Crossing Continents: Greece’s borderline insanity

Today’s episode of Radio 4’s Crossing Continents turned its attention to Greece’s problem with illegal immigration, or rather, in its terms, to the problems faced by illegal immigrants in making their way to Greece, and thence ‘hopefully’ onwards to other states within the EU. The Radio 4 website prefaced the programme with the following:

Writer and broadcaster Maria Margaronis follows the route taken by migrants fleeing war or poverty who are risking their lives to reach the Europe Union. It is estimated that around 75 thousand people are attempting to make the perilous journey each year in the hands of unscrupulous traffickers. They are fleeing from war-torn countries like Afghanistan and Somalia or simply in search of a better life where their economic prospects aren't so bleak. Some of them never make it, suffocating in the back of a crowded lorry or drowning in the fast flowing river that marks the border between Turkey and Greece.

It is of course tragic that anyone should suffer in such a fashion, but where the real cruelty lies is in the fact of pretending that these people can be accommodated in Greece or anywhere else in Europe, thereby giving them the false hope that they will be welcomed and that the Greeks, or indeed any other European people, can provide them with what they are looking for: a place to live and wealth. In fact, one such illegal immigrant in a recent article by Der Spiegel also let on to another motivational factor amongst the predominantly male influx from Africa and Asia that the mass media never dares to publicise: European women. The illegal immigrant to Greece in question was a Bangladeshi named Oyud: 

To him, Europe sounded like clean cities, beautiful women and cool cars.

In other words, the illegal immigrant influx comes in search of three primary objects: wealth, territory and women. To the uncouth ragbag of Afghans, Pakistanis, Somalis and North Africans, the ‘soft’ European nations appear an easy and tempting target. These incomers know how to play to the human rights gallery, tugging at the heartstrings of the gullible, whilst themselves possessing no respect for the concept of these rights whatsoever, but all-too eager to utilise them as an expedient means of securing their permanent settlement in Europe. 

Although the phrase ‘fortress Europe’ is often bandied about, what kind of a ‘fortress’ is it that seeks to secure the ingress of millions for the settlement of its lands, and the displacement and replacement of the native European peoples that its critics claim it seeks to protect? Its borders are weak, and their defence is nothing other than nominal. When, for example, the travesty of a border defence force named Frontex intercepts illegal immigrants in Greece, it arrests and then releases them, demanding that they leave the country within thirty days. Where do these people go? Not home, that is for certain. They remain in Greece, or manage to take the next leg of their journey overseas to elsewhere within the EU. This is a farce, albeit one that can only be appreciated by those possessed of the most sardonic humour.

Why is it that these alleged ‘asylum seekers’ do not stop in Turkey? The answer is quite straightforward: Turkey does not recognise the right of asylum, unless it should be for Europeans fleeing neighbouring European states. How very convenient. Crossing Continents made it clear that the Turkish police turn a blind eye to people trafficking, which affords a living to many on the border between Greece and eastern Thrace. It seems, as confirmed by one of the interviews carried out by Margaronis, that the Roma, as illiterate and demi-criminal in Turkey as they are elsewhere, plead necessity in justification of ferrying the illegals across the Evros River, as do many local Turks. Although it was not stated in the programme, it would come as no surprise if many Turks were to savour the pain inflicted by this human flood upon their longstanding Greek foe to the West.

Greece is not a large country, and its native population is modest. Even before its current economic crisis, the volume of immigration that it was subjected to was beyond that which could be comfortably borne, but now in a time of crisis, when such a high proportion of Greeks find themselves unemployed, the value of wages is falling, and the provision of basic medical services collapsing, what had been an increasing irritant and discomfort, has now become intolerable. Critics claim that it is not the fault of the immigrants that Greece finds itself in its current economic crisis. Whilst it is true of course that they did not precipitate the transnational crisis of high finance, their presence offers nothing by way of help in solving Greece’s economic crisis, did nothing to stave it off, and functions as a massive drain on the economy. The illegal immigrant presence is a dead weight upon the Greek people that threatens to drag them and their country down still further. If the influx is not stemmed and reversed, what will become of Greece and the Greeks? Could it become the first European state to collapse and be overrun by non-Europeans? It is such rational concerns, practically ignored and unacknowledged by mainstream Greek politicians, that have found direct electoral expression in the rise of the Golden Dawn.

The rapid increase in the immigrant population of Greece has been startling: in 1991, only 167,000 out of a population of 10,259,900 were classed as 'foreigners'. By 2001, the immigrant figure had risen to 762,000, whereas today, the Research Institute for European and American Studies claims that there are approximately 2.5 million illegal immigrants in Greece, the greater part of them originating in Asia and Africa. Other estimates suggest up to 3 million. Given the size of these estimates relative to Greece's population, can they really be credible?

The raw figures themselves are alarming, but the problem of numbers alone – great as they may be – is compounded both by the cultural incompatibility of the majority of illegal arrivals – who happen to be Muslim – and by the fact that they are overwhelmingly male. This plus economic crisis makes for an explosive situation. Greece can take no more immigrants, just as other member states of the EU can take no more, and a clear message needs to be sent to would-be immigrants in Africa and Asia, that they are neither needed nor welcome in our countries. The globalists of course, and their confederates the EU high commissioners have other ideas, and wish us to take in ever more. If this happens, we run the real risk of eventual societal and economic collapse, and all of the attendant potentially bloody chaos that that would engender. 

I have no liking for the type of politician who is willing to physically strike a political opponent, on television at that, but when the media – whether it be the BBC or the New York Times – make anxious sounds about the rise of the Golden Dawn, they should perhaps look inwards and examine the positions and policies that they happily advocate – those of mass immigration and multiculturalism – and ask themselves whether these make for stable and content societies, or unstable and fractious ones. That narrow transnational stratum that gains immense wealth from the promotion of globalisation, and provides the impetus for the attendant ideology of globalism, cares not about the fates of individuals or nations, and cloaks its selfish intent in the language of a humane universalism, tarnishing all who would stand up for the right of nations to political self-determination as ‘fascists’. Greece, the fountainhead of so much that makes the West distinct, runs not the risk of entering a golden dawn, but of a cold dead night. Will it manage to withstand the trials with which it is now beset, and what example, if any, does it set the rest of Europe today? 

No Valentine’s Turkish Delight in Goole or Scunthorpe

What do David Cameron, William Hague, David Miliband and Nick Clegg all have in common? Well, besides being untrustworthy career politicians who possess no concern for the people of this country, they are all keen advocates of Turkey joining the EU. That quite naturally, would lead to a mass influx of Turks. Quite why such an eventuality would be adjudged to be beneficial in any way eludes me, but they really are said to be “jolly keen” on the whole approach.

Perhaps all four men would be advised to take into consideration the unusual yet underreported happenings that occurred in the early hours of Valentine’s Day in the not oft mentioned towns of Goole and Scunthorpe. What occurred was not, so far as can be ascertained, any lovers’ tiff, but a number of street battles between rival gangs of Turkish men wielding “sticks and batons”. One man was deliberately run over and many were injured badly enough to warrant treatment in hospitals in Scunthorpe, Goole and Doncaster. None of the injuries were said to be life threatening, although some were reported to be “serious”.

According to the Yorkshire Post, fighting first broke out in Frodingham Road in Scunthorpe, with a later fight occurring in Old Brumby Street. The final clash took place in Swinefleet Road in Goole near to a pizzeria which is said to have been damaged. The underpinning motive has not yet been ascertained. In all, it is thought that some 25 men were involved, all aged between 25 and 40.

Speaking to The Hull Daily Mail:

Goole councillor Pat O'Neill said: "From what I hear, the trouble was more of a personal matter rather than a cultural thing. I hope there won't be any more trouble and I'd like people to remain calm."

Mrs O'Neill, who represents the area at East Riding Council, was speaking from the nearby Moorlands Centre, which has become the focus of a community that includes an increasing number of immigrants.

Incoming eastern Europeans have been able to find common bonds with indigenous people and there have been few problem, despite cultures being so different.

Mrs O'Neill said: "They are very well integrated. We have Russians, Latvians, Polish and Bulgarians. There aren't very many Turkish people, but we do have some.

"The problems we saw on Tuesday morning are how they deal with things in their own country. They've brought that culture across here. Eventually, they'll realise that's not how we do things."

Somehow, I think that O’Neill’s conclusion that “Eventually, they’ll realise that’s not how we do things” is fundamentally misplaced, for after all, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis continue to engage in ‘honour’ violence, forced marriages and first-cousin marriage decades after establishing their presence in England. Rather than becoming acculturated to our ways, they are attempting to impose their backward mores and religious beliefs upon the host society. Whatever the origin of these vicious altercations, allowing Turkey into the EU and the free ingress of Turks into our country would only serve to reinforce and entrench the mode of settling disputes and arguments which these men seemed so ready to employ. Although they may run a (now damaged) pizzeria in Goole, can the presence of these people really be said to enhance life in these two towns? As for the answer, that’s for you to judge. 

Goole Town Centre

MPs Pushing for Turkish EU Accession

Before proceeding to discuss the above, I would like you to ask yourself the following questions:

•  Is there a housing shortage in the UK?
• Are millions of native Britons unemployed in the UK?
• Are our roads frequently reduced to gridlock or stop-start through sheer weight of traffic?
• Can we produce enough food to feed our population sustainably? 
•  Is our rail system overcrowded and overpriced?
• Can we produce enough energy from domestic sources to supply our existing population?
• Does concreting over greenbelt and cramming ever more people into our country (particularly England) improve the natural environment or degrade it?
• Would continuing to increase an already rapidly growing population ease any of the above problems?

With respect to the last question the answer is a clear "no", and that, without taking into account any of the very significant cultural problems that would arise from Turkish accession to the EU, is reason enough for blocking Turkey’s entry.

Although I am against the UK’s membership of the EU, the fact is we are currently a member state and will therefore suffer the negative consequences of further mass immigration and accelerated Islamisation should Turkey join. Moreover, as the parliamentary Home Affairs Committee has highlighted, Turkish accession would also extend the direct borders of the EU to Syria, Iraq and Iran. Turkey’s borders with these neighbouring states are highly porous, thereby permitting a considerable flow of migrants into Turkey from these points of origin and further afield.

As our economy and society are already creaking under the weight of an excessive number of immigrants, many of them unassimilable carriers of Islam, what possible benefit could there be for us in allowing Turkey to join the EU? Contrary to the opinions of David Cameron who is in favour of accession, I would say that rather than Turkey’s membership bringing us benefits, it would bring us only woes. This is not to say that I condemn all Turks, for I do not, but unfortunately the Western-looking and thinking Kemalists are in a shrinking minority within Turkey itself, whereas the backward doctrinaire Muslim population of the country is growing at a rapid rate. I do feel sympathy for the Kemalists, but I am afraid that rather than bolstering their secular traditions, membership of the EU would serve as a means of Islamising currently non-Islamic countries. To allow Turkey in would be to haul a massive Islamic Trojan horse into Europe, and as such, Turkey must remain without the gates.

Although both the Financial Times and the BBC yesterday ran stories with headlines that suggested to readers that Parliament was wavering over Turkish accession – ‘UK panel warns on Turkey EU membership’ and ‘MPs warn over Turkey migrant risk to EU’, the substance of the two articles revealed that the parliamentarians, such as Keith Vaz, simply want to see Turkey’s border controls beefed up before it joins the club. Greece is already suffering terribly from sharing a border with Turkey, with the FT reporting that some 350 illegal immigrants cross the border from Eastern Thrace every day. These aren’t Turks, but Afghans, Pakistanis, central Asians and north Africans.

The BBC cites the committee as estimating the total number of likely Turkish immigrants to the EU at anywhere between 500,000 and 4.4 million by 2030. To me, given our recent experience of immigration from new EU members, these numbers seem to be considerably underestimated. Furthermore, they do not take into account the high birth-rate of Muslim Turks, which is a considerable danger in itself. Demographic Islamisation is not some paranoid conspiracy theory, it is a concrete fact being facilitated by political elites across Europe.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage correctly noted that the aim of the report was to facilitate Turkey’s EU entry rather than to block it, and to portray this in a positive light. His comments suggest that he does not think that this is a good idea, but unfortunately he made no reference to Islamisation, which betrays UKIP’s mainstream view on this matter: 

"If Turkey joins the EU then that's an estimated 75 million people who will be eligible to roam around the union and also come to the UK.

"Our country is already buckling under the strain of its existing population."

To his credit, earlier this year longstanding Labour gadfly MP Dennis Skinner, one of the few in his party to be in the anti-EU ‘Better Off Out’ group (only 17 out of 650 MPs belong to this), stated that Turkey’s entry would stimulate Turkish mass emigration, with many making their way to the UK. As can be seen in the video at the following link, he stated that this would lead to “80 million Turks on the move, and it won’t be two-way traffic”. His attitude contrasts starkly with that displayed by David Cameron and WilliamHague, who are both strong advocates of Turkey’s accession, and this is the mainstream position not only of the Conservative Party, but of both Labour (e.g. witness the strong vocal support form David Miliband who has called for Middle Eastern and North African countries to join the EU and Ed Balls’s refusal to address the Turkish migration issue) and the Liberal Democrats.

Even the Trades Union Congress (TUC) is lobbying hard for Turkey to join, which is odd given that an influx of Turkish labour would further undermine the job opportunities and working conditions of our own citizens. The TUC, like our Westminster political class, is out of touch with the concerns of the ordinary people it purports to represent, and two years ago even launched an initiative to help soft-soap working people with respect to the implications of prospective Turkish mass labour migration.

If you wish to prevent Turkey from joining the EU, please write to your MP outlining why you think that its membership would be detrimental to the future of this country. Join demonstrations against Islamisation. Raise the issue with friends and family. Ensure that as many people as possible are apprised of the facts relating to this issue, for Islamisation is stepping up a gear, and if we don’t stop it soon, our future looks very bleak indeed.

“80 million Turks on the move, and it won’t be two-way traffic.”

So says Dennis Skinner in the following short clip when questioning David Cameron as to why the latter is such an enthusiastic advocate of Turkey’s accession to the EU. Skinner has never been renowned for his diplomacy, and whether you love him or loathe him, he always sticks to his guns. No supporter of the EU, he has refrained from joining the Better Off Out group of MPs (a mere 17 out of 650) presumably because most of its members are Eurosceptic Tories. Unlike the majority of Labour MPs (indeed, the majority of all MPs), Skinner has evidently cottoned on to the fact that mass Muslim migration is not a good thing, although of course he prudently (he wouldn’t want to lose his head now would he!) doesn’t frame it in these terms.

This exchange, and the two videos that follow showing the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary William Hague making a vigorous case for Turkey’s accession to the EU, are highly important, for they display the warped logic at the heart of policy making in this country today, which is endemic to the three main political parties and to the Civil Service. The mandarins in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office evidently either have no conception of the deleterious impact of mass migration (particularly Muslim migration) upon our society, or they view it as being of no consequence to their cosseted world of privilege which for the time being remains happily aloof from the daily experience of ordinary people.

Although Skinner’s questioning dates from some two months’ ago, it is highly pertinent to our current situation both because of Cameron’s recent bogus repudiation of state multiculturalism in Munich, and the developing Camp of the Saints scenario engendered by political upheaval in North Africa and the Middle East. With respect to the former, Cameron’s policies and policy intentions actually consist of a ‘muscular multiculturalism’ rather than ‘muscular liberalism’. You do not lessen the appeal of doctrinaire Islam by pumping vast sums of state money into funding Muslim faith schools in the UK and saying that they are a ‘good thing’. Neither is doctrinaire Islam weakened by deliberately facilitating a large increase in the UK’s Muslim population through making Turkey a member of the EU. Both of these policies serve only to strengthen doctrinaire Islam within the UK, which can in no sense be interpreted by non-Muslims as a ‘good thing’.

The EDL are thus being naïve in giving any credence whatsoever to Cameron’s recent mood music about clamping down upon Islamic ‘extremism’. Cameron’s policies will accelerate the growth of political Islam in the UK, whilst simultaneously stigmatising any dissent from those critical of Cameron’s de facto muscular multiculturalism. For Cameron, we critics of this policy are to be deemed ‘extremists’ and to be portrayed in the same negative light as Islamists, which should awaken any British or English patriot to the fact that the only thing Cameron and his Conservative Party are interested in conserving are elite privileges and the lack of accountability of the transnational banking and business oligarchy.

Cameron, Hague and the FCO 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 Mahgreb, 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.

In an address delivered on 5 November 2009 in Istanbul Miliband stated:

I am pleased to be back in Turkey for my fourth visit as Foreign Secretary. Turkey is a key partner for the UK. And it's a European partner: I am very clear that Turkish accession to the EU is important and will be of huge benefit to both Turkey and the EU.

I'll be discussing this with Turkey's Chief EU negotiator Egemen Bagis later today, and along with a number of other foreign policy priorities, with Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu tomorrow.

Another failed Labour leadership hopeful, Ed Balls, was also a strong advocate for Turkey’s EU entry. Labour’s last election manifesto contained a disturbing passage pledging to secure Turkey’s membership, stressing that this was vital.

Miliband’s statement is very much in line with the EU’s Euromed Agreement which states:

The Union for the Mediterranean promotes economic integration and democratic reform across 16 neighbours to the EU’s south in North Africa and the Middle East.

This anti-democratic impulse towards simultaneous EU integration and enlargement is promoted not only by those in control of our political and diplomatic establishments, but also by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), the Open Borders’ Movement and our intellectually corrupted education system. The TUC vigorously lobbies for Turkey’s EU membership, and the Open University has just been awarded with an Advanced Grant by the European Research Council (ERC) to fund a project entitled Oecumene: Citizenship after Orientalism which describes its intent as follows:

Oecumene: Citizenship after Orientalism focuses on the tension between two different institutions: citizenship, the process by which belonging is recognised and enacted, and orientalism, the process by which European political institutions are considered originary and primary. What connects citizenship to orientalism is that citizenship has been historically seen as a Judeo-Christian institution contrasted against Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, and Hinduism. The project revisits questions of citizenship as political subjectivity in ‘orientalized worlds’ through genealogical investigations without orientalist assumptions. The aim is not only to uncover citizenship practices that remained either invisible or inaudible in other worlds but also to explore the possibilities of a renewed and expanded understanding of European citizenship.

All of the above aim at a single objective: the destruction (or, as I’m sure its proponents would see it, the ‘transcendence’) of indigenous European peoples and identities. Calls are already being made to admit large numbers of economic migrants (described as ‘refugees’) from the countries undergoing upheaval in the Arab world, and this is one way in which our societies can be undermined and Islamised. If any or all of the countries experiencing this wave of political upheaval become authoritarian states of an Islamist stripe, then this will be used as a pretext to let in more economic migrants arriving with the ostensible aim of finding ‘political asylum’. If any or all of the aforementioned countries should introduce some form of formal democratic process, then the advocates of Euromed will push for eventual EU membership for these states and the end result for us will be the same: mass economic migration from the Muslim world to Europe, Islamisation, the death of our liberties and way of life, and a drastic fall in the standard of living. This is why Turkey’s possible accession to the EU is such an important matter, and why it should not be permitted.

Ed Balls on Immigration and Turkey

Labour leadership candidate Ed Balls appeared on today's Politics Show and as in a piece in today's Observer claimed that he was concerned about immigration, although what he meant to say was that he was concerned that his constituents might not vote for him if he does not pay lip service to their views on immigration. As for lip service, his was about as mealy-mouthed as you can get.

Once again Balls used the Poles as the whipping boys in expressing his putative concern over the immigration issue, whilst simultaneously paying mandatory dhimmi tribute to Muslims by citing the distress caused to Muslim constituents in locations such as Dewsbury by immigration from Eastern Europe. When pressed by the interviewer to clarify his position on Turkey's entry to the EU, the necessary freedom of labour mobility and the influx of Muslim immigrants that this would entail and whether he though that this would cause problems for indigenous (although this word was not used) voters he refused to answer. He was specifically asked what he thought about the "socio-cultural (code for Islamic) implications" of such immigration, but once again refused to even acknowledge the question by claiming that this was not a 'race' (sic) issue and returning to an attack on the Poles.

In sum, reading between the lines, this is what Balls would have said in his interview with the Politics Show had he been speaking honestly:

• I am pro-globalisation, mass immigration and the UK's absorption into the EU
• I am going to talk about immigration so that the headlines will say that I am addressing the issue. To the unobservant eye of the casual reader this will equate to me thinking that mass immigration should be curbed and acting to curb it, although I aim to do precisely the opposite
• I like Muslims because they vote Labour
• I don't like Poles because they're white Europeans with traditional values. However, having said that, they're really useful in driving down domestic wages and increasing the profits of my rich chums in the business world
• Turkey's accession to the EU will generate a massive influx of Labour-voting Muslim immigrants into the UK and help to destroy the country's sense of identity

Ed Balls is another self-seeking careerist who cares not one jot for the well-being of the people of this country. Ed, I would like to award you with the title of Dhimmi Traitor on this special day - 6 June 2010 - to commemorate the betrayal of the values for which so many of our brave men died on the beaches of Normandy on this day 66 years ago.

Labour Manifesto Pledge: Civil War for Your Children

Today, the Labour Party launched its latest manifesto, and judging this 'book' by its cover you could be forgiven for thinking that it was touting for the blue-, red- and mauve-skinned vote looking at the stylised  family staring into the bright light of Labour's tomorrow. Presumably, this group of alien beings felt at home in their psychedelic-tinged landscape of symbolic fields illumined by a Sun that bears an uncanny resemblance to a detonating hydrogen bomb. If you think that the cover looks bad, delve into the contents and amidst the sloganeering sludge you will be able to divine that their intent is to completely snuff out the last vestiges of our national statehood, social cohesion and identity.

In the section entitled Meeting the challenges of the new global age the Labour Party demonstrates once again that it is intent on nurturing the preconditions for civil war in the UK by importing millions of hostile aliens. As I have written before, these will not be our culturally close cousins from Eastern Europe who generally speaking came with only positive intent, but the Muslim hordes from Turkey and the wider Middle East. Take a look at the following excerpt, and open your eyes:

"We support the enlargement of EU membership to include Croatia, and believe that all Western Balkan states should open negotiations on EU accession by 2014 – one hundred years after the start of the First World War. Turkey’s future membership is a key test of Europe’s potential to become a bridge between religions and regions; there must be continued progress on its application to join the EU. In its foreign policy, Europe should play a key role in conflict resolution and the promotion of security, and work bilaterally to achieve its goals with the leading global powers in each region of the world."

You have been warned: the Labour Party is intent upon implementing policies which unchecked will bring war to its own people. If its plans eventually come to pass, we will be forced into a situation where we either submit to a new Islamic political elite and live a squalid unequal life of persecution, or we take up arms and take our country back. This, I hope, will be a choice with which we are never confronted, for such an eventuality is neither desirable nor inevitable. We can choose to follow the policies necessary to restore social cohesion now (i.e. withdraw from the EU, ban Muslim immigration and encourage resident Muslims to leave), or we can watch our world fall apart and our children and grandchildren be reduced to a state of dhimmitude. If war were to come, the bloodshed would dwarf that which was witnessed in the former Yugoslavia. I am a peaceful individual who abhors war and conflict. I never want to see this happen, but if a Muslim elite were to take control, we would have little option but to fight or be murdered in the manner that millions of Jews and Poles were murdered by the Nazis.

Vote for peace and for hope on 6 May: vote BNP.

No More Minarets in the UK!

Inspired by the example of the Swiss people today? The BNP were so taken with the striking design of the Swiss People's Party's minaret-ban campaign poster that they have produced their own version for the UK. This features a quote from the Turkish Prime Minister, as well as the policy positions of the UK's three largest Westminster parties on Turkey's EU membership. Does the imagery within the poster really look "sinister" compared to the quote from Tayyip Erdogan? Surely it is Mr Erdogan's statements that should cause us concern, not honest imagery about the imperialistic nature of Islam.

TUC Pushing for Turkish EU Accession

An email arrived today from Unionlearn entitled "Working Together Trade unions in Turkey and the European Union" (inconsistent capitalisation and dodgy grammar preserved from the original). It made no attempt to hide that its intent is to facilitate the accession of Turkey to the EU, and to thereby open up the British labour market to limitless numbers of Turkish Muslim immigrants. The email is relatively short, so I shall quote it in full with original grammatical errors preserved, for its contents are highly revealing re the anti-democratic intentions of the TUC and its desire to mould the opinions of affiliated union members to enable the implementation of a plan that evidently has already been decided upon. The following italicised text is reproduced verbatim:

The European Trade Union Confederation is supporting an important and ambitious project Civil Society Dialogue: bringing together workers from Turkey and the European Union through a shared culture of work, and your trade union organisation is one of the project partners.

The aim of the project is to reinforce contacts and mutual exchange of experience between the trade unions of Turkey and trade unions of EU Member States, with a view to ensuring better knowledge and understanding of one another.

One way of assisting this process is to identify and address existing impressions and prejudices that Turkish and EU workers may have of each other.

This is why the ETUC and your organisation are interested in your opinion and would like you to dedicate a few minutes to filling in this questionnaire.

Download questionnaire: http://www.unionlearn.org.uk/extrasUL/Education/questionnaire_EN.doc

If you should be so moved, visit the above site, complete the questionnaire and send the completed item to Sean Bamford at Congress House. However, I daresay that you may well be branded by the researchers as possessing certain prejudices that need to be dispelled and corrected by orthodox thinking (i.e. doublethink). "Prejudice" is a peculiar term to employ with respect to Islam, for the more I have learned of it in terms of its core texts, philosophy and practice over many years, the more I have come to find it utterly repellent. My attitude should therefore be more accurately rendered as post-judice, for I have made up my mind having examined the evidence. The TUC however, is not interested in promoting truth; it is interested in promoting politically correct ideology.

Whatever the nature of the majority of the responses that this questionnaire elicits, you can be sure of the fact that they will have no influence whatsoever upon the intentions of the TUC and the wider ETUC. Their course is set upon Turkish EU accession and the further demographic destabilisation and Islamisation of our European homelands that this would be certain to engender.

As well as the socialist shibboleths about equality, international class solidarity, combating racism and Islamophobia (sic), the trade union leaders will employ the specious argument re the need for a young workforce to compensate for an aging European population. The UK, the Netherlands and many other European states already possess populations in excess of their long-term carrying capacity, and if the shock of Peak Oil finally arrives before a new source of readily usable and cheap renewable energy is harnessed, we will struggle to feed the population that we already possess.

The justification of mass immigration rests upon the logic of the pyramid scheme, for the young immigrants in turn will grow old and require younger carers. Even if they were culturally compatible, such as Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians and Serbs, the question of numbers alone would in the long term cause us all to sink into immiseration. Given that the proposed main source countries and regions of future mass immigration are Islamic (Turkey, North Africa, the Middle East and of course places with so-called traditional links such as Pakistan and Bangladesh) our future will not be one in which we are cared for in our dotage, but one in which we will be treated either as dhimmis (if we are lucky), geographically displaced or murdered.

If you are a trade unionist, please acquaint yourself with the reality of Islam: it is an imperialist creed of violence and implacable intolerance, not a religion of peace as its apologists claim. There are of course many secular Turks who care little for Islam, but they are fighting a losing battle in their homeland. Let us by all means provide such good people with our verbal and moral support, and co-operate in the international sphere with those Turkish representatives who embody positive non-Islamic values, but let us remain as independent nation-states. We must leave the EU and we must regain control over our national borders. The old political categories of Left and Right are redundant. The new primary axis of political moblisation and affiliation is that of nationalism versus globalism. In the UK, only one political party possesses positive nationalist solutions to the problems that the country faces: the BNP.