Several news sources reported that on the last day of June competing rallies were held in Portland OR. The encounter brought violence. Since an Antifa" detachment appeared to block a march it disapproved the news is no surprise.
The purpose of this piece is not to ascertain who had started the brawl by retaliating" to a provocation". The significance of the scrap is not the event but its implications. The plea here is that a culture of civilized interaction that replaced physical violence with the contest of debated ideas is petering out. Blame modern liberals for that as they make the defense of ones identity a crime. The point is that with the fading of the civilized politics of restraint disturbing perspectives open up. Once the non-violent dispute between reasoned positions is jettisoned in favor of direct physical confrontation we open up a new age of political decision making.
It is a defect of our species that even in the best systems there will be isolated marginal groups that reject it. One cause is in the realm of psychology and that points to a disorder located beyond the limits of political writing. Their denial of the democratic orders legitimacy has a practical reason. Under normal circumstances -even if no order is devoid of problems because perfection does not exist - radical rejectionists cannot take power lawfully.
Radical cabals responding to the salvation promised by their world-view have a hard core of supporters. It is recruited from the pool of born fanatics - defectives that abound everywhere and at all times. This element needs a legitimizing moral excuse to justify its deeds when it acts out its destructive instincts. Such fanatics are governed by compulsion and accordingly they are immune to arguments or good will. These True Believers" serve reliably the messianic leaders of extremism. At the same time the militancy and its platform will only have a limited attraction to the average person. He might have crows to pick but he is being moderate not willing to change the system" by destroying it. Not an imaginary world is wanted: the existing one is to be improved.
Those programmed to be radicals form a counter-elite. It benefits from being tight-knit and from rejecting decencys inhibitions. Freed from traditional values its righteous fighters" are enabled to commit any crime. Once decent folks retreat into the permissive inaction of neutrality being more brutal than the competition becomes a decisive advantage. That might have been the case in Portland.
What makes these people into effective political gangs is the reason why they cannot win elections and why they are limited to be an extra- parliamentary opposition" which is fittingly the name of a radical tribe in Germany. The inability to gain power legally therefore needing to grab it in street battles remains a sectarian act until a crisis Russias defeat in 1917 or Germanys Depression- destroys societys fabric. With that the impression arises that the rubble demands a break with the pasts outdated morality. Millions have died due to this misdirected search for a recovery.
Once overriding forces shatter society and the order of rights and obligations is devastated the principle of liberty under the law degenerates into a hollow slogan. In such a situation the formal order is in shambles and its earlier advocates will be disoriented. When structures crumble loyalty and the points of reference shift. At the end of the process the individual is isolated in an atomized society. Once persons are deprived of the organizations through which they used to express their interests family church unions parties- they are weak and alone". With that dawns the hour of the armed parties of the True Believers. In this situation sneering elites that are liberated from the morality of civilization attain supremacy. Regardless of their small size being clinched fists they get the upper hand as their front" only faces isolated persons. Surmounting the disadvantage of size their depicted attributes convert into an advantage over the confused mass. With that as the Nazi anthem put it the streets are free for the brown and red- battalions". In Lenins words the power to be usurped lays on the street" to be picked up. Like in a mafia district the average person is unable to resist and must march along. A paralyzed society can be kidnapped by those totalitarians that had out brutalized" their competition.
To those that accept this narrative the tendency to formulate policy through the resort to street-level violence will be disturbing. However timely preventive action to government by riot" is hindered by cultural factors. Ironically if politics by violence cannot be stopped those who claim to represent virtue and who once in power reject all limits imposed on their rule will abolish the democracy that now limits resistance to authoritarians that claim to exercise their rights.
In accordance with the Enlightenments tradition democracy affirms worthy principles; due process the right to assemble to express opinions. The totality of such provisions assumed that all share its values. It appeared to be self-evident" that society shares a definition of what liberty is and how to maintain it in a context determined by limited government.
This presumed natural" unanimity is decaying. Its cause is the spreading of ideas produced by incompatible cultures that extend respectability to dehumanizing collectivism. Imported non-democratic traditions abound and claim to express the ethnic identity of their gangland holders. The tendency is that as all thoughts may be expressed in a free society to allege that all ideas are of equal merit. The upshot is not freedom but a license to act. The freedom intended to protect the rights of the citizen metamorphoses into the privilege of protected crooks and cuddled fools to act without penalty.
Due to its principle of tolerance the open society finds it difficult to defend itself against its principled enemies. The reason is that its protagonists are restrained by their principles that thereby become self-imposed handcuffs. Enemies are at work who wish to subvert systematized liberty by exploiting freedoms institutionalized principles. This element has become skilled in using freedoms protection for their subversion that undermines liberty as a system.
The defenders of freedom as a system in an individualism- and merit-centered democracy must learn that saying no" can be a must and not a sign of a thick skull. That the law is to be enforced that letting violators off is no generosity. Oppression is not when agreed upon rules are enforced. Furthermore legitimate regulations do not require the consent of its violators - not even if they claim to act out their own principle or cultural tradition. Mainly order and freedom are contrary to rampaging radicals not contradictory but complimentary. Group traits -race religion- do not legitimize crimes even if an approving subculture demands that as a right. Violation is not a right even if the malefactors share traits that allow them to claim a status for which the privilege of immunity can be invoked.
Finally resistance to absurd and extralegal demands does not prove racism and the resolute defense of the rule of law applied to all is not a sign of insensitivity".
In the light of that the staunch defense of an order that handles its subjects equally is a right and an imperative as a duty. Democracys legitimacy in the developed world does not need the approval of the native or immigrant enemies of freedom. Much rather it commands that we defend its achievements firmly. The personal security and prosperity enjoyed in democracies commands us to know that without its orders unyielding defense the systems credibility and utility will be lost. In this struggle there are no innocent bystanders" and no dialogue" can substitute for principled action.
Several news sources reported that on the last day of June competing rallies were held in Portland OR. The encounter brought violence. Since an Antifa" detachment appeared to block a march it disapproved the news is no surprise.
The purpose of this piece is not to ascertain who had started the brawl by retaliating" to a provocation". The significance of the scrap is not the event but its implications. The plea here is that a culture of civilized interaction that replaced physical violence with the contest of debated ideas is petering out. Blame modern liberals for that as they make the defense of ones identity a crime. The point is that with the fading of the civilized politics of restraint disturbing perspectives open up. Once the non-violent dispute between reasoned positions is jettisoned in favor of direct physical confrontation we open up a new age of political decision making.
It is a defect of our species that even in the best systems there will be isolated marginal groups that reject it. One cause is in the realm of psychology and that points to a disorder located beyond the limits of political writing. Their denial of the democratic orders legitimacy has a practical reason. Under normal circumstances -even if no order is devoid of problems because perfection does not exist - radical rejectionists cannot take power lawfully.
Radical cabals responding to the salvation promised by their world-view have a hard core of supporters. It is recruited from the pool of born fanatics - defectives that abound everywhere and at all times. This element needs a legitimizing moral excuse to justify its deeds when it acts out its destructive instincts. Such fanatics are governed by compulsion and accordingly they are immune to arguments or good will. These True Believers" serve reliably the messianic leaders of extremism. At the same time the militancy and its platform will only have a limited attraction to the average person. He might have crows to pick but he is being moderate not willing to change the system" by destroying it. Not an imaginary world is wanted: the existing one is to be improved.
Those programmed to be radicals form a counter-elite. It benefits from being tight-knit and from rejecting decencys inhibitions. Freed from traditional values its righteous fighters" are enabled to commit any crime. Once decent folks retreat into the permissive inaction of neutrality being more brutal than the competition becomes a decisive advantage. That might have been the case in Portland.
What makes these people into effective political gangs is the reason why they cannot win elections and why they are limited to be an extra- parliamentary opposition" which is fittingly the name of a radical tribe in Germany. The inability to gain power legally therefore needing to grab it in street battles remains a sectarian act until a crisis Russias defeat in 1917 or Germanys Depression- destroys societys fabric. With that the impression arises that the rubble demands a break with the pasts outdated morality. Millions have died due to this misdirected search for a recovery.
Once overriding forces shatter society and the order of rights and obligations is devastated the principle of liberty under the law degenerates into a hollow slogan. In such a situation the formal order is in shambles and its earlier advocates will be disoriented. When structures crumble loyalty and the points of reference shift. At the end of the process the individual is isolated in an atomized society. Once persons are deprived of the organizations through which they used to express their interests family church unions parties- they are weak and alone". With that dawns the hour of the armed parties of the True Believers. In this situation sneering elites that are liberated from the morality of civilization attain supremacy. Regardless of their small size being clinched fists they get the upper hand as their front" only faces isolated persons. Surmounting the disadvantage of size their depicted attributes convert into an advantage over the confused mass. With that as the Nazi anthem put it the streets are free for the brown and red- battalions". In Lenins words the power to be usurped lays on the street" to be picked up. Like in a mafia district the average person is unable to resist and must march along. A paralyzed society can be kidnapped by those totalitarians that had out brutalized" their competition.
To those that accept this narrative the tendency to formulate policy through the resort to street-level violence will be disturbing. However timely preventive action to government by riot" is hindered by cultural factors. Ironically if politics by violence cannot be stopped those who claim to represent virtue and who once in power reject all limits imposed on their rule will abolish the democracy that now limits resistance to authoritarians that claim to exercise their rights.
In accordance with the Enlightenments tradition democracy affirms worthy principles; due process the right to assemble to express opinions. The totality of such provisions assumed that all share its values. It appeared to be self-evident" that society shares a definition of what liberty is and how to maintain it in a context determined by limited government.
This presumed natural" unanimity is decaying. Its cause is the spreading of ideas produced by incompatible cultures that extend respectability to dehumanizing collectivism. Imported non-democratic traditions abound and claim to express the ethnic identity of their gangland holders. The tendency is that as all thoughts may be expressed in a free society to allege that all ideas are of equal merit. The upshot is not freedom but a license to act. The freedom intended to protect the rights of the citizen metamorphoses into the privilege of protected crooks and cuddled fools to act without penalty.
Due to its principle of tolerance the open society finds it difficult to defend itself against its principled enemies. The reason is that its protagonists are restrained by their principles that thereby become self-imposed handcuffs. Enemies are at work who wish to subvert systematized liberty by exploiting freedoms institutionalized principles. This element has become skilled in using freedoms protection for their subversion that undermines liberty as a system.
The defenders of freedom as a system in an individualism- and merit-centered democracy must learn that saying no" can be a must and not a sign of a thick skull. That the law is to be enforced that letting violators off is no generosity. Oppression is not when agreed upon rules are enforced. Furthermore legitimate regulations do not require the consent of its violators - not even if they claim to act out their own principle or cultural tradition. Mainly order and freedom are contrary to rampaging radicals not contradictory but complimentary. Group traits -race religion- do not legitimize crimes even if an approving subculture demands that as a right. Violation is not a right even if the malefactors share traits that allow them to claim a status for which the privilege of immunity can be invoked.
Finally resistance to absurd and extralegal demands does not prove racism and the resolute defense of the rule of law applied to all is not a sign of insensitivity".
In the light of that the staunch defense of an order that handles its subjects equally is a right and an imperative as a duty. Democracys legitimacy in the developed world does not need the approval of the native or immigrant enemies of freedom. Much rather it commands that we defend its achievements firmly. The personal security and prosperity enjoyed in democracies commands us to know that without its orders unyielding defense the systems credibility and utility will be lost. In this struggle there are no innocent bystanders" and no dialogue" can substitute for principled action.