Around the world, very much including the Western world, real power is measured by the ability to silence criticism.

The highest reaches of power are measured by the ability to force people to speak in politically-approved ways.

The ability to silence criticism is a signifier of power. It's how truly powerful groups and regimes recognize each other. If free people can challenge your ideals or mock you without fear, you aren't TRULY powerful, no matter how much authority you might nominally possess.
And if you can force people to speak, force them to use your preferred language, penalize them socially or legally for failing to signal their support for your agenda, then you've entered the winner's circle. Your government or movement has taken a seat at the highest table.
This is one of the reasons people with authoritarian or totalitarian inclinations are constantly screaming that opponents are trying to silence them, even when it's manifestly untrue. It's a means of signaling their contempt for the opposition, of diminishing its stature.
These people would cheerfully allow themselves to be silenced by a regime or movement they truly respected. They pretend to be victims of oppression as a means of signaling the illegitimacy of leaders they despise.
The growing authoritarian consensus across the "free" world is that a core of powerful leaders, parties, and ideological movements must be shielded against criticism in order for government and society to function properly.
The rest of speech can be more-or-less "free," as long as certain quarters of speech are tightly controlled. It's part of the "Great Reset", like reserving part of a computer's memory for the protected operating system. The OS of "free" nations must be an authoritarian core.
The core must not only wield vast compulsive power, but it must be protected INTELLECTUALLY, shielded against challenge or criticism. The designers of this authoritarian system are very well aware of the power of subversive thought. It's how THEY gained power a generation ago.
Various groups and ideologies are now jockeying to become part of the authoritarian core. They signal their candidacy by controlling speech through social pressure, with online swarms and cancel culture. It's how they claim a seat at the table of Great Resetters.
You can tell an ideological group has achieved REAL power, has become part of the authoritarian core, when its agenda becomes part of public school curricula. That's the height of power: moving beyond merely silencing critics and forcing people to say things.
Speech and thought control are vitally important because we retain the vestiges of democracy, even though a great deal of true power has been safely transferred to unelected bureaucracies that can even fight back effectively against renegade elected presidents.
The people can still turn against powerful groups and diminish them if they are allowed to criticize the leadership and agenda of those groups - or, Stalin forbid, make fun of them. Respect must become a learned behavior. It can be extracted by force, much like tax money.
If you force people to respect something - punish them for criticizing it, force them to mouth its pieties - they will eventually come to see it as sacred, as respectable, even if they quietly grumble disagreement to themselves. Critics begin to feel isolated and marginalized.
How do radicals and extremists gain real power, becoming part of the authoritarian core? By making everyone who disagrees feel like THEY are the fringe. You can trace the outlines of real power by asking: "Could I show disrespect for this and still be considered mainstream?" /end

More from John Hayward

Excellent analysis! One of our biggest problems is that people think "democracy," all by itself, is a sufficient check on power. I frankly don't understand how anyone can still believe that, but of course they probably won't be taught otherwise in school.


The disturbing flip side of thinking democracy is a magic talisman against tyranny is the belief that democracy sanctifies power - the essence of majoritarianism. "They can't be dictators if we can vote them out of office!" is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world.

The restraints placed on power are MORE important than the process of choosing who gets to wield it. You would be more free under a tightly restrained hereditary monarch than in a "democracy" with totalitarian centralized power.

The human race learned, fairly recently, that elected government is the approach most likely to maximize liberty and human rights, but where on Earth did we get the notion that it's perfect and sufficient all by itself? The world is full of tyrannies that hold elections.

"Democracy" would be the worst of all worlds - tyranny by mob rule, with the oppressors claiming their every fancy was fully and completely sanctified because they won a vote, and why should we let a stubborn minority thwart The Will of the People?

More from World

Watch the entire discussion if you have the time to do so. But if not, please make sure to watch Edhem Eldem summarizing ~150 years of democracy in Turkey in 6 minutes (starting on 57'). And if you can't watch it, fear not; I've transcribed it for you (as public service). Thread:


"Let me start by saying that I am a historian, I see dead people. But more seriously, I am constantly torn between the temptation to see patterns developing over time, and the fear of hasty generalizations and anachronistic comparisons. 1/n

"Nevertheless, the present situation forces me to explore the possible historical dimensions of the problem we're facing today. 2/n

"(...)I intend to go further back in time and widen the angle in order to focus on the confusion I  believe exists between the notions of 'state', 'government', and 'public institutions' in Turkey. 3/n

"In the summer of 1876, that's a historical quote, as Midhat Pasa was trying to draft a constitution, Edhem Pasa wrote to Saffet Pasa, and I quote in Turkish, 'Bize Konstitusyon degil enstitusyon lazim' ('It is not a constitution we need but institutions'). 4/n
I'll bite, Mr. Gray. We can even play by your rather finicky rules.

Let's begin with some of the things you have said about Xinjiang, notably absent from your more recent media appearances, but still present in your blog about your 2014 biking trip.


The following is taken from an ongoing list I keep of people who have been to Xinjiang and written/spoken about their experiences. It is separate from the testimony of detainees and their relatives I also keep. Jerry is on this

Jerry, your article for CGTN, as well as your various Medium pieces, belabor themselves to emphasize the smoothness of your time in Xinjiang. Why did you leave out so many details from your log of your 2014 trip? They seem relevant.

For example, would CGTN not let you speak about Shanshan, the town that evidently disturbed you so much?


Why, pray tell, after noting how kind and hospitable Xinjiang police were to you in 2019 for CGTN—and how you were never told where you could or could not go—would you omit these details?

You May Also Like