The plan to build a nuclear power station courtesy of EDF, and the selling-off of the Royal Mail, are the latest in a long line of steps to erode the sovereignty of Britain's national infrastructure and assets.
A recent article in The Guardian reminds us that the deal to build a new nuclear power station next to an existing one in Somerset is thanks mostly to money from Chinese state-owned companies going to EDF, a company mostly owned by the French state (the name is an acronym for "Electricite De France"). In other words, the British government is happy to have part of the nation's future nuclear energy effectively ran as a joint venture of the French and Chinese government. Not only that, but as part of the deal, the the British government has agreed in advance to a price that is many times higher than that at the moment.
Not only are they handing British energy to joint French-Chinese custodians, they are also kicking their own people in the teeth in the process.
This is nothing new the the UK. The "privatisation" of the energy industry simply created a cartel, or oligarchy, of private sector behemoths. Due to the massive barriers to entry, this makes it necessary that only huge corporations can apply to such tenders. Worse, the oligarchy created from this "privatisation" was guaranteed government subsidies coming from taxpayers' money, completely missing the point that these companies were supposed to be in a "free market", and free of government. Thus it is the worst of both worlds, as is often the case with UK "privatisation". This model bears many characteristics similar to the corrupt arrangements found in Fascist economics.
It gets worse. Apart from one of the so-called "Big Six" (energy cartel) being part-owned by the French state (EDF), there is also "E.ON", which is a Germany-based company, with interests also in Russia, Sweden and the USA. The sad reality of who owns the "Big Six" is explained here. Of the six, only two are actually British (even if they do include the majority of the market share). Apart from the two already mentioned, "npower" is technically British, but owned by German parent company, RWE. "Scottish power", is owned by its Spanish parent company, Iberdrola. Only "Centrica" and SSE ("Scottish and Southern Electric") are British companies in the full sense.
With the recent price rises, many times above inflation, the irony is that the government sees no reason to interfere in the blatant price-fixing of this energy cartel masquerading as a "free market", while taxpayers fork out for government subsidies to the selfsame "free market". This is pattern repeated time and time again in "privatisation".
There is also the example of water supply. Again, the logic of the private sector was applied to an industry where the state-ran regional authorities were transformed into private companies. The difference between the energy sector and the water industry is that, for obvious practical reasons, you cannot make water a free market good because a customer cannot "choose" which water supply to use. The same point is true of the rail network (see below), which is still ran by companies that have, for the most part, carved up the network into spheres of quasi-monopolistic control. In the case of water supply in the UK, it has been turned into a cash-cow for foreign investors, with the British customer being often treated little better than a serf.
Apart from the energy sector, there is the "privatised" rail network. This operates on much the same operating model as that of the energy sector. As with energy, the train operating companies also include "Arriva" (one of the biggest private transport companies in the UK), which is owned by "Deutsche Bahn", the German national rail carrier. Likewise, "Greater Anglia", that is the main train carrier in the East Of England region, is owned by "Abelio", the Dutch national rail carrier; they also have a joint stake in "Merseyrail" and "Northern Rail", with one of the biggest service-provider behemoths, Serco. In other words, part of Britain's rail stock is now effectively owned by the German and Dutch government.
"Privatisation" of the railways in the UK has therefore really meant selling-off part of the rail stock to foreign governments. The laughable irony here is that Britain's nationalised rail network was parceled up piece-by-piece, with parts of it going to foreign nationalised rail companies. You really couldn't make this up!
This is not "privatisation": it's called asset-stripping, or selling national assets to foreign countries. And again, the rail companies are free to charge whatever price increases they like, far above inflation (without government interference), while still receiving taxpayer-paid government subsidies as well. EDF has been offered the same deal for the new nuclear plant.
A great arrangement if you can get it!
No wonder the British government is trying to convince China and other countries to "invest" in the UK. The British government is often taking British taxpayers' money to give it foreign companies (or foreign government-owned companies) as "subsidies", while also allowing them to suck their British customers for as much as they can (because it's a "free market").
Whose interests do the British government work for? In the examples above, it certainly isn't in the British national interest, let alone the taxpayer.
Fool the British people once, shame on you! Fool them twice...well...
People get the government they deserve.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
The US shutdown and default crisis: Why The Tea Party's tactics would make Ayn Rand turn in her grave
We've been here before. There's an now-annual sense of deja vu in Washington whenever a budget vote in Congress comes up. Taking advantage of the tripartite political system, The Tea Party's hold on the Republicans in Congress means that they threaten to hold the government finance "hostage" to their demands whenever they have the opportunity. Democracy has nothing to do with it: it's called extortion.
I wrote previously about The Tea Party last year, when they had the chance to use "guerrilla tactics" to make their point on a national stage.
Until now, threatening financial paralysis has generally been a successful strategy for them; on almost every opportunity, The Tea Party have been able to wrangle some kind of compromise out of Obama and the Democrats who control the Senate.
But this time was different. The Tea Party's demands were over the repeal of a piece of legislation close to Obama's heart - The Affordable Care Act - and Obama decided that enough was enough.
As the legislation had been already passed, was law, and the Republicans had lost the presidential election, Obama clearly thinks that right is on his side. Not only that, but the other reason that Obama has stuck to his guns and allowed The Tea Party to carry out their initial threat (to refuse to pass the annual budget at force a partial closure of government) was that it would set a dangerous precedent. it would mean that any faction that had effective control over one arm of the legislature could hold the rest of government hostage to their demands.
Obama may as well have said: "I don't negotiate with terrorists". Morally, this is how low The Tea Party has sunk.
The "hostage crisis" and the "nuclear option"
So Washington effectively has a "hostage crisis" on its hands - the government being "held hostage" by The Tea Party, a group of ideological extremists. The shutdown that afflicted President Clinton's government for three weeks in winter of '95-'96 was the last time this happened.
But this occasion is much more serious. For one, the Clinton shutdown happened through a fit of pique by Newt Gingrich, the Republican Speaker of the House. This time, the motivation is about the repeal of an existing piece of legislation. Worse, the "hostage crisis" is more immediately time-dependent. While holding government finances "hostage" is the first stage of the crisis (and can in theory go on indefinitely until one side caves in), the impending vote of extending the national debt is a matter of national and global urgency. The Tea Party refusing to pass this bill is the "nuclear option".
So now we're in a game of chicken, heading towards an unprecedented financial train-wreck.
In an odd way, this reminds me of the closest moment that the world came to a real nuclear apocalypse, during The Cuban Missile Crisis. The "Thirteen Days" of that crisis show a parallel with Nikita Khruschev's tactics of attempting a fait accompli on the USA by placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, forcing the USA to recognise Cuba's independence. This backfired, resulting in a stand-off of wills between the two premiers. However, both leaders were rational enough to never seriously consider the "nuclear option" for real. Khruschev backed off and was satisfied with concessions from Kennedy that left Cuba's status protected by the Soviet Union.
The US fiscal crisis of 2013 seems fronted by two sides intent on testing each other's will, to the brink, and even beyond it. In other words, while the two belligerents in The Cuban Missile Crisis were still fundamentally rational (though the USA was paranoid, and the Soviet premier's tactics erratic), in this US fiscal crisis the two belligerents seem conversely deluded and/or irrational.
An accidental apocalypse?
A piece by The New York Times explains how a default may well happen almost by accident, in much the same way how the leaders involved in The Cuban Missile Crisis feared nuclear war could be provoked in spite of their intentions. As the article explains:
"The more Wall Street is convinced that Washington will act rationally and raise the debt ceiling, most likely at the 11th hour, the less pressure there will be on lawmakers to reach an agreement. That will make it more likely a deal isn’t reached"
While the rhetoric from the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, seemed to soften before the weekend, it had done an about-turn by Sunday. Now firmly in the clutches of The Tea Party, Boehner has switched the blame back on Obama's unwillingness to compromise (i.e. cave in) over The Tea Party demands.
In the crisis over the impending default, it appears that both sides are hardening their stances as they get closer to the deadline, rather than the reverse. Obama refuses to budge because he believes has conceded enough to The Tea Party in previous stand-offs; while the The Tea Party refuse to budge because they think that Obama will concede, because he has done before.
Apart from the game of chicken going on, The Tea Party have three main motivations for their refusal to budge:
1) the lack of panic seen on the financial markets (as also mentioned in The New York Times article), which they see as a sign that...
2) they think the US government is bluffing, as it has other options that could delay the default, and in any case...
3) they think that nothing major will happen even if the US did default on its financial obligations.
The hardening of Boehner and The Republicans' stance seems to be now based mainly on point number three: they believe that nothing major will happen if the US defaults on it's financial obligations.
This looks like an odd turn of strategy. Now their approach appears based on dismissing the "crisis" (that they started) on the other side's scaremongering. In other words, they have created a crisis situation, then just as suddenly declare that there is no crisis; the "crisis" in all in the heads of the Democrats.
Trying to get your head around the irrationality of the strategies going on is enough to make your head spin. After Boehner declared before the weekend that he wouldn't let a default happen because the consequences would be too terrible to contemplate, his side now seem to have convinced him that nothing will happen if the default deadline is passed.
This tells you how completely irrational The Tea Party are. Their rationale makes no sense at all.
The financial stability in the markets can't last forever if nothing changes; panic is likely to hit the markets by the end of Friday if (as expected) no-one budges. This may then make one side think twice; but just as likely, it may not. The Republicans have three reasons for not changing their mind, as I mentioned.
While, theoretically, the White House may have options it could use if the US defaults, it is adamant that it is Congress' responsibility to deal with the debt obligations, not the White House's.
The US defaulting on paying off existing financial obligations (debts) is unprecedented, and for this reason no-one is sure what would happen. And this uncertainty is what is fueling The Tea Party's ambivalence. The appalling irresponsibility of this behaviour barely needs mentioning: like pressing the "nuclear button" just to see if the missiles really would reach their targets.
This is the behaviour of psychopaths. The President is staring into the face of a group of people who are devoid of fear of the consequences, and lack empathy towards the wider effect of their actions on their own people.
It is for this reason that a default looks more likely now than it did several days ago.
Ayn Rand's disciples following "Atlas Shrugged" too closely
This reminds me of the plot of "Atlas Shrugged", albeit with a hideous twist of fate. In Rand's seminal novel, it was the unions that brought the country to a standstill, encouraging enterprising captains of industry to detach themselves from the economic dysfunction and strike up a new "capitalist utopia", free of interference.
In 2013, The Tea Party seem close to emulating what the unions did in Rand's novel; paralysing government and holding the entire country to hostage.
It seems The Tea Party want to make government as dysfunctional as possible in order to bring about the collapse of government; to make their distrust in government a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are the "Trojan Horses" of the democratic system they claim to hold dear. Fascists in the inter-war period did much the same thing.
Rand may not have been a huge fan of "democracy" as such: she saw it as the tyranny of the majority. But Rand herself would surely never have condoned the tactics that one extremist faction, The Tea Party, seem intent on carrying out till the bitter end.
No wonder some moderate Republicans also call The Tea Party "The Taliban"; they neither care about their own fate or that of the countrymen they claim to love.
Five years on from the horrible autumn of 2008 that brought about the first financial crisis, some members of The Tea Party seem keen to finish the job.
I wrote previously about The Tea Party last year, when they had the chance to use "guerrilla tactics" to make their point on a national stage.
Until now, threatening financial paralysis has generally been a successful strategy for them; on almost every opportunity, The Tea Party have been able to wrangle some kind of compromise out of Obama and the Democrats who control the Senate.
But this time was different. The Tea Party's demands were over the repeal of a piece of legislation close to Obama's heart - The Affordable Care Act - and Obama decided that enough was enough.
As the legislation had been already passed, was law, and the Republicans had lost the presidential election, Obama clearly thinks that right is on his side. Not only that, but the other reason that Obama has stuck to his guns and allowed The Tea Party to carry out their initial threat (to refuse to pass the annual budget at force a partial closure of government) was that it would set a dangerous precedent. it would mean that any faction that had effective control over one arm of the legislature could hold the rest of government hostage to their demands.
Obama may as well have said: "I don't negotiate with terrorists". Morally, this is how low The Tea Party has sunk.
The "hostage crisis" and the "nuclear option"
So Washington effectively has a "hostage crisis" on its hands - the government being "held hostage" by The Tea Party, a group of ideological extremists. The shutdown that afflicted President Clinton's government for three weeks in winter of '95-'96 was the last time this happened.
But this occasion is much more serious. For one, the Clinton shutdown happened through a fit of pique by Newt Gingrich, the Republican Speaker of the House. This time, the motivation is about the repeal of an existing piece of legislation. Worse, the "hostage crisis" is more immediately time-dependent. While holding government finances "hostage" is the first stage of the crisis (and can in theory go on indefinitely until one side caves in), the impending vote of extending the national debt is a matter of national and global urgency. The Tea Party refusing to pass this bill is the "nuclear option".
So now we're in a game of chicken, heading towards an unprecedented financial train-wreck.
In an odd way, this reminds me of the closest moment that the world came to a real nuclear apocalypse, during The Cuban Missile Crisis. The "Thirteen Days" of that crisis show a parallel with Nikita Khruschev's tactics of attempting a fait accompli on the USA by placing nuclear missiles in Cuba, forcing the USA to recognise Cuba's independence. This backfired, resulting in a stand-off of wills between the two premiers. However, both leaders were rational enough to never seriously consider the "nuclear option" for real. Khruschev backed off and was satisfied with concessions from Kennedy that left Cuba's status protected by the Soviet Union.
The US fiscal crisis of 2013 seems fronted by two sides intent on testing each other's will, to the brink, and even beyond it. In other words, while the two belligerents in The Cuban Missile Crisis were still fundamentally rational (though the USA was paranoid, and the Soviet premier's tactics erratic), in this US fiscal crisis the two belligerents seem conversely deluded and/or irrational.
An accidental apocalypse?
A piece by The New York Times explains how a default may well happen almost by accident, in much the same way how the leaders involved in The Cuban Missile Crisis feared nuclear war could be provoked in spite of their intentions. As the article explains:
"The more Wall Street is convinced that Washington will act rationally and raise the debt ceiling, most likely at the 11th hour, the less pressure there will be on lawmakers to reach an agreement. That will make it more likely a deal isn’t reached"
While the rhetoric from the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, seemed to soften before the weekend, it had done an about-turn by Sunday. Now firmly in the clutches of The Tea Party, Boehner has switched the blame back on Obama's unwillingness to compromise (i.e. cave in) over The Tea Party demands.
In the crisis over the impending default, it appears that both sides are hardening their stances as they get closer to the deadline, rather than the reverse. Obama refuses to budge because he believes has conceded enough to The Tea Party in previous stand-offs; while the The Tea Party refuse to budge because they think that Obama will concede, because he has done before.
1) the lack of panic seen on the financial markets (as also mentioned in The New York Times article), which they see as a sign that...
2) they think the US government is bluffing, as it has other options that could delay the default, and in any case...
3) they think that nothing major will happen even if the US did default on its financial obligations.
The hardening of Boehner and The Republicans' stance seems to be now based mainly on point number three: they believe that nothing major will happen if the US defaults on it's financial obligations.
This looks like an odd turn of strategy. Now their approach appears based on dismissing the "crisis" (that they started) on the other side's scaremongering. In other words, they have created a crisis situation, then just as suddenly declare that there is no crisis; the "crisis" in all in the heads of the Democrats.
Trying to get your head around the irrationality of the strategies going on is enough to make your head spin. After Boehner declared before the weekend that he wouldn't let a default happen because the consequences would be too terrible to contemplate, his side now seem to have convinced him that nothing will happen if the default deadline is passed.
This tells you how completely irrational The Tea Party are. Their rationale makes no sense at all.
The financial stability in the markets can't last forever if nothing changes; panic is likely to hit the markets by the end of Friday if (as expected) no-one budges. This may then make one side think twice; but just as likely, it may not. The Republicans have three reasons for not changing their mind, as I mentioned.
While, theoretically, the White House may have options it could use if the US defaults, it is adamant that it is Congress' responsibility to deal with the debt obligations, not the White House's.
The US defaulting on paying off existing financial obligations (debts) is unprecedented, and for this reason no-one is sure what would happen. And this uncertainty is what is fueling The Tea Party's ambivalence. The appalling irresponsibility of this behaviour barely needs mentioning: like pressing the "nuclear button" just to see if the missiles really would reach their targets.
This is the behaviour of psychopaths. The President is staring into the face of a group of people who are devoid of fear of the consequences, and lack empathy towards the wider effect of their actions on their own people.
It is for this reason that a default looks more likely now than it did several days ago.
Ayn Rand's disciples following "Atlas Shrugged" too closely
This reminds me of the plot of "Atlas Shrugged", albeit with a hideous twist of fate. In Rand's seminal novel, it was the unions that brought the country to a standstill, encouraging enterprising captains of industry to detach themselves from the economic dysfunction and strike up a new "capitalist utopia", free of interference.
In 2013, The Tea Party seem close to emulating what the unions did in Rand's novel; paralysing government and holding the entire country to hostage.
It seems The Tea Party want to make government as dysfunctional as possible in order to bring about the collapse of government; to make their distrust in government a self-fulfilling prophecy. They are the "Trojan Horses" of the democratic system they claim to hold dear. Fascists in the inter-war period did much the same thing.
Rand may not have been a huge fan of "democracy" as such: she saw it as the tyranny of the majority. But Rand herself would surely never have condoned the tactics that one extremist faction, The Tea Party, seem intent on carrying out till the bitter end.
No wonder some moderate Republicans also call The Tea Party "The Taliban"; they neither care about their own fate or that of the countrymen they claim to love.
Five years on from the horrible autumn of 2008 that brought about the first financial crisis, some members of The Tea Party seem keen to finish the job.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Islamofascism and terrorism: Islamic Extremism, Al-Qaeda and the meaning of power
The recent article in The Economist about the spread of Al-Qaeda explains clearly how this terrorist organisation has moved from a marginal irritant on the West at the end of the 20th century, to the West's most psychologically-potent enemy in the early 21st century.
Reading this also reminded me of Christopher Hitchens' analysis of Islamofascism; points which mirror some of my own thoughts on the psychological and ideological links between radical "political" Islam, and the Fascism that plagued Europe up to the Second World War.
Put into perspective, the threat of Islamic terrorism that inspired the (ongoing) "War On Terror" is not an existential one on the West. The biggest existential threat to the world is climate change; after that, the largest geo-political changes (threats) the West has to learn to adapt to are the rise of China (and the East in general), the relative decline of Western powers to the aforementioned rising powers, and the jostling for position over resources across spheres of influence (such as Africa) and zones of contention (such as Central Asia). I've mentioned why "The East" already has some advantages in the jostling for power over "The West" before.
Add into that the fact that, due to Globalisation, multinational companies have as much influence on geo-politics as many countries, and you have a world that more closely represents the "Risk" board game's playing surface, albeit fought mostly with economic weapons rather than real ones. It also sounds a bit like the world divided like the global power system described in Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four".
No, Islamofascism, and the terror threat of the Al-Qaeda "franchise" does not represent an existential threat to the West.
That being said, Islamofascism does represent a different, more subtle, longer-term threat to the West. And in some ways, Islamofascism has already encroached into many aspects of Western society almost unnoticed, in much the same way that earlier Fascism used its enemy's own system (liberal democracy) against itself and for Fascism's own advantage.
The meaning of power
Islam, directly translated, means "submission" (as far as I am aware). Fascism as an ideology was about the submission of the collective will to the political centre; this brings to mind the famous Nazi propaganda movie "The Triumph Of The Will".
Islam may therefore be seen as the submission of the collective will to the religious centre - "Allah", whose "will" is interpreted through mullahs and through the writings of the Prophet and other adherents. Of course, all religions base their ideas on surrendering individual will to a religious idea (this is the definition of "faith"). What marks Islamofascism as unique in the modern, globalised world, is its absolute application of power and will over a rational, pluralistic West, and the ease that it is able to infiltrate into Western society, as well as ideologically defeat more moderates followers of its faith.
I talked about earlier Fascism, implying that it almost seemed to serve as a template for today's Islamofascists to infiltrate Western society and bring down the system from within. While the latter point seems far-fetched, the basic premise (that Islamofascism has infiltrated Western society) stands true; and there has been plenty of evidence to support it.
One of the best examples of this is in British society.
Britain's position as a bastion of liberal democracy and cultural pluralism is one thing that makes it an exemplar to many would-be free, modern societies elsewhere. It is precisely in such a society that Islamofascists have been able to preach their violent, undemocratic and pernicious ideas under the protection of "free speech"; at the same time, they have also been allowed to conduct behaviour that could land any British non-Muslim in prison, while claim the right to religious expression; and most subversive of all, have denounced and threatened anyone who criticises their faith, ideas or behaviour with violence.
In other words, Islamofascism has reached a position of becoming almost a state within a state in the UK, having their own self-contained communities, schools, businesses and so on; more than that, the state has effectively surrendered moral and legal authority to such Islamofascists.
This is what is meant by power. When a section of society has reached a position of becoming legally untouchable due to the weakness of the state in applying its own laws, it is a demonstration of power by that section of society over the state power.
Putting the fear of God into people
Because of this, other sections of society begin to practise "self-censorship" when in public, such as being careful not to carry out behaviour that may earn the wrath of Islamofascists. This is another example of the application of psychological power. In other words, putting almost the literal fear of God into non-believers.
Using this method, over a long-enough time scale, the Islamofascists can win by default; terrifying non-believers into behaving how they want, while using the state's lack of will and appeasement to create a de facto Islamic State within the UK. This method can then be applied across the West, as long as "liberal democracy" is used, like the Fascists before, as a vehicle to destroy liberal democracy.
Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are simply the sharp end of the scale, using actual terror tactics (the random killing of whoever they feel is worthy of death). Terrorism is a well-practised method of creating fear. For Al-Qaeda, it is a simple application of will; a statement of intent and a challenge to the West. These people do not fear death; Islamofascists, like earlier Fascists, embrace it in all its glory.
And this is the other psychological weapon they have over liberal democracies. The West may have large armies, but they lack the moral will to use and lose them. Al-Qaeda's numbers may be small, but their will is strong.
Lastly, these extremists have shown that as they can put the fear of God into non-believers, they can even more easily silence any protests from more moderate Muslims as well. For the extremists, anyone who is not a "real" Muslim, is no better than the infidels. Against this moral certainty, moderates quickly lose the conviction of their beliefs. Indeed, like a "liberal", a "moderate" by definition would struggle to match the conviction of their beliefs with that of an extremist ideologue.
This explains why extremists are gaining ground in places like Pakistan, and are able to take advantage of the instability caused from the Arab Spring. As "The Economist" article shows, Islamic extremists are benefitting from the Middle East and North Africa being led by a clutch of weak governments, mirroring (in a different form) the situation in many of the "liberal democracies" in the West.
Creating Islamic states by default
While the likes of Al-Qaeda state their eventual aim is the establishment of a "caliphate" that spans the Middle East, in practical terms the erosion of central state power in governments across the Islamic world (from Pakistan in the East, to Libya in the West) almost as easily fulfills that same aim. Entire sections of some Middle Eastern countries are effectively in the hands of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates; with state security so weak in places like Pakistan, Iraq ,Libya, Somalia, and Yemen (and non-existent in northern and eastern Syria).
Syria provides the clearest example of what happens when central government disappears, and the vacuum is filled with Islamic extremists: arbitrary justice, be-headings and so on.
Some parts of towns and cities in Britain more closely resemble Peshawar than Pontefract. While multiculturalism is to be applauded, this is not what exists in many parts of Britain. Instead, we have created pockets of monoculturalism - in others words, self-enclosed ghettos where the values (and even law) of Britain do not fully apply. It is this type of exclusive social environment that breeds extremism.
Moderate Muslims must be brave in facing down the extremists; and Western governments must be firm and consistent in the application of their laws and values.
If the West is to preserve its laws and its values, it needs to defend them at home to begin with.
Reading this also reminded me of Christopher Hitchens' analysis of Islamofascism; points which mirror some of my own thoughts on the psychological and ideological links between radical "political" Islam, and the Fascism that plagued Europe up to the Second World War.
Put into perspective, the threat of Islamic terrorism that inspired the (ongoing) "War On Terror" is not an existential one on the West. The biggest existential threat to the world is climate change; after that, the largest geo-political changes (threats) the West has to learn to adapt to are the rise of China (and the East in general), the relative decline of Western powers to the aforementioned rising powers, and the jostling for position over resources across spheres of influence (such as Africa) and zones of contention (such as Central Asia). I've mentioned why "The East" already has some advantages in the jostling for power over "The West" before.
Add into that the fact that, due to Globalisation, multinational companies have as much influence on geo-politics as many countries, and you have a world that more closely represents the "Risk" board game's playing surface, albeit fought mostly with economic weapons rather than real ones. It also sounds a bit like the world divided like the global power system described in Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four".
No, Islamofascism, and the terror threat of the Al-Qaeda "franchise" does not represent an existential threat to the West.
That being said, Islamofascism does represent a different, more subtle, longer-term threat to the West. And in some ways, Islamofascism has already encroached into many aspects of Western society almost unnoticed, in much the same way that earlier Fascism used its enemy's own system (liberal democracy) against itself and for Fascism's own advantage.
The meaning of power
Islam, directly translated, means "submission" (as far as I am aware). Fascism as an ideology was about the submission of the collective will to the political centre; this brings to mind the famous Nazi propaganda movie "The Triumph Of The Will".
Islam may therefore be seen as the submission of the collective will to the religious centre - "Allah", whose "will" is interpreted through mullahs and through the writings of the Prophet and other adherents. Of course, all religions base their ideas on surrendering individual will to a religious idea (this is the definition of "faith"). What marks Islamofascism as unique in the modern, globalised world, is its absolute application of power and will over a rational, pluralistic West, and the ease that it is able to infiltrate into Western society, as well as ideologically defeat more moderates followers of its faith.
I talked about earlier Fascism, implying that it almost seemed to serve as a template for today's Islamofascists to infiltrate Western society and bring down the system from within. While the latter point seems far-fetched, the basic premise (that Islamofascism has infiltrated Western society) stands true; and there has been plenty of evidence to support it.
One of the best examples of this is in British society.
Britain's position as a bastion of liberal democracy and cultural pluralism is one thing that makes it an exemplar to many would-be free, modern societies elsewhere. It is precisely in such a society that Islamofascists have been able to preach their violent, undemocratic and pernicious ideas under the protection of "free speech"; at the same time, they have also been allowed to conduct behaviour that could land any British non-Muslim in prison, while claim the right to religious expression; and most subversive of all, have denounced and threatened anyone who criticises their faith, ideas or behaviour with violence.
In other words, Islamofascism has reached a position of becoming almost a state within a state in the UK, having their own self-contained communities, schools, businesses and so on; more than that, the state has effectively surrendered moral and legal authority to such Islamofascists.
This is what is meant by power. When a section of society has reached a position of becoming legally untouchable due to the weakness of the state in applying its own laws, it is a demonstration of power by that section of society over the state power.
Putting the fear of God into people
Because of this, other sections of society begin to practise "self-censorship" when in public, such as being careful not to carry out behaviour that may earn the wrath of Islamofascists. This is another example of the application of psychological power. In other words, putting almost the literal fear of God into non-believers.
Using this method, over a long-enough time scale, the Islamofascists can win by default; terrifying non-believers into behaving how they want, while using the state's lack of will and appeasement to create a de facto Islamic State within the UK. This method can then be applied across the West, as long as "liberal democracy" is used, like the Fascists before, as a vehicle to destroy liberal democracy.
Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are simply the sharp end of the scale, using actual terror tactics (the random killing of whoever they feel is worthy of death). Terrorism is a well-practised method of creating fear. For Al-Qaeda, it is a simple application of will; a statement of intent and a challenge to the West. These people do not fear death; Islamofascists, like earlier Fascists, embrace it in all its glory.
And this is the other psychological weapon they have over liberal democracies. The West may have large armies, but they lack the moral will to use and lose them. Al-Qaeda's numbers may be small, but their will is strong.
Lastly, these extremists have shown that as they can put the fear of God into non-believers, they can even more easily silence any protests from more moderate Muslims as well. For the extremists, anyone who is not a "real" Muslim, is no better than the infidels. Against this moral certainty, moderates quickly lose the conviction of their beliefs. Indeed, like a "liberal", a "moderate" by definition would struggle to match the conviction of their beliefs with that of an extremist ideologue.
This explains why extremists are gaining ground in places like Pakistan, and are able to take advantage of the instability caused from the Arab Spring. As "The Economist" article shows, Islamic extremists are benefitting from the Middle East and North Africa being led by a clutch of weak governments, mirroring (in a different form) the situation in many of the "liberal democracies" in the West.
Creating Islamic states by default
While the likes of Al-Qaeda state their eventual aim is the establishment of a "caliphate" that spans the Middle East, in practical terms the erosion of central state power in governments across the Islamic world (from Pakistan in the East, to Libya in the West) almost as easily fulfills that same aim. Entire sections of some Middle Eastern countries are effectively in the hands of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates; with state security so weak in places like Pakistan, Iraq ,Libya, Somalia, and Yemen (and non-existent in northern and eastern Syria).
Syria provides the clearest example of what happens when central government disappears, and the vacuum is filled with Islamic extremists: arbitrary justice, be-headings and so on.
Some parts of towns and cities in Britain more closely resemble Peshawar than Pontefract. While multiculturalism is to be applauded, this is not what exists in many parts of Britain. Instead, we have created pockets of monoculturalism - in others words, self-enclosed ghettos where the values (and even law) of Britain do not fully apply. It is this type of exclusive social environment that breeds extremism.
Moderate Muslims must be brave in facing down the extremists; and Western governments must be firm and consistent in the application of their laws and values.
If the West is to preserve its laws and its values, it needs to defend them at home to begin with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)