By Bosco – Irish Sentinel Contributor –
Before I begin to argue the point I must concede at the very start that I could be extraordinarily wrong. I say this to leave some frayed tether to the existing world because once you abandon it, it can have major consequences, and those I leave to your imagination. What I am saying is potentially dangerous and so I must use caution because to abandon politics as a way of extricating ourselves from the present abyss necessarily leads, by extension, to the abandonment of democracy itself.
When we conceive of politics we understand it in terms of party politics, national parliaments, local councils, etc. More importantly we must view politics, or the work of governance in terms of democracy. Democracy is extoled in the west to such an extent that the greatest supporter of democracy, the USA, spends billons of dollars eradicating it around the globe. Democracy is championed by the west only if the democracy being lauded fits their agenda. If an African country chooses to retain Christian moral principles and forbid the sexualisation of children by the LGBT lobby, or seek to protect the traditional family, their version of democracy is eventually targeted by the west, condemned and invariably overthrown or supplanted with “democrats” more to the liking of the west.
When we speak of politics to solve an issue, national or local, it involves the machinations of political parties and independents, who act either as delegates or trustees, depending on the whim of the politician, and represent their constituents accordingly.
There are two models of political representation- trustee and delegation. A trustee model refers to a situation where constituents choose their representative in parliament entrusting to the elected person the duty to make significant decisions on their behalf.
The representative acts as the trustee of the people in all matters and does so under the colour of significant autonomy. The elected trustee has the duty to deliberate and make decisions for the greater interest of his constituents, as he sees fit. The trustee has the mandate to make decisions on behalf of the people; he can then forego the immediate interest of his constituents ( so we are told) in favour of the national interest. In truth the representative reneges on the promises he made, whether in the party manifesto, or personal pledges made at the doorstep that got him elected, he has abandoned the voted upon expectations of the voter. We know this is true because men like Simon Harris, Leo Varadkar and others represented their pro life credentials to the voters only to abandon them once they got into office. This is more than problematic because it means that men, like Harris or Varadkar, didn’t conduct due diligence of the issues they warranted to defend, were negligent in doing so, or simply lied to get elected. Harris and Varadkar, and the pro-life cause is not the only examples where politicians guaranteed to their constituents to support a certain cause only to reject it once they got into power.
The argument provided by politicians, who renege on their promises., is that they are trustees of the public interest, that the voters collectively lack the necessary knowledge which the trustee has and will use effectively. Consequently, the manifestos upon which they seek election become obsolete. The manifestos in reality become a gimmick to get elected.
The delegate model of representation is understood as parallel to the trustee model.Whilst the trustee model gives all the rights and the powers to make the decisions vicariously on behalf of the people, or to be more precise, as he or she sees fit, the delegate assumes the role of direct mouthpiece for the people, acting as a conduit of sorts between the people and ultimate power wielded in the assembly he might sit.
The delegate has no right or power to decide on his own volition and is considered truly only representative of his constituency. In this model of representation, the people only elect the delegate to represent their constituencies in the parliament. This sounds far more agreeable to the people but the problem associated with the trustee isn’t eliminated, it is only pushed down a rung or two. The problem isn’t eradicated because the power then resides with the people. But isn’t this good? I hear you say. The problem with giving people power is just that, the people have power.
The myth of ‘democracy is great’, a claim that resounds in the media and elsewhere, relies on the assumption that the people know best, and do so objectively and without undue influence. We know this is false. Intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman have been making the point for decades that consent, provided to the politicians to make decisions and policies, have been manufactured and has been for years. The term “manufacturing consent” originated with Walter Lipmann who understood that the masses needed to be lead, that the people were incapable of self-governance. Chomsky and Herman adopted the phrase but used it to identify the phenomenon of mass inculcation through the media. The media, according to Chomsky and Herman, framed the news cycle in terms of issues that the ruling class wanted aired, or indeed forgotten. This was achieved by the vested interests of those who owned or managed the media apparatus. We are seeing this play out in front of our own eyes during the present Ukraine news coverage.
Whilst not defending Vladimir Putin, who I believe is as much a globalist as his opponent- Zelenksy, the western media, and those they virally contract, present a conflict where the US, UK and many other western countries posit themselves as virtuous democracies , upholders of freedom and sovereignty. The represent the Russians altogether differently. However, we know, or ought to know, that this is patently false. IN truth there is very little difference between the Russians and those who condemn them. Whilst the media spin a narrative of western virtue they ignore the illegal Iraqi war in 2003 they participated in, the various coup d’etats the west perpetrated and colour revolutions they funded and encouraged that overthrew sovereign independent nations. The media spin is in overdrive and the masses lap it up without blinking an eye at the blatant hypocrisies on show. These masses, so easily manipulated by vested interests, are the very people that delegate representation seeks its direction from.
Greek philosopher, Socrates considered democracy to be a flawed system because it left the state in the hands of the unenlightened, where it valued all opinions as equal, including the absurd. While this may sound elitist it requires more analysis.
The elitism apart, was Socrates correct? Whether we have a delegate or trustee model of representation seems irrelevant for the reins of power are agitated, invariably, in the hands of the corrupt, evil, gullible, or just plain stupid. The fact remains that the vote cast by an idiot who thinks that a direct abortion and a wet dream are the same thing, or that a biological man can be a woman, highlights the inadequacies and dangers of the system. If the masses can be so easily deceived by those with nefarious interests, then the benefit of democracy falls. To be ruled by tyrants, put there and maintained in power by idiots, is as bad, as being ruled by a single despotic dictator. At least with the latter, the mirage of probity is eliminated. The veneer that societies run by democracies is itself praise worthy belies the fact that democracies can usher in as much evil as any maniacal dictator. Again we know this because the masses voted or were indifferent to the plight of the unborn resulting in 7000, out of 60,000 per year, one tenth of our population being dismembered and thrown in waste like garbage. Democracy can indeed usher in evil as much as one tyrant can.
In Manufacturing Consent, authors Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman explored how the American media frames events and creates narratives that serve the interests of the nation’s political, economic, and social elite. Ireland and its media machine is no different. In fact, the close ties between the Irish political elite and their American masters has never been so evident such that Ireland has become a colony of the US deep state. During the illegal Iraqi war of 2003 Ireland gave material support to the invasion with the provision Shannon airport and its stopover and refuelling capacities.
Originally Chomsky and Herman argued that control of the media in the United States did not take the form of direct state censorship or a formal conspiracy to manage the news, although this is now becoming more common. Instead, Chomsky and Herman postulated that there was, and remains, a powerful set of informal restrictions and controls that limit what journalists cover—and how they cover it. There is a limited spectrum of opinion established and lively debate, even dissent is permissible within that limited range giving the impression that all views are aired. Recently however, the elite classes, especially in Ireland, have become bolder endeavouring to silence dissent under the rouse of subverting “hate speech”. The obvious question is who decides what is hateful? Is an attack on Catholicism hateful? Or Irish culture? Or the assault on the integrity of the nation? Are these to be considered hateful? The answer is a resounding no! only dissent of globalist causes is to be considered hateful and such a regime will be achieved. with the mass approval of the people, the people we trust our futures to, and the politicians they vote into power.
What of possible nationalist parties? The problem with these is that they remain political parties navigating the same torrents of manufactured consent. No dissenting political party will be given a fair hearing in public, their voices will be either ignored or distorted. Even those that do get to appear in the mass media they will be misrepresented or treated unfairly. I imagine even the greatest of dissenting candidates who was allowed appear on a radio or TV show, and gave the greatest performance of his life, once he is off air, and with no right of reply, all his best work will be undone through the biased rhetoric of a vested interested presenter. The fact remains that all the conduits by which movements and political parties attempt to disseminate their worldviews, are dominated by those with antithetical interests. Those antithetical interests would have no reason to air the views of their opponents, and if they did provide them air time, they would ensure that those dissenting views be distorted and misrepresented. Why on earth would they sabotage their own power.
In addition, we cannot forget that parties, whether nationalist or globalist, tend to attract personalities that desire prestige and power. Whilst it might be true that people may come to politics originally with the intent to do what is right for their cause, we cannot ignore psychology. According to one widely-cited study, an estimated 1.2 percent of the general population possess personality traits consistent with psychopathy. Amongst professions which wield power and influence, the prevalence appears to be higher, and politicians certainly fall into that category. Interestingly in 2018 New research measured which areas of the US waw home to the individuals with psychopathic personalities and they found that the Northeast hosts a larger percentage of these individuals, with Washington, D.C., and Connecticut housing the most.
The study was conducted by Ryan Murphy, a research assistant professor at Southern Methodist University in Texas. Murphy collated state wide data on personalities, information based on previously collected data from a 2013 study that estimated regional differences in personalities. The prior research used five separate samples of individuals to create an idea of the average temperament of individuals from a specific region. Using this data, Murphy then estimated psychopathy levels state by state. “These results are the first estimates we have, to the best of my knowledge, on the degree of psychopathy found in each state,” Murphy told Newsweek in 2018.
Those with psychopathy tend to be motivated by personal gratification without authentic care or concern for others’ feelings, needs, or suffering. They can be superficially charming, glib and confident, lie, deceive, and exploit others: sounds familiar? The pursuit of power, self-aggrandisement and egotism can cause politicians to abandon the cause they entered the profession to realise. Politicians, especially those who covert supreme power and influence, i.e., leadership can put their own interests ahead of their principles, the cause itself and do untold damage in the process.
What so of politics? Is a way out of the current malaise achievable directly through psychopaths, narcissists, or indirectly through the gullible idiots who vote for them? Is it even possible for a decent man or woman, to lead a charge against the maelstrom of corruption, decadence and evil even possible when their voice would be suppressed before it even aired? Even if by some fluke it was aired, will it be given an opportunity to tell the truth or will their message be distorted or misrepresented? If even then, it is presented to the people, can we trust the people to make right decisions when those same people are currently the ones approving evil? At this rate, I believe politics is dead, but what is left? And what horrors might that yield?