“Migrant crisis? What crisis?
There is no migrant crisis!”
— Ian Birrell, British political pundit, in the Daily Mail
I do Mr Birrell a wrong by implying that he is unaware of the caravans of illegal immigrants pouring into Europe unrelentingly, mostly from five Muslim countries: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Eritrea.
He would have to be living on a different planet not to be aware that the “migrant crisis” is a crisis indeed: not so much for the migrants who have everything to gain if they can smuggle themselves into Europe, but it’s obviously a crisis to their European host countries who have everything to lose if the migrants should succeed in gaining a foothold here and, in the process, force their alien values and culture upon us.
This is what multiculturalism, if the truth be told, is all about: destroying the existing culture initially by dilution, and later on by subtle discrimination, verbal attacks, and, finally, by criminalisation. Traditional values and the Christian ethos, once the prevailing norms in Europe and the US as late as the 1950s, are now quaint relics of the past, held in almost universal contempt by a thoroughly brutalised population of decadent philistines and tiresome trendies. Widespread neurosis, if not mental sickness, is rapidly becoming normative; and the vices of our ancestors are now the age’s new virtues.
Britain, new ‘Promised Land’ for Asylum Seekers
Mr Birrell, in the startling epigraph quote above […] was in fact referring to the 139 illegal immigrants, mostly from Iran, who had recently been caught sneaking into Britain. His sympathies lie with them entirely. He regards them as heroes for surviving torture and oppression in their own countries, for braving the storms and treacherous tides of the Mediterranean, and for slogging their way over mountain passes and through inhospitable enemy terrain in immense caravans of misery, finally to fetch up in the icy waters of the English Channel in a last desperate attempt to get to the land of their dreams—the glorious shores of Great Britain.
This is hardly a “crisis”, Mr Birrell opines. It is a cause for rejoicing.
Apart from Matteo Salvini, there is not a single influential politician anywhere in Western Europe who is lifting a finger to stop this ongoing invasion of our homelands by hordes of African, Asian, and Middle Eastern migrants, all claiming to be “refugees.” And it just keeps getting worse. During the Christmas season more boatloads of illegal immigrants were welcomed into Britain by an inept and dysfunctional British government, most of whose MPs are incidentally “Friends of Israel.” These so-called “representatives of the people” seem to bend over backwards to appease the powerful Jewish lobby here, ignoring the wishes and diktats of this small minority at their peril, a situation not unfamiliar to our equally pressured American confrères.
The man in charge of dealing with the migrant crisis in Britain, Sajid Javid, is himself the offspring of a Muslim immigrant family of Pakistani origin. (See his picture here). His other credentials for dealing with the migrant influx, which he has done nothing remotely effective to limit or discourage so far, are his obsequious loyalties to the state of Israel. A long-time supporter of the Conservative Friends of Israel, Mr Javid has endeared himself to Jewish interests by declaring in 2012 that of all the countries in the Middle East he would like to settle in permanently, his first choice would be Israel. That’s where his Utopia lies, his Promised Land of milk and honey. Only in Israel, he says, would his children feel “the warm embrace of peace and liberty.” The problem, of course, is that he can’t prove Jewish ancestry. Would that Britain had analogous laws.
Javid is the man who is now Britain’s Home Secretary and a current contender for the ‘Top Job’, hovering patiently in the background like a hungry vulture for the corpse of Theresa May to be borne out of 10 Downing Street on a metaphorical stretcher at any moment.
Well, we can’t wait either! Britain’s first Pakistani Prime Minister should provide an interesting landmark in British history, like the conquest of Mount Everest by Sir Edmund Hilary in May 1953.
Curiously enough, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan (pictured), is also of Pakistani origin and cut his teeth working for a solicitors’ firm in London called Christian Fisher which later changed its name to Christian Khan. (See here). It’s interesting to note that the chief partner in the firm, Michael Fisher, was (he died four years ago) half Jewish on his father’s side. So it appears that both our current Home Secretary and our Mayor of London have two striking features in common: both are of Pakistani origin and both have had careers which have advanced steadily under Jewish influence.
The alternative government-in-waiting, led by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, widely reputed to be “anti-Semitic” and pro-Muslim, would be just as bad (if not worse) if it ever got into power. This party of the left, purportedly founded to look after the interests of the working classes, is even more committed to multiculturalism and mass Third World immigration than the rival Tory party. The “migrant crisis” in Britain actually began under Tony Blair, the mendacious war criminal who founded “New Labour,” and it has continued without intermission under successive British governments ever since. Only today this headline (unavailable online) appeared on page 2 of the Daily Mail, 14 January in large, bold-face type: CORBYN: I WANT TO KEEP OUR BORDERS OPEN TO MIGRANTS. This from the “Workers’ Party,” the party whose members voted overwhelmingly for Brexit in June 2016 in an unprecedented referendum in which 17.4 million Brits insisted on an end to uncontrolled mass immigration and the enforcement of the strictest border controls.
Democracy? If you’re hunting for that critter, you won’t find it in Britain. Both the Prime Minister and the majority of MPs seem determined to give the people the very opposite of what they voted for over two years ago: a fake Brexit or no Brexit at all, with the country remaining a vassal state of Europe for the foreseeable future. Even Corbyn, however dangerous he may turn out to be, got it right when he described the Prime Minister’s treacherous Brexit plan as a “Frankenstein deal” cooked up by a “zombie government” (16 January).
The deliberate wreck of the British referendum vote by the political class in this country calls to mind the German poet Bertolt Brecht’s scathing comment, “Would it not be easier for the Government to dissolve the People and elect another?” Just substitute “import another” for “elect another.”
Pathological Altruism, British Style
If you wish to study pathological altruism at close hand, Sweden and Angela Merkel’s Germany would be good places to start. We shall concentrate here on Britain, because it is increasingly becoming a “soft touch” for asylum seekers. (See here, “Our soft touch system acts like a magnet”)
The phrase “migrant crisis” has recently taken on an entirely different connotation here. If you think this means that there are too many migrants landing up uninvited on our shores and that they need to be stopped, you are wrong. “Migrant crisis” now means failure to rescue more illegal immigrants on the high seas, ferry them to safety, and bestow them with benefits — in effect, to collaborate with the people smugglers and act as a delivery service for their illegal cargo.
Pathological altruism, it seems, has no limits to its absurdity. More patrol boats are needed in the Mediterranean Sea and in the English Channel, it is being argued, not to form a protective armada or shield against dangerous invaders, but to serve as lookout points for any illegal immigrants found thrashing around in choppy seas—their boats wrecked or overturned—and to rush to their assistance at once before they drown or freeze to death in the icy waters.
Since October 2018, 434 migrants, most of them Iranians, have been discovered trying to cross the English Channel from France. On Christmas Day, 40 migrants arrived in Kent on five vessels, “two of which were assisted to shore by lifeboat crews.” The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), which has been carrying out this humanitarian work, has recently come in for severe criticism for acting as “a taxi service for illegal migrants“.
The result? Hundreds of British donors to this exceptionally well-heeled charity have now cancelled their regular donations and monthly direct debits. The main object of this charitable organisation, they point out indignantly, is to rescue ordinary folk who are in danger from drowning at sea, not to assist the people smugglers by picking up their contraband cargo and acting as a free delivery service for illegal immigrants.
The chutzpah of the people smugglers is almost unbelievable. They not only expect their illegal cargo to be “rescued” and given free transportation to the targeted country as a “human right.” They expect the process to be made as painless as possible to themselves. Migration Watch reporter Sue Reid writing in the Daily Mail:
Their modus operandi [the people smugglers] is to sound the alarm, EVEN IF A BOAT IS NOT IN DISTRESS, because that is a sure way of getting a rescue vessel to carry their valuable cargo to shore for them. (Emphasis added)
The incompetence of the British government—or rather its heinous bad faith—is highlighted by the fact that no serious attempt is ever made to eject failed asylum seekers. Two out of three bogus refugees are allowed to stay on in the country with the government’s full connivance—or even its secret blessing. (See Only 1 in 3 failed asylum seekers end up leaving Britain as the others vanish into the ‘black economy’)
Channel 4 TV recently featured an unidentified Iranian who had arrived here by dinghy, explaining why the U.K. was so attractive. “In France they feed you, but you can wait for three to four years without benefits.”
A revealing comment. It looks like Britain is seen as the new freebie heaven, offering generous incentives to illegal immigrants in order to lure them here against the will of large sections of its indigenous people. Even the women in Britain, it is rumoured, are notoriously “easy meat,” easy to groom and sweet-talk into inter-racial liaisons. Which is obviously an added bonus for the lonesome traveler from distant lands — the sex-hungry single, military-age fugitive in search of seminal ejaculation in the presence of (or inside the bodies of) an indigenous British woman or girl. Such recreational activity often ends in gang rape and murder. (For the systematic rape of underage girls in Britain, see here. And if you can spare a moment, take a quick look at some of the perpetrators guilty of terrorising the female British population.)
So how do the politicians respond to this crisis? By letting in more people from the same troublesome hotspots that bring in the rapists!
Mindless? An act of pure treason? A crime against the people who elected them and pay their inflated salaries? You decide.
I think most people today would sympathise with G.K. Chesterton’s rueful comment, “It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.”
“Operation Invade Europe”
Take a look at the map below. It shows the huge percentage of foreign-born immigrants in each European country roughly three years ago. Every single West European country has, at least until recently, thrown open its borders submissively to this tsunami of refugees. The only countries in the EU to offer a spirited resistance to this invasion by foreigners have been the Visegrad countries (Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia) and now Italy as a result of the heroic activism of Matteo Salvini, resulting in ongoing battles with the EU bureaucrats. I will not discuss here the complex reasons for their exceptional behaviour, except to say that I approve of it and wish these heroic activists good luck.
These official UN figures highlighting the migrant crisis in Europe for 2015 are demonstrably an underestimate, since they fail to take illegal immigrants into account. In any case, the figures have increased substantially since then. Every year since 2015 has seen a steady rise in Third-World migration to Europe, with 2016 showing the most spectacular jumps — with an estimated 1.6 million “refugees” being admitted to Germany alone under the watch of the demented Angela Merkel.
Meanwhile in the US, according to the latest data released by the Census Bureau, the foreign-born population surged in 2017 to 44.5 million people, or 13.7 percent of the population, with more immigrants coming in from Central America and Asia. In 1970 it was a mere 5 percent. (See here.)
The UN Refugee Agency has calculated that there are currently 28.5 million refugees and asylum seekers worldwide, with most fleeing war and oppressive governments in Africa, the Middle East and the Far East. The three hotspots mentioned in the report are Afghanistan, Syria and South Sudan. From here the refugees fan out into neighbouring countries which then have to bear the brunt of their influx: these are Turkey, Lebanon, Uganda and Pakistan, the four largest refugee-hosting centres in the world. (See here)
The next step can be described as “Operation Invade Europe.”
Theoretically, the 28 countries of the European Union could solve the refugee problem by agreeing to accept at least one million refugees each. This quixotic scheme for sharing out misery equitably, like each participant in a suicide banquet nobly agreeing to eat an equal slice of the poisoned cake, is of course risible, but it is exactly the sort of formula advocated by Merkle and the EU and rejected by the Visegrad countries.
Such a formula fails to take into account two basic facts. Firstly, the supply of future refugees is potentially unlimited, given that the pool of possible refugees comprises the teeming billions of chronically unstable Africa and the Middle East and other areas of Asia. We can’t possibly let them all in, however much this incalculable mass of unfortunate human beings should clamour for entrance. Secondly, there is no compelling reason why the native populations of Europe should be forced to put up with this insupportable onslaught against their wills. There is no obligation to commit collective suicide at the behest of a hostile elite.
For more on this subject, and in particular on the Jewish role in promoting mass immigration, see this meticulously documented article by Andrew Joyce. In the words of Kevin MacDonald, quoted here be Joyce: “Jewish organizations have uniformly advocated high levels of immigration of all racial and ethnic groups into Western societies and have also advocated a multicultural model for these societies” (here).
For yet more on the concerted effort to funnel a whole new generation of Third-World immigrants into Western countries, check out this groundbreaking exposé by Andrew Joyce tracing the hidden Jewish hand in starting the ball rolling as early as 1948, the same year international Jewry managed to found their apartheid, ethnic-cleansing state on the ruins of Palestine. Joyce has researched this topic for several years and is now collating his extensive notes for a full-length book on the subject. He writes:
From the early 19th century until the First World War, English Jewry was ruled by a tightly connected oligarchy. Daniel Gutwein states that this Anglo-Jewish elite comprised some twenty inter-related Ashkenazi and Sephardic families including the houses of Goldsmith, Montagu, Nathan, Cohen, Isaacs, Abrahams, Samuel, and Montefiore. At its head, of course, stood the House of Rothschild.
Fast forward to the 21st century and to the present incumbent of 10 Downing Street … and join the dots. Here is Francis Carr Begbie in an article published three weeks after the British referendum of 23 June 2016:
Anyone wondering about the priorities of Mrs Theresa May should follow her actions from the moment she learned she was to become Britain’s next Prime Minister. Her first act was to sign a pledge committing her to remember the Holocaust and ‘stand up to hatred and intolerance’.
And her second was to spend the evening before her confirmation by the Queen at a private dinner at the home of Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis.
These unpalatable facts simply cannot be brushed under the carpet any longer. Anyone who attempts to deny them deserves to join the proverbial ostrich with its head buried in the sand.
The focus of the present article however is not to ask, “Who is ultimately to blame for the invasion of Europe?” We already know that. It is to ask, “How can we stop the invasion now it has begun?”
Stopping the Invasion
How to deal with this endless horde of economic migrants posing as helpless “refugees”? If they are not to be classified as “invaders”, as they would definitely be in Jewish-dominated Israel, the word ‘invasion’ ceases to have any meaning. Is violence in self-defence justifiable if failure to act decisively threatens one’s own survival? This is the ticklish question that will have to be tackled sooner rather than later. It cannot be dodged or deferred indefinitely.
It has been suggested that one effective non-violent way of dealing with the migrant crisis is to adopt the Australian method: tow the migrant vessel away, back to its country of embarkation. That offers some hope. Unfortunately, this will only work with larger vessels where the country of embarkation is already known. It won’t work in the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel with smaller vessels such as rubber dinghies and tiny fishing boats; this is because the occupants of these vessels not only refuse to disclose where they come from but actually destroy their passports in advance.
Getting tough seems to be the only answer.
Here is a snippet from a recent letter in the Daily Mail headlined ‘Misdirected kindness’ (3 January 2019, Letters section; not available online). This comes from one Philip Hodson from Newmarket in Suffolk. It daringly mentions gunfire. “Due to a policy based on kindness,” the writer comments kindly, “we can expect to see migrants dying as they attempt to cross the Channel.” He does not suggest shooting the migrants to stop them getting any closer, which of course would be unkind of him. But he does suggest — and this is the first time I have come across such a sentiment in the mainstream press — that a spectacular display of machine gun fire might have a bracingly effective deterrent effect:
As a former Army officer, I would suggest laying down machine gun fire in front of migrant vessels to discourage future attempts that could result in deaths.
Beautifully put. A bit of tough love, it seems, might well be in order. However, a word of caution. It’s OK for an unknown member of the public like Mr Hodson to voice such sentiments in the Daily Mail, if only to prove that robust free speech is still alive in the British media. But if a top politician or international celebrity were to suggest shooting at illegal intruders on sight—literally gunning them down on the beaches—there would be a universal outcry. It would be the end of the world, with much talk of the ghost of Enoch Powell rising from the dead.
I wish I could avoid quoting myself—a bad habit I’ve done my best to avoid so far—but this is what I said in March 2016 in a hastily written article that has almost sunk without trace. What I said then, applies with even greater force now:
A time may come when the now “inconceivable” occurs: this is when the unstoppable hordes of illegal immigrants are finally seen as hostile invaders and are forcibly stopped by declaring war on them. The anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party (AfD) has in fact recommended this hawkish approach. Just weeks ago, we learn:
“AfD chairman Frauke Petry provoked outrage when she advocated border guards open fire with live ammunition on illegal asylum seekers. Days later, a poll found that almost 30 percent of Germans agreed with her.”
Think of those alarming statistics. Almost one in three Germans, if asked, would now agree that it is a sensible policy to bomb the refugee ships and shoot illegal immigrants on sight.
Frauke Petry, an anti-immigrant, anti-Islamist, pro-life wife of a pastor (pictured here), had won the leadership of Germany’s fast growing Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) political party. Later she softened her stance on violence against illegal immigrants by telling the Mannheimer Morgen newspaper: “The use of armed force is there as a last resort. Previously she had said bluntly, “German police should shoot at migrants.”
The idea of violent resistance to the invasion of Europe has already occurred in fictional form. So this isn’t something new. It was first mooted by French writer Jean Raspail, author of The Camp of the Saints. This was long before the problem of mass immigration had achieved crisis levels. Raspail’s prescient novel was published in 1973, 45 years ago.
Here is Jared Taylor’s bleak warning of the shape of things to come if no remedial action is soon taken:
The Camp of the Saints has never gone out of print and has been translated into all major European languages—and yet the coverage of the European “migrant” crisis goes on as if it had never been written. The masses pouring in from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and a host of African countries are doing exactly what Raspail predicted.
The Camp of the Saints put the white man’s dilemma in the harshest terms: slaughter hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children or face oblivion.
The flotilla sets sail confident that Europeans do not have the nerve to kill in order to survive. Today as well, the Third World is crossing the Mediterranean confident that whites don’t have the nerve even to turn them back. Every vagabond who gets a bed in a reception center in Dortmund or Malmo tweets the good news to a hundred people back in Somalia and Syria.
They will come in endless waves until they are stopped, and if they are not stopped Europe will die, just as it does in The Camp of the Saints. (here)
Raspail is playing it safe. He is not advocating the mass extermination of illegal immigrants. He is simply pointing out matter-of-factly: When push comes to shove, we won’t have the guts to stop the Third-World invaders. We’ll chicken out. We’ll just let them in, wringing our hands like pathetic wimps. And the result? Our own extinction. Because of our cowardice in adopting a false sense of morality — a morality which is intensely promoted by our hostile elites, our doom is sealed.
The popular placard slogan, REFUGEES WELCOME, is indeed Europe’s death wish.
Violence in Self-Defence
As a pacifist, it is not in my nature to recommend violence and mindless cruelty. There is nothing I abhor so much as the infliction of pain on the weak and vulnerable. As a pragmatic realist, however, may I offer the mild suggestion that this problem is not going to go away unless drastic measures are soon taken. There is an old Latin proverb: Remedio amaro amaram bilem diluunt. Loosly translated: Drastic remedies for drastic diseases.
Robert A. Heinlein, author of the cult novel Stranger in a Strange Land (1961), was more than a great science fiction writer. His knowledge of history and politics, like that of Orwell, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, was profound. What would Heinlein have thought of the migrant invasion of Europe and what solution would he have offered to the problem? I don’t think Heinlein would have minced his words. His thoughts on the role of violence in world history, heavily influenced by Darwin, are well worth noting:
Anyone who clings to the historically untrue—and thoroughly immoral—doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms. (Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers (1959), quoted here, p. 350)
Darwin himself, or indeed any of his faithful disciples, could have penned that final sentence: Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”
Violence, sanctioned by the State and enshrined in legislation, may soon become necessary in the interests of self-preservation.
And what if the State refuses to act? If the State won’t step in, impatient political activists will sooner or later take the law into their own hands. Be sure of that. New Bastilles will be stormed. And the necks of the ruling classes will go under new versions of the guillotine. The ruling classes therefore have a choice: to act in the interests of the people they serve or be swept away in a new revolution that will make all the revolutions of the past look like Sunday school picnics.
Self-defence needs no defence.
Conclusion
In our current environment, playing the race card is enough to silence anyone who dares to suggest we should get tough with the illegal immigrants who threaten our values and our way of life. It was enough to destroy Enoch Powell. Yet at no point did Powell preach violence. He simply predicted there would be “rivers of blood” one day if drastic action were not taken to clamp down on Third World immigration before it got out of hand.
The race card is a powerful one, and here it is again deployed in order to silence and intimidate anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. This comes from a recent article in The Observer:
We should be ashamed of our response to this refugee ‘crisis’…. Sometimes you can smell the stench of racism before you are actually upon it. When you encounter racism in the raw or the utter absence of compassion at the plight of people fleeing death and torture, it’s like looking into an open sewer.
— Kevin McKenna, The Observer, 30 December 2018.
The open sewers are the migrant-receiving countries themselves, created by hostile elites for their own interests — and utterly opposed to the interests of the despised masses of indigenous Whites who are now seen as little better than sewer rats.
A delegation of benign visitors from a distant planet, in search of a world to settle in, would only need to take one look at our plastic-polluted oceans and rat-infested, rape-gang cities full of lawlessness, degeneracy and despair, and they would turn away at once in disgust. “No thank you!” they would say. “This is an outpost of hell!”
In the words of the Evangelist: Mundus totus in maligno — The whole world lies in wickedness.
Will there be “rivers of blood”? Only time will tell.
Compared with what they were like after World War II, or even in the 1960s, both Western Europe and America now resemble open wounds. Western Europe lies prostrated, unrecognizably traumatised by the migrant invasion, and America has become a vast wasteland of the spirit.
Our ancestors, if they could return from the trenches of World War I or from the killing fields of Vietnam, would be horrified to see the world we have created. They would ask, “Is this what we died for?” And they would cry out like Kurtz in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness — “The horror! The horror!”