Apostates, Alarmists, Radicals and Other Extremists: a view from the fringe by Hunter Nash

“When in countries that we call civilized...we see age going to the workhouse and youth to the gallows, something must be wrong in the system of government.” - Thomas Paine

“There is a kind of listening with half an ear that presumes already to know what the other person has to say. It is an impatient, inattentive listening, that despises the brother and is only

waiting for a chance to speak and thus get rid of the other person” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

“If this be treason, make the most of it.” - Patrick Henry

introduction

Nothing shuts down debate and nothing delegitimizes an individual’s argument quicker than terms like ‘extremist’ or ‘radical’. When labeled as such, these voices are delegated to the fringe: “So and so is a right wing (or left wing) extremist. Her ideas are extreme, don’t take her seriously.”

Prevailing wisdom states that the radicals among us are necessarily dangerous and beyond our consideration.

Prevailing wisdom is dangerously wrong.

Few would disagree that as a nation and culture (and, in a broader sense, as a civilization), we are, if nothing else, in a state of transition. The older among us are acutely aware of this transitional state. They have experienced the ongoing changes over the course of their (relatively) longer lives. Many hope to halt these changes or to affect them in some desired direction. The younger among us are either bewildered about the unstable nature of events (all the while seeking understanding and apprehension of them) or are convinced that rapid transition is merely the normal state of things.

Some think that they ought not question and must simply roll with the punches.

One thing remains true: things change.

Though change is the inevitable nature of things, how things which are open to choice will change and what those changes are is dependent on our choices. We have the ability to dictate these changes, both positively and negatively, through the choices we make. We must, however, be diligent to remind ourselves that change is not necessarily good or bad merely because it is change. Sometimes the best change is either a change in direction or the cessation of dangerous changes.

To ignore (or to silence) a voice merely because it appears ‘radical’ or ‘extreme’ in the changes it seeks (or seeks to avoid) is not merely naive or mistaken, it is immoral in its motive and deadly in its consequence.

Few would argue that the changes wrought by the French Revolution - the blood shed, the repression and the abject failure to address the core problems which led to the demand for change - were good. However, if the ‘radicalism’ of Martin Luther, or of his namesake four and half centuries later, was ignored, or if the ideas of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson remained ‘fringe’ views, what would have become of the ‘moderate’ elements who sought to quiet the opponents of the status quo?

We must be wary of those who seek to quell the ‘radical’ voices among us, if for no other reason than to determine the exact nature of the ‘radicalism’ those voices espouse. Blind fear or blind hatred of alternative views is no better than blind faith in voices which preach to the choir. What is necessary is not embrace of change for changes sake, nor steadfast opposition to any change, but rather understanding of the voices calling for change (or for the halting of it.) What’s necessary is rational discussion of ‘radical’ ideas and a clear grasp of them. Neither is possible if voices are delegated to the fringe merely because they appear on the surface to be, well, fringe.

Those who seek to stifle alternative points of view - those who scream ‘extremist’, demanding that we offer no ear to alternative voices - don’t seek to avoid danger, they seek to quell dissent. It matters not if what has been said turns out, in fact, to be mistaken, misguided, or dangerous. Once having heard and understood the ideas we can then know that they are wrong. Silencing dissent prevents us from attaining such knowledge. Those who wish to avoid dissent do not seek to minimize conflict, or to prevent harm to some alleged ‘good’, they wish to retain the status quo, from which they directly benefit. They also wish to foment discord and animosity against any ideas for which they’ve not given their pre-approval. Such is the voice of censorship, the pre-requisite for dictatorship.

Today, we hear of ‘hate speech’ and ‘free speech zones’. This is troubling. Many societies and many cultures throughout history sought to quell ‘extremist’ views, all the while providing the pretense of ‘safe spaces’ to express views. The existence of such predetermined ‘safe spaces’ suggested that expression of alternative views outside of these ‘safe spaces’ necessarily and rightly left one ‘unsafe’. Such cultures as these generally collapse into chaos or devolve into tyranny.

If free expression is necessary to keep our freedom, how then can we pretend to be free if some speech is considered too volatile or ‘hateful’ to hear? How can we claim that there is free speech if some predetermined ideas or arguments are so beyond the pale as to be shut out without a hearing? How are we to know if an idea is mistaken, misguided, or dangerous if we are not allowed to hear it, to judge it on its merit, and to assess it with our own minds?

That many of the same folks who view some speech as too ‘radical’ for consideration while magnanimously offering ‘free speech zones’ for ‘dissent’, and yet claim they are taking the high road in the name of ‘free speech’, is a paradox (and hypocrisy) that should give pause to consider motive.

Those seeking to quell dissent, however ‘hateful’ ‘radical’ or ‘extreme’ they claim such dissent is (and may well be), are the High Priests of the Status Quo.

The status quo is no longer tenable, as anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can easily recognize.

The ‘radical’ voices of the Renaissance - of Galileo, Martin Luther, Thomas More and so many others - brought humanism, the respect for reason, the printed word, the beginnings of modern science, and the end of the Dark Ages. What a loss it would have been for each of us if these voices, once considered ‘fringe, had remained so.

The ‘radical’ voices of the Enlightenment - of John Locke, Isaac Newton, Voltaire, Adam Smith and so many others - brought classic liberalism, modern economics, a recognition of the Rights Of Man, the American Revolution and, slowly (for many, too slowly), the end of the practice of slavery across most of the globe. What a loss it would have been for each of us had these voices been deemed too ‘fringe’ to be heard .

The fringe isn’t necessarily or always right (occasionally it is very, very wrong), but failure to even consider these voices, voices which often call from the wilderness, nearly always spells disaster.

The following is a voice from the fringe. The reader can decide how ‘radical’ or ‘extreme’ that voice is.