“How can anyone be shocked?” The sheer folly of politicians – and why we should insist they no longer rule us.
The Gatestone Institute, a New York think-tank specialising in strategy and defence issues, provides some of the best analysis on the events of the day. Its hard-hitting commentary makes three crucial points in “How can Anyone Be shocked” in relation to the recent terror attack in Paris.
- “The West, especially Europe, continues to be taken aback every time a new terror attack occurs, as if each one were the first.
- “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.” — From a leaked German intelligence document.
- “The current generation of European political leaders has exhibited an irresponsibility and lack of leadership that is almost infantile.”
In The March of Folly, prize-winning historian Barbara Tuchman made a crucial point that Western democracies – too long relying upon the concept of leadership (and the practice of being ruled by politicians) – need to take on board. Her analysis of recent events of history underpinned her argument that politicians get most things wrong.
If so, the consequences for us here in New Zealand are sobering. Who would disagree with the statement that, “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils”? * But how many New Zealanders would support the claim that any of our political masters show anything like that genuine stature of intellect, of character, of courtesy, of historical knowledge and of dignified behaviour characterised as statesmanship? Our present PM’s self-promotion as a bit of a joker, with a glib tongue and proven charisma, overlies a focused ambition to have his own way – while he rules his caucus with little challenge.
Interestingly enough, that warning against “preventable evils” came from the brilliant, but much-vilified Conservative politician Enoch Powell, whose 1968 speech voicing his very real concern about ill-managed immigration into Britain, and the feel-good, think-bad anti-discrimination legislation proposed, was seized upon by the media to drum up a storm of hysteria. It was so very convenient for the tabloids and newspaper mischief-makers to selectively quote “rivers of blood” – although this phrase did not appear in his speech. What he actually said, warning that uncontrolled immigration would change Britain irrevocably, which it has, was twisted by journalists. It was a line from Virgil’s Aeneid: “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”
Powell was no racist. Defending his speech, he stated, “What I would take ‘racialist’ to mean is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speak in that belief. So the answer to the question of whether I am a racialist is ‘no.’ ”
Probably the majority of the British today believe that Enoch Powell was right. Their governments have failed to foresee that an influx of Muslim immigrants basically antipathetic to the Christian values that underpin Western society – and arriving with no real intent to assimilate into the majority culture – would cause a great deal of damage to that country. As Conservative peer and former minister Norman Tebbit wrote in The Daily Telegraph in 2014, “No-one should have been surprised at what was going on in schools in Birmingham. It was precisely what I was talking about over 20 years ago, and Enoch Powell was warning against long before that. We have far too many immigrants who have come here not to live in our society but to replicate here the society of their homelands.” Other both Labour and Conservative MPs have since endorsed Powell’s sense of foreboding at the time, saying it was widely misunderstood. Especially by the mainstream media?
Are we stepping out on the same path in New Zealand? A thoughtful Englishman (who has so successfully revived the time-steeped traditions of Morris dancing), returning to the UK for family reasons, but with a strong affection for New Zealand, is dismayed at what he sees as the apathy of New Zealanders. He is not alone in commenting on the changes in this country, one also gradually being removed from control by its own people – and one very much changed from when he first came. Concerned, like many Englishmen, about the mistakes his own politicians have made, he comments that the influx of radicalised Muslim immigrants contained those “who never had any intention of integrating into our society.” But with Britain’s thought- police ever watchful, stating this carries in the UK a very real risk of being wrongly accused of racism.
However, Wikipedia points out that, according to most accounts, the majority of the country at the time agreed with Powell, which is not what we have learnt from rabble-rousing commentators. And “the general agreement of the British with his views may have played a decisive contributory factor in the Conservative surprise victory in the 1970 general election.” However, Edward Heath immediately dismissed from his shadow cabinet the man predicted to very possibly become the next Conservative leader. An opinion poll taken at a time found that 74% agreed with what Powell had said in his speech, and 69% felt Heath was wrong to sack him.
So what happens when politicians get issues – even most issues – wrong? Heath was wrong. It took 30 years for him is to admit this, grudgingly, rather than generously, by confining himself to saying that Powell’s remarks on “the economic burden of immigration” had “not been without prescience.”
Many would agree with the contention of the Gatestone Institute that “infantile” is hardly too extreme a word to describe the inability of Western politicians to recognise in time the very real threat to the West long posed by the Trojan horse of Islamic immigration – aided by the equally infantile trumpeting of “anti-discrimination” by too many self-regarding media commentators – as well as by politicians themselves. Moreover, as discrimination is one of the most important critical functions we need to exercise in all aspects of our lives, those constantly throwing around such manipulative accusations. and succeeding in having anti-discrimination legislation imposed on their fellow citizens, have arguably done a great deal of damage, not only with respect to democratic freedoms being whittled away, but by contributing to produce the signs of a civilisation in crisis.
There is plenty of evidence to maintain that one of the three primary duties of government – the protection of the realm – which certainly contains the obligation to avoid embarking on policies which disadvantage New Zealanders – is being neglected in this country, with the continual sell-out of our land, our farms, our housing, and our commercial and strategic assets. What will replace the dividends that used to flow into government coffers to help pay for much-needed infrastructure and basic services, when former state-owned assets such as that of power generation will no longer be owned by New Zealanders? What will replace the lost tax base? And who is there protecting the interests of New Zealanders? Certainly not this present government. But do New Zealanders have much faith in any alternative political party seizing the reins of power? The answer of course is, no.
When the open border policy was first advocated for Europe, and Britain yielded some of its national sovereignty to the bureaucrats in Brussels, men and women of commonsense were deeply concerned at the sheer folly of these proposals. As with so many policies of today, ideology replaced intelligence. What Enoch Powell foresaw was its obvious consequences. These include people feeling displaced in their own country; the unsustainable pressure on housing, on land, on welfare systems, on hospital and other important services – and the backlash of understandable resentment from the people who were never properly consulted on these proposals – especially when faced with aggressive Muslim immigrants with no loyalty to their host country.
What did the politicians think would be the result of radicalized Islamists setting up their own politicised communities and no-go areas, establishing parallel societies while indoctrinating their children, subjugating their women, demanding halal killing, sharia law and a parallel justice system? What was going to be the consequence of their demands that their own politicised beliefs and religious extremism take precedence over the values of what should be democratic Western societies? What about the threatening pressure exerted upon moderate Muslim families by their activists attempting to recruit them? Fanatical Muslims turn as readily against those of their shared religion, if they cannot get them to radicalize, as they do against their host country.
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that politicians across the West have themselves very much to blame for ignoring for decades the reality that that multiculturalism is an utterly flawed policy. France in particular – with its virtual open-door policies, now has an estimated possibly 10 million Muslims. Britain has not been much better with its utterly unrealistic, open-border policy of a utopian vision – rather than one based on common sense. Other ethnic groupings have contained many anxious to assimilate, and to become good citizens. However, allowing in the flood of immigrants from Eastern Europe – with neither the housing nor jobs to accommodate them – and given an arguably over-generous welfare system – (together with health provisions burdening public hospitals and other services) – has been intellectually derelict.
Travelling by train across France two or three years ago, I was struck by the black graffiti scrawled on every hoarding, every railway station, on fences and isolated farm houses right across the countryside. It was everywhere, ominous and ugly, and indicative that something was very wrong. It was only when we began to leave France behind and to gradually climb higher into Switzerland that the graffiti was left behind, too. And the difference between the apparently reluctant and unhelpful rail services when travelling from west to east across France, and the far more efficient and welcoming Swiss rail system, was considerable.
What the recent terrorist attacks in Paris result may have at last brought home to our own media, who have largely averted their eyes from the reality that we may now be witnessing a Europe heading towards self-destruction, is what is actually happening. The sidelining to date by our mainstream journalists of a news story of such importance that the fact of welcoming Syrian and other immigrants in their scores of thousands is predicted to increase to millions of displaced immigrants – some deliberately planted to mount terrorist attacks – is curious.
We are being equally foolish in New Zealand, where the desirability of multiculturalism has been long parroted. Any Syrians admitted as part of our refugee quota should be part of the Christian minority being persecuted by Muslims. And yes, we have good Muslims in this country- but there is no good Islam.
We are unable to trust the government neither on this…nor on the nonsense too often spouted by the Race Relations Office. For example, who in the first place let into the country those extremists who apparently back ISIS, and are now being watched – about some of whom moderate Muslims among us previously alerted the government in vain?
Why should we trust our politicians to use their commonsense? They did not do so in Europe, and the results are now with us. Ours, too, are largely very ordinary, but highly ambitious men and women, but often with a greater ability to talk themselves and their audience in and out of anything…as we have seen from the folly of dangerous leadership right throughout Europe, let along the examples we know from even recent 20th century history.
It is not a question of racism, but of facts. We are being foolish allowing Muslim immigrants entry, when there is a strong case to be made that those whose religious culture is basically antipathetic to our values are not a good fit. And should we be relying on our own politicians to be any better than their equivalent overseas – especially with a lightweight Prime Minister, who already is costing us a great deal, and is now trying to get rid of the flag linking us to our democratic inheritance – and to the Christian values which (once?) stabilised and underpinned the West?
The Swiss have taken strong steps to preserve their own culture by not allowing their politicians to dominate the decision-making in their country. They very successfully put the brakes on all political activism by requiring that any legislation passed by their parliament has to wait for a scrutiny period of 100 Days…for the people of the country to say yes – or no.
Arguably, England, France, and the European countries now with huge problems on their hands would have been in a different position today if the commonsense of the man in the street had prevailed over the political pontificating that over-ruled them.
We’re now at the point in this where it’s high time to seriously consider the very real and practical advantage of backing the 100 Days movement – see www.100days.co.nz. It is now increasingly supported by New Zealanders concerned at being virtually dispossessed by our political system – and about what is happening to our country.
Yes, Switzerland, long having to protect its borders throughout its history, may be a smarter country. But it would not take long for New Zealanders to take on board the fact that they would have a genuine opportunity to help safeguard our own country – if they knew their vote really would count. And we would get back a genuine democracy – where New Zealanders, not a deal-making political over-class, could take the responsibility for making the decisions that affect us all.
Help spread the word, and support us! Ultimately, everything depends on individuals helping…
© Amy Brooke. Convenor, The 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand