Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Cynical, or Just Plain Naïve?

Here’s another guest-post from our Norwegian correspondent The Observer. In this essay he examines the possible reasons why the politicians in power in Europe are so out of step with the opinions of their constituents.


Cynical, or just plain naïve?
by The Observer


The Ranting ManMany people in Europe are outraged and deeply disturbed by the insane and suicidal decision-making that seemingly moderate politicians, who are supposed to represent them and look after their best interests and well-being, are engaging in. Many Europeans are outraged by what appears to them to be a total meltdown of common sense on issues concerning multiculturalism and immigration.

In a time where there seems to be an open-door policy for unskilled, poor third world immigrants, this outrage is justified. The policies that dictate these matters are for the most part contradictory, very hostile to the indigenous population, and pose a very real danger to the future demographic structure of the continent. But I think it’s wrong to assume that the decision-makers are only acting in accordance with their own conscience in these matters. A more plausible explanation is that they’re toeing the party line, or to put it bluntly, they’re simply doing what they think is expected of them.

What we need to shed some light on is this: To what extent are politicians in mainstream moderate political parties manipulated or simply intimidated by their fellow colleagues, political leadership, and the media to vote in favour of and support legislation that they don’t really believe in personally, and why they go along with it?

To be able to get a better understanding of this issue, we need to take a closer look at the way the various political organizations are built up and we need to take a closer look at the internal dynamics of these organizations and how these dynamics are shaping its members. In my opinion the only thing that makes a political party stand out from that of a private enterprise is the fact that a political party is not driven by the desire to generate money. Apart from that they’re fairly similar. Any functional political organization needs to have a clearly defined hierarchy with a leadership or leader who defines the goals and policy of the organization, and an army of low-ranking politicians/members that invest their time in implementing the recommendations of the leadership. Just as a private corporation needs to have an army of workers that are dedicated to achieve the goals set out by the company’s CEO and the board of directors.

In order to rise within the ranks of the organization/political party the ordinary member/worker will have to earn the trust of the leadership. The only way to achieve this is to stand out and show an unquestionable loyalty to the leadership, be very good at your job, be able to manipulate your way through the hierarchy, or a combination of all three. Needless to say, it would be quite detrimental to one’s career prospects to oppose or speak out against the stated goals of the leadership. This would in most cases lead to the member’s dismissal, or in those cases where the individual has a fairly high seniority, to an internal power struggle.

We also have to keep in mind that a politician is by nature a person who is driven by a desire for power. Just like an employee working for a private enterprise in most cases is driven by the desire for money. The ultimate goal is to climb as high up on the career ladder as possible and gain as much power as possible. In any functional organization politics always comes in to play. And in order to rise up within the ranks the individual member needs to play his cards carefully, and in a lot of cases express or give his support to political issues that don’t always necessarily coincide with his own personal views.
- - - - - - - - -
A person who joins a political organization may be driven by idealism initially, but after experiencing the workings and dynamics of an organization where dirty tricks and backstabbing are an ingrained part of the culture, most will eventually lose some or all of this idealism, and take a more realistic approach to what it means to be a politician. One could argue that the individual would earn his or her battle scars.

A person who has managed to reach the higher echelons of the organization will go to great lengths to ensure that he’s not jeopardizing his position in any way. After all, he has invested a lot of time and effort in reaching this position. What we also need to remember is that this position comes with a lot of perks. High salaries, plenty of free trips to conferences in exotic locations, a lot of publicity (what all politicians thrive on) and a very lucrative pension plan. If by that stage a politician should have a change of heart and decide to follow his own conscience rather than the party line, this would be considered disloyal and would be clamped down on straight away.

There are plenty of ways to get rid of troublesome politicians. One can do it in a civilized way where the party leader invites the press to a press conference and announces the resignation of the politician in question, most often on some bogus personal grounds, or one can do it the dirty way where other members of the party secretly leak damaging information about the politician in question to selected journalists and let them do the dirty work on their behalf.

Public smear campaigns will in most cases ensure the resignation or expulsion of the member in question, and in some cases even lead to a criminal investigation, depending on the severity of the information. In many cases the party doesn’t expel members caught breaking the law or acting in a manner that doesn’t quite fit in with the image the party is trying to convey to the public. Instead they store this information and save it for scenarios like the one mentioned above. These tactics are also used on politicians from other opposing political parties. It’s always handy to have an ace up the sleeve.

We’ve touched a little bit upon the mechanisms that shape the personality of the moderate career-oriented politician. Now let’s take a closer look at the political issues they support. Why is it that seemingly moderate political parties take such a liberal stance on sensitive issues like multiculturalism and immigration, even when they know that it’s damaging and poses a severe threat to the national security of their own countries?

Initially, when the first political parties in Europe started implementing these policies in the 50 and 60’s, their intentions were to a certain extent well-meaning and based upon the principle of the equality of all men. It was a sign of the times. The ideology behind the flower-power culture, the student rebellions and the civil liberty fight of black Americans started to gain influence among the broader population of the western world.

At the time America also liberalized its immigration policies towards non-western immigration and this had probably some impact on the decisions of the governments of Europe to do the same with their own immigration laws. But of course, it was also business-motivated. Big business in Europe wanted cheap labour and the prospect of immigration met this criterion. So the legislation slowly started to change to facilitate this influx of third world residents to the heart of Europe. Other aspects may also be cited for this change of heart by the various European Governments, for example that the European Governments were trying to appease rich middle eastern oil nations and secure a steady and uninterrupted flow of oil to the continent.

In this day and age it’s the special interest groups that keep urging and intimidating politicians to liberalize the immigration laws even further. Political correctness has managed to sink its claws into our societies, making it next to impossible for mainstream politicians to oppose these and still hold on to their political power.

Just as members of the various political parties are bound to obey and support the views of the leadership, the leadership itself is in a lot of ways held hostage by a mostly leftist media and special interest groups that won’t hesitate for a second to come crashing down on those who start contemplating introducing stricter legislation that will stem the flow of immigrants, or reverse some of the crazy laws that are playing into the hands of the multiculturalists.

Another factor: the immigrants themselves have grown in numbers and become a force to be reckoned with. Most of them vote for political parties that support the current immigration laws, and why wouldn’t they? It will enable them to bring the rest of their families over to Europe.

Some of the members of the political leadership in Europe wholeheartedly support this current immigration trend and the liberalizing of the laws, but I suspect that the majority of them are just play along so they won’t lose their political status and perks that come along with the job that they have spent decades to secure.

I’m also of the opinion that the politicians’ eagerness and ruthlessness to stay in power and their willingness to go against their own conscience works in our favour, because it means that this multicultural ideology is not religiously supported, it’s just a tool that they use to maintain power. If enough public support is rallied to stop this unwanted immigration and scrap the multicultural ideology that is currently plaguing Europe, or if massive terrorist attacks, widespread civil unrest, or other similar scenarios were to take place, this would definitely trigger a change in the political climate.

The various national political parties and the EU would then make a U-turn and change their policies without thinking too much about it. People who are willing to sell out their own countries for the sake of personal political gain wouldn’t think twice about reversing the current immigration and multicultural legislation if it meant that they would be able to hold on to their political power, because in the end the desire of power is really the only thing that motivates politicians.

3 comments:

Afonso Henriques said...

First, I beg to disagree: The desire for power is the only thing that moves DEMOCRATIC politicians...

Second,

"Initially, when the first political parties in Europe started implementing these policies in the 50 and 60’s, their intentions were to a certain extent well-meaning and based upon the principle of the equality of all men. It was a sign of the times. The ideology behind the flower-power culture, the student rebellions and the civil liberty fight of black Americans started to gain influence among the broader population of the western world."

Initially... you have to see how the world was doing... It's the same with Obama: They got a favorable conjecture and fooled the dumb and naive people. You know, back then there was a reason to limit women's activity in politics. That's because out of ten, in normal conditions, only one or two can contribute to society politically speaking (Why do I feel I will have to explain this again?).

In the 50s and after that, in the sixties we had no Europe.
Brittain was exausted, Italy was not functioning, France was "spiritually" humiliated, Germany was destroyed and all the East was under Communism.
The Nordic countries were irrelevant de to its low population and the Iberia Peninsula was in bad shape after that terrible XIX century and the Spanish Civil War and the First Portuguese Republic (quiet the same results).

So, Europe was the United States, it was the Cold War. But the United States had its flaws and it urged to empower the non European peoples in Africa and Asia and export multiculturalism to Europe. You don't have to be bright to know what would happen.

So, I have to say that it's all those hippies fault. And it's not naivety, it's the occult forces at work, the forces who want to destroy Europe and European Civilisation... I can see big four:
Socalism
Communism
Femininism
Multiculturalism... does any one has another one?

Armance said...

The problem is that they are cynical and naïve at the same time.
Cynical: the don't care if the European population becomes extinct and is replaced by immigrants. After all, it doesn't matter who votes for you as long as you are elected.
Naïve: they really believe that a multi-culti society will bring the paradise on earth.In spite of seeing the no-go areas spreading in their countries, the politicians still dream that it's just a momentary problem and the immigrants will be integrated at some point, it just takes some effort.

Multiculturalism is the great project of the Western political and intellectual elites, their reason to exist. If they admit the failure of this project, all they have to do is going home and leaving the ground for a new generation of capable, real, different leaders with different ideas.

Limpet said...

Norwegian Observer: "But I think it's wrong to assume that the decision-makers are only acting in accordance with their own conscience in these matters."

I agree. I think most members of western parliaments, like most people outside parliaments, are against immigration but would rather remain silent and avoid problems. Some of them may not have a clear opinion. Many of them, because of the massive pressure, no longer trust their own judgment. Only a small minority among them really believe that mixing and replacing white people with immigrants is good.
We should differentiate between the bulk of MPs and the minority of decision makers. Most MPs are happy to renounce their democratic duty, especially over issue #1, which is immigration. I think many MPs renounce having their say because they feel their opinion is at odds with dominant ideology.
What should we think of MPs and chiefs of state who actively participate in government decision making and take part in enforcing the population replacement policy? The reason they feel comfortable betraying their own people may be that they really think population replacement is a great policy. A more likely reason is that they lack moral principles! As for Bush, Sarko, Gordon Brown... I suspect Sarkozy feels no loyalty to his fellow Europeans and would really like a fusion with the third-world. I think Bush has been brainwashed. I don't know about Brown.

"A more plausible explanation is that they're toeing the party line, or to put it bluntly, they're simply doing what they think is expected of them."

I think the USA has partly a bottom up political system, with independent branches of the two main parties deciding for themselves what candidates they will field at local elections. But usually in France, every candidate for the two main parties has to be approved by the direction in Paris. They will choose candidates who fit the mold. And very often, the nomination means a sure election, so that each new elected politician will have received its job directly from the party direction, and will feel he must be loyal to his employer.

"We also have to keep in mind that a politician is by nature a person who is driven by a desire for power."

It may be true for some of them. If I was a minister, I would not enjoy the power, I would resent having to kowtow to my political chief, to the bureaucracy, and to the media. I would resent not being allowed to speak up.

Uncompromising people who are not interested in money tend to weed themselves out of the professional political scene because they are disgusted with the corruption. As a member of parliament, if you are not satisfied with obeying orders from the party headquarters, it must be exhausting to try and make a difference.

By nature, I think most politicians are like salesmen. They are not completely honest. Their strong point and what they enjoy is having relations with other people. What helps them climb up the hierarchy is that they are good with people and do not really believe in anything. It isn't just in politics. Even in clubs and associations, that kind of people will easily rise to the top. They are in sync with today's leftist Zeitgeist, and it helps them conquer everything, including formerly conservative institutions. I think the development of bureaucracy and the diluting of political responsibility tend to encourage the success of that type of people in politics.

"But of course, it was also business-motivated. Big business in Europe wanted cheap labour"

It may be true even though it doesn't make much sense. If the rich plutocrats of big business wished to get even richer, they should have asked politicians to decrease taxes on big business. The plutocrats would have earned even more, and the West would not have been damaged by immigration. Now, we would all be richer and have a great future. The problem is ideology rather than business interests.

"the politicians' eagerness and ruthlessness to stay in power and their willingness to go against their own conscience works in our favour, because it means that this multicultural ideology is not religiously supported, it's just a tool that they use to maintain power. If enough public support is rallied to stop this unwanted immigration and scrap the multicultural ideology that is currently plaguing Europe, or if massive terrorist attacks, widespread civil unrest, or other similar scenarios were to take place, this would definitely trigger a change in the political climate."

"The various national political parties and the EU would then make a U-turn and change their policies without thinking too much about it. People who are willing to sell out their own countries for the sake of personal political gain wouldn't think twice about reversing the current immigration and multicultural legislation if it meant that they would be able to hold on to their political power"

There is a hard core of leftists who are purely driven by ideology, among them: many high-ranking civil servants, some influential politicians, the mass media owners, most journalists, teacher trade unions, education specialists, university presidents, law school presidents, presidents of most public institutions, phony conservatives roaming on the net, and so on...
They are the ones imposing the immigration policy to the majority, whereas most of the population has always been against immigration in the first place. Most leftists are victims who have been brainwashed by television. If we change TV programs, people will change their minds and start believing whatever the idiot box tells them (with even more intensity, if it doesn't contradict reality, as leftism does). Most politicians count for nothing. As you say, they won't mind a complete change of policy on immigration, unless they lose their job over it.
The question is how to get rid of the hard core of leftists that is in charge of our institutions, and especially the mass media. We know that the white population of a whole city can be chased away and there will be no reaction if they have no control over the media and institutions. Widespread civil unrest is usually caused by immigrants, and the white reaction is always to move out.