Why do those of us who support capitalism use that word? It was designed by our enemies. Capital, of course, is a vital component of an economy, and capitalism could be defined as the separation of the provision of capital from its management — a good idea in principle since it makes it possible to create and diffuse wealth much more widely. But it is a bad word because most people lack notable capital of their own, and therefore believe that the -ism advanced in its name can do nothing for them. As I argued in last Saturday’s Daily Telegraph, the actions of governments, bankers and central bankers have made this scepticism seem vindicated. The link between the generation of wealth and general prosperity was what enabled us to beat Soviet communism. For more than ten years now, that link has been fraying. When it breaks, so will our freedoms, our comforts and even our basic decencies.
We keep being invited to decide whether Anders Breivik is a deranged loner or an extreme-right ideologue. Why can’t he be both? Isn’t it an important factor in the success of left or right extremism that it gives an apparent logic to people’s personal hatreds and inadequacies? A Muslim stole your girlfriend (as seems to have happened to Breivik), so you are attracted to a theory which suggests that Muslims are stealing your civilisation. In a reasonably harmonious society, such theories will have few takers, so Breivik is probably wrong to think he can set Norway ablaze. But in large parts of the Muslim world, where many young men feel disfranchised, ‘psycho’ tendencies can more easily be reified, even deified. Perhaps those declaring Breivik ‘mad’ are unconsciously resisting the modern doctrine that one must ‘engage’ with extremists. Certainly, if the logic of our multicultural public policy were followed in the case of Breivik, British government, police and educational agencies would already be seeking meetings with Nick Griffin and other BNP ‘community leaders’, ‘dialoguing’ in Right Now magazine and seeing if more couldn’t be done to allow the teaching of (non-violent) Nordic racial superiority in state schools. It is right to shy away from such an approach. But when Boris Johnson writes that Breivik is ‘a narcissist and egomaniac’ and should therefore be dismissed, he misses the vital historical fact that narcissists and egomaniacs are quite capable of taking over the world unless their theories are challenged, rather than placated or ignored.
Narcissism and egomania have even been known, I can exclusively reveal, in British politics. Gordon Brown’s denunciation of the Murdochs, after years of sucking up to them, was a classic example, clothed as righteousness. Boris himself, of course, suffers from no such delusions. But there was a bit too much of ‘Look at me’ in the way he let his police commissioner fall last week. It may be that something terrible will come out, but on the face of it, neither Sir Paul Stephenson’s foolish freebie at a health spa nor his use of Neil Wallis for PR advice looked like resigning matters. Although people often complain ‘Why does no one resign any more?’, we are now living in a period when people resign too often. Elected leaders should usually defend unelected public officials until iniquity is proved against them. Otherwise, the whole thing becomes just ‘Sauve qui peut’. If the Mayor had come out strong for Sir Paul, he could surely have survived, and the policing of London would have been more stable as a result.
The day after Breivik carried out his atrocities, we visited the Alhambra in Granada — thanks to the kindness of friends, by night. There you can see in stone the results of civilisational conflict. The Alhambra complex, Moorish and therefore Muslim, is overlooked by the palace of Charles V, built in early mannerist style. Modern guidebooks tend to disparage it as the ruthless assertion of victory over Islamic culture. It is partly that. But then how many great buildings are assertions of defeat? Besides, the palace is beautiful, especially in its graceful patio within. Its existence also pays a compliment to what it conquered, since the Emperor, rather than destroying the whole place, built his palace so that he could contemplate its glories. Standing in the patio of the palace under the stars, I could not regret the Reconquista; but descending through the Hall of the Ambassadors or testing the acoustics in the Court of the Lions, I did not feel that I was forbidden from admiring them. With the passage of time, the importance of who wins, who loses fades: the tourist has the luxury of enjoying the best of both. But no doubt, in 1492, there were Breiviks on either side.
When I first visited Spain 35 years ago, a substantial minority of the population still wore distinctive dress — a particular sort of beret, for example. On this occasion, I did not see a single person wearing anything you could call Spanish. Even the policemen merely looked vaguely continental. Everyone wore international casual clothes. Yet the overall, elegant impression is quite different from that of a British crowd. It is to do with what the wearer thinks clothes are for. In Spain, they are to please others. In Britain, they are to please ourselves. As a result, it is the British who always look so displeased, and displeasing.
It is moving to watch Otto von Habsburg’s obsequies on YouTube. A man in tails bangs on the door of the Capuchin Church in whose crypt the emperors are buried and calls out the numerous titles of the dead man (Duke of Auschwitz is one). The monks on the other side of the door say ‘We do not know him’. Only when the man in tails says, ‘Otto, a mortal, sinful soul’, do they open the door and admit the coffin. I also watched a clip of a speech in which von Habsburg described Europe as ‘an old reality’. If he had come to the throne on the death of his father, and lived this long, he would have reigned for 89 years. Instead, bits of his former empire were controlled by Hitler, Stalin, Rákosi and Kurt Waldheim. Oh for the old reality.
Comments