Newsletter: April, 01

Table of Contents:

[The Terrible Burden of Righteousness] [Being Wary of Internationalism] [In the Gun Culture] [Wretched Existence] [Voices of Freedom]

Editor’s Remarks

We have all become environmentalists, and Canadians — whose heritage is the wilderness — are more concerned about the state of nature than many other peoples. Travel may broaden the mind, but can also alarm it when one realizes how little environmentalism counts outside of the Western World.

The response to the essay by Ray Girn published in our April Newsletter suggests we were not alone in rejecting the definitions of environmentalism proposed by a tiny minority. Our environment is not on the edge of collapse — despite what the radicals think. However, if some global catastrophe is looming, then the fault currently lies elsewhere… among those who do not share Western concepts or concerns.

Western technology brought about the Industrial Revolution, but there are plenty of examples of environmental catastrophe that predate it. One need only think of the constant rise and fall of Mayan City States or the terrible trap that befell the Easter Islanders to see that even pre-industrial societies can efficiently damn themselves without advanced technology. Indeed, it may well be that the Developing World’s subsistence farmers, small fisherman and loggers are the worst threats to Mother Nature.

One need think only of places like China, India, Indonesia or Africa to see where disaster is now looming. While we have the ability to save ourselves, these places do not. Perhaps the energies of Greenpeace et al might now be best spent in missionary work. To continue to focus on the prosperous West may doom us all.

"Two, four, six, eight — smash the system, smash the state!" and "Globalization sucks!" The profundity of the demonstrators who now dog meetings of international organizations cannot be underestimated. From the "Battle for Seattle" in November 1999, through Washington, Windsor, Calgary, Prague and the American political conventions, a seemingly new breed of protestor in both North America and Europe has emerged to challenge the powers that be.

Well, actually, the new breed of protestor is pretty much the same old breed of protestor, only more ignorant — as if this were possible. Unfortunately, given the banality of modern public information experts and the boring nature of modern diplomacy, the media sent to cover summits and conventions frequently have nothing interesting or simple to report. However, parked on the other side of the crowd-control barrier is a veritable circus of skilled activist/performers desperate for attention.

These protestors are a complex lot, but one friend of the Institute (thank you, Paul) labels them Triffids from John Wyndham’s science fiction novel The Day of the Triffids. Walking plants with some degree of cunning, Triffids were poisonous, communicated by drumming, and operated best when attacking in large numbers. Alas, like most analogies, this one is far too simple.

The demonstrating horde in the streets of Seattle, or assailing Queen’s Park in Toronto in June, is a complex mélange. At the front end of the barricade are phalanges of nihilistic anarchists, eager to do rather than talk. They are tired or — more likely — utterly uninterested in following the arguments of the others. Throwing rocks at police officers is much more exciting. For them, the cause is mutable and only matters in that it gives them the illusion of morality for their acts.

Perched immediately behind the anarchists is a mixture of "progressives": a stirring of Trotskyites, International Socialists, Marxists, and others of that ilk. When left to their own devices, they are usually found purveying grubby dialectical epiphanies to each other, and breathlessly holding public meetings that only their fellows attend.

Public disorder normally attracts this collection, because they truly believe that someday the great unwashed will wake up and follow them in a glorious revolution. Until then, they can follow the cause of the moment, in the desperate hope that this time, they might be present for the next storming of the Bastille or the start of the next "long hot summer." This event is always just around the corner, as these activists have carefully conditioned themselves to ignore whatever they decide does not fit the theory that revolution (or "radical social change" or "social justice") is imminent.

Being somewhat more experienced than the average Anarchist, if slightly less confrontational, these Leftists can also be expert in mayhem when they choose. However, they are much more expert in political communications (albeit with a dialectical straightjacket) and are equally likely to pose in front of the cameras to "explain" why the people in their righteous wrath… ad infinitum.

Further back from the lines where the action is are two other groups of people. The larger group actually conveys legitimacy to the rest, for it consists of those who have not yet embraced a radical ideology, but instead are genuinely troubled about the environment or globalization or whatnot. They may not be able to fully articulate their concerns, (something which never stopped the Nihilists or Marxists), but feel compelled to make a statement of some kind.

The final group is as diverse as the rest. At Seattle and Washington, and even in Ontario’s Queen’s Park Riot in June, a number of special interest group leaders show up to spin it (as modern communicators describe interpretation) to their own ends. A union leader would describe the whole protest as being one about concern over job protection and Third World labour practices. An environmentalist would likewise claim the whole exercise was in support of the aims of his or her group. One Toronto politician coyly claimed she was looking for her husband at a Toronto riot, but took the opportunity to slag the police for maliciously attacking a group of innocent demonstrators armed only with gasoline bombs, baseball bats and other peaceful implements.

There are two mathematical models that can be used to describe a riot. One — the inspiration of British novelist Terry Pratchett — accurately assesses the intelligence of a mob: Take the IQ of the dimmest member of the mob, and divide by the total number of people in it. One should remember this formula when trying to understand how a protestor can expect a neutral observer to actually believe their version of event or the trenchancy of their observations.

The other formula is simple. Take a mob, and right off, rule out 95% of the people there. They are spectators and have little or no idea of what is really going on around them. Then look for the 4%, they are the ones who — hopefully protected by anonymity — will follow the examples of the 1%. With the new breed of protestor, this cadre of 5% comes prepared for each event. In some case, such as the Queen’s Park riot by "anti-poverty" groups, the 5% were the only ones who showed up.

This is a group that anticipates and enjoys confrontation. For them, the "Battle for Seattle" and subsequent events simply did not happen so much as they were made to happen. Barbara Ehrenreich in her attempt to understand the human zest for violence, recalled feeling the thrill of violent confrontation herself. There is a thrill in confrontation, and in standing together against a potential danger. The protests draw in confrontation junkies, who need to get the same rush.

It is hard to be a revolutionary in a society that is largely content happy and prosperous. However, there are always those who are discontented (or bored) with their lives. The reasons for this discontent can be manifold, but a common problem results from a combination of intelligence and a frustrated ego. Those who are smart (but not bright enough for true genius) and educated can often be frustrated when their peers surpass them in other fields, and few people listen to them.

These are the naturally disaffected and are often the most readily drawn towards radical ideologies of any kind. The underlying idea is, if society does not recognize their true worth, then it deserves to be over thrown and replaced with something better. Embracing an ideology means that the desire for change can be seen as being unselfish, even noble, and so the disaffected are acting only for the greatest good.

The protestors are first cousins, in a way, to the Islamic Fundamentalists of the Middle East or — loath as they might be to accept it — the Patriot Militias.

While most of these protestors are of what might be considered the "Left", the various clearly defined ideologies and goals that once characterized it have long since vanished. Instead, all the "Left" now consists of is a method for dissent and a vaguely utopian hope that somehow life could be better if only the inconvenient people would get out of the way.

Thus, the demonstrators outside the meetings of APEC, WTO, OAS, or the GOP are really only united in dissent (and perhaps a dislike of acronyms). However, they draw from a rich heritage of political communication, obfuscation of intent, and creativity in protest. Beyond that, they really do not know what they want, other than for things to be different and for those who are in power to be gone.

Protesters at any one main event might be those inspired by the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists of the 1930s; New-Age environmentalists who want us to run free in the forest with brother wolf and sister deer; or old line Marxists who cannot abandon their old ‘utopian’ daydreams. Of course, standing in the background, are the many people who are genuinely concerned about a particular issue. However, they did not organize the protest and are not there to pitch rocks at the police. The core protestors only see these innocents as adding authenticity to their interpretations of what the unrest is all about.

It would be a shame to take these demonstrations seriously; except that so many core protestors use these events as an excuse to vent their frustrations. But to expect coherent rational alternatives from them is asking far too much.

If it were not for the property damage, rocks and baseball bats, these protests would make a magnificent circus… as the "street theatre" of the 1960s radicals continues to devolve into a diverse circus of absurdity. As for those who are seriously concerned about various issues, they would be well advised to find another forum to express their concerns.

Conspiracy theorists are forever barking up the wrong tree. Human beings are imperfect, and so are their institutions. When left to our own devices, the only law that governs our affairs is Murphy’s Law — that which can go wrong, will go wrong.

It is a mistake to imagine that a group of people could secretly design a large and complex plan, and then slowly and subtly guide a large group of different peoples in a particular direction. Such things are patently impossible. However, a large group of connected and influential people can slowly work towards a particular end for years, if they share common interests and network with each other. This is different from conspiracy in that the elements of secrecy and design are absent — replaced by a loose form of network and individual approaches towards a common vision.

There is a military analogy that might explain this process. The Germans, who well understood Clausewitz’s fog-of-war, had a concept called Auftragstaktik. The idea is that all elements work towards a common goal in their own way. When an individual soldier, for example, got bogged down and could not reach his commander, he then changed the plan to accomplish the collective mission in an individual way. Everyone, from privates to colonels understood the concept and assiduously practiced it. In the Second World War, much of the excellence of German Arms (which was outstanding, despite the execrable purposes for which they fought) was due to this concept.

Auftragstaktik is a ready-made tactic for activists of all stripes. Every activist in the network knows what the objective is, and all can work together in a coordinated effort at times. However, when opposition becomes strong, or if the internal situation prevents close cooperation, then each group continues to look for their own way to meet their ends. Moreover, like infantrymen threading their way into a difficult objective, when a weakness or effective tactic is found, then all the rest follow suit.

Non-activists often underestimate the determination and ingenuity of seasoned activists campaigners. When most of us get a bee under our bonnet, we take a few actions until the buzzing sound dies away and then return to our normal lives. An activist will decide the world is a better place without bees (or bonnets) and will spend decades working on their elimination.

Those who flock to UN conferences, Global forums and otherwise support international structures over the Nation State are not engaged in a massive conspiracy to strip us of our rights. Nor are those promoting the Globalization of industry and business all aquiver to turn everyone of the rest of us into penniless peons. These might be the logical ends for many of us in their ideal world (according to some people’s logic anyway), but it is not a goal that they are consciously working towards.

Lest we forget, the modern impulse towards globalization might be reasonably traced to the Atlantic Charter. This document was the outcome of the Wartime meeting between Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt off Newfoundland in August 1941. The two men arrived by warships while the Second World War was still going Hitler’s way. The conference mapped out the following points and war-aims for the Allies:

That neither nation sought any kind of aggrandizement; • Nor that either nation desired territorial changes without the freely expressed agreement of the peoples concerned;
• The right of all peoples to choose their own governments was to be respected, and that self-government would be returned to those who had been deprived of it;
• That the two powers would work to give all nations, ‘victor and vanquished’, equality of access to the world’s trade and raw materials needed for prosperity;
• That both countries supported the collaboration of all nations in the economic field, with an eye to securing improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security for all peoples;
• After the war, that both nations would work to establish a lasting peace and let more countries and people live in safety;
• To preserve the freedom of the High Seas;
• To get all nations to renounce force as the first means of resolving differences.

The Atlantic Charter became the foundation for the UN and for most of the Post-War World. Churchill (who always had a particularly keen eye for the future) and Roosevelt planned well, and the world assuredly has become a safer and better place than it was. It is still imperfect and the pace of our progress might be described as three steps forward, two steps back — but the ends that the two wartime leaders envisioned are still worth pursuing and are still being pursued.

However, Murphy’s Law being what it is, perhaps the many and varied Anti-Globalists do have one point: Success attracts the otherwise unsuccessful, who then seek to work it to their own ends. Consider, for example, any political party or set of senior executives that have been in power for too long. They almost invariably grow stale, arrogant and preoccupied with process and appearance.

The dynamism unleashed by the victorious Western powers in the aftermath of the Second World War went a long way to achieving the ends envisioned by Churchill and Roosevelt. However, the success became limited because those with different ambitions entered into the emerging machinery. One need only think of the clutter of parasites that clogged up UNESCO in the 1970s, or some of the first Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that were nothing but ventriloquist’s dummies for the Soviet Union. For a Canadian example, one might compare the first-rate diplomats and civil servants of the immediate post-war era to their lesser successors today.

The process of Globalization unleashed by two leaders who were guiding the democracies through the second global conflagration in 25 years has largely worked… but perhaps the process is now being steered by people with much narrower and less generous vision.

For a start, Western elites (as defined by the late Christopher Lasch, but also by John Ralston Saul) seem pre-occupied by globalization and tend to inhabit a world of policy where the process is much more advanced than it is for the rest of us. They reside in a world isolated from the hard reality of grim industrial neighborhoods, or remain out of touch with the everyday preoccupations of other — more ordinary — people. A career Cabinet Minister, captain of industry or a habitué of UN conferences seldom interact with us ordinary folk… and while familiarity may breed contempt, so does distance.

The world that Churchill and Roosevelt envisioned in August 1941 is the world that most of us want. For the most part, it is the world that we have lived in and seen constantly improved with growing prosperity and freedom. But our embrace of globalization does not mean that we have given our blind trust to those who further it now.

We want responsible government — and that means a set of governors that we can get our hands on; not an abstracted semi-anonymous collection of NGOs operating with little fanfare. We do not want our governments to fund a few select special interest campaigns to represent their idea of Canadians interests at international forums without our consent. By way of special interests one might include both environmentalists and industrialists, or laisse faire economists and human-rights activists with equal wariness. For the most part, most ordinary citizens do not know who these activists are, and would not trust them if they did.

We do not want the advance of globalization to provide a level of authority that overarches the nation-state. Churchill and Roosevelt understood that, their heirs seem to be failing them… and us.

Globalization is creating a new world, and a generally more decent one. Yet it would be a stark betrayal of entire generations, if a small elite undermines or subverts the will of the democratic peoples. Churchill and Roosevelt (who represented these peoples) sought to build a strong foundation, but if shoddy and inept elitists finish their task, then all might come to naught.

One of the few perks to being the director of the Institute is that one occasionally receives interesting invitations — this partly makes up for an irregular (and low) salary, long hours, and the occasional pledge to inflict grievous bodily harm from some of our critics. An invitation to be a guest at the 2000 Seattle Conference of Academics for the Second Amendment last June was one of the more interesting invites.

When they gave me a loaded submachine-gun, I knew this was a conference with a difference.