The recently held British local elections once again confirm a tendency that has been evident throughout most of the Western world: Wherever Muslims gain a foothold, Islam increasingly becomes the axis around which politics revolves. Not necessarily in the sense that all parties become Mohammedan, but in the sense that they are inevitably compelled to relate to Islam and adapt their policies accordingly.
The reason is obvious: The growing Muslim electorate is the most steadfast and the least susceptible to influence by arguments or events. The country’s development may cause social democrats, liberals or conservatives to change their voting behaviour because they are, to some extent, guided by personal interests. Muslims, by contrast, vote as a bloc, not according to what serves them personally, but according to what serves Islam. And if there are no explicitly Islamic parties, they bestow their favour upon those prepared to render Islam the greatest services, such as restricting freedom of expression, prohibiting criticism of Islam and opening the borders to Muslim mass immigration.
For the non-Islamic parties, this is naturally a risky strategy, for what they may hope to gain among the prophet’s followers, they risk losing among the native population. That is more or less what has happened to the once mighty Labour Party in Great Britain, which suffered catastrophic losses in the election. By leaving the border open to the mass influx of young men of fighting age, Prime Minister Keir Starmer evidently hoped to attract Muslim votes while retaining the English ones. It produced a serious backlash, for immigration has become a central issue in elections.
Most Britons simply do not wish to hand the country over to the prophet, and have responded by giving the immigration-critical Reform Party a fantastic election result. The party has gone from having 2 representatives in the local assemblies to 1,420, while Labour has lost almost as many.
Curiously enough, Labour’s Islamic course has also failed to retain Muslim voters, many of whom have instead defected to the Green Party, which was previously an environmental and climate party. But now they are seeking greener pastures by presenting themselves as an Islamo-socialist party that no longer speaks of the coming overheating of the world. It has paid dividends, and the party can record significant gains.
The Conservatives, who for years managed mass immigration, received no thanks, but suffered painful losses just like Labour. There may perhaps be a lesson here that the Danish so-called bourgeois parties can also draw: They achieve no political gain by currying favour with and paving the way for Islam. Speak as much as you like about “human rights” and distancing oneself from “the far right” (which is synonymous with national-minded people), it yields no gain at the ballot box, but instead paves the way for Enhedslisten and De Radikale, whose love of Islam grows stronger with each passing day.
In that case, it makes no difference that the leader of the Greens, Zach Polanski, is a village idiot who has lied about his allegedly brilliant career, and who claims that through hypnosis he can make women’s breasts grow.
The fate of nations is no longer decided by politics in the old-fashioned sense.