John Locke, Radikal, and Cyberspace Mythology

Separating from Reality.

The cyberspace-lobby in Europe continues to present a mythology of cyberspace. The Amsterdam provider XS4ALL is typical in its use of the Radikal case. (The site was made available from Amsterdam). This mythology says, as co-founder Felipe Rodriquez put it, that thanks to Internet, "German citizens can now decide for themselves if they want to read it".

The vision presented here is that of early English liberalism, and especially John Locke: it still has a great influence on the American right (libertarians, Militias). This political philosphy sees politics as the struggle of citizens against "The Government". Probably, at XS4ALL they genuinely believe that German citizens want to access text from Radikal, and that "The Government" is preventing them, and that Internet has liberated them.

This is a total distortion of the political reality in Germany. Most German citizens would be happy to see the editors of Radikal executed. The anniversary of the Schleyer kidnapping has emphasised this reality again: what came to the surface in the crisis of the 1970's is still a basic division within postwar western Germany. The vast majority of the population saw a liberal-democratic state at war with terrorism. The Government was not seen, as the enemy: the GSG commando which stormed the hijacked airliner Landshut was, and still is, heroic in the eyes of the German majority. Although this German majority belongs to the same basic European liberal tradition as John Locke, for them the State is not the enemy. The State is at war with their enemies, the enemies of the people.

This kind of relationship betwen state and citizen is the norm over most of the world. In most of the worlds states, an oppressive government has been overthrown at some time in the past. Not, however, from Lockean distrust of government. In all cases, the popular revolt simply substituted another government, this time run by members of their own ethnic group. This is the political reality: in the nation state "The Government" is not seen as the enemy of the people. Usually the reverse: the enemies of the government are also labelled the enemies of the people. This is exactly how most west Germans think about the Radikal editors, and the German left in general.

However members of the European Cyberlobby live in a cyberworld which derives from the United States. They read about US legislation, they read us online journals, and They have absorbed the political philosophy of the cyberspace hype in the US. They cannot see that this political culture is specific to the United States (and partly to Canada, Australia, and Britain). Even then it only applies internally. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, was a classic example: he won a medal fighting for the US government against Iraq, and killed hundreds of employees of the same Government in an act of revenge for its internal policies.

The Oklahoma bombing and the Militia movement in which it originated were the ultimate logic (so far) of the anti-State tradition in the United States, which derives from English liberalism. However that does not mean that the United States is structured as these movements believe, or even in the moderate form which is presented by the cyber-lobby. Not even the US Governemnt is seen, by the majority of its citizens, as their oppressor. It is seen as "Our Government", exactly following the logic of the nation state. The most notorious Government intrusion into US society, the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the postwar years, was the product of popular anti-Communism.

Even more so, this model can not be applied to the whole world. I know that some neo-liberal activists in the United States do believe exactly this. They see the world as a grand coalition of "citizens" fighting against " the government". But again and again, the reverse is true. Ethnic identification is far stronger. Ghandi, a nationalist of the worst kind, put it perfectly: "I do not know of any people in the world who would not prefer to be governed badly by themselves, than governed well by foreigners." This is the global reality: nationalism, not Locke's liberalism.

"The citizens" are not decent people waiting to be liberated from the government, by Internet. "The citizens", under certain historical circumstances, will kill, torture and rape the citizens of neighbouring states. The cyberlobby has isolated themselves totally from this reality in Europe, they have excluded the realities of Sarajevo and Grozny, and even of Bonn. The Internet has permitted them to become a part of a political culture in another country. That is true: but the reverse is not true. Europe has not become part of John Lockes imagined world.

It does not follow, that because people in Sarajevo can access EFF websites, (on Soros-funded computers), that the nation state has ceased to exist. It does not follow, that the Europe of nation states has ceased to exist. Because cyber-lobbyists believe that 80 million Germans want desperately to access Radikal, it does not mean this is true.

And this is only one example of the distortions, endlessly repeated in cyberhype. The cyberworld which is presented by the cyberactivists exists only for those activists themselves, and only in so far as they succeed in isolating themselves from reality. These are the kind of people who believe that death squads in Bosnia did not really want to kill anyone, they were "manipulated by politicians". And presumably, if they had free access to the EFF website, they woould all love their neighbours. People who separate themselves from reality in this way are dangerous. Especially in Europe. Let them emigrate to the US, where they will do less harm.