Where are you Tony Abbott (former Australian Prime Minister)? Gee, about time that the dim bulbs in Europe are beginning to see the sense of a your suggestion from the spring of 2015—turn back the boats! But, it strikes me that such a suggestion now is about a million migrants too late! Here is the story at Reuters:
The German Interior Ministry wants to stop migrants ever reaching Europe’s Mediterranean coast by picking them up at sea and returning them to Africa, the Welt am Sonntag newspaper reported on Sunday.
Rescuing African men in the Mediterranean Sea in 2015. Why are rescuers wearing protective suits and gloves? You can guess. (Alessandro Di Meo/ANSA via AP Photo)
In what would be a huge shift for a country with one of the most generous asylum policies, the ministry says the European Union should adopt an Australian-style system under which migrants intercepted at sea are sent for processing at camps in third countries.
“The elimination of the prospect of reaching the European coast could convince migrants to avoid embarking on the life-threatening and costly journey in the first place,” the paper quoted a ministry spokeswoman as saying.
And so why would these African nations want the hordes parked in their country making trouble? (Wishful thinking on the part of Germany!)
The ministry’s proposal calls for migrants picked up in the Mediterranean – most of whom set off from conflict-torn Libya – to be sent to Tunisia, Egypt or other north African states to apply for asylum from there.
If their asylum applications are accepted, the migrants could then be transported safely to Europe.
If they turned only a few boats back to the African coast, or we bused back across our southern border a few busloads of illegal aliens immediately upon their arrival in Texas or Arizona, advertised it far and wide, the flow would slow immediately!
Our complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive is here.
Blame Hillary!
Do not forget that it was Hillary Clinton who was responsible (Obama had to be persuaded) for destabilizing Libya and creating this migration route to Europe through Libya.
See one of our many posts on Hillary’s role in helping to create the European migration crisis by clicking here. Col. Gaddafi controlled Libya’s borders, now no one does!
Note when you visit that post that the longer video of Hillary gloating over the 2011 death of Col. Gaddafi has been removed. Here is the short version:
Hillary’s legacy and the death of Gadaffi…..
Yikes watch this prelude to the same interview (see Huma hand Hillary a phone):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5484y_Jythk
For readers seeing this post in an e-mail. You are going to have to come to the blog itself, to RRW, to see videos if they do not appear in your e-mail.
Everyone has been sending me the video of the debate in Toronto on Friday on the issue of mass migration going on literally around the world, but most visibly now in Europe.
Yesterday, I finally watched the debate and it was all everyone said it was!
Here atWorld Net Daily, reporter Leo Hohmann gives us the highlights (video is embedded in the article). He begins:
Mark Steyn delivered a stinging rebuke of the progressive stance on mass migration of mostly male Muslim refugees into Europe at a recent debate in Toronto.
Steyn faced off April 1 with opponents in the Spring Munk Debates on the issue of refugee resettlement and whether Western countries should welcome thousands of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa.
Mark Steyn
The Munk Debates, founded by Peter Munk, allow the audience to pick the winners based on online voting. When the dust had settled, Steyn’s team was declared the winner. The scores are based on how many viewers report their positions being changed on the issue from pro to con or vice versa.
When the debate started, 77 percent of viewers reported being in favor of refugee resettlement as put forth by the Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty: “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
By the end of the debate, only 55 percent agreed with that position and the “cons” moved from 23 percent to 45 percent.
Steyn, and his debating partner Brit Nigel Farage, won by changing the minds of 22% of the debate audience which came in stacked against them with 77% in favor of supporting those lines in the d*** Emma Lazarus poem, which by the way, I said here should be removedfrom the Statue of Liberty for its role in perpetuating a historical inaccuracy. Louise Arbour Continue Hohmann’s summaryand then near the end note this mention from Pro-refugee debater, Louise Arbour former UN Commissioner for Human Rights.
Arbour said her definition of a “refugee,” based on the current state of armed conflict, should include “virtually every civilian who is not a combatant unless he is a war criminal.”
I can’t impress upon you enough how important it is to stop this campaign to change the definition of what defines a “refugee.”
Every chance they get the one-worlders are promoting this idea that any unhappy person on the move is a legitimate refugee entitled to special treatment wherever he or she wants to go. A legitimate refugee must be able to prove that he/she is persecuted for his religion, race, political persuasion and so forth. Someone migrating to get a job, or healthcare, or running from crime or war is NOT a legitimate refugee!
If you have never read Mark Steyn’s “America Alone: The End of the World as we Know It,”you must. Here at Amazon. When first published a decade ago, Steyn, in analyzing the demographic time bomb Europe was facing, could not have imagined the size and scope of the present invasion and how it would speed up the inevitable end of Europe as we know it.
By the way, most “refugee” advocates in the US are also attempting to expand the definition of ‘refugee’ to include the Unaccompanied Alien Children flooding our borders in recent years.
Orlov, a Russian-born author of books that have caused some to call him a “collapsitarian,” says it sure looks like it. I haven’t read Mr. Orlov’s books, but societies do collapse and have throughout history. So why not now?
Funny, I’ve been thinking about the situation, not just in Germany (Austria, Sweden too), but here over the last few days while busy with other duties, and have coincidentally also had a couple of people (in completely different spheres of my life) talk about the need to be prepared. Then along comes Fred tonight sending me this blog post at ClubOrlov by one Dmitry Orlov with more food for thought.
I’ve snipped just a couple of paragraphs from Orlov’s essay entitled, ‘An Exit Strategy for Traitors’ about the coming collapse of Germany (who among our readers thinks the idea is truly nuts, that Germany could collapse—-not many I presume—well, except for maybe those in the refugee industrial complex who lurk here):
(Emphasis is mine)
I find myself in a nightmare unable to wake up. Most people feel helpless and unwilling to accept the sad truth: we have been betrayed by everyone (except perhaps the police and the military) we entrusted with our safety and our hopes for the future. Even though the end of the global economy in its current form seemed a given to me, this kind of treason and ill intent to bring it all down took me by surprise. Among the twenty or so people I talked to about this in confidence, absolutely everyone is convinced that this is heading toward civil war—and fast! The only question remaining is whether the Germans start it, or the “refugees,” or some other party. We are one major terror attack away from sheer chaos. I have heard from several people connected to European security circles that the illegal weapons market is completely sold out, with many dealers holding on to their weapons for their own personal use. This is a rumour, but since we have been forced to depend on hearsay for any real information right now, I tend to believe it.
[….]
By now the best outcome is a civil war within months, reversing this development. The worst outcome is complete disintegration of European nations within the next few years, rendering large parts of the continent ungovernable. The divorce between the government and the people is almost complete by now. No sane person believes the press or the politicians.
I daresay that many reading these words see the same happening right here in the US. Read it alland be sure to see the comments where many dismiss Orlov (while Orlov goes about his personal business of warning and gathering in what he needs to survive just in case) as “the rumour-mongering of a far-right fantasist.” But, tell me what is the downside of working to head off such a possibility right here in the US? It seems to me we should believe our eyes as we watch Europe floundering and do what we need to do here. I don’t see a downside to being prepared, do you? Go here for our extensive archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe.’ By the way, Orlov says it is all happening so suddenly for Europe, but we have been following the migration crisis build for several years. There was time to head it off, if EU leaders had had the will to head it off.
A reader brought this older (2008) article to our attention about the colonization of Europe (in 2015 what it describes is happening at warp speed). It is a longish read at the ever vigilant Gates of Viennablog, but I want you to definitely see the section on colonization.
Middle Eastern colonizers in Hungary. Photo: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/syrian-refugees-coming-europe-real-crisis-top-official-article-1.2350525
If the migrants are welcomed, it is not colonization says the author. Which is it here in America?
From El Inglés at Gates of Vienna (emphasis is mine): ‘Surrender, Genocide… or What? — An Update’
Colonization
Is there one convenient word for describing what we are witnessing when we look at the sort of phenomena plaguing the north of England? I believe there is, and the word in question is colonization.Until recently, I have always been suspicious of suggestions that this is what is occurring, as they seemed to smack of a genuinely hysterical xenophobia. Upon more careful consideration however, it occurs to me that it is a very simple and accurate description of what is happening.
When we examine unambiguous historical examples of colonization, such as the colonization of North America by Europeans, what precisely are the characteristics of these historical events that lead us to describe them as colonization at all? I submit that there are three conditions, related but distinct, all of which must be satisfied for us to be observing an instance of colonization. Others might produce different lists, but the key principles will be the same.
1) Population —
Colonization must involve the colonizing population putting the colonized population under continuous demographic pressure. It can do this by continued settlement/immigration, higher fertility rates, gradually killing off the colonized population, undermining its ability to maintain itself economically, or some combination of these factors. If the colony at Jamestown, Virginia, had remained the only European settlement in North America, we would surely not talk today about the colonization of America, irrespective of the other behaviours of the colonists.
2) Territory —
Colonization must also involve the colonizing population putting the colonized population under geographic pressure. If the ‘colonized’ population enjoys permanent control of substantial territories in which it is able to maintain its way of life without major hindrance, then it has not yet been colonized, though it may have been inconvenienced by the influx of newcomers. If the colonization of North America had been limited to a number of large, populous settlements along the Atlantic seaboard, we would not talk about the colonization of the continent, though we could still legitimately talk of the existence of colonies.
3) Zero-Sum Game —
Last but not least, colonization must involve the creation of a zero-sum game between colonizers and colonized, a game which the colonized start to lose. Whether competition over resources, markets, and territory, or outright wars of extermination, there must be winners and losers in interactions between the two groups. If the native population of North America had simply been incorporated into an ever-growing yet prosperous, peaceful and productive polity, membership of which they greatly preferred to their previous nomadic ways, using the word colonization to describe the process would feel somehow wrong, despite its obvious applicability in other, technical regards. Colonization is not colonization if it is welcomed.
It seems to me that these three conditions are, taken together, both necessary and sufficient to establish an encroachment of one people on another as being colonization. This said, can it then be observed that Europe is being colonized by a mishmash of various Muslim populations? I would argue that it can. The demographic pressure of Muslim populations on native populations in European countries, spurred on by ongoing immigration and high fertility rates, is too well-established to be discussed again here. The territorial pressure on the native population, brought to bear on both private citizens and organs of the state too, will be similarly familiar to anyone with the briefest acquaintance with the growing Muslim ghettoes in European cities.
More interesting is the last condition, that of the zero-sum game. This implies a transfer of some sort from colonized to colonizers, but the nature of the transferred object can vary. It can be tangible, such as a piece of land, a gold nugget, or a horse, or intangible, such as a trade concession, a social privilege, or a legal privilege. It will not be lost on the observant reader that at the same time as Muslim colonizers extract great tangible wealth from their colonized populations in the form of welfare and other payments, they extract intangible concessions in the form of, for example, ‘hate speech’ laws which reduce the freedom of those populations whilst increasing the political utility they themselves enjoy.
There is more to be said on the subject, but this should suffice. The fact that most of the Muslims in Western European countries arrived there legally is neither here nor there. Legality is beside the point, a thin and pathetic smear of superficial legitimacy slapped onto mass population movements by political elites who long since stopped attempting to implement the will of the electorates they supposedly served. Colonization with the help of collaborators is still colonization.***
I am well aware of the fact that many reasonable-minded people will consider the description of Muslim immigration into Western Europe as colonization to be overstating the case.But the fact of the matter is that colonization was not a historical aberration inflicted by white Europeans on unsuspecting indigenous peoples around the world during a now long-gone historical period. Rather, it is an ever-present historical force that will exist as long as human beings do.
Read the whole article at Gates of Vienna, here. Go here for all of our ‘Invasion of Europe’ news.
And, see our previous poston Germans fighting the colonizationof their country.
I don’t know if you have noticed, but some time ago we created a category simply entitled ‘colonization’in which we archive all of our posts on what is happening in your towns and cities right here in America.
*** See a list of collaborators, here.
One final point, the colonization of North America has just taken another step forward as Canada elects Justin Trudeau.
Former head of Socialists International, UNHCR Antonio Guterres is calling the shots for Europe AND America!
As EU leaders meet today to discuss the migrant crisis overwhelming Europe, the UN ups the number of refugees it is demanding that European countries permanently resettle.
By the way, in 2014 the UN was demanding that all western countries (not Gulf Arab states and not communist Russia or China!) take 130,000 permanent Syrian refugees. That is how the number 65,000! for America came to be—the UN and the US resettlement contractors said that since the US takes half of the refugees from around the world, our SHARE is 65,000!
Using that logic, since the UN is now upping the number are we expected to take 100,000?
Here is the latest at Deutsche Welle:
The United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Refugees has called for up to 200,000 refugees to be shared across the European Union. Various meetings are due to be held across the EU to discuss the crisis.
Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, said on Friday that EU member states would be bound to the “mass relocation program.”
Polish Foreign Minister wisely says—stop the flow!
Poland’s Grzegorz Schetyna says STOP the “illegal migration” first!
Former Communist block countries seem to get it!
There is really no sense discussing the numbers to be distributed (or forced on each European state) when there is no will to stop the invasion!
Remember Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott told European leaders months ago that they needed to (safely) turn boats back to where they were launched! No effort was ever made! This present crisis could have been averted had EU leaders followed Abbott’s advice back in April.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban says this is Germany’s problem apparently a reference to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s invitation to the Syrians. Deutsche Wellequotes Poland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Grzegorz Schetyna near the end of the story. Clearly Schetyna believes most of the illegal aliens are ‘economic migrants’ and not truly persecuted refugees.
Poland warned on Friday that the EU must tackle the causes behind the huge migrant influx or risk being inundated with millions of refugees.
“The scale of the migration is enormous, so we can’t focus – I’m talking about the whole of Europe – on allocating illegal migrants without fighting the causes [of their arrival],” Schetyna told private Radio Zet.
“We have to think of how to stop the illegal migration. Otherwise [we may have] soon have 3-4 million economic refugees,” he added.
By the way, Poland has taken some Christian Syrians who do not pose a threat to the largely Catholic country.
Meanwhile the UK is caving.
Previously the Cameron government had been holding firm and not allowing itself to be bullied into taking large numbers of Syrian refugees. But, here Cameron buckles to pressure. From The Guardian (hat tip: Joanne).
For background on the ‘Invasion of Europe’go here where we have over a hundred posts on the topic going back a couple of years!
