What is madness of power? One can define it as activity against the interests of one’s own society. And I don’t mean here random acts committed by some bloody despot. I am talking about our own democratically elected, naive elites.
The accepted agreement allowing the mass migration is an example of the “madness of power.”
It is not that simple to define the phenomenon called “madness of power” since the history of mankind, from the very beginning, is marked by stupidity. Especially that stupidity can manifest in various forms.
In general, any authority can make an intellectual mistake. Similarly to a doctor prescribing a wrong drug to their patient without prior knowledge of its negative consequences, at times, the ruling scepter gets into the hands of a dictator or a psychopath. At other times, people in power choose bad decisions out of lack of alternatives.
For the purpose of this article, I wish to use the term “madness of power” following the definition presented by Barbara Tuchman, a remarkable historian, the author of “A Distant Mirror”, “The Proud Tower” or “The March of Folly” (into Polish translated as “Madness of Power”) . As a sign of madness Tuchman recognizes “any policy making contradictory to one’s own benefit.” Any policy that does not take into account the experience, that breaks with common sense, and disregards available information. Madness of power, the author stipulates, can occur only when three conditions are met simultaneously. Firstly, “people in power need to be aware of the negative consequences of their policy in the time of its application and not in the aftermath of it, i.e. after a few years.” Secondly, policy makers need to have a choice between favorable and unfavorable solution. Finally, it can not be an act of one politician but of the whole ruling class.
Trojan horse story as universal paradigm
“The most famous tale of the Western world that serves as an archetype of all human conflicts, an epic which has since become the property of all humanity in each of its historical periods, even before the skill of writing and reading was acquired, contains a legend – reminiscent of true events – about a wooden horse.” This myth contains a few threads that would get updated during various historical periods. And so, the Trojans ignored warnings of a lurking danger, succumbed to a fraudulent narrative, eventually opened their own borders becoming virtually completely defenseless.
Let us add, that, to the inhabitants of ancient Troy, a horse was a sacred animal. Their decision was, in a sense, taken for ideological reasons. Their action seemed to be even noble and justified. The ruling class of today acts in a similar way.
Open door policy reservations and numerous warnings about the disastrous effects of an uncontrolled immigration were formulated by multiple politicians in Western Europe since the 1980s. It’s enough to recall politicians like Hans Janmaat. Some time later, Pim Fortuyn, appeared on the Dutch political scene. Finally, Oriana Fallaci, not by chance compared to Cassandra, published her controversial books.
All of those above-mentioned, pointed to the totalitarian character of Islam, the aspirations of many Muslims to build parallel societies. They predicted that the mass migration from Islamic countries would be the cause of a deep crisis of the host countries.
When the leader of the Dutch Party Center, Hans Janmaat, demanded respect for Western values by Muslims, he was overtly opposed. Oriana Fallaci was to stand before the Italian court for her opinions, and Fortuyn, for his views, paid with his own life.
Europe remained deaf even to the voices of Muslim dissidents from Middle-eastern countries. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a liberal critic of Islam, was expelled from the Netherlands. The words of prof. Bassam Tibi, a Syrian, have also fallen on deaf ears. He once said: “Either Islam will be European or Europe will become Islamic.” Ultimately, even the Frontex statistical data on increased migratory pressure was ignored before the crisis in 2015 became a reality. This means that the authorities, when making a decision regarding the opening of their borders, had access to data, opinions and arguments indicating that such action would not bring benefits to the countries of Europe.
Mass migration is not a necessity
Today, many commentators say that in the global world border protection is not possible, and mass migration is just a historical necessity. This is of course not true.
There are effective measures and legal instruments to stop such migration. It was convincingly achieved by Viktor Orban, for example. First, by building a wall that provides security for its citizens, and secondly, by recognizing the illegal crossing of the border as a crime. With time, even the German chancellor had to admit that the “Hungarian wall” provides security also to the West.
Borders do exist and with them the agencies elected to protect them. The only thing needed is a political will to do several things at once – to seal them, to fight the smugglers and traffickers, and to provide help for countries needed to reduce their poverty.
Mass migration is not a necessity, it is not like weather on which we have no influence. It is rather a political decision, lined with bad ideas that can be expressed with two misinformed slogans: “We are building a world without borders” and “No man is illegal”.
Borders are a sad necessity, and the state has the right to decide who is on its territory; just like every one of us has the right to choose whom to invite home. The authorities do not have to accept mass migration, especially when it is contrary to the interests of the host societies.
Dangerous humiliation of the European elites
The reality of opening of Europe’s borders became possible by a simultaneous convergence of several circumstances. One of them was the influence of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who de facto became the face of the open door policy and who, at the same time, received an unwavering support from the bureaucratic elites of the European Union. Her actions were being justified ideologically – migration builds a multicultural society; for humanitarian reasons – refugees flee from the war and seek a safe haven; and economically – aging Europe needs more hands for work. The other was the unflinching backing coming from various centers of power – the leftist intellectuals, church hierarchy headed by the Pope, and the majority of journalists who provided a vast “media protection” pushing the open door policy.
It is known today that migration to Europe consists of mostly economic migrants, who, in fact, are a burden on the budget of the host countries. The narrative of the escaping war-zones engineers, physicians and IT professionals, who will end up contributing to the retirement plans of the citizens of the Old Continent, should be put in between fairy tales.
Taking into account such criteria as: acting against its own society, ignoring the available knowledge, abandoning of the alternative solutions, and, finally, the collective responsibility of our elites, the policy of open doors can be declared “the madness of power”.
This madness occurs in various ways throughout the different periods in history. In the nineteenth century, it appeared in the attempt to conquer Russia by Napoleon, in the twentieth-century, it manifested in the form of the Vietnamese war, and in the 21st century, it comes as the idea of turning the borders of all European states to be merely “theoretical”.
Polish original: Masowa imigracja czyli szaleństwo władzy.