|
Blair is the current head of Britain's Labour Party, a welfare-statist
political force if ever there was one. Governing over a welfare state
which largely follows Labour's ideal, Blair is invested in the status
quo, in theory and in practice. It is therefore no error to assume
that he will work to strengthen the status quo which keeps him in
power, the welfare state, and to secure it against all threats
to its existence. The terrorists threaten the existence of the welfare
state, because they believe that the welfare state is
insufficiently coercive. But, likewise, the advocates of
unadulterated capitalism are a threat to the welfare state, because
they believe it to be too coercive. Furthermore, they are a far
graver threat to the welfare state than a horde of irrational,
illiterate, suicidal users of explosives who enrage more than they
persuade. The capitalists have a breadth and depth of argumentation,
history, principles, and practice on their side that no other party
could match. They do not coerce anybody with their activities, because
they neither need to nor believe in the validity of such coercion. In
any sane country, they are given full freedom to express their views,
which consequently win on the free market of ideas and uproot the
welfare state. The only way to combat the growth of these ideas, and
to entrench the welfare state, is through censorship and punishment of
such "extreme" notions.
The term, "radical," is a synonym for the term, "extreme."
Dictionary.com provides three definitions of the word, all of them
instructive:
|
1. Arising from or going
to a root or source; basic: proposed a radical solution to the
problem.
2. Departing markedly from the usual or customary; extreme:
radical opinions on education.
3. Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in
current practices, conditions, or institutions: radical
political views. |
Of urgent notice is the fact that none of the above,
genuine definitions of "radical" contain an element of violence in
them. Radicalism does not imply hatred, it does not imply coercion,
and it certainly does not imply terrorism. Definition #1 illustrates
clearly that "radical" also means "principled," addressing the
root of a given issue and applying the insights thus gained,
rather than just adhering to superficialities. Anybody who holds
consistent basic premises and rigorously applies them to specific
issues is a radical. In other words, Tony Blair's policies could be
extended to persecute anyone who competently employs the deductive
method. By Definition #2, anybody who is outside the "mainstream" on
some issue, anybody who disagrees with a majority of his peers on what
ideas are correct, or even what books, films, clothing, and hairstyles
are desirable could be construed as a radical. By Definition #3,
anybody who disagrees with his welfare-statist rulers about the proper
form of government, anybody who wishes to reform today's bloated,
omnipresent, simultaneously imploding and exploding state behemoths,
is a radical, and fair game for censorship, deportation, or arrest
without charges. Hatred, the Ever Vague
Of the trio that Blair is targeting "extremism," "radicalism," and
"hatred" the third term is the most ambiguous. Of all the above
terms, it is also the simplest to define.
Dictionary.com states that it is simply "intense animosity or
hostility." This, of course, begs the question: animosity or hostility
toward what? The answer? Absolutely anything at all! I am glad
that I do not live in Britain, for if I had, and dared to express my
personal distaste for a pair of homosexuals kissing in the middle of a
crowded restaurant, I could be construed as a "preacher of hatred" in
a culture that is even more over-sensitive and politically correct
toward homosexuals than is that of the United States. Is hatred
defined based on the perceptions of "intense animosity" of the sender
of a given message, or its receiver? The answer, in a politically
correct society, is either. Provided that one is of a protected
"minority" group, his/her/its definition of "hatred" will always be
upheld. If one happens to be a white male rationalist, however, one is
presumed guilty of "hatred" before one even opens one's mouth.
Once again, the term "hatred" is sufficiently convenient in its
vagueness to use terrorism advocates as straw men for the British
government's true target: political incorrectness.
One might also note that "hatred" need not be directed at a person. An
idea, policy, or institution can easily be its target. And he who
opposes the idea of collectivism, the policy of government's
systematic intrusion on privacy, or the very institution of the
welfare state itself, could quite elementarily be construed as a
"preacher of hatred" against the aforementioned. Blair's policies are
a glaring danger for all free thought, principled living, and
political dissent.
To baffle just about every modern government official in existence, I
will state another fact that has slipped them by. The reason why
terrorists are a danger is not because they are extreme in
their views. Rather, they are a danger because they are
fanatical about imposing their views on others through force. The
extremist and the fanatic are seldom one and the same, and seldom does
fanaticism stem for any consistent, radical set of principles
whatsoever. One cannot, after all, call the terrorists masters at
profound, integrated ideology, even their own ideology of
fundamentalist Islam. Their own "sacred" book, the Koran, prohibits
attacks on innocent civilians, after all.
The defining premise of the fanatic is not extremism, or even ideology
per se. It is orthodoxy. As I wrote in "The
Mark of the Fanatic:"
|
The Islamic
fundamentalist seeks to, with vicious fervor, enforce a pristine
orthodoxy of Muslim ritual, down to the sorts of foods a
'believer' should or should not eat, or the type of headgear he
should wear. The screeching demagogue of the New Left seeks, with
bitter, uncoordinated rage, to enforce an orthodoxy of
'victimization.' Woe to him who dares assert that the livelihood
of modern African-Americans is not tarnished by the specter of
slavery, or that no inherent gender-discrimination exists in
contemporary America, or that the free market would not somehow
inhibit the opportunities of poor children, or that the elderly
would not be ruthlessly robbed and cheated in a free market for
medicine and pensions! The hippie will smear him with the names,
"fascist," "cold-hearted brute," "Eurocentric patriarchal bigot,"
or that favorite obscenity of the "counterculture" and its
intellectual descendants, "f****r." And of course, the moderates
who use the emergence of terror as an excuse to suggest a
suppression of "extremism" are themselves advocates of the most
vicious orthodoxy of them all, the status quo. What else could be
more "conventional and accepted?" What else could be more
stereotypical and less systematic than a random hodgepodge of
whatever most people happen to feel or wish or, more rarely, think
at some particular time? It can be generalized from this that a
fanatic is inextricably linked to an orthodoxy and seeks to defend
an orthodoxy against any "unbelievers."
With the use of the status quo as the quintessential orthodoxy,
one may ask the question, "But does the status quo truly espouse
any principles? Is it not an-ever shifting set of often
self-contradictory beliefs, which cannot even at any instant be
pinpointed to or related with any absolute?" And I will answer
that this question strikes the mark precisely when identifying the
nature of the status quo. It is not based on principles; nor is an
orthodoxy. The fanatic defending it defends not principles but
conventionality. He enforces it not because he seeks to
champion a cause, but because he seeks a cause to champion, not
for the sake of the cause but for the sake of the championing.
|
Earlier on in the
article cited, I had suggested a
definition of fanaticism: "excessive intolerance of opposing views."
This definition has nothing to do with extremism, but it perfectly
characterizes the mindset of every terrorist who ever lived. Were the
terrorist not concerned with imposing his own views on others, with
limiting the range of others' non-coercive free choice, would he have
undertaken his bombing attacks? The extremist, on the other hand, is
more often than not quite tolerant, both of "moderates" and of others
with "extreme" views. He recognizes that the majority sentiment is not
aligned with him, and if somebody's freedom is to be the first to go,
his will be it. Therefore, he will likely defend all freedom
zealously, in hopes of thereby preserving his own. The extremist is
intense in expressing his views, but he is, in the overwhelming
majority of cases, nonviolent, civil, and far more interesting than
the typical purveyor of the "mainstream."
The extremist does not typically have a firmly established societal
mechanism to promote his ideas; if he had, he would already be in the
mainstream! Therefore, he has to work on a level of small-scale
activities: a conversation here, a debate there, a series of articles,
perhaps, all aimed at creating the slightest foothold for his views
with the minimum cost to the extremist himself. Certainly, he would
not even wish to put his good name on the line, not even to mention
his life, for his views. Any victory, no matter how small, is a cause
for the extremist's celebration, but, if he does not succeed today, he
is willing to shrug it off and try again tomorrow. He is never so
desperate as to risk the standard of living he already enjoys and
endanger everything he holds dear in a gamble of violent
terrorism.
The purveyor of orthodoxy, however, has everything to lose from
any contender, from whichever direction he might come. The orthodoxy,
or the "mainstream" of any given society, discipline, or movement,
already controls vital means to power and influence, and it would not
control them if it had not desired to do so. There are two ways
for any orthodoxy to go: up, at the expense of the dissenters, or
down, to their benefit. Since both the leaders and the rank-and-file
of the orthodoxy do not seek to lose their treasured political or
social sway, they are the most likely to employ vicious fanaticism and
coercion in targeting those extremists who disagree with them.
The more rational the disagreement, the more formidable it is, and the
more the orthodoxy will seek to suffocate it.
The culture of the West, with its basic individualist premise, its
capitalist economy, and its abundance of material prosperity, poses a
serious challenge to the theocratic, authoritarian orthodoxy of the
Middle East. Those who advocate the pre-Western status quo have the
most to lose from the advance of Western prosperity and freedom into
their lands. With the terror mastermind Osama bin Laden as their
arch-embodiment, they recognize that the coming of Western culture is
the most rational disagreement possible with the Sharia-based societal
structures that preceded it. The effectiveness of the West's influence
has been shown in the colossal number of Middle Easterners who had
willingly embraced it, becoming swayed by the rationality of Western
ways. The old Wahhabi orthodoxy is a pushover in the realm of
argument, but, in the realm of force, it could stand a chance. In
effect, because Western individualism, capitalism, and
rationalism were mighty stimuli for change in the Middle East, they
elicited an equally dramatic response in the form of terror. Terrorism
is the manifestation of the old Middle Eastern "mainstream" fighting
to prevail against superior "radical" infusions from abroad. The cause
of terror would have been a futile one, doomed to lose, had not the
West been plagued by power-hungry orthodoxies of its own, in the form
of its welfare-statist governments, which stifle the progress of
freedom and capitalism to a degree that terrorists can only dream of.
It can be seen now that the policies of Tony Blair, in their
insistence on preserving the status quo orthodoxy in Britain, stem, in
a way, from the same basic premises that cause terrorism itself, a
distaste for the innovation and renovation that can save a society
from the grip of all orthodoxies. Only "radicals" and "extremists"
committed to the principles of freedom, individualism, and capitalism
can bring about this orthodoxy-free society of full liberty and
toleration. Not surprisingly, it is those same "radicals" and
"extremists" to whom both Tony Blair and the terrorists show a staunch
opposition, along with the readiness to use coercion if need be.
The same peaceful, freedom-loving, thoughtful, innovative individuals
whom the terrorists despise most of all are valid targets of Blair's
new domestic measures!
If this eventual outcome were not Blair's intention, then why did he
structure his policies deliberately to target anyone except
actual violent criminals and terrorists, and to render especially
vulnerable those who support the opposite of everything
terrorists stand for? Is this an honest error? Ayn Rand would have
said that mistakes of this size are never made by accident. It is
certainly not by accident that the British government has rendered
itself capable of closing your bookstore or shutting down your
intellectual website. Nor will the British government by any means
relinquish its newly endowed authority once the terror threat
subsides.
Were she alive
today, Ayn Rand would have urged a staunch, vocal opposition against
Blair's new methods of "moderate" fanaticism. In her words, "There can
be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on
moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of
truth, of rational conviction. If an uncompromising stand is to be
smeared as 'extremism,' then that smear is directed at any devotion to
values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any
consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an
unbreached, inviolate truth any man of
integrity." It will take men of integrity to stand up and show
Tony Blair's wanton power grab for what it truly is.
|
