dichotomy between what the centre thinks of as the ''Far Right'' on one side and Islamic terror on the other. Let us assume that Prevent deploy similar tactics to talk down young Muslim men in danger of going off the deep end. In that case Prevent can point out all the goodies that liberalism makes available, as they did to Christian when talking about job opportunities, it's all there for taking, just don't be too ''radical'' and you'll get the employment and the money.

 The danger with ''Far Right radicals'' is not so much that they'll commit acts of violence, but that what they're looking at and poking holes in, is the superstructure of the liberal establishment itself. Prevent's appeal was essentially to stop looking, stop noticing, except once you do notice you can no longer not notice it, regardless of threats and state bullying.











Please support this blog

Become a Patron!

To post on Twitter

No comments:

Post a Comment