Aff can’t perm without rejecting their own impacts all together
Neocleous ‘08? [Mark Neocleous is Professor of the Critique of Political Economy at Brunel University London. Neocleous, Mark. “Critique of Security.” Google Books, 2008, books.google.com/books?id=mPeqBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=The%2Bonly%2Bway%2Bout%2Bof%2Bsuch%2Ba%2Bdilemma%2C%2Bto%2Bescape%2Bthe%2Bfetish%2C%2Bis%2Bperhaps%2Bto%2Beschew%2Bthe%2Blogic%2Bof%2Bsecurity%2Baltogether%2B-%2Bto%2Breject%2Bit%2Bas%2Bso%2Bideologically%2Bloaded%2Bin%2Bfavour%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bstate%2Bthat%2Bany%2Breal%2Bpolitical%2Bthought%2Bother%2Bthan&source=bl&ots=Hto8vrXXq3&sig=ACfU3U1x5lLzxWw1-qFcaXejwJ_q4XegGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjuouqclqGAAxUpFVkFHbkaBzAQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=The%20only%20way%20out%20of%20such%20a%20dilemma%2C%20to%20escape%20the%20fetish%2C%20is%20perhaps%20to%20eschew%20the%20logic%20of%20security%20altogether%20-%20to%20reject%20it%20as%20so%20ideologically%20loaded%20in%20favour%20of%20the%20state%20that%20any%20real%20political%20thought%20other%20than&f=false. ]
The only way out of such a dilemma, to escape the fetish, is perhaps to eschew the logic of security altogether - to reject it as so ideologically loaded in favour of the state that any real political thought other than the authoritarian and reactionary should be pressed to give it up. That is clearly something that can not be achieved within the limits of bourgeois thought and thus could never even begin to be imagined by the security intellectual. It is also something that the constant iteration of the refrain 'this is an insecure world' and reiteration of one fear, anxiety and insecurity after another will also make it hard to do. But it is something that the critique of security suggests we may have to consider if we want a political way out of the impasse of security. This impasse exists because security has now become so all-encompassing that it marginalises all else, most notably the constructive conflicts, debates and discussions that animate political life. The constant prioritising of a mythical security as a political end - as the political end constitutes a rejection of politics in any meaningful sense of the term. That is, as a mode of action in which differences can be articulated, in which the conflicts and struggles that arise from such differences can be fought for and negotiated, in which people might come to believe that another world is possible - that they might transform the world and in turn be transformed. Security politics simply removes this; worse, it removes it while purportedly addressing it. In so doing it suppresses all issues of power and turns political questions into debates about the most efficient way to achieve 'security', despite the fact that we are never quite told - never could be told - what might count as having achieved it. Security politics is, in this sense, an anti-politics,141 dominating political discourse in much the same manner as the security state tries to dominate human beings, reinforcing security fetishism and the monopolistic character of security on the political imagination. We therefore need to get beyond security politics, not add yet more 'sectors' to it in a way that simply expands the scope of the state and legitimises state intervention in yet more and more areas of our lives.