Sunday, November 15, 2015
Barend Vlaardingerbroek: Fortresses Under Siege from Within and WithoutLabels: Barend Vlaardingerbroek, Immigration, Paris attack
“… they thought that their fortresses would protect them…”
- from an Islamic State press release after the Paris attacks
One of the African delegates at the Malta conference addressing illegal migration into Europe last week made a disparaging reference to ‘Fortress Europe’.
Human beings are territorial creatures. They stake their claim to a chunk of land and will henceforth ardently defend it from unwanted intrusions. The key word here is ‘unwanted’. There may well be a considerable flow of people entering or moving through, but it is people who are considered desirable, or at the very least tolerable, to whom the privilege is extended.
The ‘fortress mentality’ is about exercising tight control over the movement of people into one’s territory. In modern times, this control is exercised through bureaucratic means such as entry visa procedures rather than through the flexing of military muscle, although the latter can be called upon if required.
The ancestors of most of today’s Europeans started making an appearance from about three and a half thousand years ago, claimed their block of turf and put down roots in it, giving rise to the mosaic of languages and cultures that we see today. There has always been some movement of peoples within Europe, and even into it from outside, but Europe has not been a sink for mass immigration for millennia. It was movement out rather than movement in which characterised migration patterns for some 400 years until the middle of the 20th century. Europe was a focal point of emigration, not immigration. Faced with an invasion of millions from Africa and the Middle East, it is hardly surprising that the kneejerk reaction of most Europeans is to want to stop the torrent.
As a result of the net efflux of people mainly between the 17th and 19th centuries, numerous colonies – a word which until last century referred to outposts to which people from an imperial power moved as settlers (the French word for ‘settler’ is ‘colon’) – arose. Settlers also came into these from other places. The USA, Canada, Australia and NZ were among the products of this mass migration from hither and thither, albeit in their case mainly from Britain, a heritage that continues to be reflected by their language and systems of governance.
Ironically, it is an ‘immigrant society’, namely Australia, which has been at the receiving end of a lot of scathing comments of late for exhibiting a ‘fortress mentality’. The soubriquet ‘Fortress Australia’ has been around for some time, but had new life breathed into it by the policies Australia adopted towards illegal migrants coming in from the sea.
The ‘turn them back’ policy has been translated into the rather questionable (in terms of international law) practice of towing boats back out into the high seas, while the practice of detaining illegal migrants in off-shore reception centres – not to mention farming them out to a neighbouring third-world country (PNG) – has come under the glare of the international spotlight. More recently, the practice of moving foreign undesirables to Christmas Island has been in the headlines.
The policies are popular at home, and have also been lauded by some commentators in Europe. Geert Wilders has lavished praise on the Australian response to the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ in the Dutch parliament and has urged European nations to follow their example. Needless to say, the PC-Left regards Wilders as a bête noir and constantly hurls slanders such as ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe’ in his direction.
Wilders has also drawn attention to what he calls the ‘testosterone time bomb’, the vast majority of illegal immigrants being young men. The frequency of reports of sexual harassment of local girls and young women from communities in which ‘refugee’ centres are located suggests that this ‘bomb’ has a short fuse. There are other outlets for all that pent-up sexual energy too, as agitators and recruiters for terrorist groups well know.
With declining birth rates, we in the West do need immigration. But it has to be on our terms. We owe it to nobody to let them in. We do owe it to our own people to ensure that immigrants add value to our societies, and are not a permanent drain on us. Using figures from Holland, each ‘asylum seeker’ costs the Dutch taxpayer €36,000 per year. They get the full range of social benefits straight off (and more). They get preferential treatment for housing ahead of long queues of Dutch people waiting for affordable rental accommodation. Given that most of them are economic opportunists and not genuine refugees, this is morally wrong.
Most importantly, we owe it to our own people and heritage to ensure that immigrants fit in and assimilate rather than creating ghettos and sowing havoc among us. We have a right and a duty to maintain public order, which includes upholding our culture and customs.. The outrages in Paris in January and again on Friday night show what happens when we don’t do all these things.
Immigrant Britain: In Dewsbury (indigenous British population = 1%), even the ice-cream lady wears a burka (from Mail Online).
The walls of Fortress Europe have been breached. What we need to do now is repair them, re-man the towers, halt the influx, flush out the intruders who shouldn’t be there from our midst, and send them back to where they came from or to some holding bay until they can be repatriated. This may involve revoking the naturalisations of some of these characters.
At the time of my writing this piece (Sunday morning), the BBC had already identified one of the Paris attackers as a man who had entered Europe as a ‘refugee’ in October. Another man had been identified as Omar Ismail Mostefai, who the BBC referred to as “a Frenchman”. He may have had a French passport, but he was no Frenchman.
‘Fortress Australia’ is an example to us all. Was it my imagination or did I hear someone mutter something about ‘Fortress NZ’? Good on ya, mate!
at 11:13 PM