Positive Health Online

Originally Published at: activehealthcare.co.uk

https://activehealthcare.co.uk/literature/mind-spirit/244-extremism

Before we start pointing fingers at anyone or shout obscenities it would be nice to define what we are talking about here. The dictionary states extremism as ‘the holding of extreme political or religious views – fanaticism’. Well that doesn’t get me any further as within the definition the word ‘extreme’ is still present. How does one define ‘extreme’? The noun ‘extreme’ is defined as ‘either of two abstract things that are as different from each other as possible’ and as an adjective it is ‘furthest from the centre or a given point’. This clarifies the definition of extremism as ‘the holding of political or religious views that are as far apart as possible’. Note that in this definition there is no mention of ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Counter_Extremism_Project_Logo.svg

Logo for the Counter Extremism Project, an NGO that combats extremist groups.

Picture Credit: Counter Extremism Project on Wikipedia

Two ideologies that are opposed to each other are extreme in relation to each other. Hence, the position of the observer, of the person or the group that makes the observation, plays a vital role in how another point of view is defined. The observer is just as extreme as the observed, because in relation to each other they are in extreme positions. It is a relationship, not an absolute. On its own, nothing is extreme. It can only be judged to be extreme in relation to something else. It is therefore a judgement. This means that what is extreme to one person may not be to another. So, when we talk about ‘extreme violence’, we mean violence that we consider to be far removed from the violence we are willing to accept. However, someone else may have a different opinion about it and there is no way of saying that one is more ‘right’ than the other. The only thing we can state is what is extreme and not extreme to us. Turning this judgement into an absolute, which in our opinion should be true for everyone, is an expression of absolutism.

Absolutism is the political doctrine and practice of unlimited centralized authority and absolute sovereignty, as vested especially (but not exclusively) in a monarch or a dictator. The essence of an absolute system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularised challenge or check by any other agency, be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral. This means that any organization, which is not subject to rules and laws that apply to most must be considered ‘absolute’ in its doctrine. This is true for the allopathic medical system, which has its own, separate from national laws, legislation, judiciary, and is not subject to elections. This same system can also be observed in our industry in general, where the rulers are appointed, not elected, and where they have the absolute power to determine how the firm will operate, what the rules inside the organisation are, and what the punishments are for breaking those rules. This is also true for all global corporations, such as the World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and so on. None of these have elected representation and none are subject to national legislation. They are absolute powerhouses within our society.

In political terms, absolutism is viewed as an extreme form of government. In the West, a communist regime, where one political party has absolute power, and a dictatorship, where the leader of the nation has absolute power, are seen as forms of absolutism and of extremism. The opposite of communism is pure capitalism. This is defined as ‘an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit’. In other words, private owners have absolute power over an entire nation’s trade and industry. From a communist point of view, this is just as extreme as the West defines the communist system. The opposite of a dictatorship is democracy. Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the ‘people’, a group historically constituted by only a minority of the population (e.g., all free adult males in ancient Athens or all sufficiently propertied adult males in 19th-century Britain) but generally understood since the mid-20th century to include all (or nearly all) adult citizens. Here we see interpretations of the term ‘the people’, whereby it can mean free adult males or males that are considered to have large properties or means, or it can mean ‘nearly all’ adult citizens. And what are citizens from a right to vote point of view? Surely the question then arises as to who is making this interpretation that will decide who is eligible to vote? And whoever this is constitutes the real power within the democratic system. It is this person or that group, which decides what is ‘extreme’ to their system and what isn’t.

The dictionary states a democratic system as ‘a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections’. Do you know of a government in which the supreme power is directly in the hands of the people? I don’t. I guess it would mean that there is no central government. If the people truly directly had complete power over their lives it would have to mean that every group within that society is totally free to do what they themselves decide is right for them and as the diversity within society is so great, I cannot see how a central government can operate for all of them at once. The diversity of people within society would mean that a lot of extreme views, views that are opposite to each other, would be present within that society. For the people to have supreme power it would be logical that all these extreme, opposing, views would have equal rights and equal freedoms. Hence we may conclude that the democratic system is not and cannot be a direct representation of the people. Switzerland is often upheld as an example of direct democracy, although in reality it operates as a hybrid system, mixing elements of direct democracy (referenda) and representative democracy. Referenda are the exception rather than the rule and it is very difficult for a citizen ‘to force’ the government into holding a referendum.

Right from the start, right from the definition of the word ‘democracy’, we step into a world of vagueness and interpretations, rather than a clear and decisive way of telling people how government is going to work. Let’s dig a bit deeper.

Democracy allows people to have a say about how they want to be governed. First of all, people have to answer the question how they want to be governed, not if they want to be governed. Secondly, democracy, whoever that may be, allows people to have a say. So it is a privilege that ‘someone’ hands to the people and we should be grateful for it. If we don’t accept this gift – whoever the benefactor may be – we have no say in how we live our lives at all.

Not all democracies look the same. At its core, democracy is about empowering people to influence the society they live in. A democratic society recognises that the role of the state is to serve the people and to be guided by their needs and social values. When there is such a great diversity amongst the people of a society, when a society is filled with extreme views, opposing needs and a great spectrum of social values, how can a government serve all the people of its society?

In a representative democracy, citizens elect political representatives to act on their behalf and make decisions in their best interests. Periodic elections give citizens the opportunity to hold their elected representatives accountable. One of the advantages of representative democracy is that there are systems in place to foster a pluralistic society, one which strikes a balance between the views of the majority and the rights of minority groups. Due to the separation of powers between the courts and government, the judiciary can intervene if politicians infringe on the freedoms of minorities.

Political representatives act on behalf of the citizens. Well, if the person you voted for does not get elected I guess it is fair to say that your voice is not being represented by the elected representative. How can this person then make decisions in your best interest if he or she doesn’t even represent you? The reality is that people vote for candidates whom they believe are holding ‘similar’ views on certain aspects of life. They may hold different opinions on aspects that have not been emphasised during the election campaign. – Isn’t it weird that candidates have to campaign, present themselves in certain specific ways to the public, in order to enhance their chances of becoming elected? Whoever becomes the most popular wins! – To become elected the candidate has to present ‘popular’ views to the voting public. Once elected, the representative has complete power over his own opinion and is allowed to pretend that everybody who voted for him, and everybody who didn’t vote for him, believes and wants the same thing as he or she does. His decision, in the name of ‘the people’, will be binding for the entire society. This is not a system that fosters a pluralistic society. It is a system that unifies, that equalises, that uniforms, that irons out all variations. A representative, whilst in power, implements what he believes to be right, to be right for everyone, and he decides how people should live together, what they should tolerate and what they should hate. He has absolute power over the lives of the people who elected him and over the lives of people who didn’t want him to represent them. He has absolute power to decide what is ‘extreme’ and what is not.

We are told that the separation of governmental power and judiciary power will safeguard the people from an absolute-power-government. I apologise for not buying this! First of all I see different judges decide that the government has broken the law and others make judgements in the opposite direction. Some uphold human rights over government policy, whilst others don’t. And it shouldn’t come as a surprise to you that judges are appointed by the government, which means that the government gets to pick the ones that are more inclined to follow government policy, even when it contravenes people’s needs, people’s rights and so on.

In a parliamentary democracy, the government is formed by the party winning the most seats and typically the Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party. If a single party wins the majority of the votes, a majority government is formed. But if no party on its own wins the majority, a coalition (or minority) government is formed comprised of parties who negotiate an agreement together. 

So now you have a party in power, not ‘your’ representative! It may even be several parties who, for their own reasons, have decided they will put their differences aside, the different views they presented to the electorate, and agree on a mutually beneficial policy. Are you still convinced you are ‘represented’ by the elected government? And here is something else that happens to ‘the safeguard’ of the democratic system.

While there is separation of powers between the government (the executive branch), lawmakers (the legislative branch), and the courts (the judicial branch), in a parliamentary democracy there is a strong fusion between the government and the legislature. In order to remain in power, the government must have the continued support of the legislative branch, responsible for making law, and the judicial branch, responsible for implementing law.

So I am right! They are in bed together. They do hold each other’s hand. They do rub each other’s backs. They look after each other. They protect each other. All because they need each other in order to function properly, to remain in power. The democratic system not only does not represent the people, all individuals that are part of that society, it also does not work for the people either. It doesn’t foster the diversity of the population. It endeavours to uniform society, mould all individuals into the same form, all wanting the same things, all believing the same things, all being the same. The principle of ‘one person, one vote, one representative’, which is being put forward as the guiding light in a democracy, is a complete lie. One person, one who is given the right to have a voice, to have a vote, can choose between a selected numbers of ideas, voiced by other individuals (a multiple choice question). Then a selection process takes place, which has been decided upon by others, as to how to select the person who will represent all of the people. Only a very select few of the people one could vote for will become representatives. So, what truly happens is that one person may or may not be given a vote, which may or may not make the candidate he voted for his representative. And it goes on from there! That representative is now put in a large group of representatives, all representing different views and taking different actions, where the same principle of ‘one representative, one vote, one decision’ is being applied. So let’s put this into the perspective of the individual voting citizen. And let’s not forget that in a parliamentary democracy multiple parties represent a great many views, so in the end it is about a coalition of views and ideas. Compromising means ditching your ideas and accepting something else instead. In a two or three party system, where one party may get absolute power, the coalition of ideas and the diversity of views is dealt with within the hierarchy of the party structure. Here we go! One person who is allowed to express his opinion in a multiple choice fashion (not a free expression of his opinion or idea) votes for someone who is, ultimately, not elected to represent him. This one person’s opinion is no longer valid but his vote is given to someone else, who now believes he represents a great number of people. This representative is now given a vote, in parliament, to express his opinion in a multiple choice fashion to select a decision on a specific issue. This decision is now said to be a representation of what ‘the people’, all the individuals who voted to be represented, want. And because it is conveyed as what the people want, the government demands that everybody adheres to that decision.

In March 2024 your representatives in the UK decided to change the definition of extremism. They have given themselves the power to change the meaning of a word. This is done in your name, by people who, by virtue of the political system they serve, act on your instruction, execute what you want them to do. Right now, this is what they have decided extremism is.

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:

1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

The promotion of opposing views and ideas is now prohibited. Not just holding these views, but also promoting them, in other words expressing them. This contravenes the human right to free speech. Based on violence, hatred and intolerance certainly sounds very reasonable. However, prohibiting different views is in itself an expression of intolerance. Rooting out these different views may even evoke violence and hatred against the individuals who are holding these views. But apparently, and here we get to the core business, views based on violence, hatred and intolerance must be rooted out, are deemed to be extremism when, and only when, they are directed against the UK system of governance. Let me translate that for you. Society is filled with a spectrum of ideas, views, requirements and so on, which is so diverse it also contains totally opposing views. Per definition, these are ‘extreme’ in relation to the mainstream within society. The UK government has decided that holding opposing views on life leads to hatred, to violence and destructive conflicts. They have decided not that violent actions against the UK’s governmental institutions will not be tolerated, but that having a different point of view will not be tolerated and that violence, hatred and intolerance against these different views, to root out these ideas, is acceptable.

This is a governmental choice to elevate their opinion to the only acceptable opinion in society, which is making their way the absolute way, no longer tolerating that what opposes the UK system of governance.

And for the record, violence is defined as ‘Violence is the use of physical force to cause harm to people, animals, or property, such as pain, injury, death, damage, or destruction. So this involves physical force. Ideas, ideologies, holding political or religious views have nothing to do with violence. However, the United Nations, one of these non-accountable global organisations, defines violence as follows: ‘Violence refers to the intentional or unintentional use of force whether physical or psychological, threatened or actual, against an individual, oneself, or against a group of people, a community, or a government. Now the word ‘psychological’ is introduced in the definition. So it is no longer a physical act. Oh, apparently, it is no longer an act either, as threatening is now considered just as bad as the act itself. To summarise, what is considered to be violence is any behaviour, any act, any word, any expression whereby any group or community or government feels that they are being threatened. Hence, the victim of violence no longer has to bear the marks of a violent impact, but you are a victim of violence simply by behaving like a victim, by being frightened. This means that violence no longer has to be proven. It is determined to be violence when the victim says it is. When someone says they feel threatened, who can prove them wrong?

And what about Europe? How does the European Union define extremism? Well, they don’t. They talk about it. They take measures against it. But they refrain from clearly defining it. They present things in a different way so they can redirect and redefine terminology that is important to them.

In this respect we also may want to emphasise the distinction between extremism and terrorism. Extremism is the holding of a completely different ideology or belief compared to the mainstream view. Terrorism is a type of political violence. One is a specific view of life and has nothing to do with violence. The other is violence regardless what the belief system behind it is, mainstream other otherwise. You could argue that these terms are as far apart from each other as possible. This would make them ‘extremes’ in relation to each other. Unless you change the definition of violence.

Of course, both can be seen as a threat to an existing system.

According to EU law, terrorist offences are acts committed with the aim of:

• seriously intimidating a population
• unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act
• seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation

Still, terrorism constitutes an act, directed against a government, a country or an international organisation. Strange that national organisations, apparently, cannot be the target of a terrorist act!

The EU regulations continue with the prevention of radicalism, which, for some obscure reason, replaces the term extremism. The word ‘radicalism’ comes from the Latin word radix meaning 'root'. It refers to politically or socially extreme attitudes, principles, or practice. But it also means ‘the action or process of getting to the root of something; thoroughness of method’. Though it is generally expressed with negative connotations, in essence there is no mention of violence here in its original definition. It seems to me that whoever is feeling threatened by attitudes and principles that are very different from the root of society, either society’s political or social structure, experiences any impact from these attitudes and principles as ‘violent’, ‘aggressive’ and ‘destructive’. It is their interpretation. It is about how it feels to them. As they are desperate to hold on to what is they have got, to not allow any fundamental changes, they require the population, their ‘subjects’ as they call them, to be equally afraid. They require the population to agree, even to demand, that protective action will be taken. So, their fear cannot allow any discussion on the possible advantages of deep rooted change. There must not be any exchange of ideas. There must not be any communication between individuals of the population and ‘others’, who are now deemed extremists, which equals terrorists, which they now claim to have been radicalised. Hence, in the mind of the people, there is no longer a distinction between two definitions that originally were alien to each other. Now everyone is afraid! Afraid of being different. Afraid of becoming labelled as extreme, radical and/or terrorist. Afraid of being expelled from the regular society.

A society functions on mainstream principles, principles that a great majority adheres to and that seems to work for most of them. Extremes within that society are way-out ideas and ideologies on the outskirts of the mainstream thinking and belief system of that society. However, every major development in humanity finds its roots within those extremes. Surely at one time in history feminism was considered to be an extreme view point. Surely at one time in human history the idea that the sun is the centre of the solar system, as opposed to the commonly held belief that it was the earth, was considered to be an extreme point of view. It makes me think that humanity has nothing to fear from extremism but that to the established power base at the centre of society extremism is indeed a major threat. It is in their interest to create a general fear amongst the population against all extreme ideas in order to try and prevent any major paradigm shift to occur.

So they changed to a new principle to underpin the way people live together.

One thought, one voice, one government.

Now there is one government for all and no room to be different at root level. This means that there is no longer any room for different rules in different cultures and all beliefs have to be united as well. We must all feel the same about life, and about the important aspects of it. Then we must all believe in the same solution to the problem that - how fortunate! – we all see in the same way. We must all have the same requirements in life. We all – and this is extremely (oops!) important – must be afraid of the same things. And our two most dangerous enemies, apparently, are humans and nature.

Am I allowed to say that that is an extreme attitude, a radical point of view and terrorism directed towards all things natural?

Acknowledgement Citation

Originally Published at: activehealthcare.co.uk

https://activehealthcare.co.uk/literature/mind-spirit/244-extremism