Civil society and the State

“BERANGER: And you consider all this natural?

DUDARD: What could be more normal than a rhinoceros?

BERANGER: Yes, but for a man to turn into a rhinoceros is abnormal beyond question.”

(Rhinoceros, Eugene Ionesco)

***

“If a rhinoceros were to enter this restaurant now, there is no denying that he would have great power here. But I should be the first to rise and assure him that he had no authority whatever.

(Gilbert K. Chesterton)

1. When the institutions of the state no longer embody the ‘ethical will of the people’, when they no longer live up to the standards they were designed to uphold and when their actions become malign, uncontrollable and against the interests of the people they were meant to serve[1], it is not politics that can be relied upon to solve the crisis, but civil society itself.

A civic/intellectual forum/movement, detached from party politics, with its inabilities, temptations and corrupting mechanisms of success, is called upon to raise the questions that transcend or have been abandoned by politics – questions relating to the very existence of the human society, which are not political problems, but problems of life itself – and lead to a new relationship between the State and its citizens.[4]

The reduction of everything to mainstream party politics nowadays has made us subject to its ineptitudes, limitations and corruption; it has replaced what is right with what is expedient (and useful to a smaller and smaller part of society). Today’s political parties are too inwardly interconnected with the State’s power structures – while, outwardly, they maintain the pretence of being separate from and thus unable to reform them.

Transcending politics and its divisions, civil society needs to move from particular effects to general causes, it needs to go back to the level of concepts and ideals, to re-habilitate, update and re-establish the principles and values that underpin a true liberal democracy which, with time, through neglect and subversion, has become undone.[6]

2. An authentic liberal democracy requires an engaged and enlightened demos.  Misinformation and lack of knowledge usher in tyranny. Yet, more and more people live in fear of expressing free thought and taking ethical positions that challenge the official narrative. With the abdication of the mainstream media from its vital role[2], intellectuals must step in to inform, inspire and serve as the moral compass and conscience for the whole of society. Whatever mainstream media and politics touch turns to slime. We need a dissident elite, different from the growing class of pseudo-intellectuals[3] who are in the service of power or intimidated by it, a peaceful “extra-parliamentary opposition operating outside the rules created by the system itself”[4], with its own communication channels; we need a forum of public-dedicated parrhesiastes, to teach or remind citizens how to be free and why freedom is necessary in order to achieve ‘complete humanness’. [5] [6] [*]

The difficulties lie, of course, in the mobilisation of such a corps of veritable intellectuals[7] who cannot be isolated, infiltrated or corrupted, prepared to serve “the truth consistently, purposefully and organise this service”[8], in the circumstances in which we’ve got such a crisis of integrity and courage, and in which all communications and social interactions are controlled and manipulated by a increasingly authoritarian State trespassing more and more into civil society territory[9]. A few whistleblowers, at great personal cost, have drawn our attention to the unchecked proliferation of state surveillance that has reached dystopian levels and now looks to be heading into the paranormal. When more is revealed, we are going to be very shocked at how deep and how far the depravity goes.

3. We need a new Age of Reason, not to stand up against superstition, but against the disintegration of humanity, under pressure from the abusive forces of the State and its covert network of power, abetted by the passivity of a more and more fearful and distracted citizenry. Referring to the government’s Prevent[10] programme, Gracie Bradley, Liberty policy and campaigns manager, said, “It is utterly chilling that potentially thousands of people, including children, are on a secret government database because of what they’re perceived to think or believe.” We need to be constantly reminded of these dangers and that “our careless indifference to grand causes has its counterpart in abdication in the face of force”[11].

It is the duty of dissident voices to foster civic engagement[12] - indignant, critical and discerning. Membership of a political party and mobilisation in the causes of party agenda are ineffective[13], and so is mere local community involvement (within those anaerobic organisations where the very word ‘community’ has been banalised by over-use, syntheticity and the nauseating mushiness of their scope[14]).

A coherent, unified dissident class of thinkers and decent people, when animated enough, can bring about profound changes. Because, we are where we are and, “to paraphrase Heidegger, only dissidents can save us now”[15].

_______________________________________________________

---

[1] Society is no longer, other than theoretically, yielding the power behind politics, hence dismissing a bad government by popular vote – the so-called ultimate source of power in a democracy –only brings in another bad government.

[2] Mainstream media today is not free speech – it is manipulation – falsehoods, distorted semantics, or dead silence. Many journalists are in fact working directly or indirectly for intelligence agencies and write articles on their orders, no matter how untruthful the subject is.

[3] Long time ago, Julian Benda spoke of a “cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world” – very relevant today.

[4] Vaclav Havel

[5] It is very worrying to hear of the targeting and the arbitrary, extra-judicial punishments of whistleblowers and regime critics conducted in secret and with extreme cruelty by the repressive arms of the state. The Western governments’ habit of compiling secret watchlists of thousands and thousand of innocent people, marked as enemies of the state, and targeted for surveillance and persecution - and in some cases torture - is also slowly coming to light. [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/06/counter-terror-police-are-running-secret-prevent-database]. Constant defined absolute despotism as "where liberty can be taken away from citizens without the authorities deigning to explain their motives, and without the citizens having the right to know them.". 
[6] Roger Kimball, The treason of the Intellectuals and the Undoing of Thought

[7] That is in addition to those brave souls who are already engaged in public discourse on various particular subjects and have already made their mark

[8] Vaclav Havel

[9] As Benjamin Constant wrote, “the art of governments that oppress citizens is to keep them apart and to make communication difficult and meetings dangerous.”

[10] A UK government’s anti-radicalisation programme which collects details of people who haven’t yet committed a crime

[11] Alain Finkielkraut

[12] What author Dana R Villa calls dissident citizenship or Socratic citizenship, practiced in an “alternative public sphere” beyond the boundaries of the official public realm.

[13] “Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together” Eugene Ionesco

[14] That is when they are not used by local authorities to serve nefarious roles, such as snooping on and harassing their neighbours

[15]

[*] Julien Benda, La Trahison des clercs

The Royal Courts of Justice

There’s been regretfully a protracted period of silence on this blog, owing to our busy schedule breaking the silence elsewhere and dealing with a whole set of related matters – matters that have eventually taken us all the way up to the Royal Courts of Justice. 

That was for us a first time experience and we were filled with trepidation at the chance of visiting that magnificent bastion of righteousness in the Strand. The edifice housing the Royal Courts of Justice is impressive; designed by George Edmund Street in the Victorian Gothic Revival style, the appearance of the construction, both external and internal, is illustrative of the idea of what society ought to be – morally correct, spiritually elevated and pure. 

And to make sure that society is so, nowadays, visitors are X-rayed and frisked at the entrance, lest some deadly weapons are fired in court. The inner corridors (and there are over 3 miles of them, we are told) were pretty vacant, except for a few black flocks of bewigged barristers, dashing along – vulturine and predacious – and descending upon various courtrooms in their paths. They were followed by judges, more measured in pace, making their way towards the same venues, with the confidence and composure of those habituated to veracity. 

At the oral hearing held by the Court of Appeal, we were honoured by the presence of a lord justice of appeal and allowed to present our argument at length. The facts were plain and our dispute pointed at the distorted logic of earlier court decisions. Our case being so politically sensitive and embarrassing, the lower courts must have thought that it could only be tackled by abandoning standard logic. And abandon it they did. 

The appeal judge, however, did not seem to be listening; we got the impression that he had other preoccupations, which our oral submission hindered to some extent. Not that it was any point in listening anyway, as the Court of Appeal seemed to have made their minds beforehand as to the outcome – or to have had their minds made for them. (Nothing of what we submitted seemed to be acknowledged.) So, in order to save everybody time and spasms of mind, the court quickly decided that the appeal should not be allowed. 

We were told that the decision was for our own good. This may be true, but, as we know very well from history, this assurance is often used by the State to justify the perpetration of many crimes. 

The idea of justice – as Epicurus said, is that it prevents men from harming and from being harmed. And that is, I have to admit, the very idea that the British justice system applies when it prevents us from harming the interests of our opponents – high-rank politicians and officials - and when it prevents them from the unpleasant task of accounting for their actions.

Conquest by disorder

Sartre said that we are what others have made of us. As far as the British political and bureaucratic elites are concerned, the statement is true in a much more literal sense than originally intended. 

This is, in fact, the fate of any occupied country, where laws and official decisions are no longer sanctioned by the agreement between society and the state, but by the whims of external powers. This is not a fortunate state of affairs as our modern ideologists, in their immense foolishness or dishonesty, would rush to persuade you, peddling the fallacy that extreme departures from the requisites of national dignity, moral principles and the rule of law, together with the ensuing chaos, are acceptable to establish a new social order, in which, irony of ironies, even the smallest ideological departure would be repressed. 

And so, propped by a network of spies, treacherous political actors and pubic servants, and a lot of ordinary stupidity, the invisible occupation of Britain goes apace. 

Yet, in spite of what it looks like, the damage is not irreversible. Stupidity, for a start, when not caused by some permanent medical affliction, can be cured. Truth and transparency would open eyes and work miracles in this respect. Then, our politicians would be moved to recognize that pragmatic justifications for their lack of action have no credibility – when we can all see the self-interest and the cowardice behind them - and to recognize that the politics of intelligent diplomacy and compromise is one thing – beneficial to all - and collaborationism is another.

More ordinary abuses

A few weeks ago we read reports that Her Majesty the Queen had signed the amendment “to ensure that the UK’s justice system can no longer be abused for political reasons” and Israeli politicians do no longer stand the risk of being welcome with an arrest warrant when visiting Britain.

Fair enough, but we cannot help wonder why Her Majesty cannot also ensure that the UK's justice system is no longer abused (and not only abused, but made a mockery of) for party political reasons by Her Majesty’s government, when the abuses do not affect foreign dignitaries, but her Majesty’s more ordinary subjects. The sovereign is deemed, after all, to be the fount of justice, in whose name justice is delivered by the British courts.

Her Majesty has known (even better than us) about these abuses for at least four years and knows very well what the families of the sea tragedies' victims and we have gone through all this time - about the continual harassment, intimidation and the systematic destruction of our lives. Yet, for as many years, we've been left to fend ourselves against revenge-seeking criminals. It is true that the Royal Family have shown us their support from time to time, and we are deeply grateful for their encouragement, especially during the hostile Labour regime, and for the hope that when the Tories returned to power our troubles would end. [*] 

However, so far, no amendment has been signed or word has been delivered in our favour, and things for all concerned have gone from bad to worse. (We understand that, at the same time, the phone-hacking saga and other associated political pressures have caused Her Majesty’s government a lot of discomfiture and that, therefore, promises cannot be honoured on time.) Yet, we would very much like to know why such outrageous abuses can get ignored for so long and the rules of morality kept so long in suspense.

Of course, our Head of State is now very old; so, perhaps in asking such questions now there’s hardly any point - if there’s ever been one.

UPDATE 1: We have been offered wonderful career prospects in Scotland to shut up.

UPDATE 2: Well, it appears that Her Majesty is quite happy for the UK’s justice system to be abused for political reasons, when the reasons suit Her Majesty's Tory Party. Blair and the New Labour Party have been condemned for their opportunistic, 'ends justify the means' methods, only for the same methods to be now embraced by the Royals themselves (and without any honourable ends). What a shame!

CONCLUSION: If Her Majesty told the truth openly to her Majesty's servants, rather than only in secret, a lot of harm done to a lot of people could be repaired and further harm prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------

[*] We did not quite understand what the US administration had to do with the cover-up of all this wrongdoing, but we can easily venture a guess.