Nine hundred and eleven. That’s how many people have illegally intruded into our country since Sunday. Just shy of a thousand foreigners, mostly blokes, sailed on to our shores and met not so much as a cough of opposition from border guards. An unresisted tide of newcomers washing upon a sleeping nation. It is intolerable. It is a grotesque insult to the hard-won liberty of this kingdom that armadas of men from distant, regressive lands are permitted to come, week after week after week. For the love of God, stop these boats.
We are witnessing the fatal haemorrhaging of British sovereignty. That’s what the ‘small boats’ crisis speaks to: the deracinated state of British nationhood following years of technocratic rule. The brutish reduction of Britain to little more than an administrative zone, unmoored from its history by bloodless bureaucrats. This is why the public is enraged by the boats crisis – not because they’re ‘racist’, but because they are appalled at the reckless gutting of our sovereign integrity and the consequences it will have for their own liberty, dignity and security.
The gaslighting we have been subjected to over the boats crisis is extraordinary. Even now, even following the arrival on Monday of a mega-dinghy containing a record 230 people, they are waging psychological warfare against us. It was put to Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, that ordinary people will feel ‘rage’ over the government’s gutless unwillingness to defend the borders. ‘Well’, she said, puffing herself up with phoney virtue, ‘these are desperate, vulnerable people…’. They are often ‘women and children’, she said.
They’re lying to us. As I listened to Rayner trot out that knackered line about hard-done victims from overseas scrambling for the sanctity of our shores yada yada, I was looking at a photo of the mega dinghy. I saw man after man – fit, able, strong blokes from distant climes. Rayner’s doublespeak would make Orwell blush. ‘Women and children’, she yelps, as we all watch with our own eyes the arrival of yet more fighting-age men. They hold us in such depthless contempt they don’t even bother to make their bullsh*t believable.
Or look at the media coverage of the mega-dinghy. ‘Asylum seekers’, they’re all saying. Are we still playing this game? Are we still trying to dazzle and pacify the public with linguistic trickery? Every free-thinking soul knows that the twentysomething Eritrean fella who treks through safe country after safe country to get to Blighty is seeking not asylum but economic opportunity. It’s brazen. It’s undeniable. And yet you risk expulsion from polite society if you say it.
The elites thuggishly police our language on the immigration issue. You’re damned as racist if you use phrases like ‘illegal immigrant’, ‘swarm’ or ‘surge’, and you’re hailed as righteous if you propagate the establishment’s cherished untruths about ‘refugees’ and ‘women and children’. This muzzling of what we are permitted to say is fundamentally about controlling what we are allowed to think. It is a tyrannical effort to bury the truth about the elites’ craven surrender of our borders. It is an attempt to dress up treason as virtue.
It’s the fatalism on the boats crisis that is most galling. Consider Andy Burnham’s insistence this week that the leafier parts of Britain must start taking their share of these ‘refugees’. ‘We cannot have a situation where it’s only the poorest communities in the country that receive [them]’, he said. Now, it’s true that it has been ‘left-behind’ Britain that’s been forced to accept hundreds of foreign men into their local hotels, while the well-off ‘Refugees Welcome’ mob scurry back to their plush communities where the only migrant they ever meet is the Pole who fixes their plumbing. Yet the idea of ‘sharing out’ the burden of illegal immigration – Burnham is implicitly admitting it’s a burden – is predicated on the batsh*t belief that there is nothing we can do to stem the daily arrivals.
It is a toxic mix of ideological derangement and outright moral cowardice that leads the political class to think the daily breaching of our borders is a fait accompli. Drunk on the Kool-Aid of globalism, bewitched by the bourgeois cult of pooled sovereignty, our politicians fundamentally think our borders aren’t worth defending. Their fealty is less to the little people they rule over than to the high-minded international treaties Britain has signed up for. The concerns of working-class Brits count for sh*t in the face of the ‘refugee’ diktats issued by the soulless ghouls of globalist institutions.
Then there’s the spinelessness. We all know what must be done to defend a nation’s borders. We’ve known for centuries. Forces must be mobilised, rules strictly enforced, intruders sent packing. It’s not a lack of know-how that has let the sacred perimeters of our nation go to rack and ruin – it’s a lack of will. When the government fails to fight for its nation’s borders, what it’s saying is that there is nothing in the nation worth fighting for. Our identity, our history, our communities: it is their staggering disregard for the very lifestuff of Britain that leads them to abandon Britain’s perimeters.
All we get is deflection. Both Burnham and Rayner are blaming ‘criminal gangs’ for ferrying ‘asylum seekers’ across the Channel. Others blame the French for letting the boats set sail in the first place. But it is not France’s job to secure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The truth is that it is Britain’s own snivelling liquidation of its sovereign rights that entices foreign opportunists to encroach upon our lands. They know they will be provided with a hotel room and food and pocket money. They know they will not be deported. They know they will be permitted to disappear into the black economies of our self-ravaged half-nation. The criminal gangs who oversee the Channel crossings are merely parasites on the carcass of our own surrendered sovereignty.
The ‘racist’ libel won’t work anymore. The working classes are at breaking point and they won’t be silenced by a turbo-smug activist class that cynically derives both virtue and servants from out-of-control immigration. They are fuming about the border crisis, not because they hate foreigners, but because they love sovereignty and the things it protects: national identity, democratic rights, the social contract itself. They know the nation that can’t even prevent the arrival of 230 men is a nation in name only, one that prefers the suicide pact of globalism to the virtuous ideal of independence. Enough is enough – stop the goddamn boats.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer. This article was first published HERE
The gaslighting we have been subjected to over the boats crisis is extraordinary. Even now, even following the arrival on Monday of a mega-dinghy containing a record 230 people, they are waging psychological warfare against us. It was put to Angela Rayner, the housing secretary, that ordinary people will feel ‘rage’ over the government’s gutless unwillingness to defend the borders. ‘Well’, she said, puffing herself up with phoney virtue, ‘these are desperate, vulnerable people…’. They are often ‘women and children’, she said.
They’re lying to us. As I listened to Rayner trot out that knackered line about hard-done victims from overseas scrambling for the sanctity of our shores yada yada, I was looking at a photo of the mega dinghy. I saw man after man – fit, able, strong blokes from distant climes. Rayner’s doublespeak would make Orwell blush. ‘Women and children’, she yelps, as we all watch with our own eyes the arrival of yet more fighting-age men. They hold us in such depthless contempt they don’t even bother to make their bullsh*t believable.
Or look at the media coverage of the mega-dinghy. ‘Asylum seekers’, they’re all saying. Are we still playing this game? Are we still trying to dazzle and pacify the public with linguistic trickery? Every free-thinking soul knows that the twentysomething Eritrean fella who treks through safe country after safe country to get to Blighty is seeking not asylum but economic opportunity. It’s brazen. It’s undeniable. And yet you risk expulsion from polite society if you say it.
The elites thuggishly police our language on the immigration issue. You’re damned as racist if you use phrases like ‘illegal immigrant’, ‘swarm’ or ‘surge’, and you’re hailed as righteous if you propagate the establishment’s cherished untruths about ‘refugees’ and ‘women and children’. This muzzling of what we are permitted to say is fundamentally about controlling what we are allowed to think. It is a tyrannical effort to bury the truth about the elites’ craven surrender of our borders. It is an attempt to dress up treason as virtue.
It’s the fatalism on the boats crisis that is most galling. Consider Andy Burnham’s insistence this week that the leafier parts of Britain must start taking their share of these ‘refugees’. ‘We cannot have a situation where it’s only the poorest communities in the country that receive [them]’, he said. Now, it’s true that it has been ‘left-behind’ Britain that’s been forced to accept hundreds of foreign men into their local hotels, while the well-off ‘Refugees Welcome’ mob scurry back to their plush communities where the only migrant they ever meet is the Pole who fixes their plumbing. Yet the idea of ‘sharing out’ the burden of illegal immigration – Burnham is implicitly admitting it’s a burden – is predicated on the batsh*t belief that there is nothing we can do to stem the daily arrivals.
It is a toxic mix of ideological derangement and outright moral cowardice that leads the political class to think the daily breaching of our borders is a fait accompli. Drunk on the Kool-Aid of globalism, bewitched by the bourgeois cult of pooled sovereignty, our politicians fundamentally think our borders aren’t worth defending. Their fealty is less to the little people they rule over than to the high-minded international treaties Britain has signed up for. The concerns of working-class Brits count for sh*t in the face of the ‘refugee’ diktats issued by the soulless ghouls of globalist institutions.
Then there’s the spinelessness. We all know what must be done to defend a nation’s borders. We’ve known for centuries. Forces must be mobilised, rules strictly enforced, intruders sent packing. It’s not a lack of know-how that has let the sacred perimeters of our nation go to rack and ruin – it’s a lack of will. When the government fails to fight for its nation’s borders, what it’s saying is that there is nothing in the nation worth fighting for. Our identity, our history, our communities: it is their staggering disregard for the very lifestuff of Britain that leads them to abandon Britain’s perimeters.
All we get is deflection. Both Burnham and Rayner are blaming ‘criminal gangs’ for ferrying ‘asylum seekers’ across the Channel. Others blame the French for letting the boats set sail in the first place. But it is not France’s job to secure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The truth is that it is Britain’s own snivelling liquidation of its sovereign rights that entices foreign opportunists to encroach upon our lands. They know they will be provided with a hotel room and food and pocket money. They know they will not be deported. They know they will be permitted to disappear into the black economies of our self-ravaged half-nation. The criminal gangs who oversee the Channel crossings are merely parasites on the carcass of our own surrendered sovereignty.
The ‘racist’ libel won’t work anymore. The working classes are at breaking point and they won’t be silenced by a turbo-smug activist class that cynically derives both virtue and servants from out-of-control immigration. They are fuming about the border crisis, not because they hate foreigners, but because they love sovereignty and the things it protects: national identity, democratic rights, the social contract itself. They know the nation that can’t even prevent the arrival of 230 men is a nation in name only, one that prefers the suicide pact of globalism to the virtuous ideal of independence. Enough is enough – stop the goddamn boats.
Brendan O’Neill is spiked’s chief political writer. This article was first published HERE
11 comments:
Labour, Green and Libdem want more
Anyone of Anglosphere heritage can see it clearly. Britain’s politicians are determined to destroy the home countries; and they are succeeding brilliantly.
>"Their fealty is less to the little people they rule over than to the high-minded international treaties Britain has signed up for." But a reading of the 1953 and 1967 refugee treaties and the Law of the Sea reveals that we (the British and continental Europeans who have been hoodwinked by having a huge guilt-trip imposed on us) are going way beyond what we need to be doing when faced with this influx of illegal migrants.
We can section them off while processing their applications - and nota bene it is up to the illegal migrant to prove that s/he is a genuine refugee. That does not include coming from a home country that is economically underdeveloped or run by corrupt politicians. We have a right to return them to where they came from if they can't justify their alleged refugee status, and we can exercise that right even without processing them fully if we have reason to suspect that they are security threats. At sea, we are obliged only to ensure the safety of the vessel the illegals are on - we need not take them on board. We can even tow them back out into international waters (as Australia did on occasion). (I realise these last points do not have any bearing on the dinghies coming in from France, but include them for the sake of completion.)
Britain could even get a bit cheeky and return the illegals to France. What's the bet the French would start taking their part in this farce seriously.
The UK is paying France several hundred million pounds to stop the boats. It appears France is keeping the money but not stopping the boats.
In a few hundred years those people arriving by modern waka crashing on English beaches will be regarded as "indigenous " .
Why not, that's the way it happened here in NZ
I have read extensively of WW2. The loss of young lives in particular is very depressing. But very many were confident it in a worthy cause. The "Few" and the Bomber crews who died in vast numbers would today wonder if their fellow northern Europeans with a strong instinct for racial survival, were appropriate persons to bomb to ineffectiveness. I cannot understand why the uK does not establish bleak enclosed canvas refugee camps to deter invaders .
Most of the young men are also Muslim.They are building Mosques flat out all over the UK now.I feel they re trying to take over that country.Why don't the Brits wake up before it is too late?Think of all the extremely brave and heroic people who fought to defend the UK in the War and died for the freedom of Britain.
Pick them ALL up: you don't speak OUR language, you are going back to where you came from.
Lots would HAVE to go back.
NO problem solved, but the problem would be a lot less .
OH, sorry, that is racism.
The number of Muslims living in the West is rapidly metastasising, not just from immigration, but because Muslims are reproducing almost three times faster than Westerners.
Current birth rates mean that in a few decades, Muslims will swamp the West demographically. That’s why Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion, not because hordes of non-Muslims are converting to it.
We might call this demographic jihad. Many Muslims see their progeny as their contribution to the jihad — the ancient “struggle” to make Islam supreme.
This is clearly a long-term project. As Houari Boumedienne, President of Algeria, 1965 – 1978, revealed in a 1974 speech to the United Nations:
“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
In 2006, former Libyan President, Muammar Gaddafi gloated:
“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50 million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."
The Muslim Brotherhood calls this long-planned demographic takeover, “Jihad of the Womb” or “Civilisation Jihad.”
Meantime, the West is all too often picking up the tab for its own destruction, as millions of Muslim economic migrants claiming to be ‘asylum seekers’ flood in, looking to take advantage of overly generous welfare systems.
Muslims see it as their right to subjugate and live off non-Muslims.
Koran 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they pay the jizya [protection money] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”
I challenge anyone to say that this iinjunction is ‘defensive.’ This is a clear mandate to attack and subjugate non-Muslims for not being Muslim.
Note that the commandment to fight non-Muslims is simply because they are Unbelievers, not because they are actively attacking Muslims.
While Muslims living in the West are biding their time in terms of acting out on the first part of Koran 9:29, they are more than happy meantime to be supported by Western taxpayers.
To cite a single example, recently imprisoned British-born Pakistani lawyer turned Islamist hate preacher, Anjem Choudary, has urged his followers to quit their jobs and go on welfare, so they will have more time to plot jihad against non-Muslims.
According to Choudhary, Muslims are entitled to welfare payments as a form of jizya, the protection tax historically imposed on Jews and Christians in Muslim-run countries, a reminder that non-Muslims are permanently inferior and subservient to Muslims.
Choudary told his followers:
“We [Muslims] take the jizya, which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the kuffaar [non-Muslims]. They give us the money. You work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [Allah is Greater]. We take the money."
Choudary added: “Hopefully there's no one from the DSS [Department of Social Security] listening to this.”
The Boumedienne quote is a fake - it is not to be found in the official records of that meeting.
Look about you. In the city where I live pale faces are a minority. In our Rest Home all the staff are coloured except the 4 or 5 managers.
No problem here. They are kind and competent and we are lucky to have them. Get used to it. The world is changing. Our days of living in a predominantly European and Christian New Zealand are numbered as they are in the UK.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.