#ideological control

Any attempt to locate intelligence within the cultural topography of late capitalist societies must proceed through the conceptual disarticulation of intelligence from the merely cognitive or epistemic and its subsequent reinsertion into the domain of aesthetic, affective, and symbolic production. Photo by BERK OZDEMIR on Pexels.com Intelligence, in this extended sense, is not reducible to IQ…

The label "far-right" today carries as much weight and destruction as the cry of "witch!" did in the Middle Ages. 

No evidence needed, no investigation necessary just one accusation, and suddenly you're cast out, demonised, and ostracised. The term has become a catch-all, a convenient way to smear anyone who dares challenge the mainstream narrative. And I'm angry. I'm angry because this label isn't about protecting society from extremists it's about shutting people up, getting rid of the ones the powers that be don't like.

In the Middle Ages, women (and occasionally men) were labeled witches for everything from being a bit too independent to knowing how to use herbs. The accusations came without evidence, often based on hearsay, jealousy, or fear. The mob didn't care about facts. They cared about punishment. It was a tool for control, a way to silence the different, the non-conforming, the inconvenient.

Sound familiar?

Today, the new word hurled around with reckless abandon is "far-right." Disagree with the government? Far-right. Question mainstream media? Far-right. Express a thought that isn't perfectly in line with the social justice warrior handbook? Well, congratulations—you’re a Nazi now. There's no debate, no dialogue, no effort to understand why someone might hold a different view. Just an accusation. And just like the Middle Ages, it sticks. It sticks hard. The label isn't just a political designation anymore; it's a moral condemnation. The implication is that if you're "far-right," you’re evil. 

You must be silenced.

And here’s the kicker—there’s no real definition of what "far-right" even means anymore. It’s nebulous, vague, and deliberately broad. They’ve weaponised the term so that it applies to anyone they want to get rid of. You can be fiscally conservative and socially moderate, but God forbid you utter the wrong opinion on immigration, gender, or healthcare. The second you step out of line, there it is you're branded. Once you're marked, you're banished from polite society, canceled, and pushed into the margins.

Just like a witch.

The hypocrisy of it all is staggering. The same people who claim to be champions of tolerance and free speech are the ones waving the torches, lighting the pyres, and throwing around the accusations. They preach about "inclusion," but only if you subscribe to their ideology. If not, you’re not just excluded you’re demonised. They don’t want discourse; they want conformity. They don't want dialogue; they want obedience.

The modern witch hunts are real, and they are vicious. It’s not enough to disagree with someone’s politics anymore—you have to destroy them, strip them of their humanity, and reduce them to a two-dimensional villain. It’s lazy, it’s cowardly, and it’s dangerous.

In the Middle Ages, they drowned, hanged, or burned the ones they called witches. Today, they do it differently, but the outcome is the same. They ruin careers, smear reputations, and incite mobs to tear down anyone who dares dissent. The tools may have changed, but the intent hasn’t: silence the inconvenient, punish the different, and maintain control.

I refuse to stand by and watch as this modern witch hunt tears our society apart. The next time someone throws around the label "far-right," ask them what they mean. Demand evidence. Don’t let them get away with vague, slanderous accusations. Because today, it's someone else being labeled. Tomorrow, it could be you.

‘Blue Monday’ is apparently the most ‘depressing’ day of the year…

Accept it’s not.

It’s actually the day of the year on which people are most likely to book a holiday, based on the following formula:

A psychologist called Cliff Arnall came up with the formula in 2005. He developed it on behalf Travel (a now defunct media channel), who wanted to know what motivated people to book a summer…

Over time I have come to believe that education is a system set up by capitalists to benefit capitalists. In the same way the family prepares children to be proletariat who will work for the bourgeoisie in some way through primary socialisation, education does so through secondary socialisation. It teaches children specialised skills when they take certain subjects, readying them for the job they will take later in life. This benefits capitalists as the workers will be good at the job they take as they have been trained in the necessary areas.

Education creates a strong workforce, as as well as teaching skills, it teaches authority and knowledge. In creating this strong workforce, capitalists have ensured that they will make more money as production will be fast and produce will be up to standards very quickly. The bourgeoisie control what is set out in the national curriculum and therefore have a strong influence on lessons, meaning everyone in each generation that attends standard schooling will learn the same knowledge, norms and values.

Education mirrors work. At school, children become familiar with a hierarchy on which they are at the bottom, with people in positions of authority above them according to rank, i.e teachers then vice principles, principles followed by a board of governors, similar to the working hierarchy - manual workers, white collar workers, professionals, managers and executives. Education makes children familiar with this hierarchy on purpose, as it means they settle in to their role on the bottom of the ladder with people in positions of power and authority above them, and will therefore settle into being workers without disruption and know to obey those above them for fear of repercussions. Education assimilates with work - everything you learn in the institution is needed for the working world and so both work together. The hierarchy in education is disguised and so people do not notice it and therefore do not notice that the capitalists are indoctrinating them to the idea that they should be exploited by those above them, this is yet another way capitalists ensure that they stay in power over the proletariat.

Education exists merely to deduce who will be bourgeois and who a proletariat, rather than creating either through knowledge and intelligence. Education dictates roles. It is mainly about transmitting capitalists values and therefore meritocracy does not exist, since capitalists believe the prolat. should stay in their roles and the bourgeois in theirs. If people cannot break free from their roles as either of these, then there is no equality and again no existing meritocratic system. Althusser believed in the idea of state apparatus which means social control. He said that there were two types of social control: idealogical and repressive. Ideological control is control through ideas and beliefs whereas repressive control is a physical control.  It can therefore be viewed that capitalists use idealogical control in education in ways such as the hidden curriculum. Through this hidden curriculum of capitalist norms and values and through being taught capitalist appointed subjects, children are indoctrinated into a capitalist worlds. Education simply builds on the capitalist norms and values that the family introduces through primary socialisation.

Repressive control is used in education through punishments such as detention, however children are more likely to rebel against this type of social control. Education therefore makes people feel that capitalist norms and values are fair through indoctrination. Most people, however, are unaware that this ideological control through the hidden curriculum is taking place - this shows just how subtle and effective it is.

Education is a capitalist system created to benefit capitalists and as they control it so subtly, they succeed as people are unaware they are even using it to ideologically control people.