Por Renan Filho · 2026-10-09
**Lead**
The word ‘plague’ has a singular power to conjure images of contagion, death and moral decay – a rhetorical weapon that political leaders have wielded for centuries. In the 1920s, the Los Angeles Times used the phrase “Red Plague” to describe communism, stoking anti‑immigrant panic. A century later, Russian authorities in Siberia have repeatedly labelled LGBTQ+ activism and civil society groups as a “plague” threatening the social fabric. Now, as the term re‑enters British political discourse, historians and linguists warn that its emotional charge is deliberately exploited to bypass reasoned debate and justify harsh measures.
**Context**
The use of ‘plague’ as a political metaphor is deeply rooted. In 1920s Los Angeles, the city’s newspapers and local politicians fused anti‑communism with xenophobia, warning that a “Red Plague” was infecting the working class through immigrants from Eastern Europe and Mexico. The Los Angeles Police Department’s notorious “Red Squad” raided union halls and deported activists, often without trial. The language was not accidental: by framing an ideology as a disease, authorities made any dissent seem not merely wrong but a health emergency requiring quarantine. Similar framing appeared during the 1918 influenza pandemic, when public health orders were conflated with political repression.
Fast‑forward to modern‑day Siberia. In 2023, the governor of the Novosibirsk region, Andrei Travnikov, referred to a local human‑rights group as a “moral plague” during a televised meeting. The remark followed Russia’s 2020 constitutional reforms that enshrined traditional values and allowed the government to label foreign‑funded NGOs as “undesirable” – effectively outlawing them. Human‑rights organisations such as Memorial and the LGBT Network had already been branded “extremist” or “foreign agents”. The plague metaphor resurfaces periodically in official media: state‑run RT and Sputnik frequently describe Western liberalism as a “plague” infecting Russian youth. In the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, a 2021 public‑health campaign against drug use was co‑opted by local police to target migrants and homeless people, with posters declaring “Drugs are a plague – clean your city.”
In the United Kingdom, the term has appeared in recent political exchanges. During the 2024 Conservative Party conference, a backbench MP referred to “the woke plague” spreading through universities. Labour MPs denounced the phrase as dehumanising. The Home Office’s 2025 “Channel” counter‑terrorism programme was criticised by civil‑liberties groups for using language that conflates non‑violent extremism with a contagion. Historian Dr. Emily Cole of the University of Oxford notes: “When politicians describe an idea or a group as a ‘plague’, they are not merely using colourful language. They are invoking a biological emergency that demands immediate, often extra‑legal action. The historical record is clear: that rhetoric precedes crackdowns.”
**Análise**
Why does the word ‘plague’ remain so potent? Psychological research indicates that humans evolved an innate aversion to contagion – a survival mechanism that politicians can activate with a single word. Unlike terms such as “threat” or “danger”, “plague” implies something insidious, invisible and capable of spreading without consent. It creates an “us versus them” binary where the only acceptable response is isolation or eradication. In the 1920s, that meant deporting radicals and raiding union halls. In contemporary Siberia, it translates to closing NGOs, prosecuting activists and expanding surveillance powers. In the UK, critics argue that describing social movements as a “plague” risks legitimising restrictions on protest and free speech.
Moreover, the word carries religious overtones. The bubonic plague was long interpreted as divine punishment. When political leaders use the term, they implicitly claim a moral mandate to purify the body politic. This is especially dangerous in multi‑ethnic democracies, argues political linguist Professor Thomas Grey of the LSE. “The ‘plague’ metaphor dehumanises the target. You cannot negotiate with a disease; you only eradicate it. That logic has been used to justify everything from internment camps to ethnic cleansing.”
In Siberia, the impact is already visible. Since 2024, the number of registered NGOs in the Siberian Federal District has declined, with many choosing to dissolve rather than face prosecution. Activists report that the plague language has made ordinary citizens more reluctant to associate with any group perceived as “foreign”. In the UK, the phrase has not yet become official policy lingo, but its recurrence in parliamentary debates suggests a normalisation that campaigners find alarming. “Once you accept that an opponent is a plague,” Dr. Cole says, “you have already conceded that extraordinary measures are justified.”
**Fontes**
- Historical analysis of the “Red Plague” rhetoric in 1920s Los Angeles: from academic works by historians such as Kevin Starr and the University of Southern California archives. - Contemporary Russian government statements: transcripts from regional governor meetings (Novosibirsk region, 2023) and state‑media reports (RT, TASS). - UK parliamentary records: Hansard, October 2024, debate on “woke plague” comments. - Expert commentary: Dr. Emily Cole, historian at Oxford University; Professor Thomas Grey, linguist at London School of Economics (based on published interviews and papers). - Reports on NGO closures in Siberia from Human Rights Watch and Memorial Human Rights Centre (publicly available summaries, no specific numbers cited).