Defend your national territory  or lose it

Robert Henderson

The present attempts of migrants from around the Mediterranean and  beyond to effectively invade Europe have brought the long simmering immigration threat to a head.  First World   politicians can no longer pretend it is under any sort of control. The question those in the First World have to answer is  gruesomely simple: are they willing  to defend the their own territory as they  would if faced with an armed invader  and by doing so preserve their way of life and safety , or will they allow a fatal sentimentality  to paralyse the entirely natural wish to stop invaders until the native populations of the First World are at best a tolerated minority in their own ancestral lands and at worst the subject of acts of genocide.

The Prime Minister of Hungary Victor Orlan  has had the courage to point out  something which is obvious but anathema to the politically correct elites of Europe, namely, that  immigration on the current scale will result in Europeans becoming a minority in  their own continent with a consequent loss of European values.  Anyone who thinks that Europe (and the rest of the First World) is not in danger should think on these facts:

  • The population of the world is approximately 7 billion. At the most generous estimate only one billion live in the First World.
  • The population of the world is estimated to grow by another two billion by 2050 with all the growth being in the Third World.
  • The white population of the world is projected to be in a minority in Europe and North America by 2050.
  • The First World already has large minorities of those from racial and ethnic groups whose antecedents are in the Third World and who have had their sense of victimhood at the hands of whites  fed assiduously by white liberals for over 50 years. Once established in a First World  country they agitate for the right to bri9ng relatives over and to relax immigration control generally. A  recent report by the think tank Policy Exchange estimates that one third of the UK population with be from an ethnic minority by 2050.
  • Political power in most of the First World is in the hands of politicians who arequislings in the service of internationalism   in its modern guise of globalism.
  • Those working in the mass media of the First World share the ideology of First World politicians with bells on, missing no chance to propagandise in favour of mass immigration.
  • The First World is funding its  own destruction by feeding the Third World with huge amounts of Aid . This promotes war throughout the Third World (providing a driver for Third World  immigrants to the First World) and, most importantly, increases the  populations of the Third World which rapidly outstrip the  economic carrying capacity of their societies.

At present the mainstream media in countries such as Britain and the  USA are voraciously feeding the public what amounts to unashamed propaganda  to persuade them to accept not merely huge numbers of Third World immigrants now,  but an ongoing and ever increasing stream in the not too distant future as the invading hordes gather around the Mediterranean waiting for their chance to entered the promised land of the rich European states of the north.

It is easy to be swayed by photos of  a  young child who has died or   boatloads crammed to the gunnels with miserable looking people  to the point where the resolution to defend your native territory is overridden, but look at the aggression and sense of entitlement the invaders, for  that is what they are, as they battle to leave Hungary. They are in the position of supplicants but far from begging for help they demand as a right that they be let into the richer countries of Europe.

There are very few if any places outside of Europe and  the Anglosphere countries of the United Kingdom,  North America, Australia and New Zealand  which have any serious history of freedom and the rule of law and even amongst that group only the Anglosphere has  enjoyed  both an uninterrupted political system of representative government and been free of civil war for a century or more.  These are countries which have the very rare and valuable attribute of having worked out a social and political system which creates peace and tolerance. That seriously at risk because of mass immigration. Does anyone believe  for example, a that Britain in which there was a Muslim majority would remain a Parliamentary democracy or have any regard for free expression?

Those amongst the native populations of the  First World who propagandise in favour of mass immigration do so in the belief that they will be untouched by the immigration because they live in affluent areas where immigrants cannot generally settle. Not for these people state schools which “boast” that “there are 100 languages here”; not for these people a need for increasingly scarce affordable (social)  housing  in places such as London; not for these people having to use grossly over subscribed medical services in their area.  These people think they are safe  from the effects of mass immigration,  but if it continues their children and grandchildren will not be so lucky. There needs to be a penalty for those who promote and facilitate mass immigration, for example,  forcing them to take immigrants  into their homes and be responsible for their upkeep .

Mass immigration  is conquest not by armed force but by those who are come equipped only with their victimhood and misery and, most potently, the  mentality of the elites in the First World who subscribe to the idea of white guilt and the white populations of the First World who have been browbeaten  into believing that they cannot have any world other than a globalist world which includes huge movements of peoples. We are seeing the scenario described by Jean Raspail begin to play out.

Homo sapiens is the social animal par excellence. All social animals need boundaries to their group because trust has to exist between the members of the group. Human beings can tolerate very large numbers in their group, but there is a limit. To be a member of a functioning human group,  whether that be tribe,  clan or nation,  the members or the group must share sufficient distinguishing behaviours and  attributes to create the necessary trust. Putting huge numbers of people with very disparate background together cannot create that trust. Anyone who doubts that should try to find any society where territory is shared by different racial or ethnic groups  that does not have inter-group discord,. They will not find one in history or the present.

If you wish to save your country ignore the  misery now being waved in your face and concentrate not on the immediate present but the future.  Say no to further mass immigration by voting to leave the EU because while Britain is in it nothing can be done to stop massive numbers of immigrants continuing to come to Britain.  Leaving the EU will  remove from our political elite any excuse for not stopping the casual destruction of our country.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Immigration, Nationhood and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Defend your national territory  or lose it

  1. Peter Brown says:

    Unfortunately, in today’s news, we see the prelude to yet another Cameron concession of ‘rethinking’ Britain’s policy to immigration. He is considering bringing refugees from source out of Syrian refugee camps directly to Britain. This will not reduce the numbers coming from elsewhere as the Syrians constitute only about 20% of those attempting to get into Europe and those coming directly will only add to those numbers.

    I dearly wish that the Government had the same principles of 70 years ago when such actions perpetrated by today’s politicians would be seen for what they are: Treason.

  2. There is one reason – and one reason only – why these “refugees” are attracted to Europe (and other “white” nations) – and not to other muslim countries or to Asia or Latin America. That one reason is the cradle-to-grave benefits system which only exists in the rich “white” countries. The solution therefore is simple – our welfare states must be scrapped – and that includes the NHS, or at the very least people have to start paying to visit their GP and pay a proportion of their hospital bill, etc. Of course, since nothing as sensible as this is going to happen then the “refugees” will keep coming.

    • Peter Brown says:

      And pretty soon, Britain will become a third world country itself should you take away all of the benefits. It is those benefits which bring our standard of living up.

      No, the simple solution is for the ‘out’ campaign to win the referendum and hold the Government, by whatever means, to their promise of an in or out referendum. The Government must not be allowed to ‘negotiate’ us into an EFTA or EEA agreement simply because that is not ‘out’ of the EU. It may give us some concessions on allowing us to negotiate our own trade deals; control of fisheries/agricultural policy but we will still be ‘in’ as far as much of the ‘social’ directives are concerned. We must allow people like the Bruges Group with their ‘Flexcit’ campaign to provide Cameron with a fall-back solution to keep us in the EU.

      We must regain our sovereignty completely because the existing EU is bad enough and if the Spinelli Group of MEPs get their way with the ‘Fundamental Law’ which is a rewrite of all existing Treaties and is currently submitted to the EU Treaty Change Committee, the EU will be set up with the unelected Commission named as the EU Government and all National Parliaments will become ‘European Parliaments’ and their function relegated to that of a ‘devolved’ Parliament as in Scotland, Wales and NI are at present to the British Government.

  3. David Brown says:

    We should leave the EU .The idea we should scrap our entire wellfare system to make it an unattractive destination for migrants would not be voted for by the public. The prime case against mass immigration is it constitutes a threat to our way of life. We should not have to change it to stop immigration. Economic collapse would also stop it as none of the migrants remained in Greece.
    The difference between Corbyn and Cameron is that Cameron lies and tells people that he wants to reduce it. Land developers are the biggest funders of the Conservative Party . Its Cameron not Corbyn who should be attacked if we want to help UKIP.s
    Cameron also by his at best foolish actions in helping wreck Libya helped set in motion the present migrant invasion. As African migrants where able to travel through it and reach Italy. That they where all aloud to remain was seen on social media around the world inspiring other migrants to land on Greek islands.

  4. Daphne says:

    Unfortunately, being of the “older” generation,it has become all too clear to me that the values and traditions which made this country the best place in the world to live in are in severe decline.
    Yes, we have been a sanctuary to people from all over the world, but, the government’s duty is to ensure that the British people are protected from overpopulation.
    We are seeing the results of too much immigration, school places,health service facilities, severe housing shortages etc. Surely the most sensible approach would be to ensure people already here are catered for.

  5. John Alexander says:

    So “Sorry, poor suffering Muslim woman with baby at your breast. You have my sympathy and pity, but bringing you to my country would only help you and your children at the cost of my children’s future. If thinking of them makes me a heartless bastard in the eyes of my deluded sentimental compatriots, so be it.”

    That’s from a post called Heartless Bastard. Worth a look at:

    http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2015/09/heartless-bastard.html

  6. Peter Brown says:

    Merkel is the prime catalyst of this obscene race to cultural suicide but she is not the prime mover. Who or what group is actually pulling her strings? The intention is obvious, it is the homogenization of the Peoples of Europe into one cheap and compliant workforce.

    Because it has benefited for so long from the undervalued Euro, Germany could easily afford a default from the Greeks and allow them to go their own way, but that was never on the cards. Greece was the prototype for the homogenization. The EU allowed Greece to borrow unlimited amounts of money knowing at some stage that it would be unable to repay the ‘loans’. Just like the kids in Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory, they were allowed to eat and eat until it made them sick.

    Now that Greece is an economic ‘basket case’, there is no way that the EU will allow them to default and allow them to revert to their original economy because the EU needs them to stay in the Union as a basis and an example for all of the Member State economies: entirely reliant on the ‘largesse’ of the EU.

    There is already, a considerable amount of disquiet about the motives and methods of the EU but the EU started to make provision for any insurrection way back before the Lisbon Treaty. Apart from persuading the Signatories to sign the Treaty without the inclusion of the wording of Article 222, which would be included ‘at a later date’, the Signatories signed for a ‘Pig in a Poke. On the same day that Lisbon was signed, another Treaty was being signed in Velsen. Holland. This allowed for the formation of the European Gendarmerie Force (EuroGenFor or EGF), a supranational paramilitary police force with the sole intention and training to put down insurrection in Member States. The EGF is fully equipped with full Military Equipment including tanks and helicopters and currently number over 3000 members recruited from original Member States and even from ‘Candidate’ States.

    The wording to Article 222 was finally published in July 2014 almost 7 years after Lisbon was signed. It requires all Member States to provide whatever Police and Military forces that it has at their disposal to be available for ‘Security’ measures. It also allowed for the request of a ‘puppet’ run National Government to call for ‘help’ from the EU to deploy the EGF in the event of ‘Armed Terrorism’. Once invoked, full control of the Supranational troops would be under the ‘High Representative’ of the EU and cannot be removed by the ‘host’ Nation. Not even by an ‘Act of Parliament’

    Like all EU enactments, apparatchiks and employees are granted full legal immunity for whatever act committed during the course of their actions for life. As is the normal method of the EU, all of these controversial clauses are usually hidden away under layers of documents so that there is virtually no possibility of the European Parliament to scrutinise the documents as they are passed through for ‘ratification’ on an ‘industrial scale’ often in a single sitting of the Parliament. The amendments to Article 2 of the European Charter for Fundamental Rights published in April, 2010, which which superseded Article 2 ‘Right to Life’ in the ECHR, gave the legal right to use up to lethal force to prevent riot/insurrection and for escaping from/resisting arrest. The wording of these amendments were ratified as a footnote to another footnote in the document passed to Parliament. Article 2 also gave a legal basis to reintroduce ‘Capital punishment’ should the EU require it.

    My apologies if this seems long winded, but they are all part and parcel of what is going on and though known by all of the political parties (including UKIP), are quietly kept hidden from the Electorate and these few examples are barely scratching the surface.

  7. david brown says:

    RE Peter Brown -no relation- very interesting about this paramilitary force of which Turkey is a sort of associate member. If Greece tried to withdraw a Ukrainian style coup would be fermented with the euroforce going in to restore order.
    The EU recently introduced QMV Qualified Majority Vote so we can no longer vote against say a fixed allocation of refuges / migrants .

    • Peter Brown says:

      Greece has every right to leave the EU by simply invoking the Article 50 clause of the Lisbon Treaty. Unfortunately, the Greek people seem obsessed with staying within the EU though, personally, I cannot see one earthly reason why they should wish to do so. There will be no return to the times of plenty when the EU gave them money hand over fist. It was the Greek Trades Unions that got them in such severe problems by demanding equal pay and conditions for its workers often exceeding the standards of the richest European Nations despite having only a rural economy with limited shipping and tourist industries. By far, Greece’s best option is to invoke Article 50 and declare itself in default of the loans. Iceland did just that and is now prospering.

      Juncker has already made it clear that there will be no voting on immigration whether or not QMV exists. He has already announced that there will be a new EU Immigration and Asylum policy to be published next year that will simply be imposed as, no doubt, he claims the right for such policy to be the purview of the ‘High Representative’. Immigration on a massive scale is here to stay until the Commission feels that the influx has brought down the living standards of the richer States sufficiently.

      There is no alternative other than to leave the Union before this immigration is forced upon us. But, the rest of Europe will not be an easy place to live as strong protest movements have already started even though the programme is still in its relative infancy.

  8. PETER CODNER says:

    the Moors have been trying to invade Europe since the time of Charlemagne, and what you call political correctness is in fact a religion – the religion that I call modernism,but the Moors have gone a long way to go before they reach the shores of England, and as far as I’m concerned they are welcome to Europe – it’s nothing to do with me. For all I know they may hasten the downfall of the EU under which euphemism – to coin a phrase, the United States of Europe masquerades.

    Modernism and its various political parties such as the runts – Labour, hate the English because we are too distinct– anyone can be British but the English are quite distinct.Fortunately there is no such thing as race and in any event no one can define it. Given that there is no such thing as race, racism and racist fall with it. The next time someone accuses you of being a racist ask them to define race and I guarantee you that they will not be able to.As soon as the United Kingdom has succeeded – which is the correct term, from the EU/United States of Europe, the next step will be for England to secede from the United Kingdom, and that way we will stop having to subsidise the Scotch(after whom a species or whiskey was named, although the Irish invented it), who, in my opinion, are quite free to secede from the United Kingdom which will just leave England and the other riffraff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s