National Health: An issue of life or death

National Health: An issue of life or death

During a speech I delivered yesterday in East London, I tried to convey the message that what we see as isolated issues are very much part of the same reality and should be treated as an integral part of the problems we are trying to tackle. At no point during the delivery was there anything that could so associated with racism, xenophobia or homophobia.

When we talk about immigration, the economy, social and cultural matters, the legal system and the political realities of the country, we are talking about different aspects of what constitutes a country.

Artful politicians, for ideological purposes, have presented flood immigration as beneficial but I reckon the dying passengers of the Titanic could show modern politicians what it means to be facing impending death with a shortage of lifeboats. Such is the scale of the disaster facing Britain in the first half of the Twenty-First Century.

As a modern Babel Tower, the country is facing serious consequences but whatever has happened until now is pale by comparison with what will happen when certain intolerant minorities grow in numbers and strength. The all-accepting and endlessly patient local populations are facing very stark choices.

I do believe in cause and effect and the political scene is going to become extremely polarized. Since the so called mainstream political parties and their acolytes have chosen to ignore realities the said realities – like it happened to the Norwegian Labour Party – will come to haunt them in the near future.

Banning political parties that represent the feelings of the majority – like German Chancellor Angela Merkel knows – can be extremely difficult and dangerously counter productive. Why is this happening? Angela Merkel might not say it in public but in private she knows that many of those who vote for her and for other established political parties share the views of the political party she is trying to ban but people in general are reluctant to express their views in public for fear of losing their jobs.

The issue of jobs is very much what keeps certain politicians in power and delay the final effect. Having grown up in Eastern Germany under Soviet occupation, Angela Merkel knows this perfectly well. When the economy went wrong, in a few hours the Berlin Wall was breached in many places. East Germans did not have to worry about jobs because most of them had none to worry about. Something similar could happen in Germany. A serious deterioration of the economy could lead to a massive political success of the NPD, the very party that she so desperately tries to ban.

What becomes increasingly evident is that there is coincidence across national boundaries and that European political parties that share similar concerns are coming together with a common cause that is stronger than the pecuniary interests and purely ideological platforms of so called mainstream political parties and politicians. The increasing cooperation is what worries most the so-called political establishments.

An ideology called Islam is a uniting force and I say ideology because Islam – much more than a religion – is a ideology best suited for violence, something Heinrich Himmler, Shutzstaffel Reichführer, knew very well when he praised Muslims that fought for Nazi Germany by referring to their obedience and commitment in war. Having seen quite a few examples in modern times, one dares not doubt that Heinrich Himmler’s judgment in this case was absolutely right and this is why Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician, compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. A Turkish Prime Minister, speaking candidly, said that Mosques are Islam’s fortresses and followed the same concept by defining believers as storm troopers and weapons. Looking at the analogies, you know exactly what is coming.

Bradford and Tower Hamlets are the forerunners of politics along religious and ethnic lines. Britain knew the meaning of religious and ethnic politics a long time ago. We are dealing with a newer version of the bloody conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. So, as the Romans said: Vis Pacem, Para Bellum (If you want peace, prepare yourself for war.)

I constantly remind those who are willing to listen about the fundamental question: Wollen Sie eine Politische Partei, eine Politische Bewegung oder eine Soziale Bewegun? Do you want a political party, a political movement or a social movement? Undoubtedly things like Occupy Wall Street are a Soziale Bewegun. The English Defense League or EDL is a Politische Bewegun and the British National Party is a Politische Partei.

In normal circumstances, in a democratic context, there are specific differences that set political parties, political movements and social movements apart. In extraordinary circumstances, the boundaries become less evident.

The British National Party has no links whatsoever with the English Defence League, especially because there are very serious questions regarding the leadership of the English Defence League. However, at the same time, we recognize that the membership of the English Defence League is living expression of fundamental concerns shared across political boundaries from left to right. Like it happened in the past, it is happening right now. Those who share certain political views are coming together across political boundaries and across national boundaries.

Not long ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin defined Nationalism in a very straightforward manner: “What belongs to us” and “What belongs to others”. The time of reckoning is fast approaching. There is going to be a kind of 1492 moment, a time defined by Primo de Rivera as ‘By the force of reason or by the reason of force’.