Published in the Western Standard, September 19, 2005, p. 36.

One Cheer for the Boot Heel
by
Pierre Lemieux

The summer of 2005 was business as usual around Ottawa, our “City of Command,” as Bertrand de Jouvenel called the seat of “the Minotaur.” Transport Minister Jean Lapierre proposed to “develop a culture of security” that would include a no-fly list. A court intellectual was named governor general. Stephen Harper, while visiting the capital of the Empire, declared that his party is looking at a national identity card, even if its main advocate, former Liberal minister Denis Coderre, has toned down his crusade. Marc Emery was arrested on orders from the Empire, and Justice Minister Irwin Cotler kept a low profile. Surprise, surprise—none of these endeavours will reduce the power of our monstrous state, which had already been monstrous for a few decades before 9/11. And none makes western civilization any more worth defending. I have the impression that some Canadian statocrats are actually wishing for a terrorist attack in order to justify their claim: I told you so, the state needs more power. There is an oversimplified, but sometimes useful, way to distinguish libertarians from “liberals” (I mean North American liberals, not classical liberals) and conservatives: liberals favour civil liberty but oppose economic liberty, while conservatives espouse the latter and reject the former. Libertarians defend liberty in both lifestyle choices and narrowly defined economic matters. To be a member in good standing of the statocrats’ club, a politician, a bureaucrat, a judge or an intellectual compagnon de route has to be in favour of something that increases the power of the state. Oh, you may argue for the legalization of pot, but then you need to push for, say, national day care. You may be in favour of— I am trying hard to think of some economic liberty the Conservative party might favour—reducing government subsidies to businesses, but you have to support increased surveillance of all potential criminals (that is, of everybody). Where can I spend? Whom can I control? What new prohibition or obligation can I impose upon, and for, “the people”? Such are the required cries (even if only mumbled) for any rookie statocrat coming to the City of Command. In the City of Command, the incentives and institutions are such tha the issue of individual liberty cannot be raised. The individual does not count, except as a member of the state, or as a member of a group favoured by the state. Open bracket. One major feature of fascism was the subordination of the individual to the state. In a 1932 article in the Italian Encyclopaedia, Benito Mussolini explained: “The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.” Fascism is reasonable, centrist, not ideological: “Fascism is pragmatist,” said Il Duce, “it has no a priori nor long term goals” (quoted in the Grand Larousse Encyclopédique, Paris, 1961). But we do need a new leader: “[F]or never before,” wrote Mussolini, “has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order.” And who is to resist? “In reality,” uttered the ineffable Hitler, “the more primitive a people is, the more it resents as an intolerable restraint any limitation of the liberty of the individual” (Hitler’s Table Talk 1941­1944, London, 1953). Close bracket. As any intellectual knows, what is inside the brackets has nothing to do with today’s Canada, England, the U.S, or France. The imagery is used here for literary embellishment only. But please, Messieurs Lapierre, Coderre and Cotler, please, continue to push your ideas vigorously. Hurrah for the no-fly list, and any surveillance and control measures imitated from the tyrant south of the border! Hurrah for a national ID card and the interior passport! Hurrah for the idea of deporting Emery to the U.S., China, Iran or wherever! Please! If you shout loud enough, perhaps we have some chance of getting Mr. Harper to take the right, opposite stance.