Review: ‘Children of the Great Migration’, Panorama, BBC1

This evening, the BBC decided to launch an attempt to tug at the heartstrings and to win yet more support for unrestricted mass immigration into the EU in general, and the UK in particular. Its advance publicity for the programme read:

They cross six thousand miles of desert and sea to reach Europe, children travelling alone, on the world's most dangerous migration route. Some of them are as young as seven.

The timing of the documentary has been prompted by the upcoming ‘migration season’ in the Mediterranean, ‘in what threatens to be its most deadly year yet, [for] Europe has cut the number of rescue boats.’ This, intoned the presenter, represented ‘an unfolding tragedy of horrific proportions.’ The capsizing of two of four dinghies carrying hundreds of African immigrants this winter was cited, in which at least 400 died, part of a recent phenomenon that illustrates that people smugglers are attempting to find a way to extend their operations into the depth of winter. A new tactic pioneered this winter employed a seemingly abandoned, crewless cargo ship, the Ezadeen, into which 450 Syrian immigrants were packed, yielding the people smugglers at least £2 million in profits.

What is also alarming is the fact that ‘it’s also shaping up as a record year of arrivals too.’ Last year, it was stated that the Italian Navy’s now discontinued operation ‘Mare Nostrum’ save the lives of more than 160,000 such immigrants. Now though, it has been scrapped, with a new EU Frontex operation providing a scaled-back patrol closer to EU maritime borders. The presenter wondered how this would cope with rescuing the prospective record number of immigrants, whilst this viewer wondered why it was not defending the coastline of Europe, and returning these migrants to their ports of origin.

Panorama also examined one of the major sources for much of the human efflux from Africa: Eritrea. The Sudanese authorities appeared to be eager to help the documentary makers publicise this problem, as hundreds of thousands of Eritrean emigrants have taken up residence, at least temporarily, on Sudanese soil close to the border with their country of origin. Vast refugee camps have sprung up, and the people traffickers have engaged in bloody exchanges with the Sudanese police, killing and wounding many of their number. Whether it is that the Sudanese are neither willing nor able to police their border with Eritrea is not clear, but the border – in their direction at least – is highly porous.

Although Eritrea’s population is a relatively modest six million, it was described as a ‘source of refugees on an astonishing scale’, with many of these departing being teenagers fleeing conscription in a ‘Marxist-inspired totalitarian state’, with a ‘crippled economy’, political detentions and torture. Conscripts, apparently, become transformed into forced labour in state agriculture and industry.

The largest of the camps in eastern Sudan houses circa 35,000 Eritreans and is overseen by the UNHCR together with the Sudanese authorities. In all, there are reckoned to be some 110,000 Eritreans temporarily resident in eastern Sudan, the majority of them wishing to head to Europe; many, including a number of interviewees, to the UK.

To get all the way to Europe can cost $5,000, with the first leg of the trip taking emigrants across the Sahara, and then from Libya across the Mediterranean, typically to the Italian island of Lampedusa. Cameron’s gung-ho and geopolitically myopic intervention in Libya, which contributed to the overthrow of Qaddhafi and created a state of lawlessness in which both people-smuggling and Islamism can thrive, means that an ever-increasing number of people are setting off from the shores of Libya and heading for Europe. It is but 180 miles from the Libyan port of Zuwara to Lampedusa. From there, the immigrants head to Sicily, thence onwards to other European countries, often the UK.

The proportion of children is growing, and they are often unaccompanied for word has fed back to Africa that Europe will never turn children away and will look after them. The African cuckoo knows that the European reed warbler will look after its young at the expense of its own.

Yes, those who come seek to escape from poverty, vile and often oppressive living conditions. Yes, many of them are subject to repulsive abuse at the hands of people-traffickers. However, we cannot provide a lifeboat for the entire World. If we continue to accept this ever-increasing human tide, we will sink. We will go under. Our society will be swamped, fracture and eventually collapse. This is unsustainable, and cannot go on. What should be done? How can this human tide be staunched and turned back? 

The Arab Spring and Euromed

How might these two be linked? The first, an outbreak of mass popular unrest in many countries of the Arab world, in which political Islam plays a significant role; the second, a process initiated by the European Union without the consent of indigenous Europeans for the managed mass ingress of Muslims from North Africa and the Middle East. Are there indeed, any links? No sentient member of the adult population in our country can have failed to have heard of the Arab Spring, yet how many of our citizens have heard of Euromed? Euromed is after all, not something that has been widely publicised, for were it to be so, our people would vociferously object to it; not that this objection would necessarily make any difference to policy of course, for the strong opposition of a majority in Britain to mass immigration has not lessened the intent of the globalist parties – Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative – to facilitate this process. 

Euromed – or the Euro-Mediterranean Process to give it its official title – lists the following as its primary aims:

• Create a common area of peace and stability through political dialogue
• Construct a zone of shared prosperity through an economic and financial partnership and the gradual establishment of a free trade zone
• Promote the rapprochement between peoples by encouraging social, cultural, and human exchanges between cultures and civil societies; The partnership has two complementary dimensions:

• The bilateral dimension: the EU carries out substantial co-operation activities bilaterally with each country, the most important being the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements.
• The regional dimension: one of the most innovative aspects of the Partnership, covering the political, economic and cultural areas of regional co-operation.

With respect to the first of these aims, one can have few quibbles, for the citizens of EU member states surely do not wish for conflict with the states of North Africa and the Middle East. However, once we move away from the first of these goals, the implications for the people of Britain and the other member states of the EU become rather more worrying, for after all, was not the EU itself sold to the peoples of Europe as a free trade area rather than a superstate? The second bullet point in effect lays the economic foundations for political union between the EU and the majority Muslim states of North Africa and the Middle East. Indeed, this intent is alluded to in the third major strand promoting the ‘rapprochement between peoples’ which in effect amounts to the colonisation of a demographically ageing Europe by the high fertility peoples from the southern and eastern littoral of the Mediterranean.

The political tumult in the Arab world which became known as the Arab Spring began in Tunisia in December 2010, rapidly spreading to other countries in the region and ultimately leading to the overthrow of governments in Tunisia, Egypt and – with the assistance of foreign intervention – Libya. By the time the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union met for the 3069^th time on 21 February 2011, significant unrest had manifested itself in fifteen Arab states and the EU was readying itself to declare in favour of the anti-establishment forces now flexing their muscles in these countries, irrespective of the nature of the movements involved.

This meeting adopted a number of conclusions, the first of which made the following tenuous claim: “Europe and the Mediterranean region share a common history and cultural heritage.” Well, if we except the history of conflict that has bedevilled the Mediterranean since the arrival of Islam, this region actually shares nothing in terms of a common cultural heritage and history since the demise of the Roman Empire. I would contend that despite the intense efforts of the early Church to eradicate much of Classical philosophy and scholarship, it is the European nations that today owe much to Ancient Greece and Rome, whereas the rational influence of Classical Antiquity is far more attenuated in those states that fell to Islam. In reality therefore, non-Muslim European peoples and Muslims inhabit fundamentally different psychological and cultural universes. Contrary to the assertion of the Foreign Affairs Council of the EU, there is thus no meaningful “common history and cultural heritage”; we belong to two separate civilisations.

On 29 August 2011 the Council of the European Commission issued a press release regarding its establishment of a ‘humanitarian presence’ in Libya. Amongst the measures it enumerated were:

• Assistance to the people fleeing Libya
• Assistance to refugees who cannot go back to their home country and Libyans fleeing Libya

One of the primary partners associated with this activity was the International Organization for Migration (IOM) which was founded in 1951 with the slogan of ‘Migration for the Benefit of All’. As is evident from this slogan, it can hardly be adjudged to be a neutral body with respect to the question of international migration which is attested to by the following statements taken from its website:

IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society.

As the leading international organization for migration, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to:

• Assist in meeting the growing operational challenges of migration management.

• Advance understanding of migration issues.

• Encourage social and economic development through migration.

• Uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants.

Strategic Focus:

1. To provide secure, reliable, flexible and cost-effective services for persons who require international migration assistance.

2. To enhance the humane and orderly management of migration and the effective respect for the human rights of migrants in accordance with international law.

3. To offer expert advice, research, technical cooperation and operational assistance to States, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders, in order to build national capacities and facilitate international, regional and bilateral cooperation on migration matters.

The Italian island of Lampedusa has this year been swamped by tens of thousands of immigrants issuing from Tunisia, Libya and sub-Saharan Africa using the turmoil of the Arab Spring as a pretext to claim ‘political asylum’ in the EU, whilst in fact being economic migrants. Many of these have clearly stated that they wish to settle in Britain, in particular, England.

Underpinning the goals of Euromed is the misplaced assumption that people are little more than interchangeable economic units, with the cultural identities that they carry counting for little, and that no culture can be judged to be superior to any other. Thus, think the policy makers of the EU and the advocates of multiculturalism, it matters but little if the imported population differs radically in its mentality and customs from native Europeans. It is the opinion of the author that this supposition is both fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Culture matters greatly.

Now that Qaddhafi is dead and Libya finds itself under a National Transitional Council; that Tunisia has become a democracy, and Egyptians head to the polls for their national elections on 28 November, the formal preconditions for Euromed’s transformation are being laid: the establishment of democratic forms of governance. The ultimate aim of both Euromed and the British foreign policy establishment is the accession of the Arab states of the Mediterranean littoral and Turkey to the EU; a greater Europe in which European values are effectively replaced by Islam, and the European peoples by Afro-Asiatics. In effect, this Euromed hybrid would not constitute so much the rebirth of the Roman Empire, as a renewed Caliphate with universal ambitions.

Cameron, Hague and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are continuing to push exactly the same line with respect to EU enlargement as was pursued under the Blair and Brown administrations. Recognition of this continuity is important, insofar as former Foreign Secretary and failed Labour Leadership candidate David Miliband made clear in a speech delivered on 15 November 2007 that not only should Turkey join the EU, but that the EU should look in the longer term to create a:

version of the European Free Trade Association that could gradually bring the countries of the Maghreb, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in line with the single market, not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it.

Such a move would be suicidal for Britain and the peoples of Europe. It would be far more rational and beneficial for us to orientate ourselves towards a Euro-Siberian geopolitical axis, rather than towards a North-South Euro-Mediterranean one. Alas, our foreign policy establishment and that of the EU is instead intent upon manufacturing a non-existent enemy in the form of Russia.

The precise ideological complexions of the governments that emerge from the unrest of the Arab Spring have yet to fully reveal themselves, but there exists one certainty: Islamism will play a large if not a predominant role in the politics of these countries. Already in Tunisia we see a coalition government led by the Islamist Ennadha Party; in Libya, Islamists play a significant role in the National Transitional Council and fighting has broken out between rival militias; and in Egypt, the prospect of an Islamist victory in this month’s elections looms large. Egyptian secularists and Copts live in fear of the rise of Islamism, and whereas apprehensions on this score have hitherto focused upon the long-established Muslim Brotherhood, another allegedly more ‘radical’ Islamist party – the Nour Party – linked to Saudi Salafists, has emerged and is causing even greater concerns. Its supporters are reported as having torn down election posters for the Muslim Brotherhood, and whereas Nour is Arabic for “light”, any success on the part of this party of light would serve to bring only the darkness of religious obscurantism to Egypt. According to the Financial Times, Saudi finance is believed to underpin its rise.

Why did the UK intervene in the Libyan conflict? This intervention was ostensibly launched in the name of the principle of ‘humanitarian interventionism’, invoking Qaddhafi’s prospective slaughter of Libyan rebels as a casus belli. Although there was a degree of apprehension amongst sections of the press and some politicians with respect to the wisdom of this move, the public mood at the time was manipulated in a sufficiently skilful manner by the ConDem Coalition so as to win majority support for air strikes. Al-Qaeda militants were known to be amongst the rebels, yet our government took the decision to enter the conflict on their side. The reasons for this are undoubtedly complex and beyond the scope of this particular article, but the implications of the creation of façade democracies in a number of North African countries and their recognition by the EU states are significant. Firstly, it bestows legitimacy on the new governments in the eyes of EU policy makers; secondly, it allows the peoples of the region to express their natural political preference for Islamism; and thirdly, it paves the way for these states to move towards political association with, and eventual membership of, the EU, thus sounding the death knell of European civilisation. Is this what you want? Would this make our lives better? I think not.   

The Member States of Euromed

Whose ‘Boat People’?

The BBC, it must be said, often has a rather peculiar manner of phrasing things. By way of example, take yesterday’s online BBC coverage of the ongoing influx of predominantly North African Muslim migrants into the EU via the Italian island of Lampedusa. How would you describe them? Economic migrants perhaps? Settlers? Colonists? Well, all of these terms, which I would contend contain at least a strong if not overwhelming element of facticity, are evidently beyond the pale of ‘polite’ BBC discourse, because although truthful, they smack far too much of what ‘Auntie’ might term ‘intolerance’ for its liking.

Such an accurate characterisation of this process would be certain to elicit something far shriller from the Guardian and other media outlets of its ilk: shouts of ‘racism’, with plenty of stigmatising baseless imputations being made with respect to the character and moral worth of anyone who dared name and detail this process of colonisation. For such a person, the Guardian possesses an arsenal of derogatory epithets, including ‘far-right’, ‘fascist’ and, should the breach of ‘moral’ decorum be deemed to be exceptionally excessive, ‘Englishman’. Granted, I was being facetious with respect to that last word, but I am certain that anyone who so chooses to consciously acknowledge the fact of their ethnic Englishness and not be ashamed of it would not be seen as a ‘right-thinking’ (dreadful phrase is it not?) individual. Anyway, I digress from my original subject to which it is now time to return.

Which geographical/cultural adjective or adjectival phrase might you use as a headline for an article dealing with boatloads of migrants issuing from North Africa and landing on the shores of Lampedusa? North African? African? Arab? Maghrebian? Muslim? If one were to employ the genitive, would they be North Africa’s, Africa’s or the Maghreb’s boat people? Well, the BBC was of the opinion that none of these characterisations would do, and instead judiciously selected a genitive phrase which spelt out where it clearly believes these people belong. Its full headline was ‘Italy is rocky shore for Europe’s boat people’. Note its elision of Europe and the EU as is its wont, for its output would seem to be guided by a desire to deliberately equate being anti-EU with being anti-European. These are of course two separate matters altogether. I, for example, am strongly pro-European and anti-EU. The BBC on the other hand, is strongly pro-EU whilst being viscerally anti-European (witness its constant demonisation of Poles and neighbouring Slavic and Baltic peoples when reporting on immigration).

So, the BBC has decided that the African colonists belong to the continent of Europe. I would beg to differ, but I shall perhaps refrain from employing a term that a certain Muammar Gaddafi has used to describe his people whom he exhorts to migrate to Europe: “locusts”. It must be said however, that I would laugh heartily were the BBC to use such a term in a non-ironic fashion in describing this mass migration.

Lampedusa Church burned by North African Migrants

The Voice of Russia reports that 36 so-called North African ‘refugees’ (i.e. Muslim economic migrants) on the island of Lampedusa repaid a parish priest for his kindness by setting light to his church. Prior to this ungracious act of arson, they had been accommodated in it. Why are any of these people allowed into European nations? Shouldn’t our armed forces be protecting us from them, instead of helping them to land in EU member states?

Photo: EPA

Malta too is pleading for help, because of the wave of migrants from North Africa arriving on its shores. Unfortunately, this is a crisis which will only grow worse, and the impact upon European societies will be highly negative. There is only one answer to this problem: send each and every one of them back. Only in this way, will we eventually ensure that no more come. The video below (H/T Tundra Tabloids) is a subtitled Bulgarian news report on the incident.

Lampedusa’s Muslim Immigrant Nightmare Worsens

The Muslim demographic invasion of Europe is now well underway, with thousands more immigrants heading for the Italian island of Lampedusa and ruining the lives of the locals. Several successive waves have now brought circa 19,000 immigrants to Lampedusa in recent weeks, with 3,460 having arrived in the last three days alone. From Tunisia, Libya and even further afield they come (even some from sub-Saharan Africa).This must be stopped. We must make it known to our politicians that these people are completely unwelcome in Italy, France, the UK or any other European nation.

Almost all of the arrivals are Muslim male economic migrants. They must all be returned immediately, and not permitted to set foot upon the soil of any European state beyond the Lampedusan holding facility. Their intent is hostile: they come for our land, our jobs, our homes and our benefits. Somalis are amongst their number. If you live in Sheffield, how do you feel about the burgeoning Somali population being augmented still further? The prospect turns my stomach.

European nations have not been under such threat from hostile outsiders since the last gasp of Ottoman expansionism in 1683, although the current human wave more closely resembles the movement of peoples which helped to precipitate the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.

The Associated Press reports that exasperated Lampedusan fisherman have taken a number of the migrants’ boats, and symbolically blocked the entrance to their harbour, although sadly, this is not likely to stop the ingress of the Muslim hordes. Local townspeople nonetheless cheered this action. I feel sorry for them. It is the Lampedusans who are suffering, not the hostile colonists from the southern shores of the Mediterranean. Hostile arrivals should be treated with hostility, and not given a beneficent welcome. We really can take no more. The only way to stop more coming is not to take a single one of these people. Send them back. If their states won’t take them, then they’ll have to seek 'asylum' in Neptune’s realm.

The BBC of course takes a sickeningly biased line as usual, describing these colonists as ‘refugees’ and demanding that European nations accept them. What’s British about the BBC other than the money extracted from licence-fee payers? Nothing! It would be more honest to entitle it the Anti-British Broadcasting Corporation. If you would like a sneak preview of your new neighbours, take a look at the following video of the latest North African colonists to arrive in Lampedusa.

Lampedusa’s Libyan Burden

Whilst the media’s attention has been transfixed by David Cameron’s successful efforts to entangle the UK in yet another conflict, this time in a civil war in which we have neither stake nor interest, the human traffickers of North Africa have seen this as a golden opportunity to make a killing. Cynically exploiting the EU oligarchy’s penchant for favouring exotic alien incomers over their own people, our deliberately lax immigration system and perverse human rights legislation, they have been ferrying North Africans of various nationalities across the sea to Lampedusa. The initial wave was Tunisian, but now Libyans make up the bulk of the most recent arrivals.

As with the earlier influx of economic migrants masquerading as refugees, this current batch, as can be seen from the video footage below, appears to be exclusively male. Why would European countries wish to accommodate thousands of men who possess a psychology shaped by a religion – Islam, naturally – that states that all women who are not covered up are basically whores who are ‘asking for it’ and get all that they ‘deserve’? The admission of such people into our societies will lead to an increase in violence against women, specifically our women. If this were the only reason not to admit them, it would be a compelling one, but there are many other reasons for keeping them out too.

This week’s Libyan invasion of Lampedusa has swamped the island’s holding facility for such incomers. With room to accommodate 850 economic migrants, it has had to contain 2,000. So far this year, 9,000 North African economic migrants have used political unrest in the Arab world as a pretext to enter Lampedusa with a view to gaining entry to the EU labour market. So blasé have the human traffickers become with respect to the EU’s unwillingness to protect its own nations from hostile alien settlement, that a Moroccan ferry appeared off the Lampedusan coast this week carrying 1,500 Libyans. We are told that it was turned back, but where will it turn up next? What would happen in future if a flotilla of such vessels appeared just off some European shore? This is invasion. If David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy have an itch to employ our armed forces to protect our nations’ interests – as is their only proper use – then why do they not deploy them to prevent this human flood out of Africa? All of those who have arrived on Lampedusa this year should be repatriated to their countries of origin immediately. This is the only way in which we can send out an essential message: do not come, for you are not welcome and you shall not enter.

Unsurprisingly, the Independent earlier this week ran a leading article entitled ‘Europe has an obligation to these desperate African refugees’. It too makes reference to the ferry, but claims that it carried 1,800 people whom it baselessly denied were economic migrants.

Fortress Europe has closed its gates. This week a ferry left Tripoli carrying 1,800 people. The vessel was first turned away from Malta. Then it was refused permission to put ashore at Lampedusa, the small island south of the Sicilian mainland. The passengers on this vessel are not economic migrants, but refugees from a war zone. Most are believed to be North Africans who were working in Tripoli when the revolt against Muammar Gaddafi's regime began. Their mistake is to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yes, their mistake is ‘to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time’, for if ‘most’ on board were supposed to be North African migrant workers, why wasn’t the ferry ferrying them to their home countries? The idea that they were seeking entry to the EU as refugees is thus risible. These people are quite clearly economic migrants who should be returned post-haste to their countries of origin. The ferry ought to be escorted by military vessels to the nearest safe North African port where it can begin to unload its human cargo.

Still, at least the comments section attached to this Independent article reveals that at least a proportion of its readers vigorously disagree with the sentiments of the leader article. These readers appear to possess more sympathy with the attitude of Marine Le Pen, who rightly visited Lampedusa to highlight the plight of the long-suffering islanders who have had to cope with this unbidden human incursion from North Africa. The islanders' patience is wearing thin, and PI News reports that 100 of them have recently held a protest against North African migration to their island. Will the leaders of the EU listen? Sadly, I fear that they and the mass media will stigmatise the Lampedusan islanders as 'bigots'. More on the beginnings of this year's North African influx to Lampedusa can be found here.

Camp of the Saints Nightmare Scenario Looms Closer

As suggested in the recent post on Lampedusa, the 6,000 Tunisian illegal immigrants who appeared on its shores in a matter of days, appear to have been but the harbingers of a mass human wave that will surge out of North Africa and the Middle East and into Europe. Into our already rapidly fracturing European societies this will inject a vigorous and aggressive Islamising impulse, and embolden the incomers’ established co-religionists to become more strident (in the language of our governments and special interest lobby groups -‘assertive’) in demanding privileges within their host states.

Just as in the Camp of the Saints, an appeal is being made to our better natures; to our compassion for our fellow human beings, in the face of the bloody tyranny of Gaddafi. Some 1,000 Libyans we are told, have lost their lives in recent days thanks to Gaddafi’s brutality. Already, 22,000 have fled Libya for Tunisia, and a further 15,000 for Egypt. Now, United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-moon has waded in to instruct the European nations ‘to keep their borders open to people fleeing Libya.’ If our borders are opened, those that come are highly unlikely to ever return to Libya. They will instead stay, and then demand that their immediate and then extended families are brought here to live in perpetuity with full citizenship rights. And we shall have to pay for them; accommodate them; acquiesce to their ‘cultural sensitivities’, and put up with an ever-increasing demand for Sharia compliance.

Instead of admitting an influx of Libyans, Libya’s neighbouring nations should consider enforcing a no-fly zone over the country. We however, should not be involved in such intervention. Humanitarian assistance in the form of food, tents and medical supplies should be supplied to those areas of Libya which have already sloughed off Gaddafi’s rule, but Libyans should not be admitted into European nations. We have no holding facilities, and our legal and immigration systems are set up in such a way as to make it exceptionally difficult to enforce automatic deportation of incomers once the situation in their countries of origin has stabilised.

Admitting Libyans and Tunisians as ‘refugees’ will simply lead in the medium term to a mass permanent influx of Algerians, Egyptians, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Jordanians, Syrians, etc into Europe which will deal a devastating blow to the freedoms and way of life of European peoples in our own countries. We will be barraged in the days, weeks and months ahead by propaganda in the mainstream media – particularly in the BBC – aimed at undermining our national sovereignties and admitting these outsiders. If this is permitted, this will inflict irreparable damage upon our societies, unless that is, the indigenous peoples of Europe react to show that they will not tolerate these people in their midst. Why should we surrender our lands, our liberties and our way of life to this de facto hostile colonisation?

Ban Ki-moon addresses the UN on the Situation in Libya

Video Footage of Tunisian Arrivals on Lampedusa

Unsurprisingly, Amnesty International, a once decent organisation that highlighted the plight of individuals under Communism, has pleaded for Italy and Europe to uncritically accept the economic migrants who have arrived on Lampedusa, naively trumpeting claims of political asylum as if they were fact. Nicola Duckworth, Amnesty’s Europe and Central Asia Programme Director stated:

While we recognize the challenges of dealing with very large and mixed migration flows, the relevant authorities must ensure that previous instances of asylum-seekers' rights being abused are not repeated.

The relevant authorities must ensure that all those seeking asylum should be able to access territory and fair, satisfactory asylum procedures and be informed of their rights.

No one should be forcibly expelled to a place where they face serious human rights abuses, or without adequate consideration of their circumstances and needs for protection. Any decision to detain a person should be considered individually.

On a positive note, at least the Amnesty report notes (disapprovingly) the Italian Government’s emergency measures to contain the situation. Italy's Minister of Foreign Affairs has declared that Italian coastal patrols will be bolstered, as will mechanisms “that until a month ago were able to reduce irregular/clandestine migration to zero”. Good luck to the Italians. It sounds like they’ve been doing a good job recently.

Below is footage of this Tunisian human wave that is swamping this Italian island, presaging what could be a Camp of the Saints scenario for Europe if it is not dealt with appropriately (click here for background and details). Unfortunately, the Tunisians have responded angrily to the Italian request to send police into the country to prevent this exodus of putative asylum seekers. The reporter claims that there are many 'political refugees' amongst their number. If this is so, why are they fleeing a so-called new democracy? All should be returned to Tunisia immediately.

Lampedusa: Gateway to Europe's Extinction?

As I have recently speculated elsewhere, the political upheaval in North Africa is being used as a pretext by Muslim emigrants to seek ‘asylum’ with a view to finding employment and settling in Europe. Their entry point is the Italian island of Lampedusa, situated a mere 70 miles from the Tunisian coast and long favoured by people smugglers as the destination for their illicit human cargoes. In recent years this phenomenon has grown ever worse, and because of the absurd so-called human rights legislation in operation across Europe (which tragically belittles this noble concept) once these migrants have arrived they have stayed and settled. Most of them are men. Muslim men (see pictures below).

According to the Malta Times 1,000 Tunisians arrived on Lampedusa last night alone, bringing the total for the past week to 6,000. These criminal entrants to the EU have of course claimed asylum, when in fact almost all of them without exception have come here for purely economic reasons. Amongst them are said to be a concentration of hard-core criminals released from prison during the recent revolution. The traffickers however are doing well, and profiting to the tune of circa €1500 per head.

Our native European societies can take no more of this. This human floodtide is only the beginning. What are we to expect from Egypt, Algeria and any other state to which unrest spreads? Anyone who sets off from these states for member nations of the EU will claim ‘asylum’ and we, the peoples of Europe, will be able to do nothing about it because our elites have us bound and gagged. They will force us to admit them, to pay for them, and to bear the negative social consequences of their coming. They shall expect us to voice our gratitude for this ‘enrichment’.

The Financial Times reports that Roberto Maroni, Italian Home Affairs Minister, has already appealed to EU Commission President Jose Barroso to help solve this problem. It seems that there will shortly be an emergency meeting in Brussels to discuss what to do. Although Roberto Maroni, being a member of Italy's Lega Nord, has the right ideas about how to tackle this problem (he has asked for the deployment of Frontex - the EU border security agency - just off the Tunisian coast), will the EU back him? He is quoted by the BBC as saying:

"I will ask the Tunisian foreign ministry for permission for our authorities to intervene to stop the flow in Tunisia".

"Europe is not doing anything, I am very concerned," he said.

"I asked for the urgent intervention of the EU because the Maghreb is exploding. There is an institutional and political earthquake that could have a devastating impact on the whole of Europe through Italy."

Even if Frontex were to be deployed, what would it do? Would it actually return migrants to Tunisia? This seems doubtful. I suspect that instead members of the self-serving EU oligarchy are already preparing to facilitate the mass influx of North African Muslims into Europe, and they will set their attack dogs upon anyone who dares oppose this process by branding them ‘racist’. What are we to do?

Although our countries, England and Holland in particular, are full to bursting point and in the grip of long-term economic decline, we will be expected to pay for this human surge both in cash and through a further decline in our general standard of living. These immigrants will add to the already powerful Islamising impulse at play in our societies, and the governing anti-national parties may use this fact to clamp down further on our rights to free speech and protest by branding us as ‘extremists’. Most of these immigrants are and will be Muslim men with Muslim male norms of behaviour towards women. What sort of tensions will this engender? These people must be turned back. The European nations must not be subjected to a Camp of the Saints scenario, although alas, it is one which seems to be unfolding with an alarming rapidity.

Why are we native European peoples denied the right to self-determination in our own homelands? Why must we always be made to submit to others? The time for such a subservient attitude before these unbidden and burdensome ‘guests’ has passed. We must turn them back. We can take no more. Roberto Maroni must persuade fellow ministers to arrange compulsory repatriation of all such immigrants by the Italian and allied militaries. If we do not come down firmly against this now, the consequences are too depressing to contemplate.