A Republic of Fear: Erdogan’s New Turkey

A dark veil is slowly rising over Turkey, as the ‘Justice and Development Party’ (aka, ‘AK Party’ or ‘AKP’ for short) has declared a state of Emergency. It comes in the wake of a coup d’état attempt by the Military against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. With Soldiers blocking Bosporus Bridge in Istanbul and deploying tanks outside Atatürk airport, issuing a curfew for residents nearby, helicopters and jets flew over Ankara and declared that the Military had taken over the government. This was only to be the beginning of the long few days of struggle, violence and horror that would grip Turkey. The end of which would begin a purge upon Turkish society; one that is still ongoing and one that is helping elevate an authoritarian to the status of ‘totalitarian’.

Under the cover of night, pro-coup (‘coupists’) forces, within just the span of a few hours, bombed police headquarters, occupied AKP offices and held up broadcasting buildings of the Turkish Radio and Television Corporation. A statement was then issued upon seizure, claiming that a restoration of democracy was underway:

“Turkish Armed Forces have completely taken over the administration of the country to reinstate constitutional order, human rights and freedoms, the rule of law and general security that was damaged.”— Tijen Karaş, TRT, July 15th

However, despite this pronouncement, this was quickly rejected by both Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım and later by Erdogan, who both went on to state the opposite of the coupist, notably that those involved in the coup are a ‘threat’ to Turkish democracy. Erdogan, conveniently on vacation in Marmaris at the time of the coup’s inception, proclaimed via the phone app ‘FaceTime’ on Turkish state media that those loyal to the regime (loyalists) were to take to the streets and show their loyalty in form of opposition to coupists. What followed was nothing short of chaos, as loyalists clashed with coupists on the streets and blood began to spill.

Firing Bullets at oncoming loyalists at Bosporus Bridge, coup soldiers tried in desperation to hold onto control. However, despite their desperation, heavy resistance by both protesters and police soon proved to be too much, as coup soldiers surrendered. Those still loyal within the military began fighting remaining coup soldiers, distinguishing themselves from coupists with red and white sashes around their arms. Mobs of Anti-coup protesters came out in droves across the country, cheering praises to Erdogan and hissing at those who dared dissent against the government—reflecting a darker side of Erdogan’s Turkish society.

Moreover, in a ditch attempt to strike at AKP, coupists blew up parts of the parliament building and fired upon Erdogan’s hotel…after Erdogan had left it. By the morning of July 16th, it was evident that the coup had failed in its goal to oust Erdogan. Upon arrival in Istanbul, greeted by thousands of loyalists and a handful of Turkish Defence Force soldiers (TKP), Erdogan addressed the nation and declared that the AKP government was in control and that the military was to undergo a ‘cleansing’. Erdogan also went on to blame the motivation behind the coup on an old comrade and now rival, a person that leads one of the biggest interfaith movements, Fethullah Gülen—Founder of the Gülen movement.

Now had this been the end of the story, one may be led to the conclusion that order restored itself in Turkey and life went on as usual. However, no coup ends without bloodshed and nothing is ever that easy. Rounding up coupists throughout Turkey, police and loyalists of Erdogan captured and belted—some were even lynched by mobs—dozens of coup soldiers. (Many of them were mere boys, no older than twenty-five, beaten by enraged mobs with belts—fear stricken in the face of bloodlust.) With Hundreds killed already during the coup and many thousands wounded, Erdogan still goaded on loyalists to keep protesting—this affair was not to be over within a mere twenty four hours.

Plotters of the coup range in rank from the highest in Turkish command to the lowest. From Air force Commander Akın Öztürk who was blamed  for the orchestration of the coup to General Adem Huduti—a man who was, a couple months prior to the coup, praised by the AKP for killing ‘terrorist’ members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK); how the mighty have fallen. However, what started to become clearer with this ‘cleansing’ of the military was ‘what’ this failed coup was serving. A darker plan was afoot, as Erdogan slowly removed high officials and replaced them with those loyal to AKP. Political rivals, those in months and years prior who had opposed Erdogan’s censorship of the media in late last year, escorting each one by one and handing them over into custody. A stench of tyranny was in the air.

A protest against the separatist military coup.-2016, July 17.

A protest against the separatist military coup.-2016, July 17. Attribution: Photo taken By Lubunya (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Democracy is like a train: when you reach your destination, you get off.” — Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Muslim Arab Youth Association Conference, 1996

Uttered before a crowded hall of young Islamic youth, the then Mayor of Istanbul Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, tight-fisted and full of zeal, denounced Democracy as a means to an end in 1996. Secular Democracy, Erdogan remarked, was merely a ‘tool’ to alter society towards an Islamic trajectory. It should have been clear back then what Erdogan’s plans were for Turkish Democracy—very different from what Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Turkish Republic, intended. Desiring to impose Islam upon society (Islamism), Erdogan showed early signs of the authoritarian path that he was later to lead.

Before one goes on, an important distinction is to be made between ‘authoritarians’ and ‘totalitarians’. Where the former desire for centralised power, notably in the form of a reduction of liberties and an increased power in the hands of the few; the latter desires the totality of control over others. Totalitarians desire the impossible, chiefly desiring absolute power over individuals. From the physical to the mental, a totalitarian desires the elimination of liberty and the total imposition of an ideology upon an individual. Using censorship, education, secret police and so on, the totalitarian uses all means available to subjugate and impose tyranny upon others.

Moreover, where authoritarian regimes limit press freedom and limit certain individual freedoms, absent the economic and social dimensions, totalitarian regimes go further in limitations. Totalitarian regimes utilise every possible dimension and intrude in the private lives of individuals. Instead of just the public sphere controlled by a dominant power, the private sphere is also occupied by a dominant power.

Furthermore, and to emphasize this difference of regimes (because it is important in the greater context when discussing Erdogan), what makes an authoritarian state like Singapore (for example) different from a totalitarian state like Saddam’s Iraq is that in the latter case one has to live in absolute fear—constantly. Kanan Makiya’s aptly titled book ‘Republic of Fear’ depicts Saddam’s Iraq perfectly, chiefly as a state of terror with around the clock disappearances, torturing and killing of political opponents, state ‘terrorists’ and civilians. (I have heard Singapore be described as a ‘totalitarian’ state, notably by Amos Yee in an interview with Dave Rubin. However, the reason why I take issue with that is that it downplays actual totalitarian regimes. One can still visit Singapore, live a relatively good life and leave it whenever they so choose. This is not the case in most totalitarian states, which deny individuals a good life with a tyrannical living experience.) Authoritarian regimes are watered down versions of totalitarian ones; however, if the authoritarians within said regime wish to elevated themselves to the status of ‘totalitarians’, then they merely need to catch that yearning for the impossible—total power. Erdogan caught this yearning early on.

A yearning for Islamism, notably a Turkish Islamist state, became more evident during Erdogan’s time as Mayor of Istanbul. Aligning with the Islamist ‘Welfare Party’ ‘Refah Partisi’, Erdogan took part in campaigns levied against the government. Attracting attention from the Turkish Constitutional Court, Refah Partisi’s Islamist activities were quickly deemed as ‘unconstitutional’ and soon were banned in 1998. Many protests soon followed and mass support for the party’s reinstatement grew as Islamists, which included Erdogan, vehemently opposed the court’s decision.

However, despite protests and calls to action, sentiments for support deteriorated and many arrests on protesters were made. “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers….” For inciting religious hatred and breaking the law, Erdogan was imprisoned in 1998. In addition to this, Erdogan also was denied ability to take part in the political process of Turkey and had to give up his position as mayor soon following the judgement’s enforcement—a mark that seethed.

Nevertheless, Erdogan’s yearning for power and political capital helped him in founding the AKP in 2001. Under an agenda of ‘conservative democracy’ (a term for a political ideology that seeks more to pretend it is not Islamist in nature when actually is), Erdogan sought to work this time with the political process than against it.  Focusing energy on pushing for social services and aiming at democratic reform policies, Erdogan’s strategy made considerable headway in the 2002 general elections—appealing to both upper and lower class voters. With a two-third majority vote in favour, AKP’s co-founder Abdullah Gül took power as Prime Minister over Turkey and helped annul Erdogan’s political ban. Almost in a chess-like move, AKP rescheduled the election in the subsequent months and made Erdogan their candidate. Swapping hands (essentially, ‘trading places’), Gül stepped down and allowed Erdogan to assume the Prime Ministership upon AKP’s victory. The chessboard was in place and the pieces set for Erdogan’s rise to power.

Manoeuvring each piece in place and taking down every obstacle in way, Erdogan slowly climbed the political ladder over the next ten years with the support of AKP. Digging its hands in the media and attempting to manufacture phantoms, AKP—after its second victory in the 2007 general elections—levied charges against political rivals, ranging from military officials to journalists, for being a part of a ‘terrorist’ organisation known as ‘Ergenekon’ (a shadowy organisation alleged to have been planning assassinations and bombings on the AKP).

In a series of trials, over 270 people were accused of ‘plotting’ against the government, many of them had—in prior years—criticised AKP government’s policies. Using Ergenekon as leverage to achieve greater power, especially by accusing and launching trials, as well as investigations into ‘members’ of it, Erdogan’s authoritarianism was showing. However, if the Ergenekon trials did not show Erdogan’s desire for control, then it would be the AKP’s reaction to the Gezi Park Protests in 2013.

Initially few in numbers, protesters grew in size in reaction to both Erdogan’s growing authoritarianism and the police backlash to an Istanbul park sit-in protest—in which police used violent means, such as tear gas and forced removal of protesters, to try quell the protest. Erdogan cracked down severely in response to the [Taksim] Gezi Park Protests, calling police to march in droves against the protesters. In addition to this, misinformation about alleged assaults by protesters on civilians was spread by TRT (state media) and attempted censorship of social media, such as sites like Facebook and Twitter, became apparent with AKP pressuring businesses to not allow coverage as the protests went on. An abuse of power would be an understatement for Erdogan’s actions in response to the Gezi Park protests; what he was engaging in was pure political manipulation and corruption.

Throughout Erdogan’s rise to prime ministership and eventual succession as President in 2014, AKP had been in power for over ten years with a trail of authoritarianism to back it. Erdogan’s manipulation, political corruption and yearning for control made him many enemies, most notably Fethullah Gülen. A once ally of Erdogan, Gülen’s ‘Hizmet’ (aka ‘Gülen movement’, whose theology preached a more liberal version of Islam) movement gave inspiration to many people within Turkey. ‘A state within a state’ was present as millions followed the movement, something that only angered Erdogan upon his fallout with Gülen in 2013. Following corruption investigations that same year, Gülen sought to challenge Erdogan’s political position, which only further split the two—leading to the eventual crackdown of movement members in the subsequent years. An authoritarian cannot have dissent; there comes a breaking point. Erdogan’s breaking point was with Gülen. Power corrupts absolutely; Erdogan is no exception.

Police action during Gezi park protests in Istanbul. Events of June 16, 2013.

Police action during Gezi park protests in Istanbul. Events of June 16, 2013. Attribution: Photo taken by Mstyslav Chernov (Self-photographed, http://mstyslav-chernov.com/) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

History repeats itself in so many ways. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s crackdown of coup soldiers and military commanders parallels the ‘New Order’ regime’s crackdown of the Indonesian Military in 1965. Using the failed coup as a pretext to rid communists and their sympathizers, the New Order swiftly got rid of almost all opposition to it—thousands were captured, tortured and killed in the purge on Indonesian society that followed. Currently, as I write, thousands of soldiers have been captured by loyalists of AKP and are currently undergoing torture in jail cells. High up military officials have been removed and replaced by Erdogan Loyalists; thousands of judges have been removed from their positions and hundreds of academics, either sympathetic to Hizmet or critical of the government, have been removed from their positions as well. Erdogan has unleashed a purge on Turkish society.

Whether or not the attempted coup to topple the government came as inspiration by Fethullah Gülen (who has denied allegations by Erdogan), by Military officials seeking to restore secularism or by Erdogan himself, the outcome has been the same: More power to Erdogan. (I believe that the coup was done by Military officials who were inspired by Gülen and wanted to try restore democracy. However, disorganisation and Erdogan catching on too quickly most likely sabotaged the coup from working.)  This coup has been used as leverage for Erdogan to propel himself as uncontested leader of Turkey’s already illiberal system of democracy. I will not be surprised if Erdogan executes all those involved in the coup against him. His denied already political prisoners the ability to see lawyers and family members, and AKP is doing its best to reinstate the death penalty, which means that bloodshed will continue.

Take note, ladies and gents, of this failed coup in Turkey. If you learn anything from it, let it be a lesson in how a totalitarian rises. Erdogan is the next Bashar al-Assad in the making. As he slowly consolidates power, Turkey will find itself more and more morphing into a Closed Society. Furthermore, given Erdogan’s sympathies towards Islamic religious zealots who seek to impose their religion upon society (aka ‘Islamists’), Erdogan will most likely follow the path of religious totalitarians and form an Islamist dictatorship. Look at how the Islamists stand behind Erdogan’s regime and occupy Secular centres, singing praises and hissing at dissenters.

Militias form in defence of Erdogan’s AKP party; even as I write, many of them are doing Erdogan’s work for him and rounding up those anti-government dissenters that have sought to undermine the AKP. A state of terror is gripping Turkey and many are currently feeling its effects, as friends, relatives and loved ones who are Turkish Citizens living abroad see a once proud democracy go down the path towards Islamist theocracy. Erdogan wants this and is doing what is ever in his power to get it. Mark my words, Erdogan is creating a Republic Of Fear that will be equivalent in the oncoming years to the totalitarian Assad’s regime in Syria currently—a regime that is characterised by censorship of media, loyalists dedicated to the leader and a state of fear for its citizens.

Totalitarianism, especially the religious kind, is truly ugly to witness. Those who seek the impossible, namely the totality of control over others, can be said to epitomize what it means to be a totalitarian. It is purely a delusional pursuit of the impossible, but yet there is always those who seek the impossible and take it upon themselves to subjugate others to do so. Totalitarianism and despotism always end the same: Destruction. No tyrant lasts forever and history has shown the course of what happens to each regime that tries to.

Make no mistake; Erdogan’s regime will crumble but only in time. For now, Erdogan will only tighten his stranglehold over Turkey and elevate himself to the status of totalitarian. The tyrant will now only continue eradicating liberties of Turkish citizens and find more ways to ensure that the regime stays afloat.  However, before it does there will be bloodshed, suffering and horror.

All totalitarians, despots and tyrants fall.

None last forever.

Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson (31/07/2016)

Banners with photographs of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's president, hang from the roof of a commercial building either side of a Turkish national flag in Istanbul, Turkey, on Monday, July 18, 2016.

Banners with photographs of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s president, hang from the roof of a commercial building either side of a Turkish national flag in Istanbul, Turkey, on Monday, July 18, 2016. Attribution: Photo taken by Ismail Ferdous—Bloomberg/Getty Images

 


Knowledge Blast: Totalitarian Thought

When the word “fascist” is uttered in any setting involving more than one conflicting body; it most likely will be used out of its proper discourse, by those who lack an understanding of its definition. The word is tossed around in naive-socialist circles like a hot-potato, almost to the extent at which if a differing of opinion were to be made against the norm, if expressed by an individual, may immediately condemn them to being called it by all those (who by chance) do not like what they have to express. This failure to understand words and their proper usage is to blame for this nativity, so what can be more fitting then explaining the word and the thought that surrounds it?

To start off lets define terms. Fascism is a system of government characterized by dictatorship; the word originates in ancient Rome from the word “fasces” which is a pile of sticks used by legionaries and subsequent soldiers of the Roman Empire during long tracks and marches across Europe and the Mediterranean. It was later to be used as a symbol for the 20th century, used by Benito Mussolini’s fascist party who used the fasces symbol to represent their political ideological movement in Italy during the late 1910’s. Fascism as mentioned already has a major characteristic and that is dictatorship, to understand this term we need to look back to the Ancient Romans who coined the term. During the early parts of the 5th century B.C.E Rome became a republic after having three hundred years of monarchy rule; the Roman kingdom was overthrown and started expanding to the rest of the Italian and Mediterranean peninsulas. The senate on behalf of the people ruled Rome expanding its land grab from the small city states to the large Mediterranean. During the republic’s expanse into the Mediterranean and Europe, governors mostly generals and senate approved leaders, would hold territories on behalf of the senate by which the senate would legislate orders to the governors on how to run the territory and so on. However territories captured by warring nations or barbaric states, would often play victim to unrest and tragedy, this unrest and tragedy would interrupt progression and endanger the republic autonomy; causing great economic and military problems for the republic. The solution to these problems had to do with retaining control of the populace of the territory; the only way this could be done was through authoritarian state rule which was given to by the senate on behalf of the republic temporarily to the most competent leader in the republic, to retain order by any means necessary. The ordinary magistrate of the senate had legal means to and guides to attain the republic’s states, but during the first Punic war in the 3rd century B.C.E, by which saw the establishment of the extraordinary magistrate (officially called “magister populi”-master of the people). The status passed by the senate to the general allowed him to rule by decree or “dictatorate” (shortened later to “dictator”). This leader was assigned a committee who were solely under the generals command (committee of “magister equiem”-master of the horse) this oligarchy helped the dictator retain control of the state after the warring parties had been quelled. This dictatorate lasted for a couple months just until order was restored before it would be relinquished. Gaius Julius Ceaser was the first “Dictator for life” in the 1st century B.C.E after the collapse and scattering of the republic, ceaser retained the status and enhanced it to a year. He used military might to maintain his rule collapsing the republic into an empire, ruled under History’s first totalitarian state. The classical dictatorship came before the neo dictatorship, to differentiate between the two; classical refers to the original purpose of the roman dictatorship which was to retain order on behalf of the general well-being of the state, by which the subsequent rule would be relinquished after a temporary time, the main characteristics of this type of dictatorship is authoritarianism. Neo (new age) dictatorship refers to Ceaser’s model of dictatorship and the subsequent models of dictatorship based on it; by which the purpose is to benefit the dictator’s interests for however long the dictator remains in power, the major characteristics of this type of dictatorship is totalitarianism.

Authoritarianism is in essence dictatorship with a leash; the power is limited in their actions to totally control the state and the people within the state, thus limiting them to the marginalisation of power. Totalitarianism is different as it is dictatorship of the leash, total tyrannical rule can be applied by the state power on the people of the state, the methods are endless and they last as long as the power lasts. A huge understanding in the evolution of neo dictatorship is the change in how these states who vestige a totalitarian state, control their populations. Let us take one case as an example of totalitarianism, say Nazi Germany. National Socialism is the combination of German patriotism and fascist leadership, an ideology created by Adolf Hitler that saw the blend in ideology and government being first truly utilised. To understand this dynamic evolution of neo-dictatorship from the solely relying on militarism and imperialism, to neo-dictatorship running on tyranny and ideology; it must be highlighted the important differences of neo-dictatorship of Cesar’s day and Neo-dictatorship of Hitler’s day. Ceser’s day militarism was the major security of power for rule, Cesars vast armies kept him secure (external protection) from his neighbours however this did not prevent internal conspiracies being expressed against him, this particularly is major flaw as with a totalitarian state to truly maintain total control it must maintain it both internally and externally. Hitler’s Germany was internally secured via two aspects, Ideology and intimidation; by keeping the blast of propaganda and ideological fear, Hitler’s Germany could be maintained internally. When ideology is injected into neo-dictatorships, that is, when they take a new form, instead of becoming entirely hollow states, they start acquiring life. It truly is a bone tingling sensation to witness the birth of life in these states, as their tyrants increase in power frenzy can be seen growing amongst the maintenance of the state, when the form of rule starts becoming more and more an entity of it rather than the robotic systematic government it had been to start off with. In 1944 upon the inevitable defeat of National Socialism, Joseph Goebbels the propaganda minister for the Reich made one of the most chilling speeches ever produced. Called “Total War”, the power of twenty years of propaganda administered by the state was put into overdrive in a speech that expressed the ultimate need for the civilian to serve his country in order to feel that he has contributed to the state. This frenzy created solely from ideological indoctrination, fear and intimidation, all of which would become cultivated in creating an internal state by which the neo-dic tatorship could survive, was the nature of National socialist dictatorships. The very essence of Nazism cries out totalitarianism as it combines total power and tyranny to maintain the selected interest of the dictator or ruler of the state for any given amount of time, whereas in authoritarian states the powers that be are prohibited in their liberty to dispense with law and order the way they want, keeping vestige interests in not only their own needs but in the power’s means as well.

This is why fascism in the sense of Benito Mussolini’s Italian fascist party was authoritarian in nature, that is to say an oligarchy gave Mussolini limited power, that during the Second World War when breached meant his immediate removal by the oligarchy at which he had been maintained by. Quasi dictatorships who look back to the classical dictatorships, this being of course the running of the old roman empire by senate elected dictators, will be states such as aforementioned already Italy during fascist rule, and Spain during the rule of Francisco Franco that can be seen to have incorporated elements of authoritarianism and totalitarianism to the extent at which both parties could have domain and power but they were always limited by either internal conflicting bodies or external ones that would prohibit the expansion and consolidation of power that would prohibit neo-dictatorships well at the same time allowing time to freely be maintained (neo dictatorship and classical dictatorship); the synthesis of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Another example of totalitarian neo dictatorship is the communist regime, like the Nazi regime the communist regime ran on a system of systematic maintenance pushed by fear and ideology. Through indoctrination of the populace to be more subservient and willing to die for the state, communism under Stalin could be utilised to have had total control as the dictator maintained power to the extent that the power itself could not be removed easily, and the willingness of the people to love what they fear (sadomasochism) became more apparent. It is the nature of totalitarian states such as Nazism, communism and to a lesser extent orwellianism (George Orwell’s ,1984; big brother state, by which the full utilisation of propaganda, fear and intimidation sought in advancing the nature of a neo-dictatorship to the extent by which it becomes nature to be under a totalitarian power) that there forms see vestige interest in utilising power for as long as possible, and when so ever should the power be removed its ultimate goal is to kill the state itself well undergoing its own annihilation.

Victims, who live under states like these, can be subjected to years of propaganda, skewing their view of the world. If you ever wish to see the power of indoctrination just look at the surviving Hitler Youth today, most of them went through an undoctrination after they were captured by western forces. However they still hold great sympathy for the years of service under the regime of Nazism, this is the power of totalitarianism with ideology; it can make its population entirely subservient and entirely willing to die for the regime!

As the decades went on and the ever increasing destruction of totalitarian states increased, fascism especially the blurring of totalitarianism in pop culture and culture in general became more apparent. Dystopian classics such as George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “a brave new world”, captured society’s imagination and paranoia by showing the possible potential of totalitarianism if left unchecked. In most of these types of novels the importance of liberty and freedom of the individual was always highlighted as a means to inject strength into the paranoid individuals. The only means by which such power and total control is stopped, is by the constant awareness of the people of the state about the nature of their government. If the people do not regulate the duties of their government the process of neo-dictatorship become ever more apparent. When authoritarianism is allowed to take hold, if left by the people for far too long it will grow in totalitarianism, this is why the duty of the people is always to be aware of the growing concern its government wishes to have in the individual’s life and the limiting of liberties of that individual to a fake sense of security. That is the only way totalitarianism can be avoided by the people, is the unanimous will to step in the line of fire and protect the fundamental liberties of the state’s populace. The seeds of totalitarianism are found in places at which hierarchy and a top to bottom system is utilised, this is why religions are innately totalitarian as they vestige interest in the God’s needs and the representative of the Gods to maintain a false sense of security. Theocracies are dictatorships run by religions (if one were to play the technical semantic game the correct term to use for a group of religious bodies controlling a government is a “ecclesiocracy” but for all intended uses “theocracy” is made also mentioned), showing the true nature of such groups to maintain totalitarian elements of control. When theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are mentioned, one cannot help but think of the public hanging and execution of all those willing to disobey the regime’s holy text (the hanging of homosexuals is a grizzly example). It is because of this that states have a duty to limit all religions from gaining any mention in government, because the very nature of all religions especially mono-theistic, are totalitarian by nature.

Fascism has been morphed however by socialist groups over the years to the status of an insult, this blending and redefining of terms is a potential danger, as in order to attain what the word means. It must be utilised as such to the extent it accurately represents what it is needed to represent, this is why insults with the word “fascist” always seek (in the eyes of those enlightened) to add disappointment. Remembering what has been discussed always seek to hold a better understanding of words as to not lose the intention of those words.

Knowledge is power

Use it

Written By: Anthony Avice Du Buisson